Time Team - Litlington

Wessex Archaeology
Litlington
Cambridgeshire
Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results
Ref: 71511
November 2010
LITLINGTON, CAMBRIDGESHIRE
Prepared for:
Videotext Communications Ltd
49 Goldhawk Road
LONDON
SW1 8QP
by
Wessex Archaeology
Portway House
Old Sarum Park
SALISBURY
Wiltshire
SP4 6EB
Report reference: 71511.01

Path: X/projects/71511/post ex/TT Litlington report (ed LNM)
November 2010
© Wessex Archaeology Limited 2010 all rights reserved

Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786
Litlington, Cambridgeshire
DISCLAIMER
THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT WAS DESIGNED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF A REPORT TO AN INDIVIDUAL
CLIENT AND WAS PREPARED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THAT CLIENT. THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT
DOES NOT NECESSARILY STAND ON ITS OWN AND IS NOT INTENDED TO NOR SHOULD IT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY
THIRD PARTY. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY WILL NOT BE LIABLE BY
REASON OF BREACH OF CONTRACT NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE (WHETHER DIRECT
INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL) OCCASIONED TO ANY PERSON ACTING OR OMITTING TO ACT OR REFRAINING FROM
ACTING IN RELIANCE UPON THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT ARISING FROM OR CONNECTED WITH ANY
ERROR OR OMISSION IN THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THE REPORT. LOSS OR DAMAGE AS REFERRED TO ABOVE
SHALL BE DEEMED TO INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, ANY LOSS OF PROFITS OR ANTICIPATED PROFITS DAMAGE
TO REPUTATION OR GOODWILL LOSS OF BUSINESS OR ANTICIPATED BUSINESS DAMAGES COSTS EXPENSES
INCURRED OR PAYABLE TO ANY THIRD PARTY (IN ALL CASES WHETHER DIRECT INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL) OR
ANY OTHER DIRECT INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS OR DAMAGE
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Site Code Accession Code Client Code

71511
Planning application Ref. NGR
531174 242553, 531250 242452 and 531458
242188
Version status* Prepared by APPROVED Approver’s Signature Date File

BY
01 f NH kew 16/11/10 TT litlington report (ed lnm)
* I= Internal Draft E= External Draft F= Final
WA Project No.71511 ii
Contents
Summary .............................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements............................................................................................. vi
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Background .....................................................................................1
1.2 Site Location, Topography and Geology .....................................................1
1.3 Archaeological Background.........................................................................1
1.4 Antiquarian discoveries ...............................................................................2
1.5 Previous Archaeological Work.....................................................................3
2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................4
3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................4
3.1 Geophysical Survey.....................................................................................4
3.2 Landscape and Earthwork Survey...............................................................5
3.3 Evaluation Trenches....................................................................................5
3.4 Copyright .....................................................................................................5
4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................6
4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................6
4.2 Geophysical Survey.....................................................................................6
4.3 Evaluation Trenches....................................................................................7
5 FINDS ................................................................................................................15
5.1 Introduction................................................................................................15
5.2 Pottery .......................................................................................................15
5.3 Ceramic Building Material (CBM) ..............................................................16
5.4 Opus signinum...........................................................................................18
5.5 Fired Clay ..................................................................................................18
5.6 Wall Plaster and Mortar .............................................................................18
5.7 Stone .........................................................................................................19
5.8 Glass .........................................................................................................19
5.9 Metalwork ..................................................................................................20
5.10 Human Bone..............................................................................................20
5.11 Animal Bone ..............................................................................................21
5.12 Marine Shell...............................................................................................22
5.13 Other Finds................................................................................................22
5.14 Potential and Recommendations...............................................................22
6 PALAEO-ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY........................................................22
6.1 Introduction................................................................................................22
6.2 Charred Plant Remains .............................................................................23
6.3 Wood Charcoal..........................................................................................23
6.4 Land and fresh/brackish water molluscs ...................................................24
6.5 Potential and recommendations ................................................................24
7 DISCUSSION.....................................................................................................25
7.1 Introduction................................................................................................25
7.2 Romano-British..........................................................................................25
7.3 Medieval, post-medieval and modern activity............................................27
WA Project No.71511 iii

8 RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................27
9 ARCHIVE...........................................................................................................28
10 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................29
APPENDIX 1: TRENCH SUMMARIES.......................................................................34
Tables
Table 1: Trench and testpit locations
Table 2: Finds totals by material type and by trench
Table 3: Pottery totals by ware type
Table 4: CBM totals by type
Table 5: Assessment of the charred plant remains and charcoal
Figures
Figure 1: Site location

Figure 2: Areas 1 and 2, location of trenches and testpits, and geophysical
results
Figure 3: Area 3, location of trenches and geophysical results
Plate 1: View of Area 3, from south-east
Figure 4: Trench 3 plan and photographs
Plate 2: Post-excavation view Trench 3, view from south-east
Figure 5: Trenches 4, 10 and 12: plan and photographs
Plate 3: Post-excavation view Trench 4, view from south-west
Plate 4: Oblique view of south-east facing section, Trench 4
Figure 6: Trench 1: plan and photographs
Plate 5: Trench 1, view from north-west
Plate 6: Trench 1, view from south, floor 102, mortar deposits 103 and
126, and wall 120
Plate 7: Trench 1, view from south-west
Plate 8: Trench 1, view from the east
Plate 9: South-west facing section, Trench 2
Plate 10: Post-excavation view, Trench 2, view from south-east
Plate 11: Post-excavation view Trench 11, view from north-west
Plate 12: North-east facing section, quarry pits 1103, 1106 and 1119
Plate 13: South-west facing section of enclosure ditch 1115 and re-cut
1114
Plate 14: Skeleton 1512, view from south-east
Plate 15: Post-excavation view Trench 15, view from north-east
Front Cover: Trench 1, view from north
Back Cover: (clockwise from top left) Working shot, Testpit 13; working shot,
Trench 11; working shot, Trench 2; filming in Trench 1; working shot,
Trench 2; working shot, Trench 15
WA Project No.71511 iv
Summary
In October 2009 an archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Channel 4’s ‘Time

Team’ at the site within the village of Litlington in Cambridgeshire. This explored
three distinct areas (NGRs 531174 242553, 531250 242452 and 531458 242188) on
the south-western edge of the village, with the aim of locating the ‘Litlington villa’
identified and excavated by the Reverend W. Clack in the 1820s, and a nearby
Roman walled cemetery known as ‘Heaven’s Walls’, found during quarrying, also in
the 1820s. Nothing now survives from Clack’s excavations; his records were lost and
the finds sold. Further small excavations over the 19th and early 20th century found
further evidence of the ‘villa’, and a recent evaluation by the Cambridge
Archaeological Unit just to the east of the presumed villa site found a quantity of
Romano-British ceramic building material and wall plaster.
The evaluation carried out by Time Team, comprising ten trenches and eleven
testpits, was able to confirm the position of the ‘Litlington villa’, though it was not
possible to determine its full extent or layout. Newspaper accounts of the villa from
the time of its discovery, describing it as being a very well appointed structure
containing 30 rooms and a bathhouse, with many fine tessellated pavements, may be
exaggerated, but some painted wall plaster was recovered, as well as significant
quantities of ceramic building material, including box flue tiles from a hypocaust, and
the remains of some (monochrome) tessellated pavements did survive in situ. In
other respects, however, the material culture seems to have been fairly limited in its
range; few coins or other metal objects were found, and only one piece of vessel
glass. The presumed bathhouse identified during the 19th century was not located.
The position of the ‘Heaven’s Walls’ cemetery was also confirmed, to the south-east
of the villa. Here it seems that although 19th century quarrying had been extensive,
some remains might still survive – one slightly truncated inhumation grave was
revealed, although the remains were left in situ. Further disarticulated human bone
was found within the backfill of the quarry pits.
The testpit evidence suggested that further Roman remains may have been
destroyed by the housing estate which lay to the north-east of the villa site.
No further analysis is considered necessary, and a summary of the results of the

evaluation will be submitted to the Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian
Society, for inclusion in the annual round-up of archaeology in the county.
WA Project No.71511 v
Acknowledgements
This programme of post-excavation and assessment work was commissioned and

funded by Videotext Communications Ltd, and Wessex Archaeology would like to
thank the staff at Videotext, and in particular Michael Douglas (Series Editor), Jane
Hammond (Production Manager), Ben Knappett (Assistant Producer), Tom Scott
(Researcher) and Anna Cosgrave (Production Coordinator) for their considerable
help during the recording and post-excavation work.
The geophysical survey was undertaken by John Gater, Jimmy Adcock and Emma
Wood of GSB Prospection. The field survey was undertaken by Henry Chapman,
University of Birmingham and landscape survey and map regression was undertaken
by Stewart Ainsworth of English Heritage. The excavation strategy was devised by
Ben Robinson (Peterborough Museum). The on-site recording was co-ordinated by
Naomi Hall, and on-site finds processing was carried out by Helen MacIntyre, both of
Wessex Archaeology.
The excavations were undertaken by Time Team’s retained archaeologists, Phil

Harding (Wessex Archaeology), Matt Williams, Ian Powlesland, Faye Simpson,
Raksha Dave and Tracey Smith, assisted by Jon House, Shannon Hogan, Sarah
Heney, Gareth Rees, Matt Adams and Chris Pole. The metal detector survey was
carried out by Len and Ben Eeles.
The archive was collated and all post-excavation assessment and analysis
undertaken by Wessex Archaeology. This report was compiled by Naomi Hall with
specialist reports prepared by Jacqueline McKinley (human bone), Lorrain Higbee
(animal bone), Kevin Hayward (stone identification), Rob Perrin (pottery) and
Lorraine Mepham (other material types). The environmental samples were processed
by Marta Perez-Fernandez and were assessed by Sarah F. Wyles. The illustrations
were prepared by Kenneth Lymer. The post-excavation project was managed on
behalf of Wessex Archaeology by Lorraine Mepham.
Thanks are extended to the landowners, Mr and Mrs May, Ms. F. Jones, Mrs Frier,
Mrs Bright, Mr. F. Catchpole, Ms. G. Blake, Ms. H. Bathmaker, Mr and Mrs Lodge,
Mr. K. McClelland, Cambridge County Council and their current tenant farmer Mr. R.
Huffer, for allowing access to the Site for geophysical survey and archaeological
evaluation.
WA Project No.71511 vi
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background

1.1.1 Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Videotext Communications Ltd
to undertake a programme of archaeological recording and post-excavation
work on an archaeological evaluation undertaken by Channel 4’s ‘Time
Team’ at the site of Litlington, Cambridgeshire (hereafter the ‘Site’) (Figure
1).
1.1.2 This report documents the results of archaeological survey and evaluation
undertaken by Time Team, and presents an assessment of the results of
these works.
1.2 Site Location, Topography and Geology

1.2.1 The Site consisted of three main areas of investigation as well as numerous
testpits within the gardens of Anvil Avenue, Cockhall Lane and Cockhall
Close. The Site as a whole lies on the south-western edge of the village of
Litlington and within the parish of the same name. Area 1, centred on NGR
531174 242553, consisted of a large field under pasture within Manor Farm,
bordered by Church Street to the north-east. Immediately to the south-east
of this was Area 2, a small copse centred on NGR 531250 242452. Further
to the south-east was Area 3, a large field currently under plough, located
behind the houses to the south-west of Royston Road and centred on NGR
531458 242188. Litlington is approximately 13.5km to the north-east of
Letchworth Garden City and 4.5km to the north-west of Royston.
1.2.2 All three areas were generally level, although a number of parallel south-
west – north-east earthworks were visible in Area 1. Earthworks to the
south-west of Area 2 are thought to be the remains of old spoil heaps. Area
1 occupies a height of between 37.44-37.80m aOD (above Ordnance
Datum), Area 2 of 38.92m aOD and Area 3 of between 36.20-36.30m aOD.
The underlying geology consists of chalk marl with thin flint beds (British
Geological Survey, sheet (204).
1.3 Archaeological Background

Prehistoric
1.3.1 Prehistoric activity in the area is indicated by the discovery of three Neolithic
stone axes (Historic Environment Record (HER) reference 03070) and a
Mesolithic macehead and flint core (HER 03071).
1.3.2 Ashwell Street (now a track), part of the Icknield Way, a major prehistoric
route still used in the Roman period, forms the south-east boundary of the
field in which Area 3 is located.
1.3.3 A number of cropmarks are listed in the HER; most of these are undated but
they seem to indicate activity in the immediate area of Litlington from the
WA Project No.71511 1
prehistoric through to the medieval period. Cropmarks indicating a

rectangular enclosure and an immediately adjacent sub-oval enclosure are
visible within the fields directly to the south and west of the Site. Within the
rectangular enclosure is a smaller, possible ring ditch feature (visible on
aerial photographs held by the National Monuments Record (NMR),
reference numbers NMR 23041/20 and 23068/04).
Romano-British
1.3.4 Approximately 1.2km to the south-east lies the site of Limlow Hill. Here a
barrow, destroyed in 1888, lay within a rectangular Romano-British
enclosure (HER 03293). The Ordnance Survey map for 1886 records that
human remains and associated Roman coins were discovered here in 1883.
Trial excavations in 1934 dated the enclosure ditch to the 2nd century AD
(Liversidge 1977, 31-32). Cropmarks may suggest further, possibly earlier
barrows.
1.3.5 Roman finds have been discovered in the garden of 13 Cockhall Close
(HER MCB17646). A number of other local residents also report finding
Roman artefacts (various, pers. comm.). These are likely to be related to the
possible Roman villa known from 19th century sources (see Section 1.4,
below).
Medieval and post-medieval

1.3.6 There is much visible activity relating to settlement in this area in the
medieval period. St Catherine’s Church in the north-western part of the
village contains 13th century architectural elements (HER CB14887).
Remnants of a moat are still in evidence at Manor Farm, immediately to the
north-west of the Site; this was originally the Manor House of Huntingfield
(HER 01235). A large moated site is also visible on the northern outskirts of
the village adjacent to Bury Farm. This was the location of another manor
house (HER 01236). Further moated sites lie 1.8km to the north of Site
(Scheduled Monument Number (SMN) 33596) 1.4km to the north-west at
Down Hall Farm and 2.4km to the north-east at Bury Yard (SMN 33602).
1.3.7 Just to the south of the village is the deserted settlement of Bramston (HER
08075) (TL 31 42).
1.4 Antiquarian discoveries

The Roman villa (HER 03186)
1.4.1 The original discovery of a possible villa site was made in the 1820s by the
curate of Steeple Morden, Reverend W. Clack. However, all his notes from
the time have been lost and the finds since sold, and details of what was
discovered can only be pieced together from local newspapers. The
Cambridge Chronicle (29th May 1829, 2) reports the discovery and says that
“the floors… were in many instances, we hear, extremely beautiful but
unluckily became prey to the idle curiosity of the uninformed”. It later
describes Reverend Clack reporting the existence of “two tessellated
pavements and coloured chamber walls” (Cambridge Chronicle, 8th May
1841) and that it was “a large Roman villa, with more than thirty apartments,
and a bath” (Cambridge Chronicle, 11th December 1841).
1.4.2 A notebook owned by E. B. Nunn (original manuscript held by Cambridge

Museum) records an excavation from the 1st – 12th July 1856, which dug a
hole in Mr Andrew Gray’s field to a depth of 6ft and discovered a hypocaust
and a floor composed of “grout and broken bricks”. A number of other trial
holes found some further areas of hypocaust and tessellated pavement.
Babingdon (1881) notes a further discovery in 1881 of an area of pavement
and a hypocaust.
1.4.3 Villa remains were also uncovered in 1913 by Mr McLaren at the Manor
Farm: “several portions of the villa were visible, among which may be
mentioned some well-preserved remains of the bath” (Anon. 1914-15, 4).
The ‘Heaven’s Walls’ cemetery (HER 03262)

1.4.4 This site was found 1821 within a field previously known as Heaven’s Walls
and with a apparently supernatural reputation, just north of the Icknield Way.
The most extensive report of the discovery is by Kempe (1836). He reported
that a flint and ‘Roman brick’ wall was discovered by workmen when digging
for gravel. Under the direction of Reverend Dr. Webb, then the rector of
Litlington, the workmen uncovered the extent of these walls. These were
found to enclose a rectangular area of around 34.7 x 24.7m. Within this
enclosure, a number of urned cremation graves were located in rows aligned
with the Icknield Way. Glass vessels were also found, and at least one had
also been utilised to contain cremated remains. Some of the graves had
been lined or covered with tiles and there was evidence that some
individuals may have been placed within a casket. A number of inhumation
burials were also found, which were observed mostly to disturb and
therefore post-date the urned burials. In the south-east and south-west
corners, deposits of “ashes” from “ustrina” (in situ pyres) were found. Coins
found during the work suggest the cemetery was in use throughout the
Roman period. To the north of the walled enclosure a stone sarcophagus
was discovered within a buttressed building.
1.4.5 A plan accompanies the 1836 article in Archaeologia, but the underlying
street plan shows this to be inaccurate. It does, however, show the relative
positions of the cemetery, the sarcophagus and the villa. The villa is shown
as a large building on a courtyard plan, aligned south-west – north-east.
1.4.6 The vessels from the cemetery still surviving are held in the Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology (previously the Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology), University of Cambridge, and a reference to them in a later
account by Liversidge (1977, 29) reports that 80 urns and 250 inhumation
graves were discovered.
1.5 Previous Archaeological Work

