Archaeological Excavation Report

Bright Water Landscape Partnership

Lot 1B: East Park Roman Settlement Archaeological Excavation Report

Joshua Hogue, Johanna Ungemach and Indie Jago

2

Bright Water Landscape Partnership

Lot 1B: East Park Roman Settlement

Archaeological Excavation Report

Compiled by:

Joshua Hogue, Johanna Ungemach, and Indie Jago

With contributions from:

Malin Holst, David Griffiths, Scott Matthews, Gerry McDonnell, Rosalind McKenna, Stuart Noon, Elina Peterstone, Hannah Russ, and Chris Scott

DigVentures

24A Newgate

Barnard Castle

County Durham

DL12 8NG

[email protected]

0333 011 3990

@thedigventurers

3

Purpose of document This document has been prepared as a Post-Assessment Report for the Bright Water Landscape Partnership and Durham County Council (DCC). The purpose of this document is to provide an account of the community excavation undertaken East Park Roman settlement, with specialist assessment of finds and samples, and recommendations for further investigation and analysis. It is supported by an easily accessible online database of all written, drawn, photographic and digital data, and recommendations for further analysis.

DigVentures accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document other than by the client for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared.

Carbon footprint A printed copy of the main text in this document will result in a carbon footprint of 99g if 100% post-consumer recycled paper is used and 126g if primary-source paper is used. These figures assume the report is printed in black and white on A4 paper and in duplex. DigVentures is aiming to reduce its per capita carbon emissions.

Copyright © DigVentures Limited 2020

Project summary OASIS ID digventu1-402412

DV project code EPR19

National Grid Reference NZ 3493 2871

County County Durham

Title: Bright Water Landscape Partnership Lot 1B: East Park Roman Settlement Archaeological Excavation Report

Author(s): Joshua Hogue DPhil

Origination date: 20th November 2019

Circulation: Durham County Council Archaeology Section

Reviewed by: Manda Forster MCIfA PhD

Approval: Brendon Wilkins MCIfA

4

Acknowledgements We’d like to begin with a sincere thank you to the Bright Water Landscape Partnership for commissioning us to undertake this exciting project. Particular thanks are due to the Bright Water team, especially Paul Black and Sarah Barton. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the ongoing help and support of David Mason, Principal Archaeologist and team at Durham County Council Archaeology Section. The project was managed by DigVentures and delivered in partnership with Solstice Heritage. Manda Forster and Brendon Wilkins managed the project delivery, with Lisa Westcott Wilkins as Project Executive and Jim Brightman (Solstice Heritage) as Site Director. The site team comprised Chris Scott, Scott Williams, Indie Jago, Johanna Ungemach, Jodie Hannis and Erin McDonald. The Project Would Not Have Been Possible Without Our Community Of Venturers, So Huge Thanks Go To: Josephine Acker, Kristina Acker, Barbara Adelaide, Thourayya Adelaide, Ben Alexander, Helen Alexander, Lucy Alexander, Catherine Archer, Derrick Archer, Christian Ashton, Nick Ashton, Jacqueline Awan, Natasha Awan, Imogen Axworthy, Mark Axworthy, Rebecca Ayton, Neil Barney, Ryan Barraclough, Caroline Baxter, Noah Baxter, Andrew Benbow, Anne-Claire Bennion, Ben Bennion, Jules Bennion, Rose Bennion, Terry Berry, Karen Bielby, Peter Birkby, Charlotte Blakey, Emily Blakey, Richard Blakey, Samantha Blakey, Keelan Boggs, Carly Booker, Erin Booker, Lucy Booker, Steven Booker, Alexander Booth, Richard Booth, Sarah Boyle, Mark Braham, Chris Brennan, Emma Brown, Savannah Brown, Gary Bryars, Isaac Bryars, Ryan Candler, Megan Carnell, Sonya Carnell, Amber Carpenter, Helen Carr, Joshua Carr, Olivia Carrington, Helen Cattan, Sophia Cattan, Gavin Cave ,Joanne Clarida, Jackie Clitheroe, Mahale Clitheroe, Kurt Colyn, Grace Conway, Sarah Conway, Ellie Coworth, Christopher Craven, Jessica Craven, Sophie Craven, Oliver Creasser, Beatrix Croot, Eleanor Croot, Ivy Croot, Jude Croot, Robson Cutts, Phoebe Day, Sarah Day, Dean Dean, John Dean, Sally Dye, Carolyn Edwards, Jonathan Elleray, Jessica Ellery, Charlie Ellis, Diane Ellis, Jack Ellis, Becky Elsey, Evie Elsey-Smith, Sofie Elsey-Smith, Andrew Evans, Anna Evans, Emma Evans, Mali Evans, Nia Evans, Tobias Evans, Joe Fairhurst, Stephen Fairhurst, Sue Fairhurst, Toby Fairhurst, Christine Featherstone, Ian Featherstone, Jack Firthlock, Tilly Firthlock, Tina Firthlock, Andrew Fisher, Annabel Foster, Benjamin Foster, Samantha Foster, Sarah Freck, Bill Fryer, Charlie Fryer, Sara Fryer, Natasha Gaddas, Angela Gilbert, Emily Gilbert, Mark Gilbert, Martha Gilbert, Diane Gourley, Ethan Greenwood, Isla Grundy, Kirsty Grundy, Alexa Gummow, Alistair Gummow, Ella Gummow, Oliver Gummow, Michelle Hadcroft, Jessie Hamer, Karen Hamlet, Daisy Hardy, Keira Hardy, Michael Hardy, Ben Hare, Chris Hare, Gareth Hare, Kerry Hare, Megan Hare, Catherine Harrison, Elizabeth Harrison, Joanne Harrison, Marc Harrison, Gary Hawes, Megan Hawes, Georgia Hawkins, Thomas Hayman, Andy Heath, Bryn Heeley, David Heeley, Joanna Henderson, Margaret Hindle, Hilary Hodgson, Michael Hodgson, Laura Horton, Lily Horton, Lindsay Howell, Neve Howell, Steve Howell, Emma Hudson, Fraser Hudson, Brian Hume, Ethan Hume, Luke Jennings, Andrea Johnson, Linda Johnson, Max Johnson, Michael Johnson, Roy Johnson, Samuel Johnson, David Jones, George Jones, Caroline Jowett, Isabella Jowett, Liga Karklina, Janis Karklinus, Mary Knight, Jennifer Lane-Price, Michelle Leboutte, Rachael Ledger, Ted Ledger, Tilly Ledger, Alexander Lofthouse-Burch, Philip Lofthouse-Burch, Sebastian Lofthouse-Burch, Gwyneth Lonergan, Kirsty Lunn, Jamie Maddison, Harry Malkin, Jack Malkin, Lorna Malkin, Ian Masterton, Sheila Masterton, Ruth Matuska, Zac Mcbain, Ann Mccall, Lynda Mccraight, Eric Mckenzie ,Jessica Mckenzie-Taylor, Leeanne Mckenzie-Taylor, Janet Mcnaught, Charlie Mellor, Michael Mellor, Abbie Morley, Sam Morris, Sarah Morris, Lizzy Moyce, Jolan Mulholland, Michael Mulholland, Emily Murphy, Gemma Murphy, Isabella Murphy, Joanne Murphy, Kevin Murray, Charlie Noakes, Richard Noakes, Kevin O'connell, Roger Offord, Davina Omar, Hannah O'Toole, Rosie O'Toole, Alison Parker, Nick Parker, Darren Pass, Stephen Peasent, Ava Pickard, Mia Pickard,

