Archaeological Excavation at Colley Hill Farm, Colmworth, Bedfordshire

Archaeological Services Ltd

Archaeological Excavation at Colley Hill Farm Colmworth, Bedfordshire (TL 106 582)

The Results. Appraisal of Significance & Scope of Further Analytical Potential (Planning Application Ref. 11/01704/FUL)

Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd for

Mr Graham Palmer Esq. September 2012

Archaeological Excavation at

Colley Hill Farm, Colmworth, Bedfordshire (TL 106 582)

(Planning Application Reference 11/01704/FUL)

The Results. Appraisal of Significance & Scope of Further Analytical Potential

Souterrain Project: SOU11‐217

September 2012

Produced for: Graham Palmer Esq.

3 Mathews Close Stevenage

Hertfordshire, SG1 4XB

(cover map: reproduced from the 1889 Ordnance Survey map of Bedfordshire: 1:10,560, © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Licence number AL 100015565)

© Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd, 2012

Registered Office: 50 Rectory Drive, Exhall, Coventry, Warwickshire CV7 9PD Registered in England and Wales No. 03394485 e‐mail: [email protected] www.souterrain.biz

Affiliated to the Council for British Archaeology (CBA)

Archaeological Excavation at Colley Hill Farm, Colmworth, Bedfordshire (NGR TL 106 582)

Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd, September 2012 2

CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES 3

LIST OF TABLES 3 Preface 4

SUMMARY 5

1. SCOPE AND LAYOUT OF THE REPORT 6

2. PLANNING BACKGROUND 6

3. SITE DESCRIPTION 6

4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 7

5. EXCAVATION RESEARCH OBJECTIVES & METHODS 8

6. EXCAVATION RESULTS 10 Late Iron Age Enclosure Ditch 10

Late Iron Age Pit 12

Medieval / Post‐medieval Linear Features 12

Undated Features 13

The Pottery by Jackie Wells & Martin Wilson 13

The Metal Artefacts 15

The Faunal Remains by Matilda Holmes 16

Assessment of Potential for Environmental Analysis from the Excavation by Anita Radini 17

Charred Plant Remains from the Evaluation by Hayley McParland 17

7. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE & REVIEW OF RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 18 Phases of Activity 18

Earlier prehistoric occupation or activity 18

Iron Age Settlement 18

Regional Comparisons 20

Iron Age –Romano‐British Transition 21

8. POTENTIAL FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENT, ANALYSIS AND CONSERVATION 22 The Pottery 22

The Faunal Remains 22

The Environmental Samples 22



The Metal Artefacts 22

9. UPDATED PROJECT DESIGN 23 Original Research Aims 23

Further Analytical Potential 23

Publication, Dissemination of Results (WSI Stage 3) 23

10. THE ARCHIVE 24

11. COPYRIGHT AND CONFIDENTIALITY 24

12. REFERENCES 25

APPENDIX 1 LIST OF CONTEXTS 41

LIST OF FIGURES

(Illustrations follow the main text) Figure 1 Location of Site Figure 2 Areas of Investigation Figure 3 Plan of all features and structural phases Figure 4 Northern part of the Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch [1030/410] Figure 5 Southern part of the Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch [1021] and elements of

medieval to post medieval field system Figure 6 Sections through Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch Figure 7 Sections through Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch. Top: Section 1, facing south.

Bottom: Section 10, facing south Figure 8 Box section through the inner northwest angle of Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch

[1030] and Late Iron Age (Phase 1) pit [1029/301]. Top: facing northwest. Bottom facing north‐northeast

Figure 9 Plan of Late Iron Age (Phase 1) pit [1029/301] Figure 10 Late Iron Age pit [1029/301]: Sections 8a, 8b and Trench 3, Section 3 Figure 11 Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch: overview of excavation in progress Figure 12 Section 9, Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch, facing east Figure 13 Sections through medieval to post‐medieval and undated features Figure 14 Plan of northern area of excavation showing location of Sections 5 and 11 Figure 15 Section5, showing typical state of survival of medieval /post medieval cultivation features Figure 16 Metal artefacts Figure 17 Location of Late Iron Age ditch in relation to cropmarks (based on aerial photograph

transcription by G. Saunders)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Quantification of Iron Age Pottery Table 2 Iron Age Pottery Table 3 Faunal remains: species representation Table 4 Charred Plant Remains Assessment Data



Preface All statements and opinions in this document are offered in good faith. Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd (Souterrain) cannot accept responsibility for errors of fact or opinion resulting from data supplied by a third party, or for any loss or other consequence arising from decisions or actions made upon the basis of facts or opinions expressed in this document. The fieldwork was managed by Martin Wilson BA (Hons) MIfA MIEnvSc MEAGE FSASc. The archaeological field record was maintained by Dr Matthew Edgeworth PhD MIfA FSA. The survey record was managed by Mercedes Planas BA MSc MSc (Eng) MIfA. The report text was written by Martin Wilson with contributions from Dr. Matilda Holmes, PhD AIfA (Archaeozoology), Jackie Wells MA (Iron Age pottery dating and identification), Hayley McParland BA MSc PIfA (Charred Plant Remains) and Anita Radini MA (environment samples assessment).



SUMMARY

An archaeological excavation was undertaken in advance of proposed development at Colley Hill Farm, Colmworth, Bedfordshire (NGR TL 106 582), in May 2012. The work was preceded an evaluation by trial trenching in November 2012 which revealed a substantial ditch and pottery attesting to settlement during the middle Iron Age (c.400‐c.100BC) and the late Iron Age (c.100BC to 43AD). In view of the lacunae in present knowledge about the character and extent of Iron Age settlement beyond the valley and gravel areas of Bedfordshire, the discovery is considered to be both locally and regionally significant. The open area excavation was ultimately limited to the proposed footprints of a hay barn and a stables block, with about 265sq.m of the Iron Age site being investigated. The Late Iron Age ditch proved to share characteristics of the ‘Wooton‐Hill–style’ of enclosure and it is understood to have defined a sub‐rectangular site of about 0.2 hectares. A second phase of Late Iron Age activity was also present. The ceramics evidence suggests that the settlement was abandoned before the Roman conquest. The excavation also revealed that during the medieval period the application site was within the open field system of Colmworth. The report combines the results of the excavation and the evaluation. It gives an illustrative, descriptive, quantitative and interpretative account of the results of the investigations, which is followed by assessment of further analytical potential.



1. SCOPE AND LAYOUT OF THE REPORT

1.1 This report documents the results of an archaeological excavation in mitigation of proposed development at Colley Hill Farm, Colmworth, Bedfordshire (NGR TL 106 582) (Fig. 1), which was undertaken by Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd (Souterrain) between the 9th and 24th May 2012, on behalf of Mr. Graham Palmer Esq., the planning applicant, in compliance with a condition attached to planning consent. The results of a prior field evaluation of the site are integrated with the excavation results and re‐appraised as necessary in the light of new evidence.

1.2 The report provides an assessment and appraisal of the archaeological results and their

significance within the framework of a set of original research aims. Further analytical potential has been identified in the light of discoveries, and research aims are accordingly updated. The planning circumstances and purpose of the excavation is outlined in Section 2. The archaeological background of the site is presented at Section 4 and the archaeological research aims at Section 5. The results of the excavation are described and interpreted at Section 6, followed by a discussion their significance at Section 7 where the findings are reviewed with reference to the original research aims. The potential for further analysis is detailed at Section 8, following which (Section 9) a scope of further work is set out which includes proposed levels of dissemination of results.

2. PLANNING BACKGROUND

2.1 Planning permission (Reference 11/01704/FUL) was granted by Bedford Borough Council on the 25th October 2011 for the erection of a replacement farmhouse, garaging, new stables, hay barn and ménage with open storage barn. The consent includes change of use of part of an adjacent field from agricultural to recreational keeping of horses.

2.2 In view of the archaeological sensitivity of the locality and in accordance with local and national planning policy1, a condition (No. 6) has been attached to the planning consent to ensure that the archaeological interest of the site is properly safeguarded and recorded: “No development shall take place until the applicant, or developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which had been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that remains of archaeological importance likely to be disturbed in the course of the development are adequately investigated and recorded and in accordance with Policy BE24 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2002.”

3. SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 The site (Fig.1) is located approximately 270m northeast of Chapel End, Colmworth, northeast Bedfordshire (centred at NGR TL 106 582). The site generally consists of topsoil overlying firm‐to‐stiff calcareous clay‐with‐flints. The topsoil is generally between 150mm and 300mm in thickness. The site is relatively level at approximately 65m OD. It is surrounded by arable farmland and is screened by mature trees and hedges. At the time of the excavation it was occupied by a modern two‐storey and part one‐storey dwelling, a garage block and a dilapidated barn (Fig.2), all of which have since been demolished. The buildings were surrounded by a lawned garden with occasional mature trees. Access to the property is from a driveway off the Colmworth Road 170m to the northwest.

1 Policy BE24 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2002 and the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS 5) 2010.



4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

4.1 An archaeological evaluation by trial trenching was undertaken at the site by Souterrain Archaeological Services Limited in November 2011, in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation2. The development application area was designated, for the purposes of the development, into Areas A, B and C (Fig.2). A total of just over 117sq.m was examined in five trenches providing just over 4% coverage of the three areas of proposed ground disturbance. The results enabled the Archaeological Officer for Bedford Borough Council’s Historic Environment Planning Services to devise an appropriate level of mitigation to permit development to proceed.

4.2 In Area A, in proximity to the existing farmhouse, there were fragmentary buried remains of two

farm outbuildings which were understood to date from the 18th and 19th centuries. To the northeast of the farmhouse, beneath the lawn and a hedgerow, was a sequence of field drainage ditches containing artefacts dated from c.18th century to the 20th century. No further archaeological work was required in either of these areas.

4.3 In the northwest part of Area A, however, a new garage (Fig.2) is to be built on the projected line

of an ancient road which is known to have been a main north – south route prior to the parliamentary enclosure of the parish c.1838. At the time of the evaluation this part of the site could not be examined due to ground water conditions and existing brick buildings.

4.4 A single trial trench (Trench 5) excavated in Area B did not encounter archaeology. However,

subsequent trial trenching and test pits in this field in February 2012 (prompted by a redesign option to leave archaeology in situ in Area C) revealed well‐preserved evidence of Anglo‐Norman

occupation3 which most probably pertains to the former medieval settlement of Chapel End/Colley Hill. The results from the second stage of the evaluation are not included in this excavation report.