1.5.1 In 1995 a small evaluation was carried out by the Cambridge Archaeological
Unit before the construction of garages at Manor Farm Barns, Cockhall Lane
(Cambridge Archaeological Unit 1995). Three trenches identified a
sequence of compacted chalk barn floors overlying a ploughsoil, and yielded
substantial amounts of Romano-British material including tile, tesserae and
wall plaster. The evaluation also located two north-north-west – south-south-
east aligned gullies, one containing Roman pottery and the other Late Iron
Age pottery. An Iron Age rubbish pit was also found.
1.5.2 In 2002 a small scale resistivity survey (60x70m) was undertaken by pupils
attending a summer school at Bassingbourne Village College, immediately
adjacent to the copse (Cott 2002). High resistance readings in the south-
west part of the survey area were interpreted as south-west – north-east and
south-east – north-west aligned walls. A north-east – south-west linear trend
was also seen near the north-western edge of the plot.
1.5.3 Excavations at the former Oblic Engineering House at the north end of
Church Street in 2003 and 2005 located Saxon and medieval boundary
ditches thought to enclosure a burial ground connected to an earlier church.
A number of inhumation graves aligned in the east – west Christian tradition
were also recovered (Woolhouse 2007).
2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1.1 A project design for the work was compiled (Videotext Communications
2009), providing full details of the research aims and methods. A brief
summary is provided here.
2.1.2 The overall aim of the project was to locate the known Roman sites
excavated in the early 19th century, specifically the Roman villa investigated
by the Reverend Clack and any further remains of the Heaven’s Walls
cemetery referred to by Alfred John Kempe. In order to address this, this
three specific research aims were formulated:
x Research Aim 1:
To characterise the extent, condition, form of and spatial and
chronological relationships between possible Roman features (the ‘villa’)
of Area 2 on the Site known through aerial photography and documentary
references.
x Research Aim 2:
chronological relationships between possible Roman features within Area
1 which may be associated with Area 2, known through documentary
references and discussion with local landowners.
x Research Aim 3:
chronological relationships between possible Roman mortuary features
(the ‘Heaven’s Walls’ site) of Area 3, known through aerial photography
and documentary references.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Geophysical Survey

3.1.1 Prior to the excavation of evaluation trenches, a geophysical survey was
carried out across the Site using a combination of resistance and magnetic
survey. The survey grid was set out by Dr Henry Chapman and tied in to the
Ordnance Survey grid using a Trimble real time differential GPS system.
3.2 Landscape and Earthwork Survey

3.2.1 A landscape survey and analysis of the cartographic evidence was
undertaken by Stewart Ainsworth, Senior Investigator of the Archaeological
Survey and Investigation Team, English Heritage. A summary of the findings
is incorporated in this report.
3.3 Evaluation Trenches

3.3.1 Twenty-one trenches (nos. 1-4, 10-12, 15, 19, 21) and testpits (nos. 5-9, 13-
14, 16-18, 20) of varying sizes were excavated, their locations determined in
order to investigate and to clarify geophysical anomalies and address
specific research objectives (Figures 1-3).
3.3.2 The trenches were excavated using a combination of machine and hand
digging. All machine trenches were excavated under constant
archaeological supervision and ceased at the identification of significant
archaeological remains, or at natural geology if this was encountered first.
When machine excavation had ceased all trenches were cleaned by hand
and archaeological deposits investigated.
3.3.3 At various stages during excavation the deposits were scanned by a metal
detector and signals marked in order to facilitate investigation. The
excavated up-cast was scanned by metal detector.
3.3.4 All archaeological deposits were recorded using Wessex Archaeology’s pro
forma record sheets with a unique numbering system for individual contexts.
Trenches were located using a Trimble Real Time Differential GPS survey
system. All archaeological features and deposits were planned at a scale of
1:20 with sections drawn at 1:10. All principal strata and features were
related to the Ordnance Survey datum.
3.3.5 A full photographic record of the investigations and individual features was
maintained, utilising digital images. The photographic record illustrated both
the detail and general context of the archaeology revealed and the Site as a
whole.
3.3.6 At the completion of the work, all trenches were reinstated using the
excavated soil. Terram was laid over significant archaeological features
before backfilling.
3.3.7 The work was carried out on the 29th September – 2nd October 2009. The
archive and all artefacts were subsequently transported to the offices of
Wessex Archaeology in Salisbury where they were processed and assessed
for this report.
3.4 Copyright
3.4.1 This report may contain material that is non-Wessex Archaeology copyright
(e.g. Ordnance Survey, British Geological Survey, Crown Copyright), or the
intellectual property of third parties, which we are able to provide for limited
reproduction under the terms of our own copyright licences, but for which
copyright itself is non-transferrable by Wessex Archaeology. You are
reminded that you remain bound by the conditions of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988 with regard to multiple copying and electronic
dissemination of the report.
4 RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Details of individual excavated contexts and features, the full geophysical
report (GSB 2009), the summary of the landscape and earthwork survey and
all artefactual and environmental data, are retained in the archive.
Summaries of the excavated sequences can be found in Appendix 1.
4.2 Geophysical Survey

4.2.1 Geophysical survey was carried out over a total area of 2.65ha using a
Fluxgate Gradiometer (Figures 2 and 3). The following discussion and
accompanying data is taken from the report complied by GSB (2009).
Area 1 (Figure 2)
4.2.2 A number of parallel linear ditches have been located within this area. These
are likely to represent former field divisions, some perhaps of medieval date,
according to early maps (S Ainsworth, pers. comm.). The easternmost ditch,
which turns at its southern end, was evaluated by a small trench (Trench 10)
and found to be Romano-British in date.
4.2.3 Apart from the above linear responses, the magnetic results failed to show
any archaeological type anomalies and certainly none of the responses (or
‘noise’) which have been found on numerous sites elsewhere and which are
normally associated with Roman villa buildings. Yet all the evidence from
previous investigations into the location of the villa at Litlington suggested its
presence within this field. Trial trenching confirmed the results of the
geophysics - that is, a lack of any structural remains – or even Romano-
British artefacts in any sizeable quantities.
4.2.4 Along the northern limit of the dataset, large ferrous anomalies may be
associated with Nissen Huts which are marked on a 1947 map.
Area 2 (Figure 2)
4.2.5 These small areas were surveyed in an attempt to locate any buildings or
features possibly associated with the villa, although due to their small size
the results were inconclusive. Any interpretation was hindered by the
presence of modern interferences such as pipes and fences.
Area 3 (Figure 3)
4.2.6 To the south-east of the postulated villa, antiquarian excavations carried out
after small-scale gravel extraction discovered a Roman walled cemetery
referred to as ‘Heaven’s Walls’. Although burials were subsequently
discovered in Area 3, it is not thought that the magnetic anomalies were
directly related; it is more likely that the anomalies reflect the ground
disturbance associated with the old, back-filled gravel workings. As a
consequence, a number of anomalies have been given the category of
‘Uncertain’. The geophysics failed to find any evidence for the walled
enclosure.
4.2.7 Despite the lack of success in pinpointing the cemetery, the magnetic survey
did identify a large, ditched enclosure thought to be Iron Age in date. There
is also evidence for some form of trackway extending into the adjacent field.
Conclusions
4.2.8 Results from the magnetic survey were initially disappointing in the fact that
they provided no evidence for the villa building being in its presumed
location. Roman building remains were subsequently located in gardens to
the east, areas which were too small to investigate geophysically. Survey
work in and around the site of a Roman cemetery to the south-east did
identify a large, possibly prehistoric enclosure, the full extent of which could
not be determined in the time available.
4.3 Evaluation Trenches

Introduction
4.3.1 Ten trenches and eleven testpits were excavated during this evaluation.
Their location is set out in Table 1, and the trenches and testpits are
discussed by area.
Table 1: Trench and testpit locations

Trench/ testpit number Location
Trench 1 Area 2: within the copse
Trench 2 Area 2: within the copse
Trench 3 Area 1: Manor Farm
Testpit 5 5, Anvil Avenue
Testpit 8 2, Manor Farm Barns
Trench 11 Area 3: Lay Hill Farm
Testpit 13 2, Manor Farm Barns
Testpit 16 Walnut House, Cockhall Lane
Testpit 17 Walnut House, Cockhall Lane
Testpit 18 Area 2: Within the copse
Testpit 20 1-2 Cockhall Close
Area 1
4.3.2 The archaeology was encountered at a relatively low depth within the
trenches in Area 1. As well as the removal of 0.27-0.50m of topsoil and 0.15-
0.32m of subsoil, all four trenches encountered buried soil horizons thought
to date to the Romano-British period. The trenches lay at heights between
37.34 and 39.27m aOD. The natural geology was a mixture of silty sand and
chalk.
Trench 3 (Figure 4)
4.3.3 Trench 3 was located over the westernmost of a pair of parallel linear
anomalies identified from the geophysical survey. A considerable depth of
modern topsoil and subsoil was found to overlie a buried soil horizon (303).
Pottery from this buried soil dates to the 2nd or 3rd century AD.
Archaeological features and deposits were found at a depth of 0.84m below
the ground surface, comprising a series of intercutting linear features.
4.3.4 Running beyond the limits of the trench was boundary ditch (315), which
contained Romano-British pottery. This ditch may have been a later and
more substantial re-cutting of ditch (307), but neither ditch was fully exposed
in plan. Running parallel with and along the north-eastern edge of (315), but
terminating within the trench, was gully (309), containing a number of pieces
of ceramic building material (CBM).
4.3.5 Both (309) and (315) cut through a large north-east – south-west ditch (305),
which corresponded to the geophysical anomaly. Despite being nearly 2.5m
wide and 1m deep, this contained a single fill which is likely to represent a
long period of gradual silting and accumulation. A single sherd of Romano-
British pottery was recovered from this fill. Ditch (305) cut through two
irregular features, (311) to the south and (313) to the north. Excavation of
(313) showed this to be shallow and irregular and it was most probably a
tree throw hole or natural feature, as was (311), unexcavated but also
irregular in plan.
4.3.6 CBM recovered from Trench 3 included identifiable fragments of Romano-

British roof tile, tesserae, and a few fragments of box flue tile.
Trench 4 (Figure 5)
4.3.7 Trench 4 was positioned just to the north-west of Trenches 1 and 2 (see
below, Area 2) and it was hoped it would reveal more of the villa building.
However, removal of the topsoil revealed a number of modern features.
Cutting through the subsoil (402) in the north-east facing section a deep
trench (423) could be seen, this contained modern brick and cut through
ditch (418), which contained a number of tin cans from the period of the
Second World War. Another later feature (419) could be seen in the north-
eastern part of the trench, and although its shape and alignment were not
clear it cut through demolition debris (403) and a small area of metalling
(406). Deposit (406) overlay an area of compacted chalk. The results from
the 1995 evaluation (Cambridge Archaeological Unit 1995) suggest that this
could be surfacing for a barn or outbuilding.
4.3.8 Two demolition spreads, (403) and (410), may be equivalent. Pottery from
(403) was dated to the 2nd to 3rd century AD, and fragments of wall plaster,
tegula roof tiles and a fragment of roller-stamped box flue tile were found
within this deposit. Deposit (410), seen at the southern end of the trench,
was overlain by a possible buried soil (415). Romano-British material was
also recovered from (410). Deposit (410) in turn overlay another buried soil
deposit (411), while (403) overlay buried soil horizon (414); mollusc
evidence and charred plant remains (including wheat and barley) from this
latter deposit suggests an open, arable landscape. The deposit also
contained sherds of Romano-British pottery, tile and a stone roof tile.
4.3.9 Two north-west – south-east aligned ditches (417) and (424) were seen in
the south portion of the trench (Figure 5, Plate 4). The more southerly and
earlier ditch (417) contained a sequence of alternating secondary deposits
and deliberate backfilling events, and was sealed by the buried soil (411).
The latest deposit within the ditch, a deliberate backfill of possible midden
waste (412), contained charred remains indicating a range of cereal crops.
This deposit also contained the highest concentration of animal bone
recovered from the site (55 fragments), as well as pottery dated to the 1st or
2nd century AD, but no CBM. The third deposit in the infilling sequence,
(425), was cut by ditch (424). Ceramic tiles and tesserae were recovered
from the upper secondary fill of this ditch (409).
4.3.10 Ditch (417) cut through another buried soil horizon (420), similar and
perhaps equivalent to (414). This overlay the natural sand geology.
Trench 10 (Figure 5)
4.3.11 Trench 10 was opened just to the north-west of Trench 4 in an attempt to
establish the extent of the demolition spread and modern disturbance.
4.3.12 A mixed demolition spread (1002) was seen directly beneath the topsoil and
burying an earlier ploughsoil (1003). This in turn overlay an earlier subsoil
(1004). Archaeological deposits were revealed beneath this at around 0.76m
below the ground surface, consisting of a north – south aligned ditch (1005).
The upper fill of this (1006) contained fragments of Romano-British CBM,
but the ditch remained unexcavated. Finds from the topsoil (1001) included
some large fragments of roof tile and a few tesserae. The geophysical
results show this feature turning to the north-east just beyond the limits of
the trench.
4.3.13 The geophysical survey showed the ditch (1005) turning slightly to the
south-east beyond the southern limit of the trench. It was not possible to
survey any further south but it seems likely that (1005) is the same feature
recorded in Trench 4 as (424).
4.3.14 Trench 12 lay to the north-west of Trench 10. The same sequence of a
demolition rubble-rich layer (1202) beneath the modern topsoil and overlying
an earlier ploughsoil (1203) was observed. An east – west aligned ditch
(1204) was encountered at 0.60m below the current ground surface. The full
width of this feature was not seen within the trench, and it remained
unexcavated. Pottery collected from its upper fill was dated to the 1st or 2nd
century AD, and some sherds bear a similar decoration to sherds from
(412), the possible midden waste dump within ditch (417).
Area 2
4.3.15 Trenches 1 and 2 and Testpit 18 were situated within an area of rough
woodland to the south-east of Area 1. Within Trenches 1 and 2,
archaeological deposits were encountered directly beneath the modern
topsoil which was between 0.15-0.42m deep. The trenches lay at heights
between 38.60-38.92m aOD. The natural geology was not reached.
Trench 1 (Figure 6)
4.3.16 Trench 1 was initially opened as a small testpit with the intention of locating
the bathhouse remains mentioned in the earlier sources. Immediately
beneath a shallow overburden a plaster floor surface was seen with a
number of tesserae still in situ. The trench was then extended a number of
times in response to the remains encountered.
4.3.17 The northern part of the trench, centred on the original testpit, revealed a
moderately substantial area of intact tessellated pavement (102) (Figure 6,
Plate 6). This was bedded into a layer of pale yellow-white lime mortar (103)
which rested upon a levelling layer (121). This butted up against a north-east
– south-west aligned chalk and tile built wall (120) (Figure 6, Plate 6). The
eastern return of this wall implies that the tessellated pavement lies within a
corridor and that (120) enclosed a room to the north-east. Only a small
portion of this room lay within the limits of the trench, but another small
fragment of flooring was exposed in this area, of which only a few tesserae
remained (126); the mortar bedding seems to have been lost as the
tesserae directly overlay a levelling layer (127), equivalent to (121).
4.3.18 Another small remnant of flooring was found in the south-eastern part of the
trench. Here no tesserae remained but the mortar bedding layer (117) could
be seen overlying levelling layer (125). The height of this floor, at 38.78m
aOD, was 0.12m above mortar layer (103). A further floor remnant was seen
in section in the western part of the trench; here only the mortar levelling
(135) remained, equivalent to (121)/(125)/(127). The height of this mortar
layer, at 38.69m aOD, was at a similar height to mortar layer (117). The
levelling layer beneath (117), (125), in turn was built upon another levelling
layer (118), and a similar layer (136) lay beneath (135). The chalk- and
mortar-rich levelling layer (118) was possibly equivalent to layer (211) in the
adjacent trench (see below). Layer (118) overlay another mortar-rich deposit
(114), which in turn overlay another mortar-rich levelling layer (119). This
latter deposit may be equivalent to (212) in the adjacent trench. A possible
tree-throw hole or robber cut (116) could be seen cutting through (114) on
the southern edge of the trench.
4.3.19 A similar sequence of mortar deposits was recorded just to the north-west.
Here there was a north-east – south-west block of material (141) with a
clearly defined north-west return (131) (Figure 6, Plate 5) - although
separate numbers were assigned to these deposits they were identical. A
small area of material overlying (141), (130), could be seen on the north-
eastern end of this ‘pedestal’. The upper surface of this was considerably
smoother and more level than (131) or (141) and may be a vestige of a floor
surface. Both (131) and (141) lay stratigraphically above a further levelling
layer (132).
4.3.20 All these floor remnants (excluding 126 and 131) were cut by a south-east -
north-west aligned cut (104). This was filled with a sequence of deliberate
backfill deposits (106), (107) and (105), all rich in demolition rubble. This cut
could well be part of the 19th or early 20th century investigations as it lay
directly beneath the topsoil and cut through the latest Roman levels.
4.3.21 Two robber cuts, (108) and (134), were recorded (Figure 6, Plate 5). These
were both aligned north-east – south-west and intersected (104) on its
south-eastern edge. The westernmost of these, (134), cut through floor
remnant (135) on its north-west edge. However, on its south-east edge it
then appeared to follow an earlier cut or edge along (130) and (131). It does
not appear to have disturbed (131). Robber cut (108) cut through (117) to
the north-east and (130) on the south-west edge.
4.3.22 The north-eastern edge of cut (104) allowed the opportunity to examine the
stratigraphy beneath the floor (102)/(103)/(121). At the north-western end of
this section, rubble-rich deposits (143) and (144), had built up against a
possible masonry deposit (111), possibly a wall. It is possible that there had
been a robbing event along this edge of (111), filled with (143) and (144).
4.3.23 The mortar of (111) was a distinctive pink-red colour. Either abutting this or
being abutted by (111) to the south-east was another possible wall (112).
This contrasted with (111), being constructed from a pale-yellow grey sandy
mortar with large flint and chalk blocks. The lower portion of (112) extended
further to the south-west than (111), and may have been aligned south-west
– north-east. Both (111) and (112) appeared to be constructed on a levelling
layer of fine silty sand (122). Also abutting or being abutted by (112) was
another possible wall (113), which contained similar pink-red mortar to (111).
The relationship between these three possible walls is not certain but (113)
may be a later insertion.
4.3.24 A similar sequence of masonry deposits lay beneath (136), exposed by the
north-western edge of robber cut (134) (Figure 6, Plate 8). Here, built up
against (145), the vertical cut through (131) and possible wall (137), was
deposit (138). This appears to have been a deliberate backfill event prior to
a new phase of construction, represented by layer (136). Deposit (137) was
a relatively discrete area of chalk fragments within a pale mortar, lying
directly upon a more compact area of masonry (139), and could have been a
patch of levelling or repair to this structure. Possible wall (139) was similar to
(112) - flint and chalk blocks within a pale yellow-white mortar. Up against
the north-east of this and also directly beneath (136) was possible wall
(140). The mortar of this was pink-red in colour, similar to (111), but it
contained tiles laid horizontally at frequent intervals throughout its structure.
4.3.25 Along the north-eastern edge of (130) was a narrow cut (142), filled with
(129). This was only clearly visible beneath the demolition rubble (107), and
cut through levelling deposit (122). This may well be another robber cut or
the remnant of a construction cut. The level exposed beneath (122) was
(128), which consisted of flint nodules and degraded mortar and which
appeared to be another levelling deposit.
4.3.26 Beneath robber cut (134) was another levelling or surface deposit (133)
similar to (122). Although the relationship was not fully investigated the
masonry deposits (139) and (140), as well as the mortar levelling layer
(131), appear to have been constructed on this level.
Trench 2 (Figure 7)
4.3.27 Trench 2 was initially opened as a small testpit with the intention of locating
the bathhouse remains mentioned in the earlier sources. The overburden
here was deeper in places, with a maximum depth of 0.42m. However, the
top of a flint and chalk wall was visible within the initial excavated area some
0.14m below ground level. This trench was extended as far as the
surrounding vegetation would allow.
4.3.28 The wall (206) initially uncovered was found to be the earliest stratigraphic
event investigated within the trench. Surviving to a height of at least 0.75m,
it was composed of six courses of roughly shaped flint and chalk nodules
bonded by a pale pink lime mortar (Figure 7, Plates 9 and 10). Its full height
was not seen, and nor was the construction cut exposed. Part of the
southern end of the north-west face had been removed by robber cut (202),
and this could have been one of the antiquarian excavations from the 19th
and early 20th centuries.
4.3.29 At the lowest limit of the exposed wall on the north-west side was a possible
surface (214). This was largely unexcavated but was seen to overlay a
distinctive red-brown surface (217) which may have been composed of
mortar containing crushed opus signinum. Above (214) was a thin possible
levelling deposit (213). Above this, a deep layer of demolition material (212)
contained significant amounts of stone rubble and fragments of ceramic tile.
4.3.30 The layer directly above (212), (211), contained large numbers of small
stone tesserae and a large number of fragments of painted wall plaster. The
tesserae from this deposit are in contrast to those from the rest of the Site
which were predominantly ceramic and larger in size. This demolition
material appears to have been compacted to form a foundation for the later
lime mortar surface (207). In situ mortar (208) adhering to the north-west
face of wall (206) appears to relate to this floor level. A layer (205) banked
up against this plaster may be a yet later surface or may possibly represent
the collapse of (208) from higher up the wall. Overlying this was a spread of
wall collapse (204).
4.3.31 The south-western face of wall (206) appeared to have been robbed and
disturbed. At the base of the exposed wall was a surface deposit (216)
which was similar to the red mortar deposit (217) seen on the other side of
the wall. This had a thin lens of occupation debris overlying it (215). Above
this and against the wall was a dark, charcoal-rich deposit (209) containing
large fragments of ceramic tile and some mortar. Although this deposit
appeared to be well sealed, a fragment of medieval or later roof tile was also
found in the deposit, probably intrusive here. An environmental sample
confirmed that the deposit contained a large amount of wood charcoal,
mostly mature wood. The profile of this deposit, angled downwards away
from the wall, and the abundance of charcoal suggests that this could
represent collapse of material into a void left by the removal of elements of a
hypocaust system. Overlying this deposit was demolition debris (210).
Testpit 18 (not illustrated)