5

Scarlett Pickard, Barbara Pickering, Jeffrey Pickering, Paul Pickering, David Pickersgill, Amelia Pratt, Craig Pratt, Joanne Pratt, Joshua Pratt, Rosie Price, Clare Pritchett, Jacqui Ratcliffe, Jack Reid, Lee Reid, Rachael Reid, Thomas Reid, Andrew Rhind, Maxine Rhind, Alison Richards, Joanne Richardson, Christina Riley, Ian Roberts, David Robinson, Lizzie Robinson, Kathryn Rose, Alexandra Round, Max Round, Val Rowe, Ben Rowley, Sam Rowley, Will Rowley, Emma Salsbury , Francesca Salsbury, Lucinda Salsbury, Yvette Sheldon, Jenni Shields, Oliver Simpson, Michele Smale, Ian Smith, Jacqui Smith, Kevin Smith, Louise Spurr, Eva Stephenson, James Stephenson, Paul Stirling, Freya Storier, Alfie Sullivan, Daisy Sullivan, Gill Sullivan, Paul Sullivan, John Sweetman, Yasmin Syed, Chloe Taylor, Edith Taylor, Simon Taylor, Vicky Thew, Brian Thomas, Gaynor Thomas, Evelyn Tomlinson, Sarah Tomlinson, Linda Verney, Brian Ward, Christopher Ward, Billy Watson, Harry Wiles, Carole Wilkinson, John Wilkinson, Philip Wilkinson, Richard Wilkinson, Harvey Williams, Tom Willis, Kinga Wisniewska, Autumn Wray, and Ellen Wray.

Executive summary DigVentures was commissioned by the Bright Water Landscape Partnership to complete excavation targeting a geophysical anomaly identified from earlier geophysical survey results at East Park Roman settlement. The overarching aim of this fieldwork was to provide baseline information to contribute to the future management and research of the site, creating multiple educational and participatory learning experiences for community participants. Fieldwork took place between 17th June – 5th July 2019 (DigVentures project code: EPR19). This stage of the project was designed to understand the chronological phasing of the site with particular reference to the previously identified Roman period features, including a road and associated enclosures. The excavation recovered details of the form, character and function of extant features, retrieving an assemblage of artefacts and ecofacts to better understand the origins of the settlement and daily life of the inhabitants.

This report presents results from the excavation, incorporating an assessment of the potential and significance of the site archive, the finds and samples, in the context of the project aims and objectives. A series of recommendations for further analysis is made by the Project Team, which will inform the strategy for future fieldwork. As this stage of excavation was undertaken as part of an ongoing programme of archaeological works at East Park, it is intended that full analysis and reporting will be undertaken once all stages of investigative work have been completed and assessed.

Results summary Fieldwork was undertaken between the 5th and 25th August 2019, following on earlier geophysical surveys (Hale 2010) and archaeological investigations (Mason 2006; 2007; 2010). Earlier research suggests that East Park is a settlement set alongside either side of a Roman road, with an extensive network of enclosures, associated kilns or hearths, dating from the early 2nd century AD uniquely without evidence for any military presence. During this time, many settlements across Britain were contracting or being abandoned and, as one of the largest Roman sites in the region, the site gives an opportunity to explore the nature of occupation in the region during the Roman occupation of Britain (Petts and Gerrard 2006). The 2019 programme of excavation was designed to further investigate the settlement, with particular focus on the southern fringes.

6

Significant archaeological remains were uncovered during the excavations related to the development of the settlement around the road, with a square enclosure, trackway and trackside ditch, and earlier boundary ditch. The fieldwork recovered details of the form, character, chronology and of these features retrieving an assemblage of artefacts and ecofacts providing insight into the chronology and development of the settlement.

All data was recorded by project archaeologists using a web accessible relational database. This is housed on the project microsite, which can be explored by following the links shown in green font throughout the report. The project microsite includes a background to the project, profiles of participants and updates from the trenches:

https://digventures.com/bright-water/ At least three phases of activity were exposed during excavation. The earliest, a boundary ditch, was probably of prehistoric origin and was partially covered by a trackway and associated trackside ditch established during the early Roman period, c. late 1st century / early 2nd century AD. There appears to have been limited activity following the establishment of the road with the settlement not appearing to be established until the 4th century AD. During this phase, a square enclosure was constructed cutting through the earlier Roman trackway and boundary ditch. The enclosure is associated with a small number of contemporary features including a cremation urn containing the remains of a mature adult male. As a community focussed project, public engagement was integral to the research aims and success of the excavation. A number of participation opportunities for local community members, school children and visitors to the area, provided a chance to experience the archaeology of East Park’s Roman settlement. In total, the project received 311 visitors, with 120 individuals joining the archaeological team in the trenches and our finds room. The project succeeded in attracting a new audience for archaeology, with 55% of participants having never taken part in archaeology activities before. The overall perception of archaeology and local history was improved, and over 90% of visitors described an improved perception of the immediate East Park and the site’s locality as a result of seeing the ongoing excavation. Insights gained from the evaluation have established a clear community need and demand for more archaeological work and opportunities for participation in the Bright Water project area.

https://digventures.com/bright-water/

7

Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 10

1.1 Project background ...................................................................................................... 10

1.2 Location, topography and geology .............................................................................. 10

2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 11

2.1 Archaeological and historical background ................................................................... 11

2.2 North-East Regional Research Framework ................................................................... 12

3 PROJECT AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................. 13

3.1 Project model ............................................................................................................... 13

4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 15

4.1 Remote sensing ............................................................................................................ 15

4.2 Excavation ..................................................................................................................... 15

4.3 Artefacts and ecofacts .................................................................................................. 16

5 EXCAVATION RESULTS ................................................................................................... 19

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 19

5.2 Phase 1 – Boundary ditch ............................................................................................. 20

5.3 Phase 2 - Roman trackway ............................................................................................ 20

5.4 Phase 3 – Enclosure ...................................................................................................... 21

5.5 Phase 4 – Medieval ploughing ..................................................................................... 22