4.5 In Area C, in the eastern part of the application area, two of the trial trenches (Trenches 3 and 4)

revealed what was understood to be a large curvilinear enclosure ditch, containing artefacts and environmental data indicative of a settlement at the site during the Middle to Late Iron Age. The ditch was exposed for a distance of 12m. Two sample segments were hand‐excavated through the ditch, however, its width, whilst exceeding 2.3m, could not be fully established. Stratigraphic analysis suggested that the ditch had filled up through a combination of natural and cultural processes. The pottery recovered was predominantly Late Iron Age (c.100BC to 43AD) with a few abraded pieces from the Middle Iron Age (c.400‐c.100BC), thus indicating the longevity of settlement. Notably, there were no ‘Romanised’ pottery types in the assemblage. A small Roman‐style bow brooch, considered to be a pre‐conquest item, was found in the ditch in Trench 3. The animal bone assemblage was indicative of a domestic economy of livestock rearing, comprised of cattle, horse and sheep or goats, all of which species are not uncommon on Iron Age sites. There was very slight evidence of cereal cultivation, but nonetheless a sign of a mixed agrarian economy.

4.6 The enclosure was located on a promontory with ground sloping away to the north and to a

lesser extent to the east. However, it was not possible to ascertain the form of the enclosure and neither was it possible to determine which side of the ditch represented its interior; despite a single undated post‐hole present on the east side it is not uncommon to find settlement evidence

2 Colley Hill Farm, Colmworth, Bedfordshire, MK44 2JX: Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological Evaluation, (Application Reference 11/01704/FUL), Project: SOU11‐217, 19th October 2011, Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd 2011 3 Colley Hill Farm, Colmworth, Bedfordshire (TL 106 582), Archaeological Evaluation Report (addendum), (Planning Application Reference 11/01704/FUL), April 2012, Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd: SOU11‐217



on the outside of an enclosure4. In view of the lacunae in present knowledge about the character and extent of Iron Age settlement beyond the valley and gravel areas of Bedfordshire, the discovery was considered to be both locally and regionally significant.

5. EXCAVATION RESEARCH OBJECTIVES & METHODS

5.1 An open‐area excavation was subsequently required by the Archaeological Officer to mitigate development impacts in the area of the Iron Age discoveries in Area C on the east side of the site. The excavation would be limited to the footprint of the new hay barn and stables. With regard to the projected line of the ancient road in Area A, it was agreed that a post‐demolition (of the garage) watching brief investigation would be undertaken in due course. The archaeological condition on the planning permission would be discharged on the completion of the fieldwork and post‐excavation process for both areas. The results of the Area A watching brief will form a separate report.

5.2 A Design Brief for a programme of archaeological excavation and analysis5 was issued to the

Applicant by Bedford Borough Council on the 30th January 2012. The footprint areas of the proposed hay barn and stables were subsequently stripped of topsoil and subsoil under the guidance of an archaeologist in February 2012 to enable pre‐excavation survey and formulation of an excavation strategy. A Written Scheme of Investigation (covering mitigation in both Area C and Area A)6 was duly prepared by Souterrain for the approval of the Archaeological Officer.

5.3 The Written Scheme of Investigation took into account research priorities set out in both the county‐focused Research Framework (Bedfordshire Archaeology. Research and Archaeology: Resource Assessment, Research Agenda and Strategy, 2007) and a reappraisal of the present knowledge of the Iron Age in the east of England which was made in 2011 by the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (ALGAO East) (Medlycott, 2011)7.

5.4 The following specific research questions were proposed for the excavation: Earlier prehistoric occupation /activity

i. Is there evidence of antecedent settlement or activity at the site?

Middle Iron Age ii. Is there any evidence of MIA settlement / occupation other than ceramics which at

present are understood to occur as secondary deposits? Can the nature of settlement be determined?

Late Iron Age iii. What is the nature and form of the suspect ditched enclosure? If it enclosed a farming

settlement which side of the ditch represents its interior? iv. If the ditch was enclosing settlement to the south, can we determine its relationship to

undated features found to the north?

4 Cooper, N (ed). 2006. The Archaeology of the East Midlands, Leicester Archaeology Monograph 13, 111 5 Brief for a Programme of Archaeological Excavation, Investigation, Recording, Analysis and Publication at Collyhill Farm, Church Road, Colmworth, Bedfordshire, Bedford Borough Council, Historic Environment, Planning Services, 30th January 2012 6 Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd. Colley Hill Farm, Colmworth, Bedfordshire (TL 106 582), Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Excavation (Planning Ref.11/01704/FUL), SOU11‐217, February 2012 7 Medlycott, 2011. Research and Archaeology Revisited: a revised framework for the East of England, Nationally, Understanding the British Iron Age: An Agenda for Action



v. Is there sufficient evidence suggest that that the site is a part of a core or periphery of habitation? For example, a core being characterized by characteristics such as pitting, cereal processing, habitation, crafts, metal working.

vi. Is there evidence for either continuity of settlement, or a re‐foundation settlement at a preferred location during the period?

vii. Are there artefactual and/or ceramic styles that would permit the application of closer chronological mechanisms? Whilst the dating of the site is expected to be achieved mainly through artefact typology and stratigraphy, there may be opportunities for scientific dating to contribute.

viii. Is there evidence for periodic abandonment and re‐foundation during the period? This may be this reflected, for example, in artefactual, economic (e.g. agricultural practice) or as structural evidence?

ix. Is there evidence for wider regional trade mechanisms, for example, which are perhaps indicated by high status objects or the use of non‐indigenous materials? Is it possible that the site is associated with any recognizable ancient route‐ways?

x. Are we able to say when the site was finally abandoned? xi. How does the site compare with other sites of the period in the region?

Iron Age –Roman transition xii. Is there evidence to indicate continuity into the Roman period? Despite the discovery of a

Roman‐style bow brooch was found during the evaluation there were no other artefacts reflecting the period (ante.2.2).

The ancient road xiii. What is the antiquity of the former route way (ante. 1.5; 3.5) that passes through the

west side of the application site on in Area A. Is it possible that it has a pre‐medieval antecedent?

Methods adopted in the course of the investigation 5.5 The methodology of the excavation followed that set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation;

as summarized below. The excavation strategy was agreed at an on‐site pre‐excavation discussion with the Archaeological Officer. Prior to fieldwork an archive accession number (BEDFM.2012.8) was acquired from Bedford Museum. Health and Safety

5.6 The archaeological investigation was carried out with due regard to Health and Safety and Souterrain’s Health and Safety Policy and Statement of Responsibilities. A Risk Assessment was prepared in advance of the site work. Excavation and Recording

5.7 The investigation work was executed by appropriately qualified and experienced archaeologists and the project was carried out in accordance with the Institute for Archaeologists’ Code of Conduct and Standard Guidance for Archaeological Field Excavation (2001); the EAA document Standards for Field Archaeology in the East of England (2003) and Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment: The MoRPHE Project Managers’ Guide (2006).

5.8 The scale of the sample excavation was designed to obtain an adequate understanding of the character and relative chronology of the archaeology.

5.9 Excavation and recording was carried out stratigraphically in accordance with a context recording system and a written, drawn and photographic record. Drawings were made on drafting film at



appropriate scales and the photographic record comprised 35mm monochrome film, and digital, the latter including working shots to represent more generally the nature of the fieldwork.

5.10 Archaeological features were surveyed to Ordnance Survey National Grid co‐ordinates and height Ordnance Datum by RTKGPS. All relationships between archaeological features and deposits were investigated by hand. Segments at least 1m in length were hand‐excavated across linear features and discrete features were sampled by half‐section. Soil samples were taken where they were considered to have potential to yield important archaeological information (e.g. palaeo‐environmental; palaeo‐economic; site formation processes).

5.11 Once the all of the proposed hand‐dug segments had been excavated, an on‐site discussion of the investigation results was held with the Archaeological Officer to ensure that the sample was sufficient to gain a sufficient understanding of the archaeology. A mechanical excavator was then used to acquire additional recorded sections of the main enclosure ditch. Artefacts and Site Archive

5.12 All finds were removed from the site and retained and for analysis. Artefacts were allocated a unique numeric reference and cross‐referenced to the context number. Artefacts have been labelled, packed and stored in appropriate materials and conditions.

5.13 In accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation the developer has responsibility for costs pertaining to any required specialist reports and/or conservation of artefacts and long‐term (museum) storage of the archive (post.10).

6. EXCAVATION RESULTS

6.1 In the descriptions which follow, context numbers in square brackets denote ‘cuts’ (i.e. dug

features), whilst those in round brackets denote layers, deposits, fills or structures. 6.2 Two excavation areas were investigated in Area C. The north area corresponded to the footprint

of the proposed hay barn, while the southern area to the footprint of the proposed stables. Figure 2 shows the areas of open and the locations of trial trenches. Subsequent plans of the area of excavation in this report (i.e. Figures 3, 4 and 9) combine Trenches 3 and 4. The total area of investigation over the Iron Age site amounted to c.265 sq.m.

Late Iron Age Enclosure Ditch

6.3 The large Iron Age enclosure ditch [1030/410/1021] (ante. 4.5, 4.6) was situated in the southern area of excavation. It was investigated at five points along its course during the project: a hand‐dug box‐section, 4.3m x 1.9m which revealed the inner angle of its northwest corner (Figs. 4; 8, 9‐10, Section 8a and 8b) and three segments along its course (Figs. 4 and 5). One of the segments was hand‐dug across its north‐south alignment at its southernmost reach (Figs. 5 and 6, Section 1, [1021]; Fig.7, top), whilst the other two were investigated with the assistance of a mechanical excavator; one across its north‐south alignment just before the inner angle (Figs. 4 and 6, Section 10, [1047]; Fig. 7, bottom; Fig.11), the other at its easternmost reach (Figs. 4 and 6, Section 9, [1042]). Another segment of the enclosure ditch was hand‐excavated during the evaluation along its east‐west course though only partially‐revealed the profile of the ditch (Fig.4, context 410/1030; section not illustrated in this report).