4.3.32 Testpit 18 was situated on the south-east fringe of the copse. At 0.60m
below the ground surface traces of an in situ mortar surface (1803) was
found. This was potentially truncated by a north – south cut (1805). This
remained unexcavated.
Area 3 (Figure 3, Plate 1)

4.3.33 The archaeology in this area lay beneath between 0.30-0.40m of modern
ploughsoil. A thin subsoil was also found in Trench 15. The trenches lay at
heights of between 36.18 and 36.69m aOD. The natural geology was chalk.
4.3.34 This trench was positioned in the known area of the Roman cemetery and
over the southern arm of a large rectangular enclosure identified from the
geophysical survey.
4.3.35 A discrete anomaly identified from the geophysical survey proved to be a

series of intercutting quarry pits (1103, 1106, 1119). These were filled with a
number of deliberate backfills of quarried material (Figure 8, Plate 11).
Quarry pit (1103) contained Romano-British pottery, as well as several
fragments of disarticulated human bone within deposit (1102). The pit
beneath this, (1104), also contained disarticulated human bone. This
indicates the likelihood of a number of burials in the vicinity, disturbed by
later quarrying, and accords with what was already known from the 19th
century sources.
4.3.36 The geophysical anomaly proved to be a very substantial ditch (1114) some
3.5m wide (Figure 8, Plate 12). One of the lower fills (1108) contained a
sherd of Romano-British pottery and some tile fragments. This is possibly
the re-cut of an earlier ditch (1115) on the same alignment. Both ditches
contained a long sequence of secondary fills and little artefactual material.
4.3.37 This trench was positioned within the known area of the Romano-British
cemetery. Despite widespread disturbance by quarrying in the 19th century
(evidenced by quarry pits 1504, 1508 and 1510), one grave cut (1506) was
found, aligned north-west to south-east (Figure 9, Plate 14). This had been
partly truncated by quarry pit (1508), but most of the grave appeared intact.
The grave was not fully exposed within the trench and the remains were left
in situ, but it was found to contain the coffined burial of a young adult (1512).
No diagnostic finds were found associated with this burial, but due to its
location it is likely to be Romano-British.
Trench 19 (not illustrated)

4.3.38 This trench was positioned in the known area of the Roman cemetery.
Removal of the ploughsoil showed that this area had been extensively
disturbed by quarrying, 21 and it therefore remained unexcavated.
Trench (not illustrated)

4.3.39 This trench was situated over a trend identified from the geophysical survey.
It was also hoped that the trench might reveal more of the Roman cemetery.
4.3.40 Removal of the topsoil showed it to be over an area of quarry disturbance,

and therefore after recording, excavation ceased.
4.3.41 Anvil Avenue, Cockhall Lane and Cockhall Close
4.3.42 A number of testpits were dug in the back gardens bordering the Site to the
north-east, and to the south-east. It was hoped that this would establish the
extent of any Roman remains and their likely preservation.
Testpits 5, 6 and 7 (not illustrated)

4.3.43 After the removal of up to 0.59m of modern overburden, both Testpit 5 and
Testpit 6 revealed layers of disturbed natural geology. This overlay the
natural geology which was a soliflucted chalk with areas of sand. Testpit 7
was slightly deeper, with an additional soily layer beneath the subsoil,
possibly the result of bioturbation.
4.3.44 All three testpits contained a range of post-medieval and modern finds with
some possible residual material, but no in situ archaeological deposits were
encountered.
Testpits 8 and 13 (not illustrated)

4.3.45 Testpits 8 and 13 were situated just to the north-east of the copse in the
hope of determining any preservation or continuation of the structures seen
in Trenches 1 and 2.
4.3.46 After the removal of the topsoil and subsoil a layer of modern made ground
was encountered in Testpit 8, but the layer beneath this (804) contained
Romano-British material. This layer was not fully excavated. To the north-
east of this was Testpit 13. This proved to be beyond the area of modern
disturbance and revealed a deep demolition deposit (1303), which was not
fully excavated. The composition of chalk and flint nodules along with
fragments of CBM suggests that this may represent demolition from Roman
structures.

4.3.47 Initially Testpit 9 was thought to have uncovered some in situ tesserae
(903); however, subsequent excavation made this uncertain as the remains
were very patchy. The majority of the testpit was not excavated below the
level of (905), the disturbed ground overlying (903). A possible cut (906) was
seen to be aligned north-west – south-east in the western part of the testpit,
but very little of this was exposed. Some possible in situ plaster was seen
along the edge of this.

4.3.48 After removing 0.36m of modern overburden this testpit came onto a layer of
modern made ground. At a depth of 0.66m below ground level this was still
not bottomed, and excavation ceased.
Testpits 16 and 17 (not illustrated)

4.3.49 Both these testpits contained demolition or rubble deposits beneath the
modern subsoil. Beneath this in Testpit 16 was a more silty deposit (1604)
which contained fragments of painted wall plaster and tesserae. This overlay
a similar deposit (1605) which was still not bottomed at a depth of 1.25m
below ground surface. The demolition deposit in Testpit 17 (1703) was

deeper, and beneath this lay a band of compacted chalk and mortar (1704)
which may have been the remains of a wall foundation. Banked up against
this was a silty layer (1703). Both these deposits remained unexcavated.

4.3.50 Although further south than Testpits 16 and 17, the sequence in Testpit 20
was very similar, with a rubble demolition debris (2003) lying underneath the
modern overburden. However, only a shallow depth of this was excavated.
Pottery recovered from the top of this deposit was post-medieval in date.
5 FINDS
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Finds were recovered from nine of the ten trenches excavated (none were
recovered from Trench 19), although finds from Trenches 15 and 21 were
minimal. Finds were also recovered from the testpits. The assemblage is
very largely of Romano-British date, with a few medieval and some post-
medieval items. The later material was largely confined to the testpits
5.1.2 All finds have been quantified by material type within each context, and
totals by material type and by trench are presented in Table 1. Following
quantification, all finds have been at least visually scanned, in order to
ascertain their nature, probable date range, and condition. Spot dates have
been recorded for datable material (pottery). This information provides the
basis for an assessment of the potential of the finds assemblage to
contribute to an understanding of the site, with particular reference to the
construction and occupation of the ‘Litlington villa’ and the adjacent walled
cemetery.
5.2 Pottery
5.2.1 In the absence of a fabric reference collection for the region, the Roman
pottery was recorded using simple fabric classifications, based on principal
inclusion (e.g. shell-gritted ware) or firing technique (e.g. grey ware); some
known ware types have been identified (e.g. Lower Nene Valley wares).
5.2.2 The 21 trenches and test-pits produced a relatively small amount of pottery,
346 sherds weighing just under 6 kilos, of which 56 sherds (917 gms) are
post-medieval or modern in date (Table 2). Sixty-eight sherds (1842 gms) of
the Roman pottery came from unstratified contexts. The testpits in the
properties along Anvil Avenue, Cockhall Lane and Cockhall Close contained
only post-medieval or modern pottery and no pottery was recovered from
Trench 19 and Testpit 9. Trenches 4 and 12 and Testpit 8, all in the Manor
Farm, main villa site, area, produced the most Roman pottery. Sherds from
three vessels occurred in different contexts in the main villa site area, as
follows: Trenches 4, 12 and unstratified; Trench 4 and Testpit 8; Trench 12
and unstratified. Little of the Roman pottery is closely dateable, but appears
to span the whole Roman period. The average sherd weight is just under
17g.
5.2.3 A rim sherd from a form 18/31 Central Gaulish samian dish (Trench 2
topsoil) and a sherd of Dressel 2-4 amphora (gully 309) are the only
imported pottery. Non-local wares comprise vessels from the Lower Nene
Valley, Oxfordshire and Colchester. An oxidised imitation samian ware dish
or bowl (modern ditch 418) is possibly the product of the Hadham kilns and
a storage jar sherd (unstratified) is likely to have been made in the
Horningsea kilns near Cambridge.
5.2.4 Table 3 shows the pottery assemblage by ware type. Various reduced grey
wares dominated the assemblage, accounting for 57% by sherd count and
63% by weight. Visually, there is much variety in the grey ware with different
coloured fabrics and surfaces; there is also some variety in hardness and
inclusions. Most of the recognisable grey ware forms are jars with various
rims types, although bowls and dishes are also represented. One carinated
dish (buried soil 411) is reminiscent of Gallo-Belgic vessels and another dish
has a block of burnished lattice decoration internally, together with an
indication that it may have had one or more handles (made ground in Testpit
8). A number of sherds are from vessels decorated with burnished lines,
girth grooves or rouletting. One of these, a jar with incised horizontal
scoring, is one of the vessels which occurred in three different contexts
(ditch 417; ditch 1205; unstratified).
5.2.5 One variety of grey ware is reminiscent of BB1, having a similar fabric,
colour and finish. Recognisable forms in this fabric comprise a jar and a
plain rimmed dish. Most of the shell-gritted ware forms are also jars,
including a number with lid-seated or undercut rims. The oxidised ware
forms comprise a flagon, a wide mouthed jar or bowl and a lid-seated jar
with a frilled rim; this vessel occurred in two different contexts (ditch 1205
and unstratified).
5.2.6 The Oxfordshire ware sherds are from a white-slipped red ware mortarium
and a wall-sided bowl in a reddish-yellow fabric with a cream slip and red
paint. The Nene Valley colour-coated ware vessels comprise a probable
flagon and beaker. Another colour-coated curved rim bowl may be from an
imitation samian form 36 bowl and its dark grey colour coat is reminiscent of
vessels made in the kilns at Stanground. A colour-coated bowl of uncertain
source occurred in two different contexts (modern ditch 418; made ground in
Testpit 8).
5.2.7 It is likely that all of the grey wares are the products of local kilns. The
various kiln sites around Cambridge are probable sources, but other local
kiln sites undoubtedly await discovery. The Horningsea sherd, however,
shows that some of the pottery could have come from slightly further away
and the kilns at Hadham and Godmanchester are other potential sources.
5.3 Ceramic Building Material (CBM)

Introduction
5.3.1 The assemblage of CBM was very largely of Romano-British date, but also
included some medieval and post-medieval fragments. The quantity retained
and quantified in Table 2 excludes a further seven sample sacks of CBM
from Trench 1 that were discarded on site (prior scanning revealed nothing
within this discarded sample of intrinsic interest).
5.3.2 A rigorous retention policy was also adopted for the retained CBM. The
whole assemblage was quantified by type (imbrex, tegula, etc) within each
context, with features such as paw prints, ‘signatures’ and selected
dimensions also recorded. Most pieces were then discarded, retaining only
those with complete surviving dimensions, paw prints, decorative roller
stamping. Fabric type was not recorded, as the majority of the assemblage
comprised fragments in non-distinctive hard-fired, slightly sandy fabrics firing
orange-red, but variations from this were noted, and a small sample of
different fabric types retained. The most distinctive of these was a coarse
shelly fabric observed on a number in the east Midlands and east Anglia,
and identified as a probable product of the Harrold kilns in Bedfordshire
(Brown 1994). There were examples of this fabric type amongst the tegulae,
imbrices and box flue tiles, and at least one tessera had been cut down from
a shelly ware tile.
5.3.3 Table 4 gives the breakdown of CBM types. The Romano-British

assemblage included roof tiles (tegulae and imbrices), tesserae from
flooring, and box flue tiles from a hypocaust heating system. A significant
proportion comprised flat fragments lacking diagnostic features on which to
assign them to specific tile or brick types; these were divided into those less
than 30mm in thickness, and those of a greater thickness; the former are
likely to represent further examples of tegulae, imbrices and box flue tiles,
while the latter probably derive from bricks of various forms, including those
utilised in the pilae of underfloor heating systems.
Tegulae
5.3.4 No complete dimensions were noted amongst the tegulae, although it was
apparent that thickness, as well as flange width and height, varied. Flange
height is generally considered to be roughly twice the tile thickness – in this
instance it ranged from 36 to 60mm, and the width from 20-35mm; flange
profile was either squared or curved. A number of cut-aways were observed,
both on top and underneath the tegulae; the bottom cut-aways were all of
Brodribb’s type 5, where they could be identified (Brodribb 1987). Several
curved ‘signatures’ noted were probably from tegulae, although none were
on diagnostic fragments. Likewise, two fragments with nail holes were
probably also from tegulae. Most examples of tegulae came from Trenches
1 and 2.
Imbrices
5.3.5 One complete imbrex profile survived (demolition debris 1303), which was
135mm in width and 70mm high; it had a curvilinear finger-smeared
‘signature’ along the top. Interestingly, the numbers of imbrices are greater
than those of tegulae (the ratio is approximately 3:2); the more normal
pattern is for the opposite to be the case (Brodribb 1987, 24). In this
instance the distribution and relative numbers of the two types across the
Site generally coincides, but not in every case; the distribution of imbrices is
wider, and more even.
Tesserae
5.3.6 The tesserae had all been cut down from larger tiles, and ranged in size
from around 20mm square to 30mm square, although the larger examples
were more frequently rectangular rather than absolutely square. At least one
tessera had the characteristic combing of a box flue tile on one surface. The
largest group came from Trench 1 (mainly from topsoil), with smaller groups
from Trenches 4 (mainly from topsoil) and 9 (topsoil and demolition debris
905).
Box flue tile (tubuli)