6 ARTEFACTS AND ECOFACTS ......................................................................................... 22

6.1 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 22

6.2 Pottery .......................................................................................................................... 23

6.3 Ceramic Building Material ............................................................................................ 26

6.4 Animal bone ................................................................................................................. 26

6.5 Cremated bone............................................................................................................. 27

6.6 Metalwork ..................................................................................................................... 29

6.7 Industrial waste ............................................................................................................. 30

6.8 Lithics ............................................................................................................................ 30

6.9 Worked stone ............................................................................................................... 30

6.10 Glass .......................................................................................................................... 31

6.11 Clay pipe ................................................................................................................... 31

6.12 Environmental ........................................................................................................... 31

7 PUBLIC IMPACT ............................................................................................................... 32

8

7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 32

7.2 Public programming ..................................................................................................... 33

7.3 Evaluation methodology .............................................................................................. 33

7.4 Social impact – participants .......................................................................................... 34

7.5 Social impact – communities ........................................................................................ 36

8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 37

9 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 38

9.2 Excavation ..................................................................................................................... 39

9.3 Pottery .......................................................................................................................... 39

9.4 Other Finds ................................................................................................................... 40

10 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 40

Tables Table 1. Summary of cremated bone assemblages ................................................................ 87 Table 2. Cremated bone fragmentation per context .............................................................. 87 Table 3. Proportions of identified fragments per context ....................................................... 88 Table 4 Catalogues of the slags recovered from East Park, Roman (weight in grams)........... 94 Table 5 Dimension of the Hearth Bottom. D1- Major Diameter; D2 - minor Diameter; DP – Depth ....................................................................................................................................... 94 Table 6. Worked lithic artefacts ............................................................................................... 97 Table 7 Naturally broken/unworked flint ................................................................................. 98 Table 8. Worked stone catalogue ........................................................................................... 99 Table 9. Glass catalogue ......................................................................................................... 99 Table 10. Clay pipe catalogue ................................................................................................ 99 Table 11. List of plant macrofossil taxa ................................................................................. 100

Figures Figure 1 - Site location ............................................................................................................ 46 Figure 2 - Post-excavation plan ............................................................................................... 47 Figure 3 - Phased plan ............................................................................................................. 48 Figure 4 - Sections 1 -7 ............................................................................................................ 49 Figure 5 - Sections 8 - 10 ......................................................................................................... 50 Figure 6 - Sections 11 – 13 ...................................................................................................... 51 Figure 7 - Phase 1 photos ........................................................................................................ 52 Figure 8 - Phase 2 photos ........................................................................................................ 53 Figure 9 - Phase 3 photos ........................................................................................................ 54 Figure 10 - Public engagement ............................................................................................... 55 Figure 11 - Public engagement ............................................................................................... 56 Figure 12 - Public engagement ............................................................................................... 57 Figure 13 - Age, gender and socio-economic background of participants ............................ 58 Figure 14 - Average distance from site for visitors and participants of all visitors to the project ................................................................................................................................................. 59 Figure 15 - Motivations and highlights of participants ........................................................... 60 Figure 16 - Age, gender and professional background of visitors.......................................... 61 Figure 17 - Changing perceptions of archaeology through visitation .................................... 62

9

Appendices Appendix 1. Trench and context descriptions ........................................................................ 64 Appendix 2. Pottery and CBM catalogue ............................................................................... 70 Appendix 3. Pottery and CBM fabric descriptions .................................................................. 80 Appendix 4. Animal bone catalogue ....................................................................................... 85 Appendix 5. Cremated remains catalogue ............................................................................. 87 Appendix 6. Slag catalogue .................................................................................................... 94 Appendix 7. Metalwork ........................................................................................................... 95 Appendix 8. Lithic catalogue ................................................................................................... 97 Appendix 9. Worked stone catalogue..................................................................................... 99 Appendix 10. Glass catalogue ................................................................................................ 99 Appendix 11. Clay pipe catalogue .......................................................................................... 99 Appendix 12. Environmental catalogue ................................................................................ 100 Appendix 13: Social impact methodology ............................................................................ 101

10

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project background

1.1.1 This document presents the results of community-based excavations at East Park Roman Settlement (hereafter ‘the site’). The work was undertaken on behalf on the Bright Water Landscape Partnership (hereafter ‘the client’) in accordance with the project design from Lot 1: Built Heritage: Ancient Environment and Early Settlement (Wilkins and Russ 2019). The Project Design was prepared by DigVentures in consultation with the client and project partners, including DigVentures, Solstice Heritage and Durham University.

1.1.2 The Bright Water Landscape Partnership Scheme is supported by the National Heritage Lottery Fund and led by Durham Wildlife Trust and Durham County Council. The Partnership has come together with Durham County Council Archaeology Section (DCCAS) to develop a range of community-based archaeological research projects that will investigate and celebrate the natural and built heritage of the Bright Water area, and reconnecting people with the amazing landscape on their doorstep. The Bright Water Landscape Partnership has appointed DigVentures and the Project Team to deliver a series of professionally-led, volunteer projects designed to engage people with the unique built heritage of the Bright Water catchment.

1.1.3 The East Park Roman settlement project will include two seasons of excavation focussing on the extensive Roman archaeological site at East Park, with an embedded public engagement programme maximising the impact of the investigations through guided tours, open days, public talks and displays. This document presents the results of the first season of community-based excavations at the site which took place between 17th June – 5th July 2020.

1.2 Location, topography and geology

1.2.1 The area covered by the Bright Water Landscape Partnership extends over 200km2 of lowland County Durham and Darlington, focusing on the River Skerne from Hurworth Burn reservoir in East Durham to South Park in Darlington. The project area includes Great Aycliffe, Sedgefield, Bishop Middleham, Fishburn, Heighington, Brafferton, Barmpton and Darlington. The Bright Water landscape was formerly dominated by wetlands but many of them have been lost over the past 200 years.

1.2.2 East Park Roman settlement is located to the west of the town of Sedgefield and is bound to the east and south buy the A177 and A689 roads, respectively. Geophysical survey in the area suggests that the settlement extends to the northeast under the modern town of Sedgefield. The site lies on sedimentary Dolostone bedrock of the Ford Formation that formed 252-272 million years ago during the Permian period. The local environment was previously dominated by shallow carbonate seas forming biogenic and detrital deposits generally comprising carbonate material (including coral and shell fragments). The superficial geology comprises Devensian glaciofluvial deposits of sand and gravel. Formed as a result of Ice Age conditions, these sedimentary deposits are detrital, generally coarse-grained, and form beds, channels, plains and fans associated with glacial meltwater (BGS, http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk).