6.4 The sections reveal that the ditch was of fairly uniform scale throughout its course. It measured between 3.4m and 4m in width, while its depth gradually decreased northwards from 1.5m to c.1.36m and then eastwards to c.1.2m (Figs. 4 to 6, Sections 1, 10 and 9, respectively). The profile



of the ditch however, proved to be changeable, with the sequence of infill deposits equally variable. Sections 1 and 10 across the north‐south alignment showed fairly steep V‐shaped profiles, Section 1 [1021] had a flattish base, while Section 10 to the east revealed a wide U‐shaped profile.

6.5 At Section 10 (Figs 6 and 7) there was an alternate interleaving of deposits from the ditch sides, with the greater part of the infill being caused by erosion or slumping of the sides (i.e. contexts (1048), (1049) and (1051). At Section 1 (Figs. 6 and 7) there was a great depth of primary infill, a deposit of mid‐orange‐brown sandy clay (1020) up to c.0.52m in thickness. In contrast, on the east‐west course of the ditch, Section 9 (Figs. 6 and 12) revealed a less steeply inclined profile and a more regular and gentle sequence of silting up (contexts (1046), (1045) and (1044)).

6.6 At the inner angle of the enclosure the true depth of the enclosure ditch could not be determined in the box‐section (Figs. 4, 8 and 10, Sections 8a and 8b) although a layer which may have been a primary fill (1039) was interpreted as an erosion by‐product; mid grey‐brown silty stony clay up to 0.3m in thickness. The uppermost layer (1027) consisted of mid orange‐brown very compact silty clay with frequent small to medium sized fragments of chalk, up to 0.6m in thickness. Overall it was not dissimilar to the surrounding geology and probably represented material derived from the former inner bank, possibly a deliberate infill. Despite being greatly disturbed by a large Iron Age pit [1029], its upper fill (1027) produced the largest single assemblage of Late Iron Age pottery from the enclosure ditch; 18 sherds, representing eight vessels (6.21, Tables 1 and 2). In addition there were several bones from the hind legs of a mature horse (post. 6.25) and the head of an iron socketed implement or weapon (post. 6.23).

6.7 Notably, artefacts began to occur in the depositional sequences of the enclosure mid‐way through the silting up process (i.e. contexts (1017), Section 1; (1043), Section 9 and (1027), Section 8a), from which it may be inferred that habitation was originally at a greater distance away from the ditch; the redundancy of the old perimeter being followed by a transgression of occupation.

6.8 In Section 1 (Figs. 6 and 7) there was a layer of dark brown clayey silt up to 0.25m thick (1017) containing late Iron Age pottery sherds (6.21, Tables 1 and 2). which showed that the partly filled ditch had, at least for a while, been used to discard domestic waste.

6.9 In Sections 1, 8a and 10 (Figs. 6 and 7), the upper fills of silty and/or sandy clay (i.e. (1015), (1016), (1053), (1052), (1027)) were noticeably compact and not dissimilar to the surrounding geology, which seemed to indicate that material from the former up‐cast mound had been deposited in the ditch. It is most probable that these episodes of infilling were deliberate.

6.10 In Section 9 (Figs. 6 and 12) the uppermost deposit, up to 0.65m in thickness, consisted of dark greyish‐brown silty clay (1043) and contained pottery sherds. This appeared to be occupation waste deposits and may have represented a number of events/layers that were not distinguishable in section.

6.11 Within the inner angle of the enclosure was a localised deposit of orange‐brown sandy clay (Fig. 4 (1031)) covering an area of c.2m x 1m and graduating between 0.01m and c.0.1m in thickness. It was interpreted as buried subsoil, which appears to have survived only in the crook of the enclosure having been protected by the ditch bank to the south and east.



Late Iron Age Pit

6.12 The box section (Figs. 9 and 10, Sections 8a and 8b) in the south area of excavation revealed what is understood to have been a large pit [1029] located across the northwest corner of the enclosure ditch [1030]. The pit had been previously encountered in Trench 3 of the evaluation (Fig. 9; Fig. 10 Trench 3, Section 3), at which time, due to restricted visibility, it appeared to be an arm of the enclosure ditch. The enclosure ditch [1030] had been completely in‐filled by the time the pit was dug. The pit was only partly revealed in the excavation areas and continued to the north: its north‐eastern extent was not identified during the evaluation.

6.13 The primary deposit of the pit (1038) which consisted of greyish brown silty stony clay, up to

c.0.06m thickness, was probably formed from silting and the erosion of the pit sides. There were no artefacts present. The deposit is understood to equate to deposit (304) of the evaluation (Fig.10 Trench 3, Section 3) from which four sherds of Late Iron Age Pottery were recovered (post. 6. 21, Tables 1 and 2). The soil sample taken during the evaluation revealed very poor potential for the survival of environmental data, producing just three highly clinkered grains of Triticum sp. but revealing a high percentage of modern tree root disturbance (post. 6.33‐35, Table 4, (304)). There were three subsequent in‐fill deposits identified during the excavation (Fig. 10, Sections 8a and 8b), as opposed to two deposits seen where sectioned in the evaluation, which therefore precludes positive correlation. Deposit (1037) comprised dark brown, compact sandy stony clay, c.0.15m in thickness in which no artefacts were present. The layer above (1036), c.0.3m in thickness, comprised mottled dark brown and orange, silty clay with occasional charcoal flecks, from which a single sherd of late Iron Age pottery was recovered (post. 6. 21, Tables 1 and 2). The upper fill (1028) of the pit, up to c.0.5m thick, consisted of mid greyish brown silty stony clay in thickness with domestic waste. Thirty‐three sherds of late Iron Age pottery were recovered, together with a few fragments of horse bone.

6.14 Notably, where the pit was sectioned in the evaluation, five sherds of pottery dating from the

Middle Iron Age (c.400‐100BC) were recovered from two of the layers, contexts (302) and (303) (Fig 10, Trench 3, Section 3), whereas, in contrast, there was no Middle Iron Age pottery in the assemblage from the excavation. At least one of the layers (302) was interpreted as an erosion by‐product which could suggest localised disturbance of a Middle Iron Age feature. A ‘Roman’‐ style bow brooch was also recovered from layer (302) (6.22, Fig. 16).

6.15 The down‐slope location of the pit suggests that it was dug for the purpose of collecting water

draining through the redundant ditch. It was later used for disposing of domestic waste, and possibly cess. Medieval / Post‐medieval Linear Features

6.16 In the southern area of excavation were five north‐south‐aligned, parallel shallow linear features (Fig. 5), while two similar parallel features were present in the northern area of excavation (Fig.14). They are interpreted as the remains of medieval/ post‐medieval agricultural ‘furrows’ associated with the system of strip cultivation.

6.17 Three of the furrows in the south area (i.e. [1003], [1009] and [1007] were spaced apart approximately 5 to 6m; each feature ranging in width between 0.4m and 1.2m and in depth between 0.2m and 0.3m, with sides inclined between 20ο and 45ο. Furrow [1009] cut an earlier furrow [1005] (Fig.13, Section 3), representing either a re‐affirmation or realignment of the feature. Another furrow [1003] was present between features [1022] and [1009]; this was notably narrower (0.2m) and, again, appeared to denote a change in alignment at some juncture. The fills of the features comprised either mid yellowish brown silty clay ((1008); (1010)), or mid



orange brown sandy clay ((1004); (1023)) with occasional small to medium sized rounded stones. A single piece of probable medieval red tile or brick was recovered from a segment excavated near the northern extent of furrow [1007] (Fig. 4 and Fig. 13, Section 6, [1011]). Post‐medieval ceramic sectional field drains had been inserted along the course of two of the furrows (i.e. [1007] and [1022]) which were probably visible as hollows at the time.

6.18 The two parallel features in the north area of excavation appeared to be very degraded remains of furrows (Figs. 13 to 15, Section 5, [1025] and [1026]), surviving up to depths of c. 0.15m to 0.2m and widths of c.1m. It was observed that not only were there no signs of relict cultivation strips at ground level across the site, but there was a significant build‐up of topsoil (0.7m) in the northern area, where buried archaeological features had suffered the most truncation. It therefore appears likely that the site was levelled at some point in the recent past. Undated Features

6.19 There were three other undated archaeological features. These included two shallow possible post‐holes approximately 3.5m apart on the south east side of the Iron Age enclosure ditch that may possibly be assigned to the same broad period. Post‐hole [1013] (Fig. 5) was oval in plan (0.35m x 0.3m) with sides sloping at c.45ο to a concave base at a depth of 0.15m. Two fills were discernible (Fig. 13, Section 7), the primary fill (1014), c.0.07m in thickness, comprised of mid yellowish brown silty clay with occasional small stones, while the upper fill (1053) was mid brown loose clay silt with occasional stones. Post‐hole [404], which was investigated in the evaluation was of similar dimensions (0.3m x 0.12m) and was filled with homogeneous compact mid‐grey brown sandy clay with occasional charcoal flecks. There were no finds present in either post‐hole.

6.20 A severely truncated feature [1034] (Fig. 14, Fig. 13, Section 11), up to c. 0.08m in depth was

located in the northwest corner of the north area of excavation. Whilst the texture and colour of its fill (1035), mid orange‐brown, compact silty clay, resembled that of other archaeological features, its form or function could not be fully established and there were no finds.

The Pottery by Jackie Wells & Martin Wilson

6.21 A total of 100 sherds of prehistoric pottery was recovered from the overall investigation (i.e. evaluation and excavation combined), 95 of which fall within the date range 100BC to 43AD (Late Iron Age), the remainder being residual material, date from the Middle Iron Age (c.400‐100BC) (Tables 1 and 2). The assemblage was compared with the Bedfordshire Reference Collection. Notably, there are no ‘Romanised’ vessels in the assemblage (pers. comm. J. Wells).