5.3.7 Most box flue fragments carried some form of keying for mortar. This is
generally in the form of combing, either linear (often cross-hatched) or
curvilinear. Two fragments had wide-spaced lattice scoring, and two
fragments were roller-stamped. Roller-stamped tiles were made in Britain
from the late 1st to the late 2nd or early 3rd century AD. Both of these
examples appear to carry W-Chevron designs (Betts et al. fig. 27a),
although the design on one example (demolition debris 403) was partially
obscured by mortar. The second example was found unstratified. The W-
chevron design has previously been recorded from Litlington (ibid., 26).
5.3.8 Two tiles showed the edges of cut-outs – cut-out vents were made in the
sides of flue tiles to allow air circulation. In addition, one fragment had a paw
print, impressed when the tile was drying after manufacture.
5.3.9 Most flue tiles came from Trenches 1 and 9 (from topsoil in both cases), with
small numbers found elsewhere.
Flat fragments
5.3.10 The miscellaneous and otherwise undiagnostic flat fragments have been
divided into those less than 30mm in thickness, and those of 30mm or more.
The former are likely to derive from further tegulae, imbrices or box flue tiles,
while the latter could represent bricks, possibly used in the construction of
piers or pillars (pilae) to support the floor suspended above a hypocaust. No
complete dimensions survived.
Medieval and post-medieval CBM

5.3.11 There were small quantities of medieval or post-medieval flat (peg) roof tiles
from contexts across the Site, largely from topsoil. Eight post-medieval
pantile fragments came from Trench 8, and are probably from a single tile.
There are also three small post-medieval brick fragments.
5.4 Opus signinum

5.4.1 A few small fragments of opus signinum were recovered. This concrete-like
building material was used to line water tanks, and also to cover floors.
5.5 Fired Clay

5.5.1 One context in Trench 12 (upper fill of ditch 1205) produced fragments of a
flat slab (27mm thick), with a slightly bevelled edge; one surface appears to
have been burnt or sooted. The date and function of this object are
unknown.
5.6 Wall Plaster and Mortar

5.6.1 A small quantity of wall plaster was recovered, dominated by one group of
104 fragments from Trench 2 (compacted demolition debris layer 211). The
small assemblage includes both monochrome (93) and polychrome
fragments (63). The colour palette is limited, and includes dark red, yellow,
pale green, dark grey and white. These colours appear in various
combinations: red or white stripes on red; yellow stripes on grey; pale green
and red zones divided by a white stripe; pale green and grey zones divided
by a white stripe; red and grey zones with a yellow stripe. Most of this
decoration is linear, although two fragments with curvilinear banding were
observed in Trench 1 topsoil. The only attempt at a more elaborate
decorative scheme is a single fragment from layer (211) with red and grey
zones divided by a white stripe, and with pale green ‘splattering’ on the grey.
5.6.2 Mortar fragments without adhering plaster were also recovered from a few
contexts in Trenches 1, 4, 5 and 11.
5.7 Stone
5.7.1 Most of the stone comprises tesserae (225 examples), or waste from
tessera manufacture (459 fragments from demolition debris 211). As for the
ceramic tesserae, these mainly fall into two sizes, although there is variation
within each. The smaller size is around 13-15mm square, although there are
some smaller examples; the larger size is between 25-30mm square. A few
examples appear to fall in between the two size ranges. The smaller
tesserae are in two stone types - a grey calcareous mudstone, probably
from a flaggy ragstone unit of the Upper Jurassic (e.g. Corallian) or Lower
Cretaceous (e.g. Greensand); and a hard, white, indurated chalk, probably
local (Upper Cretaceous). The larger tesserae are nearly all in the grey
calcareous mudstone, with one example noted in a reddish stone. Most of
the tesserae came from Trenches 1 and 2.
5.7.2 Four fragments of limestone roof tile were recovered; the largest came from
the fill of modern ditch (418) and has a nail hole surviving, but apart from the
thickness (15mm), no complete dimensions were recorded. These tiles are
in calcareous mudstone, but of a different type to the tesserae – these are
most likely to be from a Middle Jurassic tilestone such as Collyweston Slate,
quarried about 30 miles to the north-west between Weldon
(Northamptonshire) and Ketton (Rutland). The use of stone roofing tiles is
more likely to belong to a later Roman building phase, as ceramic tiles were
the preferred material during the early Roman period, but they could also be
of later (medieval or post-medieval) date.
5.7.3 Other building material comprises fragments of two worked chalk blocks (cut
104; demolition debris 210).
5.7.4 Two portable objects were identified: a fragment of a lava quernstone

(unstratified from Trench 3), and a broken schist whetstone (Trench 2
topsoil). The quernstone is almost certainly of Romano-British date
(although such types were also imported in the Saxon and early medieval
periods), while the whetstone is of uncertain date.
5.8 Glass
5.8.1 Apart from one very small fragment of probable Romano-British date from
possible cavity collapse layer (209), all of the glass recovered is post-
medieval or modern (19th/20th century), comprising bottle and jar
fragments. The modern material has been discarded.
5.9 Metalwork
Coins
5.9.1 Seven coins were recovered, all from topsoil contexts. Six are copper alloy,
whilst the seventh is silvered copper alloy. All of the coins show some signs
of corrosion, whilst a number also show signs of pre-depositional wear. All
but one of the coins date to the Roman period, with the single exception
being a shilling of Elizabeth II, minted in 1955 (Trench 17 topsoil).
5.9.2 The six Roman coins all date from the late 3rd and 4th centuries AD. Five of
the six were sufficiently legible to be dated to period. Three of these are
radiate antoniniani of the late 3rd century AD, all from Trench 4 topsoil. Two
of these are Barbarous Radiates; these are contemporary copies of ‘official’
coinage, possibly struck to compensate for gaps in supply of coinage to
Britain and to supply sufficient small change for the provinces needs. It is
unclear whether these copies were officially sanctioned, if at all, but they are
not uncommon as site finds, and seem to have circulated in the same
fashion as officially struck coins.
5.9.3 Two of the remaining three can be dated to the 4th century AD – one a
‘Gloria Exercitus’ issue minted between AD 335 and 345 (Trench 3 topsoil)
and the second a Constantinopolis issue of the House of Constantine struck
in the AD 330s (Trench 10 topsoil). Both of these coins are contemporary
copies of ‘official’ coins. They both show signs of significant wear, and were
probably in circulation for some time prior to their deposition. The sixth
Roman coin from the site is too badly worn and corroded to identify closely
(Trench 12 topsoil). However, from its size and shape, it is likely to be a
small copper alloy coin of the late 3rd and 4th century AD.
Copper alloy
5.9.4 Apart from coins, the copper alloy comprises seven objects, of which most
are probably or certainly of post-medieval date (two buttons, small plain belt
mount or strapend, a seal, a plain disc and a small ring, both of unknown
function). All these objects came from topsoil or modern subsoil contexts.
One other object, a short length of curved rod, from Trench 3 topsoil, could
be part of a harness ring, but the identification is very tentative and the date
is uncertain.
Iron
5.9.5 The ironwork consists largely of nails (24 examples), with other structural
items (hook, joiner’s dog). Other identifiable items are limited to a horseshoe
of post-medieval type. Two plate fragments, a ring and a short length of
possible wire are of unknown function. Most objects again came from topsoil
or other modern or disturbed contexts, but five nails came from Romano-
British deposits (one from buried soil 303, one from ditch 305, and four from
layer 804).
5.10 Human Bone

5.10.1 The area of what is recorded as comprising a Romano-British walled
cemetery, ‘Heaven’s Walls’, was subject to intensive gravel quarrying in the
early 19th century (Kempe 1836). The remains of a large number of burials,
both cremation and inhumation, were reported to have been recovered; ‘at
least 250 [coffined] human skeletons’ and 80 urned cremation burials,

together with large quantities of ‘ashes’ [pyre debris?] from ustrina located in
the southern corners of the cemetery (Cambridge Chronicle, 18th May 1821;
Liversidge 1977). Many of the finds from the graves have been described
(ibid; Cambridge Chronicle, 18th May 1821; Kemp 1836; Jessup 1959) and
137 items recorded as having derived from the cemetery are currently held
in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology at Cambridge University
(A. Taylor pers. comm.). Amongst the latter are nine cremation urns with in
situ fills, but the fate of the rest of the human bone from the cemetery is
unrecorded and remains unknown.
5.10.2 The in situ remains of one coffined burial (grave 1506), made prone (SE-
NW), were recovered towards the northern edge of the area believed to
have contained the cemetery (Trench 15). The upper levels of the proximal
end of the grave were cut by quarry pit (1508) but quarrying had missed the
remains of the burial itself (Figure 9, Plate 14). The skeletal remains
(moderately root marked; grade 2-3 (McKinley 2004)) were left in situ but
appeared to represent those of a relatively young (c. 20-35 yr.) adult,
possibly male.
5.10.3 Redeposited human bone was recovered from two fills within intercutting
quarry pits (1103) and (1106) in Trench 11, located c.15m to the south of
Trench 15. Fragments of skull (left parietal and occipital) and upper limb (left
proximal humerus) were recovered from the base of the earlier pit (1106).
One of the central fills of a subsequent pit (1103), cutting (1106) and its later
fills, contained fragments of skull (right parietal and occipital) and lower limb
(two right femora, a minimum of two left and one right tibia). The skull bone
from both deposits is in good condition or slightly eroded (grades 1-2), but
the lower limb bone is mostly root marked and heavily eroded (grades 5-5+).
5.10.4 The redeposited remains represent those of a minimum of two adults, at

least one over 45 years of age and a minimum of one male. The variable
condition of the bone suggests that it derived from slightly different burial
environments, some burials probably having been made within the pockets
of free-draining gravel later subject to quarrying and others in the silty clay
natural.
5.11 Animal Bone

5.11.1 A total of 228 fragments of animal bone were recovered from the Site during
the normal course of hand-excavation. Conjoining fragments from individual
bones have been counted once therefore the total count is likely to be lower
than that given in the general finds quantification table. Bone preservation is
good to fair, but a few include bones in different states of preservation and
this could indicate the presence of residual or intrusive material. The
frequency of gnaw marks is relatively low at only 4%.
5.11.2 Animal bone was recovered from 35 separate contexts. A large proportion
(49%) of the assemblage is from modern layers and robber cuts; the rest is
from layers and features mostly of Romano-British date.
5.11.3 The assemblage was rapidly scanned and quantified (for method see Davis
1992). Approximately 26% of fragments are identifiable to species and
element. Sheep/goat (N = 19) and cattle (N = 16) bones are common.
Other identified species include pig (N = 7), horse (N = 4), rabbit (N = 1) and
domestic fowl (N = 13). The rabbit bone is an unstratified find and all of the
fowl bones are from modern topsoil. The rest of the assemblage is made-up
of non-countable fragments of long bone shaft, rib and vertebra from large
(25%) and medium (18%) sized mammals, and birds (9%). Small
unidentifiable splinters (22%) are also fairly common.
5.11.4 The butchery evidence noted on cattle bones from secure Roman contexts
follows a typical pattern for this period (Lauwerier 1988, Maltby 1985, 1989;
Dobney 2001). A pathological specimen was noted from possible buried
subsoil (303), the bones are from the lower back (i.e. lower thoracic/lumbar
region) of a horse and the individual vertebrae have fused together (or
ankylosed) by the formation of new bone.
5.11.5 The quantity of detailed information relating to the age, size and
conformation of species is quite limited. Epiphysial fusion data is available
for 30 post-cranial bones, biometric data is available for 17 specimens and
tooth eruption/wear data is available for three sheep/goat mandibles, one
from topsoil and the other two from Roman ditch (417). The two Roman
mandibles are from animals aged between 3-4 years and 6-8 years (or MWS
=F and G; after Payne 1973).
5.12 Marine Shell

5.12.1 The shell consists entirely of oyster. Both right and left valves are
represented, i.e. both preparation and consumption waste.
5.13 Other Finds

5.13.1 Other finds comprise very small quantities of worked flint, burnt (unworked)
flint, and metalworking slag. Apart from the worked flint, which has a
presumed prehistoric date, none of these finds are closely datable.
5.14 Potential and Recommendations

5.14.1 This is a relatively small finds assemblage, of which a high proportion
derived from topsoil or demolition contexts. The range of Romano-British
material culture overall is fairly limited, only pottery, animal bone and
building material (both ceramic and stone) occurring in any quantity. There
are few coins, and only one possible fragment of glass.
5.14.2 The finds have all been recorded to an appropriate archive level, and no
further work is proposed.
6 PALAEO-ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 Three bulk samples were taken from deposits within Trenches 2 and 4 and
were processed for the recovery and assessment of charred plant remains
and charcoals.
6.1.2 Bulk samples were processed by standard flotation methods; the flot
retained on a 0.5 mm mesh, residues fractionated into 5.6mm, 2mm and
1mm fractions and dried. The coarse fractions (>5.6mm) were sorted,
weighed and discarded. Flots were scanned under a x10 – x40 stereo-
binocular microscope and the presence of charred remains quantified (Table
5) to record the preservation and nature of the charred plant and wood
charcoal remains. Preliminary identifications of dominant or important taxa
are noted below, following the nomenclature of Stace (1997).
6.1.3 The flots varied in size with between 5 and 30% rooty material that may be
indicative of the degree of contamination by later intrusive elements.
Charred material comprised varying degrees of preservation.
6.2 Charred Plant Remains

6.2.1 The possible cavity collapse layer (209) within Trench 2 only produced a
small quantity of charred plant remains. These included a few indeterminate
grain fragments and charred weed seeds of vetches/wild peas
(Vicia/Lathyrus spp.), oats/brome grass (Avena/Bromus spp.) and stitchwort
(Stellaria sp.).
6.2.2 A large quantity of charred plant remains was recovered from ditch (417)
within Trench 4. The cereal remains included grain fragments of hulled
wheat, emmer and spelt (Triticum diccocum/spelta) and barley (Hordeum
vulgare), and glume fragments of hulled wheat. The charred weed seeds
included seeds of oats/brome grass, poa grass (Poaceae), goosefoots
(Chenopodium spp.), brassicas (Brassicaceae), vetches/wild peas, corn
gromwell (Lithospermum arvense), knotgrass (Polygonaceae), rye-
grass/fescue (Lolium/Festuca spp.) and sedge (Carex sp.). There was also a
tuber.
6.2.3 The buried soil (414) in Trench 4 produced high numbers of charred
remains. The cereal remains comprised grain fragments of hulled wheat and
barley and glume fragments of hulled wheat. The charred weed seeds
observed included seeds of poa grass, oats/brome grass, rye-grass/fescue,
cleavers (Galium sp.), goosefoot and stitchwort.
6.2.4 This charred plant assemblage is comparable with others recovered from
rural Romano-British settlements in the area, such as at Eaton Socon
(Stevens and Clapham 2003), but is different from those assemblages
recovered from the Romano-British settlements at Cambourne New
Settlement, where the charred cereal remains were heavily dominated by
chaff fragments (Stevens 2009). The assemblage appears to be indicative of
a low status site rather than a high status villa site, with the absence of more
exotic plant remains such as were recovered at the Romano-British site at
Great Holts Farm, Boreham, which included remains of stone pine, olive and
chestnut (Murphy 2003).
6.3 Wood Charcoal

6.3.1 Wood charcoal was noted from the flots of the bulk samples and is recorded
in Table 5. A large quantity of wood charcoal fragments was retrieved from
layer (209) within Trench 2. These were mainly mature wood fragments but
included some round wood pieces. Some of this charcoal was fragments of
oak (Quercus sp.). Very little wood charcoal was observed in the two
samples from Trench 4, from ditch (417) and buried soil (414).
6.4 Land and fresh/brackish water molluscs

6.4.1 No samples or sequences of samples were taken specifically for the retrieval
of molluscs. Nevertheless snails were noted within the bulk samples and
preliminary identifications provided to assist in broadly characterising the
nature of the local landscape. Nomenclature is according to Kerney (1999).
6.4.2 The sample from layer (209) within Trench 2 contained both land snails and
freshwater species. The land snail assemblage included the open country
species Vallonia spp. and Vertigo pygmaea, the intermediate species Trichia
hispida and Vitrina pellucida and the shade-loving species Aegopinella spp.,
Oxychilus cellarius, Discus rotundatus, Vitrea spp. and Clausilia bidentata.
The few freshwater specimens included valves of Pisidium spp.
6.4.3 The large mollusc assemblage recovered from ditch (417) in Trench 4
included mainly terrestrial species together with a few freshwater molluscs.
The land snail assemblage included the open country species Vallonia spp.,
Pupilla muscorum, Vertigo pygmaea, Helicella itala, and Introduced
Helicellids, the intermediate species Trichia hispida and Cochlicopa spp and
the shade-loving species Discus rotundatus, Aegopinella spp., Oxychilus
cellarius and Vitrea spp. The small freshwater component included Lymnaea
spp.
6.4.4 A high number of molluscs were observed within the sample from the buried
soil (414) within Trench 4. This assemblage comprised the open country
species Vallonia spp., Helicella itala, Pupilla muscorum, Vertigo pygmaea
and the Introduced Helicellids, the intermediate species Trichia hispida and
Cochlicopa spp. and the marsh loving species Succinea/Oxyloma spp.
There were no fresh or brackish water species within the assemblage.
6.4.5 The molluscs are indicative of the presence of a variety of local

environments within the vicinity. The local area appears to be a generally
open landscape, one of grassland and/or arable, probably with patches of
longer grass in some areas, such as within and along the edges of some of
the ditches. There may also be evidence for occasional flooding in some
areas.
6.5 Potential and recommendations