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/

11

2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

2.1 Archaeological and historical background

2.1.1 Discovered in the mid-1990s, the potentially Late Iron Age and Romano-British settlement at East Park (Lot 1B) has seen investigation by Time Team in 2002, and more extensive geophysical survey and community-based field walking and excavations lead by DCCAS and Archaeology Services Durham University (ASUD) between 2005 and 2009 (Carne and Mason 2006; Mason 2007; Claydon 2008; Carne 2009; Petts and Gerrard 2006, 54; Mason 2010; ASDU 2010). A decade later, and considering new and improved methods for excavation and post-excavation analysis combined with the recent discovery and investigation of contemporary sites in the vicinity, the site offers significant research potential. As a result of new and improved methods for excavation and post-excavation analysis there is now a more developed framework in place for understanding this type of settlement (non-military road-side town) in the north and, with targeted excavation, new research will benefit from significant advances in the understanding of the Roman conquest and subsequent occupation in this region.

2.1.2 Results of the previous community archaeology project at East Park settlement suggest that road-side enclosures perhaps represented individual family plots, capable of accommodating a variety of functions including domestic, agricultural and industrial. Buildings were constructed exclusively of timber, with no evidence for dressed stone, mortar or brick/tile, and ranged from simple huts and shelters to aisled barns. Small-scale industrial activity such as pottery manufacture (including a substantial double chamber kiln with flue) and copper smelting was identified in some enclosures, plus agricultural features such as stock-pens and barns. Analysis of the finds indicated that intense occupation spanned the period from c. 120 to c. 250, but greatly diminished thereafter (Carne and Mason 2006; Mason 2007; Claydon 2008; Carne 2009; Petts and Gerrard 2006, 54; Mason 2010; ASDU 2010).

2.1.3 The settlement straddled Cade’s Road, with a series of rectilinear enclosure plots, defined by ditches, lining the road and extending eastward of it along an irregular network of minor roads or lanes. The ribbon development of enclosures extending northwards and southwards along Cade’s Road continued up to and probably beyond the bounds of the survey in both directions, though becoming more irregular to the north. In the central area, where the settlement broadened out, it clearly continued beneath the modern housing estates to the east and north-east. In this eastern zone, the lanes focused on a central open area which may have functioned as a public space – a green or market place – with a single isolated enclosure situated towards the west side of this area containing a single building, perhaps a shrine or some sort of communal or official structure.

2.1.4 The East Park area seems to have been the focus of a fairly dense distribution of late Iron Age and Romano-British rural settlement revealed by developer-funded archaeological investigation in the environs of Sedgefield. These include a late Iron Age or Romano British enclosure 1km to the southwest at Brakes Farm (Brogan 2010), another just northeast of nearby Home Farm, a multi-phase enclosure of probable Romano-British date at Eden Drive and an enclosed settlement south of Beacon Lane, on the southern and southeastern edges of Sedgefield respectively, the latter with remains radiocarbon dated to the early Romano-British era (1st/2nd centuries AD), yet

12

another settlement characterised by ditched enclosures and pits yielding a significant quantity of Romano-British pottery at Whin Houses, near Butterwick Moor Farm, c. 4.5km to the east-northeast (Platell 2008), and a potential Romano-British field system at Mordon North Farm. It is may also be observed that the individual ‘family unit’ enclosures which make up the East Park settlement resemble the basic components of the Late Iron Age/early Romano-British rural settlement pattern, hinting that the village or town may represent a coalescence of rural settlements scattered in the wider environs into a single nucleated roadside site, perhaps attracted by the commercial opportunities presented by passing traffic on the road.

2.2 North-East Regional Research Framework

2.2.1 All the proposed community archaeology projects undertaken as part of the Bright Water Built Heritage Lots have provided an opportunity to offer the community knowledge, transferable skills and an identity based in landscape commonality. In addition, they provide an excellent opportunity to contribute new research to our understanding of past human activity in the region. Addressing the research themes and questions posed in the North-East Regional Research Framework (NERRF, Petts and Gerrard 2006), as well as those raised more recently as a result of developer-led archaeology and academic research will ensure maximum impact and legacy for the Bright Water Landscape Partnership and Durham County Council Archaeology Section in the archaeological sphere. Community excavations at East Park, Segefield, address some of the following themes highlighted within NERRF:

▪ Environment and agriculture - Plant macro-fossil evidence has been largely missing from non-military and civilian sites and as such significant questions remains as to the exact nature of subsistence during the Roman era. East Park, Sedgefield (Co. Durham) and other sites hold some potential for redressing this imbalance (Petts and Gerrard 2006, p. 45-6).

▪ Transport and communication - Being critical to the expansion of and success of settlement in the North East in more recent times, industry and transport was likely an important aspect of the region since at least Roman times. The existence of a Roman road (known as Cade’s Road) is thought likely to have linked York and Newcastle, although the exact course of the road remains unclear. Most likely, Cade’s Road was located east of Dere Street, the only Roman road know run to the entire breadth of the region, and it has previously been suggested that the road ran through East Park (Petts and Gerrard 2006, p. 46-47)

13

▪ Settlement, military infrastructure and native communities – Roman military infrastructure was unsurprisingly, closely linked to the road network within Country Durham. However, unlike Dere Street, there has been limited evidence of Roman military actively uncovered along Cade’s Road and the only fort, so far discovered, along its length is at Chester-le-Street (Concangis). East Park, a large and complex site with an intricate series of enclosures, may have been focused on Cade’s Road. Initial excavations have indicated activity at this vici into the last-4th century AD, yet due to the lack of excavation there is a need to better understand the chronology of the site and the exact function of the settlement which remains enigma (Petts and Gerrard 2006, p. 47-55; 149).

3 PROJECT AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

3.1 Project model

3.1.1 The overarching aim of the archaeological excavation was to define and characterise the physical extent of the sites through a programme of non-intrusive investigations (desk-based assessment, landscape survey and geophysical survey) and intrusive sampling and excavation, obtaining baseline data that will facilitate future management, research, presentation and enjoyment in line with the recommendations made in the North East Regional Research Framework (Petts and Gerrard 2006).

3.1.2 The following aims were refined from those outlined in the overarching project design for Bright Water Landscape Partnership Lot 1: Ancient Environment and Early Settlement (DigVentures et al. 2019) and relate specifically to Bright Water Landscape Partnership Lot 1B: East Park Roman Settlement:

3.2 Aim 1 – Refine the chronology and phasing of the site with a programme of excavation

3.2.1 This aim was addressed with targeted archaeological excavation following recommendations made in the North East Regional Research Framework (Petts and Gerrard, Section 23) and by David Mason, Principle Archaeologist Durham County Council. Key questions included:

▪ Q1: Can we corroborate chronology of the site? What are the origins of the site? What evidence is there for continued activity into the 4th century AD at East Park?

▪ Q2: What are the typical and atypical features of the settlement at East Park, and did this influence the functions and activities that took place? To what extent can the settlement be considered ‘native’?