Table 1: Quantification of Iron Age Pottery

Context No. Quantity (sherd count)

Weight (grams)

Minimum Number of Vessels

Excavation

1015 1 15 1

1017 3 25 3

1027 18 245 8

1028 33 587 14

1036 1 15 1

1043 7 45 3

63 932 30



Context No. Quantity (sherd count)

Weight (grams)

Minimum Number of Vessels

Evaluation

302 5 50 4

303 8 85 7

304 4 55 2

305 1 4 1

401 1 15 1

409 7 50 4

410 11 191 4

37 450 23

Total 100 1382 53

Table 2: Iron Age Pottery Note: Fabric codes used in descriptions refer to those of the Bedfordshire Reference Collection. Excavation

Context No. Description Period

1015 x 1 body sherd of cooking vessel in coarse grog fabric F06c Late Iron Age

1017 x 1 body sherd of cooking vessel in grog and sand fabric F09, cordoned Late Iron Age x 1 rim sherd of cooking vessel in orange grog and sand fabric F09 Late Iron Age x 1 body sherd of cooking vessel in grog and shell fabric F08 Late Iron Age

1027 x 3 body sherds of carinated bowl in grog and sand fabric F09 Late Iron Age x 1 large rim sherd in grog and sand fabric F09, oxidised Late Iron Age x 3 body sherds in coarse grog fabric F06c, oxidised Late Iron Age x 1 body sherd in coarse grog fabric F06c, combed Late Iron Age x 1 body sherd of cordoned bowl or jar in coarse grog fabric F06b Late Iron Age x 5 sherds of lid seated vessel in fabric F07 with finger nail impressions Late Iron Age x 3 body sherds in grog and shell fabric F05 Late Iron Age x 1 body sherd of cooking vessel in F06b medium grog coarse ware Late Iron Age

1028 x 10 body sherds of same vessels in grog and shell fabric F05, very abraded, oxidised

Late Iron Age

x 1 body sherd in shelly fabric F07 Late Iron Age x 1 rim sherd and x 3 body sherds of lid‐seated/ channel rimmed vessel in

fabric F07 Late Iron Age

x 2 body sherds in fabric F07 Late Iron Age x 2 body sherds of a large storage jar with combed decoration in grog and

shell fabric F05 Late Iron Age

x 2 body sherds in grog fabric F17, oxidised outer surface Late Iron Age x 2 body sherds in grog and sand fabric F09 Late Iron Age x 2 body sherds of different vessels in medium grog fabric F06b Late Iron Age X 7 body sherds and x1 beaded rim sherd (x 5 vessels represented in grog

and shell fabric F05 Late Iron Age

1036 x 1 body sherd of cooking vessel in grog and shell fabric F05 Late Iron Age

1043 x 2 body sherds of cooking vessel in coarse grog fabric F06c, combed Late Iron Age

x 2 body sherds of same vessel in coarse grog fabric F07, combed Late Iron Age

x 1 body sherd in coarse ?sandy fabric, possibly F07 Late Iron Age



Evaluation

Context No. Description Period

302 x 1 body sherd of cooking vessel in medium coarse grog fabric F06b. Combed outer decoration

Late Iron Age

x 1 body sherd of cooking vessel in fine sand fabric, F028 Early to mid Iron Age

x 2 body sherds of cooking pot in shelly fabric, F07. Oxidised inner margin Late Iron Age

x 1 body sherd of cooking pot in fine sandy fabric, F28 Broadly mid –Late Iron Age

303 x 1 body sherd of cooking vessel in fine sandy fabric, F28. Very abraded Early to mid Iron Age

x 1 base sherd of cooking vessel in grog fabric, F17. Abraded Broadly mid Iron Age

x 1 body sherd of cooking vessel. Mixed inclusions, F15. Abraded Broadly mid Iron Age

x 1 body sherd of cooking vessel. Medium‐fine orange fabric, grog and shell, F05. Very abraded

Late Iron Age

x 1 body sherd of cooking vessel. Grog and shell, F05. Very abraded Late Iron Age

x 3 body sherds of cooking vessel. Grog and shell, F07. Oxidised interior. Abraded

Late Iron Age

x 1 body sherd of cooking vessel. Grog and shell, F07. Abraded Late Iron Age

304 x 3 body sherds of cooking pot in medium coarse grog fabric F06b. Combed outer decoration

Late Iron Age

x 1 body sherd of cooking pot in grog and shell fabric, F05. Lightly combed outer surface. Partly abraded.

Late Iron Age

305 x 1 body sherd of cooking pot. Shelly fabric, F07 Late Iron Age

401 x 1 rim sherd of cooking pot. Lid‐seated rim. Grog and shell fabric, F05 Late Iron Age

409 x 3 body sherds of cooking pot in grog and shell fabric, F05 Late Iron Age

x 1 body sherd of cooking pot in coarse grog fabric, F06c Late Iron Age

x 1 body sherd of cooking pot in fine grog fabric, F06a Late Iron Age

x 2 body sherds of cooking pot in shelly fabric, F07 Late Iron Age

410 x 1 large body sherd of cooking vessel with combed decoration on outer surface. Coarse grog fabric, probably F06c

Late Iron Age

x 1 rim sherd of cooking vessel. lid‐seated rim with impressed ‘cord’ decoration. Shelly fabric. F07

Late Iron Age

x 7 sherds of cooking pot with beaded rim, rilled decoration around neck and carination. Grog and sand fabric, F03

Late Iron Age

x 1 rim sherd of cooking pot with lid seat. Shelly fabric, F07 Late Iron Age

The Metal Artefacts

6.22 Two artefacts were recovered during the investigations. The first of these is a broken and heavily corroded copper‐alloy bow brooch (Fig. 16, SF1) which was found during the evaluation in Trench 38. Possibly a Colchester derivative, it has a spring of 8 coils in a plain housing/spring case. There are two bosses on the bow which tapers to a blunt point. The catch‐plate is missing, though its position is identifiable. While the brooch is in‐keeping in style with Roman forms, the presence of

8 It was recovered from an intermediate fill (302) of a large pit [301/1029]; at the time of the evaluation the pit appeared to be arm of the enclosure ditch.



mid‐to late Iron Age pottery and notable absence of ‘Romanised’ ceramic forms in any of the contexts, seems to suggest that the brooch is a pre‐conquest item. Further comparative identification is required.

6.23 The second item is the head of a socketed iron implement or weapon (SF2) recovered from the

main upper fill (1027) of the large enclosure ditch. The item, which was wrought or forged, is heavily corroded but socket and blade are clearly recognisable. It weighs 100g and has an overall length of 90mm. Although resembling an axe‐head, which would be considered to be a very rare survival.9 It is thought more likely to be a broken spearhead, which itself would also be rare. Excavations of the Iron Age hillfort at Danebury, Hampshire between 1969 ‐78 and 1979‐88 recovered a mere 10 spearheads. They comprised a variety of forms with “no two showing any marked degree of similarity”10.

The Faunal Remains by Matilda Holmes

6.24 A small assemblage of animal bone was recovered from the late Iron Age enclosure ditch and pit. They were in fair to poor condition and friable, leading to several freshly broken fragments. There was no evidence of burning or butchery.

6.25 Bones were identified from the main domesticates (Table 1), including two animal bone groups – the forelegs, skull, vertebrae and ribs of a juvenile pig from the boundary ditch (context 016) and several elements from the hind legs of a mature horse, largely from the ditch (context 1027). Other elements in similar condition were also recovered from the pit (context 1028 and context 304 of the evaluation BEDFM 2011.74).

6.26 In the evaluation (BEDFM 2011.74) a very small assemblage of animal bone was recovered from ditch [301]/[408]. It was in fair condition, though extremely friable and over half the fragments could be refitted together. Again, there were no signs of butchery, burning or gnawing. The assemblage contained a cattle metacarpal (context 303), a fused horse tibia (context 304), sheep/ goat 3rd molar (context 303) and fragments from a medium sized mammal mandible (context 409) and a large mammal vertebra (context 303).

6.27 Although these species are not uncommon on Iron Age sites, the sample is too small to warrant further analysis. Table 3: Faunal remains: species representation (fragment count)

Element Cattle Sheep/ Goat Pig Horse Dog Large Mammal

Partial Skeleton

11

Mandible 2 2 Loose Teeth

1

Molar 1 1Humerus 2 Femur 1 Metatarsal 1 Astragalus 1 Lumbar 1

9 See for example: Portable Antiquities Scheme database No.LANCUM‐E49550. 10 Cunliffe & Poole, 1991, 352; 343, F.718



Vertebra Vertebra 3Metacarpal 1 Tibia 1

Assessment of Potential for Environmental Analysis from the Excavation by Anita Radini

Introduction 6.28 Three soil samples from Colley Hill Farm, Colmworth, Beds, were delivered for assessment. The

aim was to assess the survival of palaeo‐environmental remains such as charred and mineralised plants, snails and animal bone, which could provide information on diet, environment and land use. Materials and Methods

6.29 The samples appeared greenish brown in colour and comprised a high proportion of clay. Small flecks of charcoal were visible to the naked eye and it was decided to process a two litre subsample of each to establish the nature of the charred material from the following contexts: 1) context 1049 primary fill of LIA ditch 2) context 1017, occupation layer, LIA ditch 3) context 1028, fill of LIA pit

6.30 Each subsample was bucket flotted into a 300 micron mesh to maximize the recovery of plant material and small ecofacts. The flots were left to dry in small plastic boxes and the remainder of the sample was sieved using 0.5 mm mesh and the left to dry, to be scanned if necessary. The flots were scanned under a stereomicroscope at between 20x and 40x magnification. Results

6.31 The results of the analysis were largely negative. The small flecks of charcoal visible in the samples were generally rare and below 2mm in diameter, although more common in the sample from context 1028 (pit fill). No chaff or any other plant or animal remains were recovered from any of the subsamples sieved. Small, modern, root fragments were present in low quantities in all the subsamples, suggesting a degree of soil disturbance. Conclusion

6.32 The assessment suggests that there is low potential for the recovery of plant remains and other environmental evidence and no further work is necessary on this material.

Charred Plant Remains from the Evaluation by Hayley McParland 6.33 Two bulk samples were taken from the primary fills ((304) and (410)) of a ditch of Iron Age date

([301]/[408]). The samples were processed for the recovery and assessment of charred plant remains and charcoal.

6.34 Samples were deflocculated with Sodium hexametaphosphate solution prior to processing and were processed using a ‘Siraf’ style flotation tank, with meshes of 0.5mm aperture for both retention of the flot and the residue. Following air‐drying the residue was sorted, weighed and discarded. The residue contained a single pottery sherd (304) and two worked flint flakes (410). The floated material was fractionated to 5mm, 2mm and 0.5mm, then sorted and assessed using a stereo zoom microscope.



6.35 Both flots contained modern root material with some intrusive modern seeds and plant remains (Table 4). The charred plant remains were clinkered, suggesting charring had occurred at high temperatures and preservation was poor. Both flots contained small quantities of highly clinkered and degraded Triticum sp. some of which may be wild grasses. Given the small amount of material present and the level of preservation, no further work is recommended.