Charred plant remains
6.5.1 Analysis of the charred plant remains has the potential to provide limited
information on the agricultural processes and crop processing techniques
employed on the villa site. There are few archaeobotanical assemblages
from villa excavations within this part of East Anglia and further study of the
assemblage could assist in determining the status of the villa site. If further
information on the status and nature of the villa site is required, detailed
analysis of the charred plant remains could be considered, but from a single
sample the results would be limited.
Wood charcoal
6.5.2 The wood charcoal from dump (209) within Trench 2 has the potential to
provide information on the management and exploitation of the local
woodland resource and whether any selection criteria was employed to
provide fuel for the heating system. Detailed analysis of the wood charcoal
from dump (209), Trench 2 could be considered if this information is

required, but from a single sample the results would be limited. Moreover,
the presence of a piece of medieval or later roof tile within this deposit (see
above, 4.3.31) casts some doubt on its stratigraphic integrity.
Land snails and fresh/brackish water molluscs

6.5.3 There is only limited potential for further analysis of the mollusc
assemblages to provide detailed information on the local landscape and
pattern of land-use due to the nature of the sampled deposits. No further
work is warranted.
7 DISCUSSION
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 This evaluation, although limited in its extent, confirmed the existence of the
villa identified by Reverend Clack in the 1820s. It also confirmed the position
of the ‘Heaven’s Walls’ cemetery to the south-east, where it seems that
although 19th century quarrying had been extensive, some remains might
still survive. A number of testpits suggested that further Roman structures
may have been destroyed by the housing estate to the north-east.
7.2 Romano-British
The villa and its estate (Areas 1 and 2)
7.2.1 This evaluation was able to confirm the location of the Roman building
referenced by antiquarian accounts. Although most of the reports refer to it
as a ‘villa’ there is some speculation that it may have been a mansio (Kempe
1836, 4). Although only a small part of the building was excavated during the
Time Team evaluation, the remains are consistent with those of a villa and
there were no more unusual items recovered within the finds assemblage
suggesting a different, possibly more official function.
7.2.2 Trenches 1 and 2 were located in the area previously thought to contain the
villa’s bathhouse. Box flue tile was found in these trenches, but not in any
concentration – 18 fragments in all, and the same quantity was recovered
from Testpit 9, to the east in Anvil Avenue. The function of the rooms seen in
Trenches 1 and 2 must therefore remain uncertain. On the 1899 edition of
the Ordnance Survey map, just to the east of the Roman Villa site, is marked
‘Roman pavement and Hypocaust found’; this spot now lies beneath Anvil
Avenue.
7.2.3 The environmental evidence obtained is consistent with a relatively low

status villa site. In addition, only six Romano-British coins were recovered,
dating to the late 3rd to 4th century AD and all of relatively low value. In
contrast, evidence from Trench 2 suggests that the parts of the building
uncovered there may have been decorated to a finer standard, with fine
tesserae and painted wall plaster, which derived from a demolition layer
compacted to form a foundation for a later floor surface. In other words, this
could relate to an earlier phase of building than was represented in other
trenches. Beyond a few sherds of broadly dated Romano-British pottery,
however, no firm dating evidence was recovered from Trench 2.
7.2.4 Earlier mapping suggests that the position of the villa lay within Area 1, but
the map published by Kempe in 1836 is clearly inaccurate. The plan does
show a north-east – south-west aligned building and this is consistent with
walls identified. It also depicts a villa on a courtyard plan, but room divisions
are indicated only in north-east and south-east wings. This suggests only
partial excavation and subsequent extrapolation. The entry in the Cambridge
Chronicle (11th December 1841) refers to 30 rooms, but in the light of the
lack of high status indications during this excavation, this may be an
exaggeration.
7.2.5 Trenches 3, 4, 10 and 12 revealed a number of linear features likely to relate

to the estate or farmstead associated with the villa. These features suggest
at least two and probably three phases of ditch alignments. Ditches (305),
(1005) and (1205) were all visible as trends on the geophysical survey, but
none of the remainder of the linear features were visible. The density of
archaeology may therefore be significantly greater than that suggested by
the geophysical survey.
7.2.6 Evidence from ditch (417) in Trench 4 suggests Roman activity from the 1st
to 2nd century AD, implying the relatively early establishment of a Roman
villa or farmstead. No Iron Age or earlier pottery was recovered from the
Site, and the villa is therefore unlikely to represent continuation of an older
farmstead or dwelling, although the substantial enclosure ditch in Area 3
could indicate an area of earlier activity.
Testpits
7.2.7 The testpits within Cockhall Lane and Cockhall Close suggested that there
may have been further Roman remains to the east but that these have been
disturbed by the construction of the housing estate.
The ‘Heaven’s Walls’ cemetery (Area 3)

7.2.8 This area was shown to be substantially disturbed by quarrying but the
presence of grave cut (1506) confirmed that this was the location of the
cemetery as well as indicating that some undisturbed remains may still
survive. The presence of disarticulated human bone within some of the
quarry backfills confirms that not all the inhumations were removed prior to
quarrying taking place. Interestingly the 19th century mapping (1886 OS)
suggests that the cemetery lay further to the south-west, but this may be due
to the inaccuracies of the surviving plan of the site (seen in Kempe 1836).
7.2.9 The location of the disarticulated human remains at the base or in the lower
levels of the fills of the quarry pits was anticipated given the date and mode
of discovery of the burial remains; whilst it would be in character that
artefactual remains would be collected, the retention of the human remains
is less likely. The large quantity of burial remains recorded as having been
discovered within the c. 34.7 x 24.7m area of the cemetery must have been
densely distributed, the cremation graves reportedly being set c. 0.91m
apart but disturbed by the insertion of later inhumation burials (Liversidge
1977). Consequently, if reburial within the quarry pits was the only or even
the main manner of disposal of human remains one would anticipate the
presence of far larger quantities of material from individual pits. This
suggests that either human remains were removed from the site for burial
elsewhere or that they were collected together for re-burial within one or a
few specifically designated pits.
7.2.10 The ditch visible on the geophysical survey and excavated in Trench 11,
(1115), represents a substantial enclosure ditch, which appears to have
been re-cut at least once. No mention of this feature is noted in the 1836
article. The position of the grave and presence of disarticulated bone
suggest that the Heaven’s Walls cemetery lay in the south-western part of
this enclosure. Clearly a much larger area was enclosed than the stated
measurements of the cemetery, suggesting that other structures and/or
activities were also located here. These may not have been as visually or
archaeologically distinctive to the 19th century excavators as funerary urns.
7.2.11 A link between the walled cemetery and the villa c.350m to the north-west
has been considered likely since the discovery of the former. Jessup (1957)
highlighted the potential association between villa sites and the few
Romano-British walled cemeteries known in the UK, chiefly within south-
west England. The contemporaneity of the villa and cemetery and the
projected size of the villa should help illustrate how likely and exclusive such
a connection could have been. Given the large number of individuals
reportedly buried within the confines of the walls, it seems likely that the
cemetery served a wider rural area rather than the villa alone.
7.3 Medieval, post-medieval and modern activity

7.3.1 A nineteenth century enclosure map shows a number of strip divisions within
Areas 1 and 2. Some of these are likely to correspond to some of the south-
west – north-east trends identified from the geophysical survey. There were
a number of visible earthworks in Area 1, but the depth of the archaeology in
this area suggests that these are much later and are likely to relate to the
post-medieval use of this area.
7.3.2 The evidence from Area 2 seems to confirm the documentary sources
concerning the degree of disturbance that affected the Roman building. In
Area 3 the impact of the quarrying was also clearly visible. In contrast,
activity in Area 1 appears to have buried and preserved much of the Roman
remains.
7.3.3 There were a number of modern features in Trench 4, one of which seems
to relate to activity during the Second World War.
8 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1.1 The fact that the Time Team evaluation has confirmed the existence of the
Roman villa and nearby cemetery, first discovered in the 19th century, is of
both local and regional importance, although details of the extent,
construction and chronological sequence of the villa are somewhat limited,
and little further evidence was uncovered from the cemetery.
8.1.2 No further analysis is considered necessary, and a summary of the results

will be submitted to the Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society,
for inclusion in the annual round-up of archaeology in the county.
8.1.3 The results of the evaluation will also be included in an online entry through
the OASIS project.
9 ARCHIVE
9.1.1 The project archive, including plans, photographs and written records,
artefacts and ecofacts, is currently held at the offices of Wessex
Archaeology in Salisbury under the project code 71511. It is intended that
the archive should ultimately be deposited with Cambridge County Council
Archaeological Store, and the archive will be prepared following the
guidelines for the deposition of archaeological archives issued by
Cambridgeshire County Council (Ref HER 2004/1).
10 REFERENCES
Anon., 1914-15, Report of the Council, Proc. Cambridge Antiq. Soc.
Babingdon, C.C., 1883, Ancient Cambridgeshire, Cambridge: Cambridgeshire

Antiquarian Society (2nd ed.)
Betts, I., Black, E.W. and Gower, J., 1994, A corpus of relief-patterned tiles in Roman
Britain, J. Roman Pottery Studies 7
Brodribb, G., 1987, Roman Brick and Tile, London: Alan Sutton
Brown, A., 1994, A Romano-British shell-gritted pottery and tile manufacturing site at
Harrold, Bedfordshire, Bedfordshire Archaeol. 21, 19-107
Cambridge Archaeological Unit, 1995, Manor Farm Barns, Litlington,

Cambridgeshire: An Archaeological Evaluation, Report no. 146
Cott, P.J., 2002, Geophysical Survey Report at Litlington, Cambridgeshire,

unpublished report
Davis, S.J.M., 1992, A Rapid Method for Recording Information about Mammal
Bones from Archaeological Sites. Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report No.
19/92
Dobney, K., 2001, A place at the table: the role of vertebrate zooarchaeology within a
Roman research agenda for Britain, in S. James and M. Millet (eds.), Britons
and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda. Counc. Brit. Archaeol.
Res. Rep. 125, 36-45
GSB Prospection Ltd., 2009, Geophysical Survey Report Litlington, Cambridgeshire,

unpublished report for Videotext Communications
Jessup, R.F., 1959, Barrows and walled cemeteries in Roman Britain, J. Brit.
Archaeol. Assoc. 22, 1-32
Kempe, A.J., 1836, Account of the Collection of Sepuchural Vessels Found in 1821,
in a Roman Ustrium, at Litlington, Near Royston; and now preserved in the
library of Clare Hall, Cambridge, Archaeologia 26, 3-11
Kerney, M.P., 1999, Atlas of the Land and Freshwater Molluscs of Britain and
Ireland, Colchester: Harley Books
Lauwerier, R.C.G.M., 1988, Animals in Roman Times in the Dutch Eastern River
Area. Nederlanse Oudheden 12/Project Oostelijk Rivierengebied 1. ROB:
Amersfoort
Liversidge, J., 1977, Roman Burials in the Cambridge Area, Proc. Cambridge Antiq.
Soc. 67, 11-38
Maltby, M., 1985, Assessing variations in Iron Age and Roman butchery practices:
the need for quantification, in N.J.R. Fieller, D.D. Gilbertson and N.G.A. Ralph
(eds), Palaeobiological Investigations: Research Design, Methods and Data

Analysis. Brit. Archaeol. Rep. Int. Ser. 266, 19-32
Maltby, M., 1989, Urban-rural variations in the butchery of cattle in Romano-British

Hampshire, in D. Serjeantson and T. Waldron (eds.), Diet and Crafts in
Towns. Brit. Archaeol. Rep. Brit. Ser. 199, 75-106
McKinley, J.I., 2004, Compiling a skeletal inventory: disarticulated and co-mingled

remains, in M. Brickley and J.I. McKinley (eds), Guidelines to the Standards
for Recording Human Remains, British Association for Biological
Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology and Institute for Field Archaeology, 13-
16
Murphy, P., 2003, Plant macrofossils, in M. Germany (ed), Excavations at Great

Holts Farm, Boreham, Essex 1992-94, East Anglian Archaeol. 105, EAA
Norwich 204-13
Payne, S., 1973, Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats: the mandibles from Asvan Kale,
Anatolian Studies 23, 281-303
Stace, C, 1997, New Flora of the British Isles, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
(2nd ed.)
Stevens, C.J. and Clapham, A.J., 2003, Charred and waterlogged plant remains,
Wessex Archaeology Internet Report, in C. Gibson, A Romano-British rural
site at Eaton Socon, Cambridgeshire, http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/
projects/county/cambridgeshire/eaton-socon
Stevens, C.J., 2009, Charred Plant Remains, in J. Wright, M. Leivers, R. Seager

Smith, C.J. Stevens, Cambourne New Settlement Iron Age and Romano-
British Settlement on the clay uplands of west Cambridgeshire, Salisbury:
Wessex Archaeol. Rep. 23, Volume 2: CD
Videotext Communications, 2009, Proposed Archaeological Evaluation Litlington,

Cambridgeshire NGR TL 3126 4247, unpublished project design
Woolhouse, T., 2007, Anglo-Saxon and medieval boundaries and burials at the
former Oblic Engineering Site, Church Street, Litlington, Proc. Cambridge
Antiq. Soc. 96, 115-26
Newspaper reports
Cambridge Chronicle, 29th May 1829
Cambridge Chronicle, 8th May 1841
Cambridge Chronicle, 11th December 1841
Table 2: Finds totals by material type and by trench (number / weight in grammes)
Material Tr 1 Tr 2 Tr 3 Tr 4 Tr 10 Tr 11 Tr 12 Tr 15 Tr 21 TPs Unstrat TOTAL

Pottery 2/18 8/128 15/128 59/1178 3/122 12/250 96/932 1/2 1/2 85/1345 64/1708 346/5813
Romano-British 1/16 8/128 15/128 59/1178 3/122 6/112 96/932 - 1/2 37/570 64/1708 290/4896
Post-medieval 1/2 - - - - 6/138 - 1/2 - 48/775 - 56/917
Ceramic Building Material 261/21,493 89/13,808 50/2988 96/5900 18/2255 11/896 - 5/35 9/90 293/16,787 5/594 837/64,846
Fired Clay - - - - - - 12/630 - - - - 12/630
Opus Signinum - 2/4 - 3/130 2/50 - - - - - - 7/184
Wall Plaster 27/1002 120/3849 - 1/29 - - - - - 8/1604 - 156/6484
Mortar 15/2786 2/553 - 1/15 - 2/318 - - - 3/63 - 23/3735
Stone 35/1561 615/4105 2/158 16/1867 1/1 - - - - 22/581 - 691/8373
Burnt Flint - - - 3/7 - - - - - 1/11 - 4/18
Flint - - 4/18 7/71 - - 2/4 - - 2/10 2/10 17/113
Glass 4/366 1/1 - - - - - - 15/132 - 20/499
Slag - 13/110 - - - - - - - - - 13/110
Metalwork 1 1 5 4 5 5 2 3 2 18 46
Coins 1 3 1 1 1 - 7
Copper Alloy - - 1 1 1 - 1 1 - 2 - 7
Iron 1 1 3 - 3 5 - 2 2 15 - 32
Human Bone - - - - - 13/70 - - - - - 13/70
Animal Bone 3/17 4/23 17/438 96/1162 12/519 - 5/38 - - 96/587 7/79 240/2863
Shell - - 4/60 12/499 1/26 - - - - 8/132 - 25/717
Table 3: Pottery totals by ware type
No. Weight
Period Description sherds (g)
ROMANO-BRITISH Samian (Central Gaulish) 1 12
Dressel 2-4 amphora 1 30
Oxford parchment ware 2 58

Oxford mortaria (white) 1 134
Nene Valley colour coat 8 46
Horningsea 1 170
Hadham 1 148
Colchester 1 2
Coarse greyware 124 1962

Fine greyware 13 262
Grey/brown 8 240
Dark brown/black gritty 20 418
Grey ware with grog 5 196
Grey ware with shell 1 6
Oxidised ware 39 472
Oxidised ware with grog 31 172
Shelly 17 306
Shelly with grog 1 8
Flint 1 6
Grog 3 6
Colour coated 11 242
POST-MEDIEVAL / MODERN All wares 56 917
TOTAL 346 5813
Table 4: CBM totals by type
Date Range CBM type Number Weight (g)

ROMANO-BRITISH Box flue 48 4045
Flat frags <30mm 109 10,444
Flat frags >30mm 16 4898
Imbrex 107 16,606
Tegula 69 18,437
Tessera 351 6356
Undiagnostic 78 1359
MEDIEVAL/POST-MEDIEVAL Brick 3 225