▪ Q3: What is the landscape setting and character surrounding the sites, and how did this shape their location, design and development?

14

3.3 Aim 2 – Understand the site’s archaeological and palaeoenvironmental conditions

3.3.1 This aim was focused on the assemblage of findings and samples as defined and recovered in Aim 1, using appropriate palaeoenvironmental and archaeological techniques to establish the preservation and significance of the heritage assets. Key questions included:

▪ Q4: What is the current state of preservation of the archaeological and palaeoenvironmental material across the sites?

▪ Q5: How well do deposits and artefacts survive, and how deeply are they buried?

▪ Q6: Can the archaeological data inform us about seasonal farming regimes, specialised food processing or industrial activities that may have taken place at the site? Do the excavations show similar patterns of the pottery manufacture as observed to the north?

▪ Q7: What is the range and spatial patterning of ecofacts and artefacts recovered from the sites? What do ecofacts and artefacts tell us about the nature of the East Park?

▪ Q8: Can we increase our understanding of the local environment during the formation and/or occupation of the site?

3.4 Aim 3 – Make recommendations for further work, analysis and publication

3.4.1 This aim requires all data from Aims 1-2 to be collated, with an integrated integrated synthesis of the archaeological and palaeoenvironmental resource at the site. Recommendations will be made to conserve, enhance and interpret the heritage significance of the Site, informing further fieldwork stages, analysis, publication and final archiving. Key questions include: ▪ Q9: What can an integrated synthesis of the results of this work with previous

studies of contemporary regional sites tell us about the sites and their settings?

▪ Q10: In light of the evidence recovered from this and previous work, can we articulate a link between the periods of use of the sites and their different areas?

▪ Q11: Can we formulate recommendations for further archaeological analysis at the sites, and implement a programme to publish and disseminate the results or continue fieldwork into additional seasons?

15

3.5 Aim 4 – Engage and train local people in the research of Bright Water Study Area and provide opportunities for public engagement

3.5.1 The project offered a range of opportunities for local community members to get involved, providing training in heritage skills linked to the assessment and analysis of historic buildings. As part of the overarching project, providing opportunities for volunteers was an important component of the defined aims. Key objectives included:

▪ To further the study, understanding and enjoyment of the Bright Water Study Area by interested individuals and community groups

▪ To recruit and retain a core team of volunteers to collect data, record historic buildings, and to analyse and interrogate the results

▪ The provision of training, guidance and technical support to members of the community in GIS, landscape survey, building recording, and historic landscape interpretation.

4 METHODOLOGY

4.1 Remote sensing

4.1.1 A photogrammetric survey of the site and surrounding area was made in accordance with Historic England’s Photogrammetric Applications for Cultural Heritage: Guidance for Good Practice (2017), to assist in recording any remains encountered. The survey utilised Agisoft Metashape 3D Modelling software to detect the feature points of the structure and match these in different images to create a point cloud, from which a photo realistic 3D models were generated. All models were georeferenced using eight coded targets for each model, surveyed into the National Grid using a robotic total station. The resulting DSM was intended to provide an accurate and versatile record of the form and condition of the site and as such to provide a baseline dataset for comparison with future surveys to place the castle’s environs and interventions into a landscape context to facilitate more detailed invasive and non-invasive work at the site.

4.2 Excavation

4.2.1 All work was completed to CIfA Standard and guidance for archaeological excavation (2014) and, unless otherwise stated, in accordance with method statements set out in Bright Water Landscape Partnership Lot 1: Project Design – Appendix 2 (DigVentures et al. 2019). The excavation was carried out in accordance with its company Health and Safety Policy, to standards defined in The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and The Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1999, and in accordance with the SCAUM (Standing Conference of Archaeological Unit Managers) health and safety manual, Health and Safety in Field Archaeology (1996), and DigVentures Health and Safety Policy.

16

4.2.2 Excavation took place between 17th June – 5th July 2019, in partnership with Solstice Heritage. Trench location was established in collaboration with David Mason, Principle Archaeologist Durham County Council, who recommended investigating a 400m2 area of the settlement, using a 20 x 20m trench. The location was chosen to target anomalies identified through geophysical survey which indicated occupation on the west side of the main thoroughfare through the settlement, as well as a distinctive northwest-southeast aligned anomaly. The overall aim was to characterise the nature and date of activity towards the southern edge of the settlement.

4.2.3 All trenches were located using a GPS prior to the commencement of work, and each area using the results of pre-existing non-invasive survey data (Hale 2010). All areas were stripped of overburden deposits with a mechanical excavator under continuous archaeological supervision down to the first archaeological horizon. All machine excavation was carried out under constant archaeological supervision using a toothless bucket and including visually scanning spoil for artefacts.

4.2.4 The trench was subsequently hand-cleaned, planned and photographed prior to hand excavation. Any archaeological features and deposits exposed were hand-cleaned and excavated to determine their nature, character and date. Carefully chosen cross-sections were then excavated through features to enable sufficient information about form, development, date and stratigraphic relationships to be recorded.

4.2.5 A complete drawn record of the trenches comprises both plans and sections, drawn to appropriate scales and annotated with coordinates and AOD heights. A single context recording system was used to record the deposits, and a full list of all records is presented in Appendix 1. Layers and fills are recorded with curved brackets (4001), whilst the cut of the feature is shown [4002]. Each feature is prefixed with the relevant with the letter F (ie Trench 6, F601+, Trench 7, F701+).

4.2.6 All interventions were surveyed using a dGPS tied into the Ordnance Survey grid. All recording was undertaken using the DigVentures Digital Dig Team recording system. Digital Dig Team is DigVentures’ bespoke, cloud-based, open data recording platform, designed to enable researchers to publish data directly from the field using any web-enabled device (such as a smartphone or tablet) into a live relational database. Once recorded, the born-digital archive is instantly accessible via open access on a dedicated website and published to social profiles of all project participants (community, professional and specialist). Links to all individual feature and context records are provided in Appendix 1, from where all associated finds, samples, plans, sections, photographic records and 3D models can also be explored.

4.3 Artefacts and ecofacts

4.3.1 Finds were treated in accordance with the relevant guidance given in the Chartered Institute for Archaeologist's Standard and guidance for archaeological field evaluation (revised 2014), and the Standard and guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of archaeological materials (2014), excepting where they were superseded by statements made below. Archaeological material will be handled and sorted following advice in Watkinson and Neal (1998). All artefacts from excavated contexts were washed, counted, weighed, and identified. Finds recovered were assessed by appropriately qualified specialists, who examined the finds to

17

provide an identification, date and provenance of the material, and to also evaluate the significance of the assemblage.