Table 4. Charred Plant Remains Assessment Data (from the evaluation) Sample No. Context Sample

Vol (litres)

Flot

Vol (ml)

Residue

weight (g)

Comments

1 (304) 10 55 1215 50 % modern roots present in flot, with occasional intrusive modern seeds and plant remains. Occasional small fragments of non‐diagnostic charcoal present. Three Triticum sp. cf. grains present but highly clinkered. Five unidentified small weed seeds were also present. Land snails were also noted.

2 (410) 13 70 1733 25% modern roots present in flot. Occasional small fragments of non‐diagnostic charcoal present. Four Triticum sp. cf. grains present. A variety of land snail species were noted.

7. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE & REVIEW OF RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Phases of Activity

7.1 In summary, the following phases of development have been identified at Colley Hill (Fig.3):

Phase 1: Middle Iron Age Phase 2: Late Iron Age (1) Phase 3: Late Iron Age (2) Phase 4: Medieval/ post medieval open field system

Earlier prehistoric occupation or activity 7.2 Two worked flints were found as residual material in the primary fill of the Iron Age enclosure

ditch (context 410) during the first evaluation at the site in November 2011, but other than that there was no other artefactual or physical evidence of earlier prehistoric occupation or activity (c.f.5.4.i). In contrast, during the second evaluation of Area B in February 2012, worked flint, débitage and a core stone presented a prehistoric background ‘noise’ to Anglo‐Norman occupation evidence.

Iron Age Settlement 7.3 The Iron Age remains found in Area C are considered to be both locally and regionally significant.

Since the 1990s there has been a considerable increase in our knowledge of Iron Age sites in Bedfordshire and surrounding counties as a result of development‐initiated research. However, with the exception of linear developments (e.g. roads and pipelines) archaeological investigations have been biased to valley sites or gravel deposits, beyond which less is known about the Iron



Age landscape11. It is largely for this reason that the Iron Age settlement found at Colley Hill Farm is considered to be regionally significant.

7.4 Until recently, the heavy clay soil areas of Bedfordshire were understood to be devoid of Iron Age

settlement. Crop‐marks, purported to date from the Iron Age, have been identified in the clay uplands of the county have been interpreted as expansion into new areas12. Occasionally, excavation has extended our understanding of the location of Iron Age settlements in Bedfordshire within areas where they had not previously been identified13, for example: on ridges, as at Stotfold14 (Early to Middle Iron Age), and on the clay uplands, such as Thurleigh Airfield15 (Late Iron Age), Topler’s Hill (Early to Middle Iron Age)16 and Harlington (Early‐Middle Iron Age). There is a general picture of continuity of settlement from the Middle Iron Age through to the Late Iron Age, although not all sites were occupied throughout the Late Iron Age. There is believed to have been a preference for higher ground during the Middle Iron Age, such zones including the sides of river valleys, above the flood plain, or higher still, within woodland clearings17, the latter which may apply to the settlement at Colley Hill. The presence of Middle Iron Age pottery at Colley Hill suggests either continuity, or a re‐foundation, of settlement at a preferred location (c.f.5.4.vi) on a north‐east facing slope above the Colmworth Brook. However, other than two sherds pottery broadly dated Early to Middle Iron Age and another three sherds broadly dated Middle Iron Age, all found during the evaluation, the excavation could throw no further light on the nature of the Middle Iron Age settlement (c.f.5.4.i).

7.5 A common type of site in the Late Iron Age was a farmstead enclosed by a ditch, usually set within a wider system of land management, whilst another common form was the farmstead (circular huts and ancillary buildings) placed within a field system. The evidence at Colley Hill suggests that the first Late Iron Age phase (Fig.3, Phase 2) comprised a rural settlement surrounded by a formidable defensive perimeter ditch and bank, the latter undoubtedly topped with a palisade. There was scant evidence of interior features, though this is undoubtedly due to restricted window of exploration, and whereas the full extent and form could not be attested, the cropmark evidence (Fig.17) seems to suggest that the enclosure is sub‐rectangular with an interior of roughly 0.2ha (c.f.5.4.iii & iv). Two shallow undated post holes, though stratigraphically unrelated, were possibly contemporary with the enclosure ditch18.

7.6 The stratigraphy of the ditch sections show that it was largely in‐filled through a combination of

cultural and natural (i.e. erosion) processes. It is probable that during the life of the enclosure it was scoured, or re‐cut, although there was no distinct evidence of this. Neither were there signs that periodic abandonment took place (c.f.5.4 viii). There was, however, a notable lack of domestic waste in the ditch until after a considerable amount of natural erosion and silting up

11 Dawson, M, 2007. ‘Late Bronze Age to Roman’, pp.63‐66 in Oake, M, Luke, M, Dawson, M, Edgeworth, M and Murphy, P. 2007, Bedfordshire Archaeology. Research and Archaeology: Resource Assessment, Research Agenda and Strategy. Bedfordshire Archaeology Monograph No.9, 2007 12 Dawson, M, 2007, 66. 13 Medlycott, M (ed) 2011. Research and Archaeology Revisited: a revised framework for the East of England, East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper No.24, 2011, ALGAO East of England, pp.22‐23. 14 A large residential development at Fairfield Park: Webley, L, Timby, J and Wilson M.D, 2008. Fairfield Park, Stotfold, Bedfordshire: Later Prehistoric Settlement in the Eastern Chilterns, Oxford Archaeology / Bedfordshire Archaeological Monograph Series, No. 7 (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology). 15 Crick, J & Luke, M. 1997. Satellite Installations, Thurleigh Airfield. Archaeological Field Investigations. Stage One. Bedfordshire County Archaeological Service, evaluation report. 16 Investigations in advance of road works in 1998 and 2000: Luke, M, 2004. ‘The Investigation of an Early‐Middle Iron Age Settlement and Field System at Topler’s Hill’. Bedfordshire Archaeology, 25, 23–54. 17 Dawson, M, 2007, 64 18 A possible gully [406] was also investigated during the evaluation, although as no trace was found of its further extent during the excavation it is assumed to have been a natural formation.



had taken place. This might suggest that habitation or activity areas were originally sited at a sufficient distance from the perimeter to deter the accumulation of rubbish (c.f.5.4.v).

7.7 The large Late Iron Age pit (Fig. 3, Phase 3) dug through the corner of the in‐filled enclosure ditch illustrates the redundancy of the former settlement perimeter and subsequent re‐use of land during the same broad era. This re‐organisation of land‐use may reflect a ‘shift’ or expansion of settlement. The excavated area must be viewed in conjunction with the cropmark evidence of (undated) rectilinear enclosures immediately to the east of the proposed development (Fig.17), some of which undoubtedly form a part of the same site.

7.8 There were no finds or deposits suitable for refining existing chronological frameworks (i.e. artefact typologies) by means of absolute dating mechanisms or methods (c.f.5.4.vii).

7.9 The relationship with a single undated shallow feature in the northern area of excavation (i.e.

[1034]) could not be established (c.f.5.4.iv).

Regional Comparisons 7.10 Turning to the wider region (c.f.5.4.xi), it is evident that the Colley Hill enclosure shares certain

characteristics with some forms of Late Iron Age upland enclosure commonly termed the ‘Wootton Hill‐style’ (after its type‐site in Northamptonshire), which are understood to be a Middle to Late Iron‐Age phenomenon19. To date, sixteen Wootton Hill‐style enclosures have been identified by excavation in Northamptonshire, the majority on the east side of the Nene, while others with similar traits have been excavated in neighbouring counties (e.g. Finmere, Oxfordshire; Enderby, Leicestershire). The main feature Wootton Hill‐style enclosure is a ‘V’‐ profiled deep ditch. The majority of enclosures have a single ditch and a single entrance. The form of the enclosure may vary from near‐square and sub‐rectangular to sub circular or sub‐oval. Interiors frequently contain the sites of a single round‐house or a small number of round‐houses. Four‐post structures are frequently found, though enclosure interiors are rarely dense in features. In 1989, Dix and Jackson, the recorders of Wootton Hill, advocated that defence was the primary reason for this type of enclosure20, yet there is still much debate as to their defensibility. In a recent assessment of the Northamptonshire enclosures, Alison Deegan drew attention to the fundamental weakness in the choice of location of some of these sites for purposes of defence, demonstrating that many enclosures have deficient viewpoints21. This is certainly the case at Colley Hill, where topographical advantage is noticeably lacking both to the west and the southwest, the latter where there is gradually rise in ground level of c.6m over a distance of around 250m. While there seems no reason why such a substantial ditch (and bank) would not have presented an effective deterrent to small‐scale bands of brigands, its main purpose may have been more of a display of perceived status of the owner/inhabitant (e.g. Meek, 2004).

7.11 There are two excavated Late Iron Age upland sites in the region, each, assignable to the Wootton‐Hill type, that bear marked similarity to the Colley Hill enclosure. The first of these is ‘Enclosure II’ at Enderby, Leicestershire (SP 550 999) which was excavated in 199622. The site was

19 Kidd, A. 2004. ‘Northamptonshire in the First Millennium BC’, in M. Tingle (ed.), The Archaeology of Northamptonshire, Northants Archaeol Soc. , p. 54. 20 (B. Dix. B & Jackson, D. 1989. ‘Some Late Iron Age Defended Enclosures in Northamptonshire’, in A. Gibson (ed.), Midlands Prehistory: Some Recent and Current Researches into the Prehistory of Central England, BAR BS, 204 (1989), pp.166). 21 Deegan, A.2007. Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman settlements and landscapes, in Deegan, A & Foard, G. Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman Settlements and Landscapes Mapping Ancient Landscapes in Northamptonshire, English Heritage. pp. 100‐108. Those with deficient visibility include Blackthorn, Weekley, Stanwell Spinney, Wakerley, Aldwincle, Irchester, Kings Heath, Wilby Way, Briar Hill. 22 Meek, J, Shore, M & Clay, P. 2004. Iron Age Enclosures at Enderby and Huncote, Leicestershire, Trans. Leicestershire Archaeol. & Hist. Soc., 78, pp.1‐33.



located on a slight east‐facing slope of a boulder clay ridge overlooking tributary streams of the River Soar. The enclosed area, approximately 0.22ha, was sub‐rectangular with its long‐axis northeast/southwest and a gateway on the northeast side where ditch terminals were flanked by two large gate posts, set 2.6m apart. The enclosure ditch itself measured c.3.5m in width and c.1.45m in depth, with evidence of at least one phase of re‐cutting. It had been abandoned before the Roman conquest, having either silted up or having been backfilled. The interior of the Enderby II enclosure had two phases of use represented by two pairs of roundhouses (postulated to have been kitchens or workshops as opposed to dwellings)23, in addition to which were also a number of stratigraphically unrelated post holes (presumed fences and four posters), an oven in the northeast part and a shallow pit in the southwest corner. Curiously, the proximity of a roundhouse to the enclosure ditch in both phases raised doubt as to whether there was a large internal bank, unless the structures were partially built into the bank. A mixed economy was evident, perhaps with a bias towards livestock rearing. As at Colley Hill, there was possibly pre‐enclosure occupation. The enclosure itself was thought to have been in use for less than a century, with a C14 date from a probable remnant of a gate post, signifying it was around the date 2100 +/– 60 BP.