Pantile 8 658
Peg tile 48 1818
TOTAL 837 64,846
Table 5: Assessment of the charred plant remains and charcoal
Samples Flot
Flot % Charred Charcoal
Feature Context Sample Litres Grain Chaff Comments Other
(ml) roots other >4/2mm
Romano-British
Trench 2
Dump
Indet. grain Moll-t
frags, (A*),
Vicia/Lathyrus x 175/150
209 1 11 900 30 C - B 2, Moll-f
ml
Avena/Bromus (B), Sab
x 2, Stellaria x1 (C)
Trench 4
Ditch
Hulled wheat
and Barley
grain frags,
Hulled wheat
glume frags,
Tuber,
Avena/Bromus
x 3, Poaceae x
Moll-t
4,
(A**),
Chenopodium x
417 412 2 12 60 8 A* A A 2, Brassicaceae
<1/2 ml Moll-f
(C),
x 2,
Sab (A)
Vicia/Lathyrus x
1,
Lithospermum x
2, Carex x 1,
Lolium/Festuca
x 4,
Polygonaceae x
1
Buried Soil
Hulled wheat
and Barley
grain frags,
Hulled wheat
glume frags,
Moll-t
Poaceae x 2,
414 3 11 15 5 A A A Avena/Bromus
0/1 ml (A**),
Sab (C)
x 1, Galium x 1,
Lolium/Festuca
x 1,
Chenopodium x
4, Stellaria x 1
Key:
A*** = exceptional, A** = 100+, A* = 30-99, A = >10, B = 9-5, C = <5
sab = small animal bones, Moll-t = terrestrial molluscs, Moll-f = freshwater molluscs;
APPENDIX 1: TRENCH SUMMARIES
bgl = below ground level

CBM = ceramic building material (brick and tile)
TRENCH 1 Type: Hand Excavated
Dimensions: 8.00x5.50m Max. depth: 1.12m Ground level: 38.85-38.92m aOD
Context Description Depth
101 Topsoil Modern topsoil/overburden. Mid grey silt loam. 2% stone/flint, sub- 0.00-0.15m
angular – sub-rounded, <1-6cm. Very loose and friable. Contains bgl
abundant plaster, CBM and tesserae. Highly bioturbated.
102 Surface In situ tessellated pavement, best preserved in northern area of 0.01m deep
trench, then becomes patchy. Red ceramic tesserae 2-3cm, 1cm
deep. Overlies (103). Similar to (126).
103 Layer Mortar bedding for (102). Pale yellow-white lime mortar. Surface 0.05m deep
degraded and weathered; compact. Overlies (121). Similar to (117).
104 Cut South-east – north-west aligned robber cut. Filled with (105), 0.75m
(106) and (107). Width 1m. Straight, steep sides, flat base. Cuts deep
(103), (117), (129) and (135).
105 Deposit Deliberate backfill of robber cut (104); demolition debris. Pale yellow 0.44m deep
grey silty sand incorporating degraded mortar. 2% flint, sub-angular –
sub-rounded, <1-6cm. Frequent chalk and mortar fragments. Slightly
mixed. Overlies (106)/(107). Similar to (123).
106 Deposit Deliberate backfill of robber cut (104); demolition debris. Mid grey 0.35m deep
yellow silty sand incorporating degraded mortar. 1% flint, sub-angular
– sub-rounded, <1-6cm. Frequent chalk and mortar fragments.
Slightly mixed. Overlies (104).
107 Deposit Deliberate backfill of robber cut (104), corresponds to material 0.35m deep
removed immediately adjacent and to the east of (111),
equivalent/identical to (106). Demolition debris. Mid grey yellow silty
sand incorporating degraded mortar. 1% flint, sub-angular – sub-
rounded, <1-6cm. Frequent chalk and mortar fragments. Slightly
mixed. Overlies (104).
108 Cut North-east – south-west aligned robber cut. Filled with (109). 0.50m
Width 0.80m. Straight, steep sides, flat base. Cuts (117), (129) deep
and (130).
109 Deposit Deliberate backfill of robber cut (108); demolition debris. Mid grey 0.50m deep
yellow silty sand incorporating degraded mortar. 1% flint, sub-angular
– sub-rounded, <1-5cm. Frequent chalk and mortar fragments.
Slightly mixed. Overlies (108).
110 Deposit Deliberate backfill of robber cut (134); finds under this number may 0.32m deep
include material from the other robber cuts (104) and (108).
Demolition debris. Mid grey yellow silty sand incorporating degraded
mortar. 1% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-4cm. Frequent chalk
and mortar fragments. Slightly mixed. Overlies (134).
111 Masonry Pale red-grey mortar with occasional chalk fragments. Colour 0.36m high
suggests opus signinum. Relationship to (112) unclear. Overlies
(122).
112 Masonry Pale grey-yellow sandy mortar. Frequent flint and chalk nodules. 0.46m+
Relationship to (111) unclear. Overlies (122). May have been south- high
west – north-east aligned. Not fully revealed.
113 Masonry Pale grey-yellow sandy mortar. Large chalk blocks, occasional flint 0.44m+
nodules. Relationship to (112) unclear but may be later insertion. Not high
fully revealed.
114 Layer Levelling/make up beneath (118). Cut by (116). Pale red-grey silt 0.24m deep
incorporating degraded chalk and mortar. <1% flint, sub-angular –
sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Disturbed/loose. Overlies (119).
115 Deposit Secondary fill of (116). Mid brown-grey silt loam. 10% stone/flint, sub- 0.60m+
angular – sub-rounded, <1-6cm. Occasional mortar fragments. Fairly deep
loose. Bioturbated. Overlies (116).
116 Cut Probable area of bioturbation, although could be the edge of 0.60m+
another robber cut. Filled with (117). Steep, concave sides. Not deep
fully exposed, nor fully excavated. Cuts (114).
117 Layer Remnant of mortar bedding for floor. Pale yellow-white lime mortar. 0.04m deep
Surface degraded and weathered. Compact. Overlies (125). Similar
to (103).
118 Layer Levelling/make up beneath (125). Pale yellow-grey silt incorporating 0.30m deep
degraded chalk and mortar. 20% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, 2-
7cm. Occasional chalk fragments. Compact. Overlies (114).
119 Layer Levelling layer for surface. Pale yellow-grey silt incorporating 0.40m+
degraded chalk and mortar. 15% flint/stone, sub-angular – sub- deep
rounded, 1-6cm. Occasional chalk fragments. Fairly compact. Similar
to (131).
120 Wall North-east – south-west aligned masonry wall with eastern return. 0.28m high
Mainly composed of chalk blocks but includes occasional tiles (likely
reused). Pale yellow-grey lime mortar. Irregular jointing. Rubble core.
Only 2 courses remaining, foundation not exposed. Patches of pale
yellow-white plaster remaining on north-west face. Left in situ.
121 Layer Levelling deposit underlying (103). Pale grey-yellow sandy lime 0.22m deep
mortar. 8% flint, sub-angular, 2-4cm. Compact. Butts against (120).
Similar to (125) and (127).
122 Layer Foundation/levelling material. Pale yellow-grey silty sand. <1% flint, 0.30m+
angular, <1-2cm. Compact. Overlies (128). deep
123 Deposit Deliberate backfill/soil build up within robber cut (134). Mid brown- 0.30m deep
grey silty sand incorporating degraded mortar. 5% flint, sub-angular –
sub-rounded, <1-6cm. Occasional chalk and mortar fragments.
Slightly mixed. Overlies (110). Similar to (105).
124 - VOID -
125 Layer Levelling deposit underlying (117). Pale grey-yellow sandy lime 0.06m deep
mortar.25% flint, sub-angular, 2-6cm. Compact. Similar to (121) and
(127). Overlying (118).
126 Surface Fragment of in situ tessellated pavement. Red ceramic tesserae 2- 0.01m deep
3cm, 1cm deep. Similar to (102). Mortar bedding layer lost, overlies
(127).
127 Layer Levelling deposit underlying (126). Pale grey-yellow sandy lime -
mortar. 8% flint, sub-angular, 2-4cm. Compact. Butts against (120).
Similar to (121) and (125). Left in situ.
128 Layer Levelling deposit, degraded yellow line mortar. 5% flint nodules, sub- -
angular – sub-rounded, 4-8cm. Compact. Largely unexcavated.
129 Deposit Fill of (142). Very pale, slight pink-grey silt incorporating degraded 0.40m deep
chalk and mortar. 2% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-2cm.
Occasional chalk fragments. Cut by (104) and (108). Overlies (142).
130 Layer Levelling layer for surface. Pale yellow grey silt incorporating 0.06+m
degraded chalk and mortar. 5% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, 2- deep
7cm. Occasional chalk fragments. Compact. Cut by (108), (134),
(142). Overlies (141).
131 Layer Levelling layer for surface. Pale pink-yellow silt incorporating 0.66m deep
4cm. Occasional chalk fragments. Fairly compact. Similar to (141).
132 Layer Levelling layer beneath (131) and (141). Pale white-grey crushed -
chalk and mortar. 2% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, 1-4cm.
Occasional chalk fragments. Compact. Overlies (128).
133 Layer Foundation/levelling material. Pale yellow-grey silty sand. Sediment -
largely composed of degraded mortar. 1% flint, angular, <1-2cm.
Occasional chalk flecks. Compact. Unexcavated.

134 Cut North-east – south-west aligned robber cut. Filled with (110) and 0.50m
(123). 1.17m wide. Straight, steep sides. Flat base. Cuts (130) deep
and (135).
135 Layer Levelling for mortar surface. Pale grey-yellow sandy lime mortar. 25% 0.11m deep
flint, sub-angular, 2-6cm. Compact. Similar to (121), (125) and (127).
Cut by (104) and (134). Overlies (136).
136 Layer Levelling/make up beneath (135). Pale yellow grey silt incorporating 0.21m deep
7cm. Occasional chalk fragments. Compact. Similar to (118).
Overlies (138) and (140).
137 Masonry Possible repair or levelling deposit. Pale white-grey chalky mortar. 0.25m high
Frequent chalk rubble, also includes smaller fragments of chalk and
mortar. Compact. Overlies (139).
138 Layer Deliberate backfill prior to new phase of construction. Pale yellow- 0.67m deep
grey sand. 10% flint, sub-angular, <1-8cm. Very hard and compact.
Overlies (137).
139 Masonry Pale grey white silty sandy mortar. 10% flint, sub-angular – sub- 0.64m high
rounded, 2-12cm, 10% chalk, sub-rounded, 2-8cm. Hard and
compact. Overlies (133).
140 Masonry Pale pink-red mortar. Contains horizontally laid tiles and 5% flint and 0.80m high
chalk, sub-angular, 2-4cm. Hard and compact. Overlies (133).
141 Layer Levelling layer for surface. Pale pink-yellow silt incorporating 0.50m deep
4cm. Occasional chalk fragments. Fairly compact. Similar to (131).
142 Cut Possible robber cut or remnant of construction cut, filled with 0.40m
(129). North-west – south-east aligned. Straight, vertical sides, deep
flat base. 0.32m wide. Cuts (122) and (130).
143 Layer Possible robber cut fill. Mid grey silt loam. Abundant degraded chalk 0.24m deep
and mortar. Loose and friable. Heavily bioturbated. Overlies (144).
144 Layer Possible robber cut fill. Mid grey silt loam. Frequent large CBM 0.36m deep
fragments. Occasional degraded chalk and mortar. Loose and friable.
Heavily bioturbated. Built up against (111).
TRENCH 2 Type: Hand Excavated

201 Topsoil Modern topsoil/overburden. Mid grey silt loam. 2% stone/flint, sub- 0.00-0.42m
angular – sub-rounded, <1-6cm. Very loose and friable; highly bgl
bioturbated; fairly homogeneous. Overlies (203), (204) and (210).
202 Cut North-west – south-east aligned robber cut. Filled with (203). 0.70m+
Vertical straight sides, flat base. Full width not seen, 0.42m+. deep
May not have been bottomed. Cuts (207).
203 Deposit Deliberate backfill of robber cut (202). Dark brown-grey silt loam. 0.70m deep
Very loose and friable; slightly mixed. 15% stone, sub-angular – sub-
rounded, <1-6cm. Highly bioturbated. Overlies (202).
204 Layer Wall collapse to west of wall (206). Pale grey-brown sandy silt loam. 0.15m deep
60% chalk, sub-rounded, 2-18cm. 20% flint nodules, sub-angular –
sub-rounded, 8-16cm. Fairly loose and friable; bioturbated. Overlies
(205).
205 Layer Degraded surface or wall plaster collapse to north-west of wall (206). 0.07m deep
Mid brown-yellow silt loam. Mixed; loose and friable; bioturbated.
Overlies (208).
206 Wall South-west – north-east aligned wall. Pale pink-yellow lime mortar. 0.75m+
Face material flint and chalk nodules, rubble core. Regular coursed; 6 high
courses revealed. 0.62m wide. Foundation level not revealed. Left in
situ.
207 Surface Pale yellow-grey lime mortar surface. Incorporates occasional stone 0.10m deep
and CBM fragments. Compact. Overlies (211).
208 Surface Mortar/rough plastering adhering to wall (206), level associated with 0.15m deep
wall (206). Friable, gritty. 0.04m wide.
209 Layer Possible collapse of cavity, part of hypocaust system. Dark red-grey 0.58m deep
silt. 10% stone, sub-angular, <1-5cm. Frequent charcoal flecks;
frequent tile fragments; occasional mortar fragments. Humic in
places. Environmental sample 1. Overlies (215).
210 Layer Demolition debris. Mid brown-grey silt loam. 15% stone, sub-angular 0.58m deep
– angular, <1-20cm. 10% flint, sub-angular, 5-20cm. Frequent CBM
fragments. Moderately loose and friable; mixed; some bioturbation.
Overlies (209).
211 Layer Pale yellow grey silt and degraded mortar. Demolition debris 0.20m deep
compacted to form foundation for surface (207). Contained abundant
fragments of painted plaster
212 Layer Demolition debris, possible levelling layer. Pale yellow-grey silt loam 0.25m deep
and degraded mortar. 30% stone and flint, sub-angular – angular, <1-
20cm. Frequent CBM fragments. Loose and friable. Overlies (213).
213 Layer Demolition debris, possible levelling layer. Pale yellow-grey silt loam 0.05m deep
and degraded mortar. 30% stone and flint, sub-angular – angular, <1-
10cm. Frequent chalk fragments. Loose and friable. Overlies (214).
214 Layer Possible surface. Pale yellow-grey silt. 10% stone, sub-angular, <1- 0.02m+
5cm. Friable but relatively compact. Slightly mixed. Overlies (217). deep
Not fully excavated.
215 Layer Occupation layer overlying surface (216). Dark grey-brown silt loam. 0.02m deep
5% chalk, sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Occasional charcoal flecks.
Compact; fairly homogeneous.
216 Surface Mid brown-red mortar surface, possible opus signinum. Occasional -
stone fragments. To the east of wall (206). Only partly revealed. Left
in situ. Abuts wall (206).
217 Surface Mid brown-red mortar surface, possible opus signinum. Occasional -
stone fragments. To the west of wall (206). Only partly revealed. Left
in situ.
TRENCH 3 Type: Machine excavated

Dimensions: 10.25x1.86m Max. depth: 1.14/1.76m Ground level: 37.34-37.78m aOD
301 Topsoil Modern topsoil under turf. Mid grey silt loam. <1% stone, sub-angular 0.00-0.30m
– sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Rare chalk flecks. Loose and friable; bgl
bioturbated; homogeneous. Overlies (302).
302 Subsoil Modern subsoil. Pale grey sandy silt loam. 5% chalk, sub-angular, 0.28-0.60m
<1-6cm, concentrated in SE corner). 2% flint, sub-angular – sub- bgl
rounded, <1-3cm. Occasional CBM fragments. Slightly mixed;
bioturbated; fairly compact. Overlies (303).
303 Layer Possible buried subsoil horizon. Mid brown-grey silt loam. 1% flint, 0.59-0.84m
sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-4cm. Occasional chalk fragments. bgl
Occasional CBM and animal bone. Moderately homogeneous and
compact. Overlies (308) and (314).
304 Deposit Secondary fill of ditch (305). Pale grey-brown silt loam. 5% flint, sub- 1.00m deep
angular – sub-rounded, <1-6cm. Occasional chalk fragments. Fairly
compact and homogeneous. Overlies (305).
305 Cut Large, north-east – south-west aligned linear. Concave, 1.00m
moderate sides, concave, slightly stepped base. 2.44m wide. deep
Filled with (304). Cuts (310) and (312).
306 Deposit Secondary fill of ditch (307). Pale grey-brown sandy silt loam. 2% 0.27m deep
flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-6cm. Rare chalk fragments.
Fairly compact and homogeneous. Overlies (307).
307 Cut North-north-west – south-south-east aligned linear, truncated by 0.27m

(315). Straight, moderate sides, flat base. 0.50m+ wide. Filled deep
with (306). Cuts (316).
flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-6cm. Occasional chalk flecks
and fragments. Fairly compact and homogeneous. Overlies (309).
309 Cut Small, north-north-west – south-south-east aligned gully. 0.22m
Straight, moderate sides, flat base. 0.50m wide. Filled with (308). deep
Cuts (304).
310 Deposit Secondary fill of feature (311). Mid orange-brown sandy silt loam. 2% -
flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-3cm. Moderately compact; fairly
homogeneous. Unexcavated. Overlies (311).
311 Cut Irregular feature; possible tree-throw. Filled with (310). -
Unexcavated.
312 Deposit Secondary fill of feature (313). Mid orange-brown sandy silt loam. 2% 0.14m deep
flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-3cm. Moderately compact; fairly
homogeneous. Overlies (313).
313 Cut Irregular feature. Possible tree-throw/hedgeline. Concave, 0.14m
shallow sides, undulating base. 0.72m wide. Filled with (312). deep
flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-6cm. Rare chalk fragments.
Fairly compact and homogeneous. Overlies (315).
315 Cut North-north-west – south-south-east aligned linear. Straight, 0.43m
moderate sides, flat base. 0.92m wide. Filled with (314). Cuts deep
(304) and (306).
316 Natural Natural geology. Pale white chalk. Compact; homogeneous. 0.74m+ bgl