Pottery

4.3.2 The Romano-British pottery was assessed visually and sorted into broad ware classes including amphorae, samian, other fine wares, coarse wares, and mortaria, on the basis of colour, hardness, fracture, and inclusion composition, as outlined in Tomber and Dore (1998, 6-8), and catalogued in accordance to national guidelines (Barclay et al. 2016). The assessment was undertaken with reference to the Project Design (Wilkins and Russ 2019) and the North-East Regional Research Framework (Petts and Gerrard 2006). Each ware class was quantified by count, weight, and estimated vessel equivalents (based on percentage of rims preserved). International imports, nationally distributed wares, and regional/local products were identified. No attempt was made to identify samian wares to production source, however, where form and chronology were clear, a date range is provided; only brief comment is made on decorated sherds. Pottery sherds with diagnostic features which aid identification to form were assigned a Featured Vessel number (FV), which is referred to in the text below where appropriate. A catalogue of all material is provided in Appendix 2.

4.3.3 Detailed fabric analysis was undertaken using a low power microscope at X30 magnification. This analysis has enabled further refinement of many of the coarse ware fabrics and identified local/regional wares, nationally distributed and imported products within the assemblage. A full catalogue of fabric descriptions is provided in Appendix 3, below. There is no available fabric series for East Park, Sedgefield, therefore a site-specific series was developed as part of this assessment. Where applicable, reference is made to national and regional fabric series’ (e.g. Tomber and Dore 1998).

Ceramic Building Material

4.3.4 The CBM was examined following the Minimum Standards for Recovery, Curation, Analysis, and Publication for Ceramic Building Material (Archaeological Ceramic Building Materials Group, 2002). Fragments were recorded in a Microsoft Access database following McComish (2012, 122) by count, weight, form, and surviving complete dimensions (if preserved). A full catalogue of material is provided in Appendix 2, with fabric descriptions in Appendix 3.

Animal bone

4.3.5 All animal remains were identified to element, side and to as low a taxonomic level as possible using the Author’s reference collection and published and online identification guides (Hillson 2003; 2005). Quantification used the diagnostic zone method as presented by Dobney and Rielly (1988). A taphonomic assessment of each fragment was undertaken, recording the presence and absence of cut and chop marks, burning and calcination, any evidence for animal activity (canid or rodent gnawing), and surface preservation; any other surface modifications of note were also recorded. At this stage, no attempt was made to sex any of the remains, or to measure any elements. Sheep (Ovis sp.) and goat (Capra sp.) distinction was also not considered. Fragments of bones that could be identified to element but not any specific species

18

were grouped as far as possible using size and class or order categories. Results were recorded in an electronic proforma in Microsoft Excel.

4.3.6 This assessment has been undertaken in line with current standards and guidelines (CIfA 2014; Baker and Worley 2019) with reference to the Project Design (Wilkins and Russ 2019)

Cremated bone

4.3.7 The cremated bone was analysed according to the guidelines specified by McKinley (2004a). The bone was passed through a nest of sieves with mesh sizes of 10mm, 5mm and 2mm. The maximum fragment size was measured, bone colour was noted, and any identifiable fragments were recorded. An attempt was made to determine age and sex, and any pathological lesions present were described. Further supplementary information on the methodological procedures is given in Appendix 5.

Slag

4.3.8 The slags were visually examined and the classification is based on morphology with additional data obtained from Hand-Held X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis. The debris associated with metalworking, or submitted in the understanding that they are associated with metalworking, can be divided into two broad groups; residues diagnostic of a particular metallurgical process or non-diagnostic residues that may have derived from any pyrotechnological process (McDonnell 2001). The diagnostic ferrous debris can be attributed to a particular ironworking process; these comprise ores and the ironworking slags, i.e. the macro, hand recovered smelting and smithing slags and the micro-residues such as hammerscale and slag fragments recovered from sieving programmes. The second group, are the diagnostic non-ferrous metalworking debris, e.g. crucibles and moulds. Thirdly, there are the non-diagnostic slags, which could have been generated by a number of different processes but show no diagnostic characteristic that can identify the process. In many cases the non-diagnostic residues, e.g. hearth or furnace lining, may be ascribed to a particular process through archaeological association. The residue classifications used in the report are defined in Appendix 6.

Lithics

4.3.9 All artefacts were classified using established typo-technological standard recording procedures (e.g. Butler 2005; Inizan et al. 1999). The condition of the object was also recorded, including evidence of breakage, burning, post-depositional damage, and the development of patinas (e.g. Burroni et al., 2002; Luedtke, 1992). All finds were quantified by count and weighed to the nearest 0.1g. All metrical attributes were recorded after Saville (1980).

19

Environmental

4.3.10 Bulk environmental soil samples for plant macrofossils, small animal bones and other small artefacts were taken from appropriate sealed and dateable archaeological contexts (each context will normally be sampled). Samples of between 20-40 litres were taken or 100% of smaller contexts. Samples were not taken from the intersection of features. Bulk environmental soil samples were processed by flotation and scanned to assess the environmental potential of deposits, but were not fully analysed. The residues and sieved fractions were recorded and retained with the project archive.

▪ Flots were sieved to 0.3mm and air dried. The heavy residue (the material which does not float) was not examined, and therefore the results presented here are based entirely on the material from the flot. The flot was examined under a low-power binocular microscope at magnifications between x12 and x40. A four point semi quantitative scale was used, from ‘1’ – one or a few specimens (less than an estimated six per kg of raw sediment) to ‘4’ – abundant remains (many specimens per kg or a major component of the matrix). Data were recorded on paper and subsequently on a personal computer using a Microsoft Access database. The results of this can be seen in Table 11.

▪ Identification was carried out using published keys (Jacomet 2006, Biejerinkc 1976, Jones – unpublished and Zohary and Hopf 2000), online resources (http://www.plantatlas.eu/za.php), the authors own reference collection. Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Stace (1997).

▪ The flot was then sieved into convenient fractions (4, 2, 1 and 0.3mm) for sorting and identification of charcoal fragments. Identifiable material was only present within the 4 and 2mm fractions. A random selection of ideally 100 fragments of charcoal of varying sizes was made, which were then identified. Where samples did not contain 100 identifiable fragments, all fragments were studied and recorded. Identification was made using the wood identification guides of Schweingruber (1978) and Hather (2000). Taxa identified only to genus cannot be identified more closely due to a lack of defining characteristics in charcoal material.

5 EXCAVATION RESULTS

Josh Hogue and Indie Jago

With specialist contributions by David Griffiths (pottery and CBM), Hannah Russ (animal bone), Elina Peterstone and Malin Holst (cremated bone), Stuart Noon (small finds), Gerry McDonnell (slag), Josh Hogue (lithics), and Rosalind McKenna (environmental)

Digital context and feature records are accessible via the Digital Dig Team system and can be reviewed at https://digventures.com/bright-water/ddt/browser.php and by clicking on the links in green in the text.