7.12 The other site comparable with Colley Hill, in terms of its form, chronology and site formation is that of Late Iron Age ‘Enclosure 2’ at Finmere (SP 6250 3250), to the east of Buckingham, which was excavated in 200024. The site is located on a limestone plateau at 120 m OD, on the edge of an outcrop of fluvioglacial sands and gravels surrounded by clay. The enclosure is broadly rectangular with a substantial ditch, steep ‘V’‐shaped profile, c.3m wide and 1.75m deep25. The ditch had apparently filled up naturally, while domestic waste (pottery and bone) was found predominantly in the upper fills. The interior contained a single round house. Based on the pottery evidence, the enclosure is understood to have originated in the fourth century BC and was abandoned by the first century AD26.

Iron Age –Romano‐British Transition 7.13 The investigation revealed no evidence of the Romano‐British period (c.f.5.4.xii). The Roman‐style

bow brooch (SF1), found during the evaluation may possibly be a pre‐conquest item, whilst the clear absence of ‘Romanised’ pottery seems to indicate that occupation, on at least this part of Colley Hill, had terminated before the conquest (c.f.5.4.x). Medieval and post‐medieval settlement

7.14 Colley Hill Farm is located within the former medieval settlement of Chapel End/Colley Hill27. It was situated in the former medieval open fields of Colmworth, within the furlong field called the Near East Brook Field. The map that accompanies the 1838 Inclosure Award for Colmworth28 shows that a great number of piecemeal enclosures had already taken place29, but there is no way of assigning a date to them. The sequence of north‐south‐aligned shallow linear features (Fig.3, Phase 4) recorded during the investigation at Colley Hill Farm are likely to have been the remains of hollows, or ‘furrows’, that formerly flanked the selions (cultivation ridges) of the Near East Brook Field. Although there was no dating evidence found, other than a fragment of ceramic tile

23 Meek, J. et al. 2004. p.6 and p.17. 24 Hart, J, Kenyon D, and Mudd, A 2010. Excavation of Early Bronze‐Age Cremations and a Later Iron‐Age Settlement at Finmere Quarry, North‐East Oxfordshire, Oxoniensia vol. 75, pp 97‐132. 25 Ibid., p.115, Fig.14 26 Ibid., 100. 27 Bedfordshire Historic Environment Record No. HER17142 28 Bedford & Luton Archives: A/MA64, C4, Colmworth Award, ‘An Act for inclosing and exonerating from Tythes lands in the ‘Parish’ of Colmworth in the County of Bedford’, 1838 29 See Emmison, F.G., 1937, Some Types of Common‐Field Parish with Maps, page 15,map 7



(Context 1012), the antiquity of the furrows may easily be late Saxon (c.10/11th century) or the early Norman period, especially in view of the Anglo‐Norman occupation evidence found at the junction of two hollow‐ways in Area B (ante.4.4). There is no clear surface evidence of the field system.

8. POTENTIAL FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENT, ANALYSIS AND CONSERVATION

The Pottery 8.1 No further analysis is required.

The Faunal Remains 8.2 No further analysis is required.

The Environmental Samples 8.3 No further analysis is required

The Metal Artefacts 8.4 The metal artefacts were assessed by Michelle Johns, Collections Access Officer, Lincolnshire

County Council. The assemblage has been assessed against the following objectives that are normally within the contractor’s responsibility toward transfer of an archive to a receiving (curatorial, e.g. museum) organization:

1. To make the assemblage stable by providing appropriate packaging/microenvironments and, where necessary by targeted remedial treatment;

2. To assist the interpretation of those elements of the assemblage which have obscured morphology, e.g. by undertaking x‐radiology of the assemblage where appropriate, so that accurate archive reporting and/or assessment of potential for analysis can be undertaken.

8.5 For these items the following tasks would apply to meet these objectives: 1. Stabilisation SF1: Cu Bow Brooch Phase: Late Iron Age (2) Context: (302) Deteriorated, encrusted copper alloy brooch. This appears to be very mineralized with some loss of surface layers. In a couple of localized areas, the corrosion appears likely to be active. Chemical stabilisation followed by physical support and appropriate storage is essential to stabilize and preserve the condition of this item. SF2: Fe Socketed implement/ weapon Phase: Late Iron Age (1) Context: (1027) Heavily encrusted, socketed iron implement or weapon. Although heavily obscured by voluminous corrosion products, the object appears stable. There is no apparent evidence for organic material within the socket – if any evidence survives beneath the encrustation this will almost certainly be mineralized given the condition of the item and therefore be stable, good physical support and appropriate storage is essential to preserve the condition of this item. 2. X‐radiography



Imaging of the items using incremental exposures and different elevations as appropriate. This is highly recommended given the level of obscuring accretion and reflects normal high specification imaging of the material in order to screen all aspects of morphology, including outermost obscuring corrosion/burial detritus which can contain subtle (for example, metalworking) associated evidence.

9. UPDATED PROJECT DESIGN

Original Research Aims 9.1 The site structural data has been comprehensively described and interpreted and the relative (i.e.

stratigraphic) chronology has been analyzed in the course of the assessment. All of the questions raised in the Written Scheme of Investigation were addressed in the course of the assessment. With the exception of the metal artefacts (ante. 8.5) no other elements of the project archive require further analytical work.

Further Analytical Potential 9.2 The chronology of the site is presently based on ceramic types, with the two main prehistoric

phases broadly dated to Late Iron Age. As two potentially diagnostic metal artefact were recovered from a disuse deposit in each of the main phases, it is possible that a closer understanding of when these events took place may be achieved by further study of the objects. The following four stages of work would be required:

1. Conservation of metal artefacts SF1 and SF2 as per 8.5.1. 2. X‐radiography of metal artefacts SF1 and SF2 as per 8.5.2. 3. Artefacts to be drawn for publication and to assist comparative analysis. 4. Comparative analysis of SF1 and SF2 to be undertaken by artefact specialists.

Publication, Dissemination of Results (WSI Stage 3) 9.3 Publication of the results is recommended to a summary level (i.e. round up of archaeology in

Bedfordshire Archaeology and/or South Midlands Archaeology), which should be undertaken in the year following the archaeological fieldwork. The final report and place of publication will be approved by the Archaeological Officer. As per the agreement of the Written Scheme of Investigation, the developer is to be responsible for the costs and fees for archiving and ultimate publication.

9.4 The OASIS English Heritage OASIS (Online Access to the Index of Archaeological Investigations –

see www.oasis.ac.uk) online form is to be to be completed for submission to the HER, following which, in due course, the grey literature (i.e. unpublished) reports are to be uploaded to the Archaeology Data Service website. A paper hard copy of the report is also to be included with the archive.



10. THE ARCHIVE

10.1 The archive is comprised of the following:

Report hard copy & digital Evaluation 1 Excavation 1

Context records & list Evaluation 44 Excavation 55

Field drawings Evaluation 3 sheets film 29x30cm

4 sheets film A3 Excavation 7 sheets film 29x30cm

1 pre‐ex plan

Survey data 1 digital file

Photographs & register Black and white 1 folder Digital images 1 disk

Artefacts Evaluation: Prehistoric pottery 37 sherds (450g) Post‐medieval pottery 10 sherds Cu object (SF1) 1 Animal bone fragments 180g Excavation: Pottery: excavation 100 (1382g) Post‐medieval tile 1 Fe object 1 Animal bone fragments 1500g

10.2 All artefacts will remain the property of the landowner although the landowner is invited to

transfer finds ownership to the Bedford Museums. 10.3 The archaeological site archive is to be prepared and deposited at Bedford Museum in

accordance with the policy set out in “Preparing Archaeological Archives for Deposition with Registered Museums”

11. COPYRIGHT AND CONFIDENTIALITY

11.1 Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd retain full copyright of any commissioned reports, tender

documents or other project documents under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 with all rights reserved; excepting that it will provide an exclusive licence to the Owner in all matters directly relating to the project as described in the WSI. Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd retains the right to be identified as the author of all project documentation and reports as defined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. A licence is to be also granted to Bedfordshire Historic Environment Record for the use of all reports arising from projects for planning purposes and bona fide research requests.



11.2 Souterrain undertakes to respect all requirements for confidentiality about the Applicant’s

proposals provided that these are clearly stated. It is expected that owners respect Souterrain's and the Institute for Archaeologists' general ethical obligations not to suppress significant archaeological data for an unreasonable period.