401 Topsoil Modern topsoil, under turf. Dark grey-brown sandy silt loam. 2% 0.00-0.50m
stone, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-4cm. Loose and friable; bgl
402 Subsoil Modern subsoil. Pale brown-grey sandy silt loam. 5% chalk, sub- 0.43-0.62m
angular, <1-6cm. 2% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-3cm. bgl
Occasional CBM fragments. Slightly mixed; bioturbated; fairly
compact. Overlies (405) and (407).
403 Layer Demolition debris. Pale yellow-grey silt loam. <1% stone/gravel, sub- 0.25m deep
rounded, <1cm. Frequent chalk and mortar fragments. Frequent CBM
fragments. Slightly mixed; moderately compact. Overlies (414).
Similar to (410).
404 Surface Compacted chalk. Forms base/levelling layer for (406). Unexcavated. -
405 Deposit Deliberate backfill of cut (418). Dark brown-grey sandy silt. 10& 0.50m deep
gravel, sub-angular, <1-2cm. Very loose and friable. Some
bioturbation. Contained WWI era tin cans. Overlies (418).
406 Surface Possible metalled surface. Sub-angular flint cobbles, 5-8cm. Overlies 0.08m deep
(404).
407 Deposit Fill of cut (419). Probable deliberate backfill, incorporates residual 0.48m deep
Roman material (CBM, tesserae and mortar). Mid brown sandy silt.
2% gravel, sub-angular, <1-2cm. Moderately compact; slightly mixed.
Overlies (419).
408 Deposit Secondary fill of ditch (424). Mid orange-brown silty sand. 5% gravel, 0.20m deep
sub-angular, <1-2cm. Moderately compact; fairly homogeneous.
Overlies (424).
409 Deposit Secondary fill of ditch (424). Mid grey-brown silt loam. 5% gravel, 0.48m deep
sub-angular, <1-3cm. Moderately compact; fairly homogeneous.
Overlies (408).
410 Layer Demolition debris. Pale yellow-grey silt loam. <1% stone/gravel, sub- 0.15m deep
rounded, <1cm. Frequent chalk and mortar fragments. Frequent CBM
fragments. Slightly mixed; moderately compact. Overlies (411).
Similar to (403).
411 Layer Possible buried soil sealed by demolition (410). Pale grey-brown silty 0.15m deep
sand. 1% stone, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1cm. Moderately
compact; fairly homogeneous. Overlies (412).
412 Deposit Deliberate backfill of ditch (417), possible midden waste. Dark black- 0.35m deep
grey silt loam. 2% stone, sub-rounded – rounded, <1cm. Moderately
compact; slightly mixed. Overlies (425). Environmental sample 2.
413 Deposit Secondary fill of ditch (417). Mid orange-grey silt loam. 2% stone, 0.35m deep
sub-rounded, <1-4cm. Moderately compact; fairly homogeneous.
Overlies (417).
414 Buried Buried soil sealed by demolition (403). Mid grey-brown silty sand. 1% 0.40m deep
soil stone, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Includes chalky lenses.
Moderately compact; fairly homogeneous. Overlies (421).
Environmental sample 3. Similar/identical to (420).
415 Layer Possible buried soil. Pale grey-brown silty sand. 1% stone, sub- 0.05m deep
angular – sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Moderately compact; fairly
416 Deposit Deliberate backfill of ditch (417). Mid grey sandy silt. 2% stone, sub- 0.20m deep
rounded – rounded, 3-5cm. Occasional chalk and mortar fragments.
Moderately compact; slightly mixed with orange mottling. Overlies
(413).
417 Cut North-west – south-east aligned ditch. Filled with (412), (413), 0.65m
(416) and (425). Moderate, concave sides, concave base. 1.5m+ deep
wide. Northern edge blurred by ploughing. Cuts (420).
418 Cut Modern cut filled with (405). North-west – south-east aligned. 0.50m
Irregular sides, irregular base. 1.80m wide. Cuts (409) and (415). deep
419 Cut Late/modern cut, filled with (407). Alignment unclear, north-west 0.48m
– south-east or potentially north-south. 1.8m wide. Terminates in deep
trench. Moderate, concave sides, concave base. Cuts (403) and
(406).
420 Buried Buried soil sealed. Mid grey-brown silty sand. 1% stone, sub-angular 0.24m deep
soil – sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Includes chalky lenses. Moderately compact;
fairly homogeneous. Overlies (421). Similar/identical to (414).
421 Natural Natural geology. Mid red-orange sand. Includes area of mid-yellow 1.13m+ bgl
(redeposited) chalk.
422 Deposit Deliberate backfill of trench (423). Dark black-grey silty sand. 5% 1.00m deep
stone, sub-angular –angular, <1-3cm. Fairly homogeneous;
moderately compact; bioturbated. Includes modern brick. Overlies
(423).
423 Cut Possible 1920s excavation trench. Filled with (422). 1.25m wide. 1.00m
North-west – south-east aligned. Steep, very slightly concave deep
sides, very slightly concave base. Cuts (402).
424 Cut North-west – south-east aligned ditch. Filled with (408) and 0.80m
(409). Steep, convex sides, concave base. 1.9m wide. Cuts (402) deep
and (415).
425 Deposit Secondary fill of ditch (417). Pale brown-grey sandy silt. 2% stone, 0.15m deep
sub-rounded, <1cm. Occasional chalk and mortar fragments.
Moderately compact. Slightly mixed. Overlies (416).
TESTPIT 5 Type: Hand excavated

501 Topsoil Modern topsoil (imported), under turf. Mid grey silt loam. Very loose 0.00-0.28m
and friable. <1% stone, sub-rounded, <1-4cm. Bioturbated; bgl

502 Subsoil Modern subsoil. Pale grey-brown silt loam. 1% stone, sub-angular – 0.24-0.42m
sub-rounded, <1-5cm. Rare chalk flecks. Some bioturbation; fairly bgl
homogeneous; fairly loose and friable. Overlies (503).
503 Layer Mixed disturbed natural material. Pale yellow-grey silt loam. 5% chalk 0.39-0.58m
fragments, sub-angular, <1-5cm. Occasional CBM. Fairly mixed; bgl
moderately compact; some bioturbation. Overlies (504).
504 Natural Natural chalk geology or re-deposited made ground. Slightly 0.39-0.55m
mixed/soliflucated. Fairly compact. Overlies (505). bgl
505 Natural Natural sand. Mid orange sand. Homogeneous; no visible inclusions. 0.63m+ bgl
Compact.

Dimensions: 1.00x1.00m Max. depth: 0.80m Ground level: 36.77m aOD
601 Topsoil Modern topsoil (imported), under turf. Mid grey silt loam. Very loose 0.00-0.31m
and friable. <1% stone, sub-rounded, <1-4cm. Bioturbated; bgl
sub-rounded, <1-4cm. Occasional chalk flecks. Some bioturbation; bgl
fairly homogeneous; fairly loose and friable. Overlies (603).
603 Layer Mixed disturbed natural material. Pale yellow-grey silt. 1% chalk 0.59-0.74m
flecks. Fairly homogeneous; moderately compact; some bioturbation. bgl
Overlies (604).
604 Natural Natural chalk geology. Slightly mixed/soliflucted. Includes patches of 0.68m+ bgl
mid yellow silt/chalk. 5% flint, sub-angular, 2-6cm. Hard and compact.

Dimensions 1.00x1.00m Max. depth: 1.02m Ground level: 36.87-37.17m aOD
701 Topsoil Modern topsoil (imported), under turf. Mid yellow-grey silt loam. Very 0.00-0.15m
loose and friable. <1% stone, sub-rounded, <1-4cm. Bioturbated; bgl
702 Subsoil Modern subsoil as topsoil in TP5 and TP6. Mid grey silt loam. 1% 0.11-0.47m
stone, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-6cm. Occasional chalk flecks bgl
and fragments. Some bioturbation; fairly homogeneous; fairly loose
and friable. Overlies (703).
703 Layer Dark grey-brown silt loam – possible result of bioturbation. <1% 0.47-0.63m
stone, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Occasional chalk and bgl
CBM fragments. Bioturbated. Overlies (704).
704 Layer Made ground/re-deposited chalk. Pale grey silt. <1% flint, sub- 0.62-1.00m
angular – sub-rounded, 2-4cm. Occasional chalk fragments. bgl
Moderately friable; fairly homogeneous; some bioturbation. Overlies
(705).
705 Natural Natural chalk geology. Slightly mixed/soliflucted. 2% flint, sub- 1.00m+ bgl
angular, 2-6cm. Fairly compact.

801 Topsoil Modern topsoil, under turf. Mid grey silt loam. <1% stone, sub- 0.00-0.19m
rounded, <1-2cm. Bioturbated; fairly loose and friable; homogeneous. bgl
Overlies (802).
802 Subsoil Modern subsoil/built up layer. Pale yellow- grey silt loam. 2% stone, 0.18-0.44m
sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-3cm. Occasional CBM. Frequent bgl
chalk fragments. Cut through by modern service. Bioturbated; slightly
mixed; moderately compact. Overlies (803).
803 Layer Made ground. Mid yellow-grey silt. 2% stone/flint, sub-angular – sub- 0.43-0.56m
rounded, <1-4cm. Occasional fragments of CBM. Rare chalk flecks. bgl
Fairly loose and friable; fairly homogeneous; bioturbated. Overlies
(804).
804 Layer Made ground. Mid yellow-grey silt. <1% stone/flint, sub-angular – 0.54m+ bgl
sub-rounded, <1-4cm. Occasional fragments CBM, animal bone and
shell. Occasional chalk flecks. Fairly loose and friable; fairly
homogeneous.

angular – sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Bioturbated; fairly loose and friable; bgl
fairly homogeneous. Overlies (902).
902 Subsoil Modern subsoil/built up layer. Pale yellow- grey silt loam. 1% stone, 0.17-0.42m
sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Occasional chalk flecks. bgl
Bioturbated; moderately loose and friable; fairly homogeneous.
Overlies (905).
903 Surface Possible fragment of in situ tessellated pavement. Red ceramic tiles 0.41m bgl
2.5-3.5cm, 1cm deep. Overlies (904).
904 Layer Remains of mortar surfacing for (903). Pale yellow-white lime mortar. 0.43m bgl
2% flint, sub-angular, <1-2cm.
905 Layer Disturbed ground/demolition debris. Mid yellow-grey silt loam. 2% 0.40-0.47m
stone, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-3cm. Occasional chalk and bgl
mortar flecks. Slightly mixed; fairly loose and friable; bioturbated.
Overlies (903).
906 Cut North-west – south-east aligned. Seen along south-west edge of -
testpit. Not fully exposed, nor fully excavated. Probably later
disturbance.
907 Deposit Upper secondary fill of (906). Mid yellow-brown silt loam. 1% stone, -
sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Rare chalk fragments.
Moderately loose and friable; bioturbated; homogeneous.
Unexcavated.
TRENCH 10 Type: Machine Excavated

angular – sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Rare chalk flecks. Loose and friable; bgl
1002 Layer Subsoil/demolition spread. Mid grey silt loam. 5% chalk, sub-angular, 0.33-0.50m
<1-6cm, concentrated in SE corner. <1% flint, sub-angular – sub- bgl
rounded, <1-3cm. Occasional CBM fragments. Slightly mixed;
bioturbated; fairly compact. Overlies (1003).
1003 Layer Possible early ploughsoil. Mid grey silt loam. <1% flint/stone, sub- 0.50-0.87m
angular – sub-rounded, <1-3cm. 2% chalk, sub-angular, <1-5cm. bgl
Rare CBM and mortar fragments. Moderately loose; fairly
homgeneous but with occasional lenses of chalk. Base seems to be
cut by (1005), but very diffuse at this level.
1004 Layer Buried subsoil. Mid grey-brown sandy silt loam. 1% flint, sub-angular 0.80-0.95m
– sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Fairly homogeneous; moderately compact. bgl
Overlies (1007).
1005 Cut Possible boundary/drainage ditch. 0.86m wide. Unexcavated. 0.76m+ bgl
North – south aligned. Filled with (1006). Appears to cut base of
(1003) but very diffuse at this level.
1006 Deposit Upper secondary fill of ditch (1005). Mid grey-brown sandy silt loam. 0.76m+ bgl
2% stone, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-5cm. Occasional chalk
flecks. Occasional CBM. Fairly homogeneous; moderately compact.
Unexcavated.
1007 Natural Natural geology. Dark orange-brown silty sand. Compact; 0.94m+ bgl
homogeneous.

Dimensions 11.36x1.82m Max. depth: 0.64/1.86m Ground level: 36.46-36.69m aOD
1101 Topsoil Modern ploughsoil. Mid grey-yellow silty clay. 2% flint, sub-angular – 0.00-0.38m
sub-rounded, <1-4cm. Occasional chalk flecks. Bioturbated; bgl
1102 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1103). Mid grey brown sandy silt 0.14m deep
loam. 1% chalk, sub-rounded – rounded, <1-2cm. Moderately
compact but friable; fairly homogeneous. Contained disarticulated
human bone and residual pottery. Overlies (1122).
1103 Cut Cut of quarry pit. Filled with (1102), (1104) and (1121)-(1124). 1.02m
Cuts (1126). Irregular in plan, irregular sides and base. 3.62m deep
wide.
1104 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1103). Mid grey-brown sandy silt
loam. 2% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-5cm. Moderately
compact but friable; homogeneous. Overlies (1103).
1105 Deposit Primary fill of quarry pit (1106). Mid grey-brown sandy silt loam. 2% 0.10m deep
flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-6cm. <1% chalk flecks. Friable
but compact; very slightly mixed. Overlies (1106).
1106 Cut Cut of quarry pit. Filled with (1105), (1125) and (1126). 1.30m deep
Truncated/cut by (1103). Cuts (1118). Irregular in plan, irregular
sides and base. 2.48m wide.
1107 Deposit Primary fill of ditch (1115). Mid yellow-brown sandy silt loam. 15% 0.08m deep
gravel, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-8cm. Fairly compact; slightly
mixed. Overlies (1115).
1108 Deposit Secondary fill of ditch (1114). Mid brown sandy silty clay. 5% gravel, 0.38m deep
sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-6cm. Fairly compact; fairly
homogeneous. Thin chalk lenses throughout fill. Overlies (1114).
1109 Deposit Secondary fill of ditch (1114). Pale yellow-brown silt loam. 40% chalk, 0.12m deep
sub-rounded – rounded, <1-2cm. 1% stone/flint, sub-angular – sub-
rounded, <1-4cm. Fairly compact; slightly mixed. Overlies (1108).
1110 Deposit Secondary fill of ditch (1114). Pale brown sandy silt loam. 15% chalk, 0.40m deep
sub-rounded – rounded, <1-2cm. 1% flint, sub-angular – sub-
rounded, <1-6cm. Fairly compact; fairly homogeneous. Thin chalk
lenses throughout fill. Overlies (1109).
1111 Deposit Secondary fill of ditch (1114). Mid brown sandy silt loam. 1% flint, 0.14m deep
sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-6cm. 1% chalk, sub-rounded, <1-
2cm. Compact; homogeneous. Overlies (1110).
flint sub-angular – sub-rounded, 2-4cm. 2% chalk, sub-rounded –
rounded, <1-2cm. Fairly compact; fairly homogeneous. Overlies
(1111).
1113 Deposit Secondary fill of ditch (1115). Pale yellow-brown silt loam. <1% flint 0.10m deep
sub-rounded, <1-2cm. <1% chalk, rounded, <1cm. Compact; fairly
homogeneous. Cut by (1114). Overlies (1107).
1114 Cut Substantial enclosure ditch. North-east – south-west aligned. 1.04m
Filled with (1108)-(1112). Re-cut of (1115). Straight, moderate deep
sides, concave base. 3.50m wide. Cuts (1113).
1115 Cut Substantial enclosure ditch. North-east – south-west aligned. 1.12m
Filled with (1107) and (1113). Almost entirely truncated/re-cut by deep
(1114). Straight, moderate sides, concave base. 2.24m wide.
Cuts (1118).
1116 Subsoil Modern subsoil/old topsoil. Pale grey-brown silt loam. 2% flint, sub- 0.24-0.62m
angular – sub-rounded, <1-3cm. 2% chalk, sub-rounded, <1-2cm. bgl
Fairly compact; fairly homogeneous; some bioturbation. Overlies
(1118).
1117 Layer Plough drag of upper quarry pit fills/spoil. Pale yellow-white silt loam. 0.24-0.36m
60% chalk, sub-rounded, <1cm. Fairly compact; mixed. bgl
Discontinuous. Overlies (1116).
1118 Natural Natural geology. Chalk. Compact. 0.60m+ bgl
1119 Cut Cut of quarry pit. Filled with (1128). Cuts (1118). Irregular sides. 0.10m+
Only partly seen in section. Unexcavated. 0.98m+ wide. deep
1120 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1119). Pale grey-yellow sandy silt 0.10m+
loam. 60% chalk, sub-rounded – rounded, <1cm. 1% flint, sub- deep
angular – sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Moderately compact; mixed.
Overlies (1127).
1121 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1103). Pale yellow-brown silt loam. 0.40m deep
90% chalk, sub-rounded, <1-3cm. Compact; mottled with
concentrations of chalk. Overlies (1104).
1122 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1103). Pale yellow-white silt loam. 0.14m deep
90% chalk, sub-rounded – rounded, <1-2cm. Fairly loose; fairly
1123 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1103). Pale grey-white sandy silt 0.22m deep
loam. 90% chalk, sub-rounded, <1cm. Fairly loose and friable; fairly
1124 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1103). Pale grey-brown sandy silt 0.26m deep
loam. 5% chalk, sub-rounded – rounded, <1-2cm. Moderately
compact; fairly homogeneous. Overlies (1123).
1125 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1106). Pale yellow-white sandy silt 0.44m deep
loam. 90% chalk, sub-rounded-rounded, <1cm. Loose and friable;
fairly homogeneous. Overlies (1105).
1126 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1106). Cut by (1103). Mid grey-brown 0.11m deep
sandy silt loam. <1% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-2cm.
Friable but compact; homogeneous. Overlies (1125).
TRENCH 12 Type: Machine Excavated

1202 Layer Subsoil/demolition spread. Mid grey silt loam. 8% chalk, sub-angular, 0.24-0.39m
2-6cm. 1% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-3cm. Occasional bgl
mortar fragments. Rare CBM fragments. Slightly mixed; friable.
Overlies (1203).
1203 Layer Possible early ploughsoil. Mid grey-brown silt loam. 2% flint/stone, 0.36-0.69m
sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-3cm. 3% chalk, sub-angular, <1-3cm. bgl
Rare charcoal flecks, CBM and animal bone. Fairly compact; very
slightly mixed. Base may be cut by (1205), but difficult to determine.
1204 Deposit Upper secondary fill of ditch (1205). Mid grey silt loam. 2% stone, 0.60m+ bgl
sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-4cm. 2% chalk, sub-rounded, <1-
2cm. Occasional animal bone and pottery. Fairly homogeneous;
moderately compact. Unexcavated.
1205 Cut Possible enclosure ditch, only partly seen in plan. 1.52m+ wide. 0.60m+ bgl
Unexcavated. North-east – south-west aligned. Only southern
edge seen, northern edge beyond limit of excavation. Filled with
(1204). Appears to cut base of (1203) but very diffuse at this
level.
1206 Natural Natural geology. Dark orange-brown silty sand. Compact; 0.65m + bgl
homogeneous.