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 An archaeological excavation was carried out between the 17th June and 5th July 2019 at East Park Roman settlement. Primarily results from the investigations, enable

http://www.plantatlas.eu/za.php

https://digventures.com/bright-water/ddt/browser.php

20

through insights to be gained as to the nature of occupation during the Roman era. The following stratigraphic assessment addresses Aim 1 Questions 1-3 (see Section 3.0) by establishing a phased chronological narrative for the development of the deposits at East Park Roman settlement.

5.1.2 The excavation area was rectilinear in plan, measuring approximately 20m long and 20m wide. Figure 2 shows the final post-excavation plan of the site derived from a rendered 3D model and GPS data. Figure 3 shows a plan of the site divided into phases of the main activities that occurred at the site. Figures 4-7 show the sections of excavated features. Detailed descriptions of contexts are included in Appendix 1.

5.2 Phase 1 – Boundary ditch

5.2.1 The earliest feature on site was an east-west aligned ditch F109. The ditch was variably filled by stone-rich and clayey-sand deposits, (1003), [1004], (1011), (1017), (1018), (1028), (1031), and (1033). The ditch measured 1.9m wide and 0.7m deep. It appears to have gradually filled with deposits and was already at least partially filled at the time the Roman road was constructed as this truncates the ditch. The ditch can be observed on the results of previous geophysical surveys as a NW-SE aligned linear anomaly spanning the width of East Park (Hale 2010).

5.2.2 Most of the pottery found within this ditch dates to AD175/200-300 during the Roman period, however handmade pottery in a prehistoric tradition was identified from the feature and tentatively indicates an earlier date for the ditch. Two pieces of slag were collected from (1003), indicating that metalworking may have taken place near the excavation area. The slag from the boundary ditch was not dateable, although industrial waste and a hearth bottom characteristic of Iron Age metalworking were found as residual finds from later Roman features.

5.3 Phase 2 - Roman trackway

5.3.1 A trackway F107 was observed in the eastern half of the trench. This was visible as an anomaly on the geophysical survey, running roughly north-south. The trackway surface had been heavily truncated by medieval ridge-and-furrow ploughing although layers associated with the use of the trackway were still visible in places; (1009), (1010), (1029) and (1041).

5.3.2 The trackway appeared in generally worse condition along its western edge, and the western edge was recorded separately in the field as F108. Only three potsherds were recovered from the trackway, all from upper layer (1029). A Campanian amphorae potsherd dated AD 40-80/90, a Lower Nene Valley Colour-coated ware dated AD 150-410 and a reduced grey ware dated AD 100-400. Although the assemblage is small, it may tentatively be taken to indicate a relatively restricted date for the use of the trackway between late-1st century AD and early-2nd century AD.

5.3.3 The trackway was bounded west by a north-south aligned ditch F104. The ditch ran parallel to the track defining the edge of the trackway. The ditch was variably established, with irregular margins, it measured 1m wide and 0.17m deep. Three sherds of pottery were found within the trackside ditch. A Dressel 20 amphora dated AD 50-250 and two sherds of greyware dated AD 100-400.

http://digventures.com/bright-water/ddt/fea/EPR_109

http://digventures.com/bright-water/ddt/cxt/EPR_1003















21

5.3.4 A series of sand and gravels deposits were identified as construction layers in the field for a more substantial Roman road; (1012), (1035), (1036), (1039), and (1040). However, none of these deposits yielded any finds and have been subsequently interpreted as naturally accumulating glaciofluvial sands and gravels dating from the Devensian Stage, and which characterise the local superficial geology at East Park, Sedgefield (BGS 2020).

5.4 Phase 3 – Enclosure

5.4.1 A large ditch F105 with a V-shaped profile appeared to be the latest Roman feature observed within the trench. From the geophysics the ditch can be identified as square in plan. It measured 2.05m wide and 0.65m deep. It seems likely that it functioned as an enclosure ditch demarcating property boundaries. The ditch was filled with clayey-sand deposits, (1005), (1013), (1014) and (1022).

5.4.2 This enclosure ditch cuts through the trackway and associated ditch, and early boundary ditch. It is likely that this enclosure was part of a ladder settlement built along the track. The ditch was partially infilled by a cobble surface (1021) extending along its length. The purpose of this cobbling remains open to debate, but could represent the installation of an access way between adjacent domestic plots where the soils with the ditch may have retained moisture making the ground too soft. Sixty-three pot sherds where found within the ditch, from the upper layers (1005), (1013) and (1014), they date the ditch 3rd/4th century AD. Two handmade sherds may have been incorporated into the enclosure ditch fill due to it truncating F109, or due to residue Iron Age material remaining on the surface.

5.4.3 A moderate-sized sub-circular pit F102 and a smaller circular pit F113 truncated the trackway ditch and may have been contemporary with the enclosure ditch. F102 was a probable refuse pit dug into the relict soil. Having been infilled (1026), the feature appeared to have been intentionally covered with cobbles (1019) which may represent the capping or levelling-up of the pit. Seventeen sherds of pot where found within F102, from both (1026) and (1019) given the pit a terminus post quem of AD150-250+. The purpose of F113 is unknown, and no pot was recovered to further date the feature.

5.4.4 A cremation urn was recovered during machine topsoil stripping from F103. The cremation urn was removed and the feature cleaned but not excavated. F103 was sub-rectangular in plan, and was filled with very dark grey, charcoal rich silt (1020). Five sherds of pot where found within the pit, three sherds of black burnished wares and two sherds of course ware. These dated the feature to AD100-400.



























22

5.4.5 The cremation jar SF11 had no clear diagnostic features to help refine the date. The cremated remains were moderately preserved and likely belonged to a middle aged to mature, adult male. The internment of cremated human remains in ceramic vessels at the sides of roads, in ‘back garden plots’, and in cemeteries is a common practice during the Roman period in Britain. It is therefore likely that the cremation is contemporary with the enclosure ditch.

5.4.6 A discrete spread of charcoal rich soil F112, was identified in the northwest corner of the trench. F112 was not excavated beyond exposure within the original topsoil strip and was recorded in plan. From this feature five sherds of pot were collected from one ‘waster’ vessel made of course ware in the form of a wide-mouthed jar or dish. This pot was made in or near the excavation area. No precise dates can be attributed to the pot and it dates to AD100-400, it is also a discrete spread so no relationships can be ascertained.

5.4.7 The enclosure ditch had truncated a feature, F110, the base of which was observed in section. Whilst it is possible that the feature was part of an earlier phase of enclosure, survival was minimal and the full extent impossible to establish. An alternative interpretation is that the feature represented a pit. The feature was filled by clayey-silt deposits (1030) and (1043). Two sherds of pot where recovered from the basal fill of the feature (1030) though these gave a wide date range of AD100-400.