12. REFERENCES

Bedford Borough Council, Historic Environment Planning Services. 2012. Brief for a Programme of Archaeological Excavation, Investigation, Recording, Analysis and Publication at Collyhill Farm, Church Road, Colmworth, 30th January. Bedford & Luton Archives: A/MA64, C4, Colmworth Award, ‘An Act for inclosing and exonerating from Tythes lands in the ‘Parish’ of Colmworth in the County of Bedford’, 1838 Cooper, N (ed). 2006. The Archaeology of the East Midlands, Leicester Archaeology Monograph 13, 111. Crick, J & Luke, M. 1997. Satellite Installations, Thurleigh Airfield. Archaeological Field Investigations. Stage One. Bedfordshire County Archaeological Service, (unpublished evaluation report). Cunliffe B.W. & Poole, C. 1991. Danebury: an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire, vol.5: the excavations 1979‐1988: the finds, CBA Research Report No.73. Dawson, M, 2007. ‘Late Bronze Age to Roman’, pp.63‐66, in Oake, M et al. 2007, Bedfordshire Archaeology. Research and Archaeology: Resource Assessment, Research Agenda and Strategy. Bedfordshire Archaeology Monograph No.9. Deegan, A & Foard, G. A.2007. Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman settlements and landscapes, in Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman Settlements and Landscapes Mapping Ancient Landscapes in Northamptonshire, English Heritage. Dix. B & Jackson, D. 1989. ‘Some Late Iron Age Defended Enclosures in Northamptonshire’, in A. Gibson (ed.), Midlands Prehistory: Some Recent and Current Researches into the Prehistory of Central England, BAR BS, 204 (1989). Emmison, F.G., 1937, Some Types of Common‐Field Parish with Maps, p.15,map 7. Hart, J, Kenyon D & Mudd, A 2010. Excavation of Early Bronze‐Age Cremations and a Later Iron‐Age Settlement at Finmere Quarry, North‐East Oxfordshire, Oxoniensia vol. 75, pp. 97‐132. Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd. 2011. Colley Hill Farm, Colmworth, Bedfordshire, MK44 2JX: Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological Evaluation, (Application Reference 11/01704/FUL), SOU11‐217, 19th October 2011 Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd. 2012. Colley Hill Farm, Colmworth, Bedfordshire (TL 106 582), Archaeological Evaluation Report, Addendum, (Application Reference 11/01704/FUL), SOU11‐217, April 2012



Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd. Colley Hill Farm, Colmworth, Bedfordshire (TL 106 582), Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Excavation (Planning Ref.11/01704/FUL), SOU11‐217, February 2012 Kidd, A. 2004. ‘Northamptonshire in the First Millennium BC’, in M. Tingle (ed.), The Archaeology of Northamptonshire, Northants Archaeological Society. Luke, M. 2004. ‘The Investigation of an Early‐Middle Iron Age Settlement and Field System at Topler’s Hill’. Bedfordshire Archaeology, 25, 23–54. Medlycott, M (ed) 2011. Research and Archaeology Revisited: a revised framework for the East of England, East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper No.24, ALGAO East of England. Meek, J, Shore, M & Clay, P. 2004. Iron Age Enclosures at Enderby and Huncote, Leicestershire, Trans. Leicestershire Archaeol. & Hist. Soc., 78, pp.1‐33. Oake, M, Luke, M, Dawson, M, Edgeworth, M &Murphy, P. 2007, Bedfordshire Archaeology. Research and Archaeology: Resource Assessment, Research Agenda and Strategy. Bedfordshire Archaeology Monograph No.9. Webley, L, Timby, J & Wilson M.D, 2008. Fairfield Park, Stotfold, Bedfordshire: Later Prehistoric Settlement in the Eastern Chilterns, Oxford Archaeology / Bedfordshire Archaeological Monograph Series, No. 7 (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology).



Figure1. Location of Site

(Base map: ©Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Licence number AL 100015565)



Figure 2. Areas of Investigation



Figure 3. Plan of all features and structural phases

Figure 4. Northern part of the Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch [1030/410]



Figure 5. Southern part of the Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch [1021] and elements of medieval to post medieval field system

Figure 6. Sections through Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch



Figure 7. Sections through Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch. Top: Section 1, facing south. Bottom: Section 10, facing south



Figure 8. Box section through the inner northwest angle of Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch [1030] and Late Iron Age (Phase 1) pit [1029/301]. Top: facing northwest. Bottom facing north‐northeast



Figure 9. Plan of Late Iron Age (Phase 1) pit [1029/301]



Figure 10. Late Iron Age pit [1029/301]: Sections 8a, 8b and Trench 3, Section 3



Figure 11. Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch: overview of excavation in progress

Figure 12. Section 9, Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch, facing east



Figure 13. Sections through medieval to post‐medieval and undated features



Figure 14. Plan of northern area of excavation showing location of Sections 5 and 11

Figure 15. Section5, showing typical state of survival of medieval /post medieval cultivation features



Figure 16. Metal artefacts. Right: Bow brooch (Cu) from Late Iron Age (Phase 2) enclosure ditch (Trench 3, context 302). Below: head of socketed implement or weapon (Fe) from Late Iron Age (Phase 1) pit, (context 1027)



APPENDIX 1 List of Contexts

KEY: Relationships: A. above; Abt. abuts; B. below; C. cuts; Cub. cut by; Co. contains; Wi within

Dimensions: Le. length; Wid. width; De. depth; Th. thickness; Sa. same as; Dia. diameter

Context No.

Type Area Description and Interpretation Relationships Dimensions Field Drawing Height (AOD)

Suggested Period

Date of investigation

1000 layer all Topsoil. Dark grey‐brown silty clay soil with moderate to medium stones. Very heavy ploughsoil removed by machine. Extends across whole site

A.1001 De. 0.2‐0.3m;

Sections 1,2,3,4 Post‐medieval 15/05/2012

1001 layer all Subsoil. Later overlying archaeological features. Removed by machine. Mid grey‐brown silty clay with occasional small to medium sized stones. The build‐up of subsoil on the north part of the site is probably as a result of making up the ground level in the modern period.

B.1000 De. varies from 0.5m on north side of the site to 0.2m on the south side

Sections, 1,2,3,4 Post‐medieval / modern

15/05/2012

1002 layer all Geology. Light orange‐brown sandy clay with frequent small to medium sized stones, flints nodules and lumps of chalk. There is some variation and natural banding within.

B.1002; Cub. [1003], [1005], [1007], [1009]

‐ 15/05/2012

1003 layer south Ditch/ gully. Linear and straight. Runs parallel to a large ditch [1021]. Aligned down slope north‐south. Sides slope at c.45ο to a flattish base

A.1002; B.1004, C. 1002, Co.1004

Wid. 0.4m; De.0.2m

Section 2; Plan 1 Medieval/ post‐medieval

15/05/2012

1004 Fill south Fill of [1003].Mid orange‐brown, compact sandy clay with occasional small stones. No finds.

A.1003; B.1001; Wi.[1003]

Th.0.2m As above Medieval/ post‐medieval

15/05/2012

1005 Cut south Ditch/ furrow. Shape: linear and straight. Orientated north‐south and runs parallel to furrow [1007] about 5m to the east. Sides slope at c.45ο to a flattish base. Has been re‐cut [1009].

Cu.1002; Cub. [1009]; Co. 1006

Wid. Min.0.4m; De.0.3m

Plan 1; Section 3 Medieval/ post‐medieval

15/05/2012

1006 Fill south Fill of [1005]. Light yellow‐brown, very compact sandy clay.

A.1005; B.1009, 1001; Cub.[1009]; Wi. [1005]

Wid. 0.5m x De.0.3m

As above Medieval/ post‐medieval

15/05/2012

1007 Cut south Ditch / furrow. Linear and straight. Runs north‐south along east arm of the trench, parallel to [1005]/ [1009]. Sides slope gently at c.20ο to a concave base.

Ab.1002; Co.1008 Wid.1.2m; De. 0.28m

Plan 1; section 4 Medieval/ post‐medieval

15/05/2012

1008 Fill south Fill of [1007]. Furrow – re‐cut. Mid yellowish brown, compact silty clay with occasional small to medium rounded stones.

A.1007; B.1001; Wi.[1007]

Wi.1.2m; De.0.3m


15/05/2012



Context No.


Suggested Period


1009 Cut south Re‐cut of straight linear feature. Furrow. Runs parallel to [1007] about 5m to the west. Sides slope at c.45ο to a flattish base.

Cu. 1005, 1006, 1002, Co.1010

Wid.1m; De.0.3m Plan 1, Section 3 Medieval/ post‐medieval

15/05/2012

1010 Fill south Fill of [1009]. Mid yellowish brown silty clay with occasional small to medium rounded stones.

Ab.1009; Wi.[1009] Th.0.3m As above Medieval/ post‐medieval

15/05/2012

1011 Cut east Linear feature orientated north‐south, probably a furrow. see also [1007] for another segment excavated through the same feature. Runs parallel to [1005] / [1009]. The slope of sides is not apparent in this segment. Flat base.

A.1002; B.1012; Cu.1002, Co.1012

Wid.c.1m; De. 0.2m


18/05/2012

1012 Fill east Fill of [1011]. Mid yellowish brown compact silt clay with occasional small stones. A single piece of red tile or brick (probably medieval).

Wi.[1011]; B. 1001 Wid.c.1m; De. c.0.2m

As above Medieval 18/05/2012

1013 Cut northeast Small post‐hole. Oval in plan. Sides slope c.45ο to concave base.

Cu.1002; Co.1014, 1033

Dia.0.35 x 0.3m; de. 0.15m

Plans 1 and 3; Section 7

? Iron Age 18/05/2012

1014 Fill northeast Fill of [1013]. Mid yellowish brown silty clay with occasional small stones. No finds.

Wi.1013 Th.0.07m As above ? Iron Age 18/05/2012

1015 Fill south Upper fill of large ditch [1021]. Mid reddish brown, compact silty clay with occasional small to medium rounded stones.

A.1016; B.1001; Wi.[1021]

Wid. 1.4m; Th.c.0.3m

Plan 1; section 1 Iron Age 15/05/2012

1016 Fill south Fill of [1021]. Mid yellowish brown, compact sandy clay with frequent small stones (quite gravelly) and occasional medium stones.

Wi.[1021]; B.1015; A. 1017

Section 1 Iron Age 15/05/2012

1017 Fill south Fill of [1021]. Dark brown clay silt with occasional medium stones. Appears quite silty and organic. Sampled

Wi.[1021]; A.1018; B. 1016

Wid. c.2.4; De.0.25m


1018 Fill south Fill of [1021]. Mottled, mid orange brown, compact sandy clay with frequent small stones.

Wi. [1021]; A.1019; B.1017

Wi.c.3m; De.c.0.2m


1019 Fill south Fill of [1021]. Mid grey‐brown, compact clay silt with occasional small to medium sized stones

A.1020; B.1018 Wi.c.1.3m; De. c.0.2m


1020 Fill south Primary fill of [1021]. Mid orange brown, grey mottled, sandy clay with occasional small to medium rounded stones

B.1019 Wi. C.1m; De.c.0.55


1021 Cut south Large ditch (segment through). Enclosure ditch. Possibly associated with an internal bank on the east side. Shape in plan: linear, straight with parallel sides; orientated north‐south. Profile: near V‐shaped with sides sloping c.45ο to a narrow flattish base. Finds recovered comprise

Cu.1002; b.1020; Co.1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020

Wi.2.8m; De.1.6m from subsoil to base.