1302 Subsoil Modern subsoil/demolition debris. Mid grey silt loam. 5% stone/flint, 0.23-0.59m
sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-10cm. Occasional chalk and mortar bgl
fragments. Moderately compact; slightly mixed; some bioturbation.
Overlies (1303).
1303 Layer Demolition debris. Pale grey silt loam. 80% re-deposited chalk. 5% 0.54m+ bgl
stone/flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-12cm. 10% chalk, sub-
angular, 2-8cm. Includes CBM. Compact; mixed; some bioturbation.

Dimensions 1.00x1.00m Max. depth: 0.66m Ground level: 38.70m aOD
angular – sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Loose and friable; bioturbated; bgl
1402 Subsoil Modern subsoil. Pale grey silt loam. 2% stone, sub-angular – sub- 0.19-0.36m
rounded, <1-4cm. Frequent chalk flecks. Moderately compact; slightly bgl
mixed; some bioturbation. Overlies (1403).
1403 Layer Made ground. Mid yellow-grey silt loam. 1% stone, sub-angular – 0.35m+ bgl
sub-rounded, <1-3cm. Occasional chalk flecks and fragments.
Occasional CBM. Fairly compact; slightly mixed; some bioturbation.

1502 Cut Rectangular pit, possible modern trench. Filled with (1503). Cuts 0.22m+
(1509). 1.58m wide, 0.96m+ long. Removed by machine to reveal deep
archaeology beneath.
1503 Deposit Possible deliberate backfill of (1502). Mid grey-brown silt loam. 1% 0.22m+
flint, sub-rounded, <1-4cm. Occasional chalk flecks and fragments. deep
Overlies (1502).
1504 Cut Cut of quarry pit. Filled with (1505). Cuts (1511). Irregular in plan 0.96m+
but not fully exposed, irregular sides. Not fully excavated. deep
1.80m+ wide.
1505 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1504). Pale yellow-white silt loam. 0.96m+
90% chalk, rounded, <1-cm. Alternating layers of finer more deep
compacted chalk with more marly, friable chalky deposits. Not fully
excavated. Overlies (1504).
1506 Cut Cut of grave. North-west – south-east aligned. Vertical, straight 0.45m+
sides, flat base. Only partly exposed. 0.70m wide, 0.70m+ long. deep
Contained inhumation (1512) and deposits (1507) and (1513).
1507 Deposit Upper fill of grave cut (1506), may be indicative of some disturbance. 0.21m deep
Mid grey-brown sandy silt loam. 5% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded,
<1-6cm. Fairly friable. Slightly mixed. Overlies (1513).
1508 Cut Cut of quarry pit. Filled with (1509). Cuts (1505) and (1507). -
Irregular in plan but not fully exposed, irregular sides.
Unexcavated. 1.80m+ wide.
1509 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1508). Pale yellow-white silt loam. -
90% chalk, rounded, <1-cm. Unexcavated. Overlies (1508).
1510 Cut Cut of quarry pit. Filled with (1511). Irregular in plan but not fully 0.84m+
exposed, irregular sides. Not fully excavated. 1.80m+ wide. deep
90% chalk, rounded, <1-cm. Alternating layers of finer more deep
compacted chalk with more marly, friable chalky deposits. Not fully
excavated. Overlies (1510).
1512 Skeleton Coffined inhumation of adult male. Only upper part of torso and head 0.10m+
exposed. Prone, extended. Within grave cut (1506). Not fully deep
excavated, left in situ. Overlies (1506).
1513 Deposit Lower fill of grave cut (1506), deliberate backfill. Mid yellow-brown 0.25m+
sandy silt loam. 10% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-6cm. 5% deep
chalk, sub-rounded, <1-4cm. Fairly compact but friable; fairly
1514 Subsoil Modern subsoil/old topsoil. Mid yellow-brown silt loam. 1% flint, sub- 0.28-0.36m
angular – sub-rounded, <1-2cm. 2% chalk, sub-rounded, <1-2cm. bgl
Fairly compact; fairly homogeneous; some bioturbation. Overlies
(1515).
1515 Natural Natural geology. Chalk. Compact. 0.50m+ bgl

1601 Topsoil Modern topsoil, under turf. Mid grey silt loam. 1% stone, sub-angular 0.00-0.25m
– sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Occasional chalk flecks. Loose and friable; bgl
bioturbated; fairly homogeneous. Overlies (1602).
1602 Subsoil Modern subsoil. Pale grey silt loam. 1% stone/flint, sub-angular – 0.25-0.52m
angular, <1-2cm. Occasional chalk flecks and fragments. Moderately bgl
compact; fairly homogeneous; some bioturbation. Overlies (1603).
1603 Layer Demolition debris. Pale white-grey silt. Very fine and friable includes 0.52-0.64m
degraded mortar. Occasional chalk and mortar fragments. Slightly bgl
mixed; fairly compact; some bioturbation. Overlies (1604).
1604 Layer Demolition debris/made up ground. Mid grey silt loam. Frequent chalk 0.64-1.10m
flecks, occasional chalk fragments. Moderately compact; fairly bgl
homogeneous; some bioturbation. Overlies (1605).
1605 Layer Demolition debris. Pale white-grey silt. Very fine and loose includes 1.10m+ bgl
degraded mortar. Occasional chalk and mortar fragments. Slightly
mixed; fairly compact; some bioturbation.

– sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Occasional chalk flecks. Loose and friable; bgl
bioturbated; fairly homogeneous. Overlies (1702).
angular, <1-2cm. Occasional chalk flecks and fragments. Moderately bgl
compact; fairly homogeneous; some bioturbation. Overlies (1703).
1703 Layer Demolition debris. Pale grey silt. 5% flint, sub-angular, 2-5cm. Friable 0.40-0.65m
but compact. Frequent chalk, CBM and mortar fragments. Slightly bgl
mixed; some bioturbation. Overlies (1705).
1704 ?Wall Possible wall foundation. Compacted mortar and chalk. Mid yellow- 0.64m+ bgl
grey.
1705 Layer Mid grey-brown silt loam. Frequent chalk flecks. Moderately compact; 0.65m+ bgl
fairly homogeneous. Appears to be banked against (1704).

1801 Topsoil Modern topsoil. Mid grey silt loam. 5% stone, sub-angular – sub- 0.00-0.35m
rounded, <1-8cm. Fairly loose and friable; heavily bioturbated; fairly bgl
homogeneous. In woodland. Overlies (1802).
sub-rounded, <1-5cm. Loose and friable; bioturbated; fairly bgl
homogeneous. Overlies (1803) and (1805).
1803 Surface Possible remnant of in situ mortar surfacing. Pale yellow -white lime 0.60m+ bgl
mortar.
1804 Cut Possible north-south aligned cut. Unexcavated. 0.60m+ bgl
1805 Deposit Mixed material within (1804). Mid grey-brown silt loam. Patchy, 0.60m+ bgl
possibly bioturbated. Large chalk fragments in pale yellow white
mortar may be in situ masonry.

1902 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1907). Mid yellow-brown sandy silt 0.12m+
loam. <1% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-3cm. Moderately deep
compact but friable; homogeneous. Occurs in alternating bands with
(1909); these bands of deposits were not separately numbered. Not
fully excavated.
1903 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1906). Pale yellow-white silt loam. 0.08m deep
90% chalk, sub-rounded, <1-3cm. Fairly loose and friable; fairly
1904 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1906). Mid grey-brown sandy silt 0.22m+
loam. 1% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-5cm. Moderately deep
compact but friable; homogeneous. Largely unexcavated.
1905 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1906). Mid brown sandy silt loam. 0.60m deep
<1% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-3cm. Moderately compact
but friable; homogeneous. Overlies (1903). Not fully excavated.
1906 Cut Cut of quarry pit, full extent not seen in plan. Filled with (1903), 0.80m+
(1904) and (1905). Not fully excavated. Cuts (1902). deep
and (1909). Not fully excavated. deep
and (1911). Not fully excavated. Cuts (1903). deep
90% chalk, sub-rounded, <1-3cm. Fairly loose and friable; fairly deep
homogeneous. Occurs in alternating bands with (1902); these bands
of deposits were not separately numbered. Not fully excavated.
1910 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1908). Mid yellow-brown sandy silt 0.35m deep
loam. <1% flint, sub-angular – sub-rounded, <1-3cm. Moderately
compact but friable; homogeneous. Overlies (1911). Not fully
excavated.
1911 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit (1908). Pale yellow-white silt loam. -
90% chalk, sub-rounded, <1-3cm. Fairly loose and friable; fairly
homogeneous. Unexcavated.

– sub-rounded, <1-2cm. Occasional chalk flecks and fragments, bgl
CBM and animal bone. Moderately compact; bioturbated; fairly

angular, <1-2cm. Occasional chalk fragments, CBM and animal bgl
bone. Moderately compact but friable; fairly homogeneous; some
bioturbation. Overlies (2003).
2003 Layer Demolition debris. Pale white-grey silt includes degraded chalk and 0.58m+ bgl
mortar. 10% flint, sub-angular, 2-8cm. Compact. Frequent chalk and
mortar fragments. Slightly mixed; some bioturbation.

Dimensions: 5.00x1.80m Max. depth: 0.42m Ground level: 36.23m aOD
2101 Topsoil Modern ploughsoil. Mid brown-grey sandy silt. 2% flint, sub-angular – 0.00-0.30m
sub-rounded, <1-4cm. Bioturbated; homogeneous. Overlies (2102) bgl
and (2103).
2102 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit. Pale grey-yellow sandy silt loam. 90% 0.20m+
chalk, sub-rounded, <1cm. Fairly loose and friable. Contains deep
bands/lenses of mid brown silt. Largely unexcavated.
2103 Deposit Deliberate backfill of quarry pit. Number assigned to potentially 0.35m+
different deposits that shred similar characteristics. Mid brown sandy deep
silt loam. <1% chalk, sub-rounded – rounded, <1-2cm. Moderately
compact but friable; fairly homogeneous. Largely unexcavated.
531205
531210
531215
242540
306
316 314
316
307 315 313

Vertical
312 step
Trench 3
Slot
305
304
Slot
242535 315 310 Vertical step
Slot Plate 2: Post-excavation view Trench 3, view

311
from south-east
316
309
Sloped step 316
314
0 3m
Date: 30/11/10 Revision Number: 0

Wessex
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. Evaluation trench Scale: Plan 1:60 Illustrator: KL
Archaeology No unauthorised reproduction.
Path: Y:\PROJECTS\71511TT\Drawing Office\Report Figs\eval\10_11\71511_eval_f3.dwg
Trench 3: plan and photograph Figure 4

531230
531240
242490
1206
Trench 12
1205
1204
Plate 3: Post-excavation view Trench 4, view

from south-west
Trench 10
1007
1005
1006
242480
419 404
407
421
Slot 403
424
421
404
Slot
421
Plate 4: Oblique view of south-east facing
417
section, Trench 4 421
425
Slot
0 5m
242470
Trench 4 440
Evaluation trench This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.
Wessex Scale: Plan 1:100 Illustrator: KL

Archaeology Path: Y:\PROJECTS\71511TT\Drawing Office\Report Figs\eval\10_11\71511_eval_f3.dwg
Trenches 4, 10 and 12: plan and photographs Figure 5

531245
125 118
104
117
108
141
130 131
142
129
133
134
122
121 102
135
Plate 5: Trench 1, view from north-west 126
121
Wall 120
102
121
143 121
144 112
111
Plate 6: Trench 1, view from south, floor 102,

140 mortar deposits 103 and 126 and wall 120 121
134
130
Trench 1
110 / 106
133 141
103
122
Plate 7: Trench 1, view from south-west

128
142
131
134
110
130
108
110
242460
129 104
117
131
141
125
108
109
135
136 118
104
137
116
140
138 139 0 1m
135
Wessex This material is for client report only © Wessex

131 133 Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction. Evaluation trench
Archaeology

141
Scale: Plan 1:30 Illustrator: KL
Plate 8: Trench 1, view from the east
Trench 1: plan and photographs Figure 6

531245
531250
Plaster 208
214
Slot Wall 206

207
202
242456
216
Slot
203
209
215
Slot
210
Trench 2
0 2m
Plate 9: South-west facing section Trench 2 Plate 10: Post-excavation view Trench 2, view
from south-east

Wessex
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. Evaluation trench Scale: Plan 1:25 Illustrator: KL
Archaeology No unauthorised reproduction.

531460
531470
1106
1124
Slot
1118
1114
Slot
242150
1115
1127
Plate 11: Post-excavation view Trench 11,
view from north-west
0 4m
Plate 12: North-east facing section, quarry pits 1103,

1106 and 1119
Plate 13: South-west facing section of enclosure ditch

1115 and re-cut 1114
Evaluation trench This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.


531455
1501
Skeleton 1512 1506
1509
Slot
242165
1501
1508
1505
Slot 1504 0 2m
1510
242160
Plate 14: Skeleton 1512, view from south-east Plate 15: Post-excavation view Trench 15, view
from north-east
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.
Evaluation trench


WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY LIMITED.
Registered Head Office: Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 6EB.
Tel: 01722 326867 Fax: 01722 337562 info@wessexarch.co.uk
With regional offices in Edinburgh, Maidstone and Sheffield
For more information visit www.wessexarch.co.uk
Registered Charity No. 287786. A company with limited liability registered in England No. 1712772.

Time Team - Litlington

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Time Team - Litlington

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

Time Team - Litlington

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What archaeological features were uncovered during the evaluation?

What archaeological features were uncovered during the evaluation?

What was the purpose of the evaluation?

What was the purpose of the evaluation?

Wessex Archaeology

Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results

Report reference: 71511.01

© Wessex Archaeology Limited 2010 all rights reserved

Site Code Accession Code Client Code

Version status* Prepared by APPROVED Approver’s Signature Date File

01 f NH kew 16/11/10 TT litlington report (ed lnm)

* I= Internal Draft E= External Draft F= Final

Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results

WA Project No.71511 iii

Figure 1: Site location

Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results

In October 2009 an archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Channel 4’s ‘Time

No further analysis is considered necessary, and a summary of the results of the

Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results

This programme of post-excavation and assessment work was commissioned and

The excavations were undertaken by Time Team’s retained archaeologists, Phil

Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results

1.1 Project Background

1.2 Site Location, Topography and Geology

1.3 Archaeological Background

prehistoric through to the medieval period. Cropmarks indicating a

Medieval and post-medieval

1.4 Antiquarian discoveries

1.4.2 A notebook owned by E. B. Nunn (original manuscript held by Cambridge

The ‘Heaven’s Walls’ cemetery (HER 03262)

1.5 Previous Archaeological Work

2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

3.1 Geophysical Survey

3.2 Landscape and Earthwork Survey

3.3 Evaluation Trenches

4.2 Geophysical Survey

4.3 Evaluation Trenches

Table 1: Trench and testpit locations

4.3.6 CBM recovered from Trench 3 included identifiable fragments of Romano-

Testpit 18 (not illustrated)

Area 3 (Figure 3, Plate 1)

4.3.35 A discrete anomaly identified from the geophysical survey proved to be a

Trench 19 (not illustrated)

Trench (not illustrated)

4.3.40 Removal of the topsoil showed it to be over an area of quarry disturbance,

4.3.41 Anvil Avenue, Cockhall Lane and Cockhall Close

Testpits 5, 6 and 7 (not illustrated)

Testpits 8 and 13 (not illustrated)

Testpit 9 (not illustrated)

Testpit 14 (not illustrated)

Testpits 16 and 17 (not illustrated)

below ground surface. The demolition deposit in Testpit 17 (1703) was

Testpit 20 (not illustrated)

5.3 Ceramic Building Material (CBM)

5.3.3 Table 4 gives the breakdown of CBM types. The Romano-British

Box flue tile (tubuli)

Medieval and post-medieval CBM

5.4 Opus signinum

5.5 Fired Clay

5.6 Wall Plaster and Mortar