Plan 1; Section 1 Iron Age 15/05/2012



Context No.


Suggested Period


bone and pottery. Width of segment excavated: 1m. 1022 Cut south Medieval/post‐medieval furrow with field drain placed

directly along its course, ceramic pipe sections in base. Rectangular cut. North‐south orientation. Working drain

A.1002; Co.1023 Wid.c.0.4; De.0.20m

Plan 1; Section 1 Post‐medieval / modern

15/05/2012

1023 Fill south Fill of [1022]. Mid orange brown sandy clay with occasional medium sized stones

Wi.1022; B. 1001 As above As above A above 15/05/2012

1024 Fill north Fill of [1025]. Mid yellowish brown, very stony silty clay. Wi.[1025]; B.1001 Wid.c.1m; De.c.0.2m

Plan 3; section 5 Medieval/ post‐medieval

16/05/2012

1025 Cut north Shallow gully, oriented north‐south Shape: linear, straight with near‐parallel sides Probably remains of a furrow. One of two parallel linear features (the other: [1026]). Profile: sides sloping c.40ο to a flattish base. Probably the remains of a furrow.

A.1002, Co.1024 Wid.1m; De.c.0.2m


16/05/2012

1026 Cut north Shallow gully, near‐parallel, aligned north‐south. Adjacent and parallel to [1025]. Sides slope c.30ο to an irregular concave‐flattish base. Probably the remains of a furrow.

A.1002; Co.1032 Wid.c.1m; De.c.0.15m

As above As above 16/05/2012

1027 Fill central Fill of [1030]. The main upper fill of large enclosure ditch. Mid orange‐brown very compact silty clay with frequent small to medium sized fragments of chalk. Very similar to the geology and easy to miss as the fill of a feature. It is most probably the material that was originally mounded as a bank alongside the enclosure ditch, which following the disuse of the enclosure and part silting up of its ditch, was deposited in the remaining hollow.

A.1039; Wi. [1030]; B.1001; Cub.[1029]

De. up to 0.6m Plan 2; Section 8 Iron Age 17/05/2012

1028 Fill central Fill of [1029]. Mid greyish brown silty clay with occasional small stones. The upper fill of a large pit. Soil sample taken (No.2)

Wi.1029 De. up to c.0.5m As above Iron Age 17/05/2012

1029 Cut central The cut of a large pit or ditch, part of which was encountered in the evaluation trench (?4). The pit was cut into the northwest corner of the enclosure ditch [1027] after the latter had been infilled. It was possibly dug for the purpose of collecting water, draining downslope throughout the redundant enclosure ditch. It was later use for depositing domestic waste and possibly cess. Only partly revealed in the excavation areas, continuing beyond the northwest baulk. The north‐eastern extent was not identified during the evaluation.

Cu.[1027]; Co.1028, 1036, 1037, 1038

De. where exposed: c.1m

Plan 3, Section 8 Iron Age 17/05/2012



Context No.


Suggested Period


1030 Cut central The cut of a large enclosure ditch. Excavated by hand within a 4m x 2m box section. By chance, this box section encountered the enclosure ditch at its northwest corner. Its fills are cut by pit [1029].

Cu.1002; Co.1027, 1039

Wid. c.4m; De.1.3m

Plan 3; section 8 Iron Age 17/05/2012

1031 Layer central Orange‐brown sandy clay layer found on the ground surface just within the crook of the turning enclosure ditch. This deposit was unprecedented elsewhere on the site and was interpreted as buried subsoil. It appears to have survived here as it was protected by the enclosure ditch bank to the south and east.

A.1002;B. 1001 Le. c.2m; Wid.c.1m; De.0.01 to 0.1m


1032 Fill north Fill of [1026]. Mid orange brown sandy clay with occasional small to medium sized stones. Gully / furrow

Wi.[1026]; B.1001 Wid.c.1.2; Th.up to c.0.2m


21/05/2012

1033 Fill south Upper fill of post‐hole [1011]. Mid brown loose clay silt with occasional stones. No finds

A.1014; B.1001; Wi.1013

Th.c.0.08m Plans 1 and 3 Undated, possibly Iron Age

21/05/2012

1034 Cut north Shallow scoop with flat base, exposed in the northwest corner of the north trench. Function unknown, appears regular enough to be artificial. No finds. Over lain by a large depth (0.7m) of subsoil and topsoil.

A.1002 (geology); Cu. 1002; B. 1001; Co. 1035

Only partly revealed: 2m x 0.7m; De.0.08m

Plan 3; Section 1 Undated, possibly Iron Age

23/05/2012

1035 Fill north Fill of [1034]. Mid orange‐brown, compact silty clay with occasional stones.

Wi.[1034]; B. 1001 Th.c.0.08m Plan 3, Section 11 As above 23/05/2012

1036 Fill central Fill of a large pit [1029]. Dark brown with mottled orange, silty clay with occasional charcoal flecks.

Wi.[1029]; A. 1037; B.1028

Th.c.0.3 Plan 3, Section 8 Iron Age 23/05/2012

1037 Fill central Fill of [1029]. Dark brown, very compact sandy clay with occasional medium‐sized stones.

A.1038; Wi.[1029]; B. 1036

Th.c.0.15m As above Iron Age 23/05/2012

1038 Fill central Primary fill of large pit [1029]. Light greyish brown silty clay with occasional medium sized stones. The deposit was probably formed from silting and the erosion of the sides of the pit.

Wi.[1029]; B. 1037 Th.c.0.06m As above Iron Age 23/05/2012

1039 Fill central Primary fill of enclosure ditch [1030]. Mid grey‐brown silty clay with occasional small to medium sized stones.

Cub.[1029]; Wi [1030]; B. 1027

Th.c.0.30m As above Iron Age 23/05/2012

1040 Cut central Furrow aligned north‐ south. Shallow. One of a pair, 5m apart. Linear and straight in plan with near‐parallel sides. Sides in section are somewhat diffuse sloping c.20 ο to a concave base.

B.1001, Cu.1031,1027, 1029; Co.1041

De.c.0.3m Plan 3; section 8 Medieval/ post‐medieval

23/05/2012

1041 Fill central Fill of [1040]. Mid‐dark orange brown, loose sandy clay. Wi.[1040]; B.1001 Th.c.0.3m As above 23/05/2012 1042 Cut central/

east Cut of east‐west running enclosure ditch. Segment excavated by machine to test whether the ditch

Cu.1002 (geology); Cub. Furrow [1011];

De.c.1.8m Plan 3, Section 9 Iron Age 23/05/2012



Context No.


Suggested Period


continued eastwards as anticipated, which it did. Shape in plan: linear, fairly straight with parallel sides. In profile the sides were smooth, sloping at c.35ο to a concave base. Length of segment: 1.8. width of segment: 3m.

Co. 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046

1043 Fill central/ east

Upper fill of enclosure ditch [1042]. Dark greyish‐brown silty clay with chalk flecks and occasional small to medium sized stones

Wi.[1042]:A.1044: B.1001

Th. up to c.0.8m As above Iron Age 23/05/2012


Fill of [1042]. Mid reddish brown silty clay with occasional charcoal flecks.

Wi.[1042]; A.1045; B.1043

Th.up to c.0.2m As above Iron Age 23/05/2012


Fill of [1042]. Mid orange brown silty clay with occasional chalk fragments

Wi.1042; A.1046; B.1044

Th.up to c.0.3m As above Iron Age 23/05/2012


Primary fill of enclosure ditch [1042]. Dark greyish brown silty clay with occasional small to medium sized stones.

Wi. [1042]; B.1045 c.0.12m As above Iron Age 23/05/2012

1047 Cut central Cut of enclosure ditch, north‐south aligned part (segment excavated by m/c). Shape in plan: linear, straight with parallel sides. Profile: sides smooth and sloping c.45ο to a concave base.

Cuts 1002; B. 1048; (geology); Co. 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053

Wid.c.3m; De.1.6m


1048 Fill central Fill of [1047]. Mid dark orange brown silty clay. A primary interface deposit between the sides of the ditch and the fills, probably partly derived from erosion of the sides.

Wi.[1047], B.1049 Th.up to c.0.3m Section 10 Iron Age 24/05/2012

1049 Fill central Fill of enclosure ditch [1047]. Dark greyish‐brown clay silt with occasional small stones. Possibly part of the bank pitched in from the east side.

Wi.[1047]; A. 1048; B.1050

Th.up to c.0.2m Section 10 Iron Age 24/05/2012

1050 Fill central Fill of enclosure ditch [1047]. Mid orange‐brown, compact silty clay with occasional small to medium sized stones

Wi.[1047]; A.1049; B.1051;

Th.up to 0.2m Section 10 Iron Age 24/05/2012

1051 Fill central Fill of enclosure ditch [1047]. Dark grayish brown clay silt with occasional small stones. Possibly part of the bank pitched in or eroded from the east side.

Wi. [1047]; A.1050; B.1052


1052 Fill central Fill of enclosure ditch [1047].Mid orange brown, compact silty clay with occasional small to medium sized stones and chalk fragments.

Wi. [1047]A.1051; b.1053


1053 Fill central Upper fill of enclosure ditch [1047]. Mid greenish brown, compact silty clay with occasional stones and chalk fragments.

Wi. [1047; A.1052; Below1001; Cub.[1054]

Th.up to 0.45m Section 10 Iron Age 24/05/2012

1054 Cut central Cut of field drain. Red clay sectional pipe in base. Linear, straight with near‐vertical sides, flat base. Orientation

Cu. 1052, 1053, 1001; Co. 1055

Wi.up to c.0.5m; De.c.0.6m

Section 10 Post‐medieval / modern

24/05/2012



Context No.


Suggested Period


north‐south 1055 Fill central Backfill of field drain cut [1054]. Dark greenish brown

silty clay with occasional small stones Wi.[1054]; B.1000 Th.c.0.6m Section 10 Post‐medieval /

modern 24/05/2012

Archaeological Excavation at Colley Hill Farm, Colmworth, Bedfordshire

Documents

Transcript of Archaeological Excavation at Colley Hill Farm, Colmworth, Bedfordshire