5.5 Phase 4 – Medieval ploughing

5.5.1 A couple of plough furrows F101 and F106 cut through earlier features. The layers associated with the trackway appear to have been heavily displaced due to this later ploughing, and the two furrows can be clearly seen truncating in section.

6 ARTEFACTS AND ECOFACTS

6.1 Summary

6.1.1 The excavations at East Park Roman settlement in 2019 yielded an assemblage of 479 pottery sherds (Appendix 2), ten CBM fragments (Appendix 3), 15 animal bones (Appendix 4), 207.3g cremated bone (Appendix 5), 54 metalwork finds (Appendix 7), 13 industrial waste remains (Appendix 6), 2 worked lithic artefacts (Appendix 8), one quern (Appendix 9), three glass fragments (Appendix 10), 3 clay pipe fragments (Appendix 11), and five environmental samples and one charcoal fragment (Appendix 12). Of these finds, 13 registered special finds were recorded during the excavation. The finds assemblage was assessed by the appropriate specialists, and results discussed below.

6.1.2 The artefact assessments address Aim 1 Questions 1, 2, and 3 of the revised aims from the Project Design (see Section 3 above) by providing an insight into the chronological framework and origins of the site (Aim 1), as well as providing a better understanding of the site’s archaeological and palaeoenvironmental conditions (Aim 2). The quantity, condition, and preservation of was generally poor across the site for all artefact types (Aim 2, Q7 and Q8). Pottery and CBM were the most dominant finds types recovered, and provided some indications of prehistoric activity at the site and broad chronological evidence of Roman activity dating between the 1st and 4th century AD for the trackway, trackway ditch, and enclosure (Aim 1, Q1). Animal bone was rare and

https://digventures.com/bright-water/ddt/micro_view.php?item_key=rgf_cd&rgf_cd=EPR_11









23

poorly preserved, indicating that conditions were insufficient for bone preservation (Aim 2, Q5) and limiting the potential for understanding about more about subsistence patterns (Aim 2, Q6). Human remains were reflected in the low quantities of ex situ cremated bone recovered, most of which came from a burial urn, demonstrating a burial activity took place at East Park (Aim 1, Q2). Metalwork and industrial waste were largely found as unstratified finds, but notability included a hearth bottom and smithing slag consistent with metalworking waste of an Iron Age tradition (Aim 1, Q1 and Q2). Environmental evidence was scant, effected by root action due to many of the archaeological features being relatively close to the surface, and thus of limited interpretative value (Aim 2 Q4, Q5 and Q6).

6.2 Pottery

David Griffiths

6.2.1 In total of 479 sherds weighing 7.1kg of pottery was recovered from excavations at East Park, Sedgefield, County Durham. The assemblage included prehistoric (handmade), Romano-British, medieval, and modern pottery; only the Romano-British material is considered in detail here.

6.2.2 The Romano-British pottery assemblage included the remains of amphorae, samian vessels, other fine ware vessels, mortaria and other coarse ware vessels. Adverse soil conditions meant that some pottery was abraded, with the original surfaces of many vessels non-existent, inhibiting precise identification of certain wares.

6.2.3 Amphorae sherds formed by far the greatest component of the assemblage by both count (38.6%) and weight (62.5%); this is by no means unusual given the size of the vessels when complete. These vessels would have transported commodities to the site including olive oil from Baetica, southern Spain (Dressel 20s, fabric BAT AM) and North Africa (fabric NAF AM1), and wine from Campania, Italy (fabric CAM AM1).

6.2.4 A total of 35 sherds weighing 177.1 grams (102.5 EVEs) of samian ware from various sources were recovered from the site, some with elaborate decoration. This group formed 8.2% of the assemblage by count, 2.6% by weight and 3.4% by EVEs. Featured Vessels 15 (a flanged bowl) and 30 (bowl) potentially have late dates, from the middle of the 2nd to early 3rd centuries AD; also present was a samian mortarium body sherd, dating approximately between AD170-230.

6.2.5 Other fine wares present were mostly colour-coated wares, predominantly from the Lower Nene Valley (fabric LNV CC). Most of these vessels date from the middle of the 2nd to 3rd/4th century centuries AD, with perhaps a concentration of supply from the mid- 2nd to mid- 3rd century AD. A number of drinking vessels were present, mostly beakers/cups, but also the neck fragment of a flagon (FV21) was recovered.

24

6.2.6 A large proportion of a fine Lower Nene Valley ‘Hunt Cup’ was found in Feature 109, context 1011, with a highly decorated scene in barbotine of a hound or hounds chasing a hare(?); these vessels date from the late 2nd to 3rd century AD (Perrin 1999, 98). A very small quantity of imported fine wares were recovered, including black-slipped vessels from central Gaul (fabrics CNG BS and possibly CC2). A very small quantity of fine ware sherds were present whose source is uncertain.

6.2.7 Six sherds of Romano-British mortaria were recovered, forming only a small proportion of the assemblage, 1.4% by count, 2.7% by weight, and 5.9% by EVEs. In addition, a single body sherd of an imported samian ware mortarium was recovered (see above). Most mortaria were produced at kilns in the Mancetter and Hartsill region (fabric MH1), almost all dating from the mid-2nd to mid-4th centuries AD. A single white-slipped base sherd produced in the Catterick region (fabric MCTR WS) was recovered, dating to the 2nd century AD. A mortarium flange fragment (FV19) with a maker’s stamp (as yet unidentified) was found in Feature 105, context 1005. The fragment has been burnt post-break which hinders accurate identification of its source; only three letters of the maker’s stamp are present – R A I (?) _ _.

6.2.8 A wide-range of utilitarian coarse wares were recovered including black-burnished wares (41 sherds, both from the common sources in Dorset (fabric DOR BB1) and other sources (fabrics BBT = black-burnished types); these mostly include sherds from jars and dishes. A relatively small quantity (23 sherds) of the coarsewares were in oxidised wares (e.g. orange fabrics), while reduced grey wares were common (75 sherds). Other coarse wares present included single body sherds of grog-tempered ware and East Yorkshire Calcite-gritted ware (dating to the 4th century AD), and three sherds in a Dales-type ware fabric. A large fragment (382.3 grams) of a reduced grey ware jar (FV33/SF11) was recovered from Feature 103, context 1024, containing cremated remains; the rim was not present therefore reliable dating was not possible, and it was not possible to identify the source of its production at this assessment stage (further fabric analysis may shed light on this and possibly refine the dating of the vessel). Perhaps the most significant of the coarse wares recovered from East Park are the five sherds from a single vessel, a wide-mouthed jar (FV31), which was clearly produced at the site. The sherds have been over-fired to a temperature where the vessel warped and cracked in the kiln, the clay fabric vitrified, and of some mineral inclusions and pockets of air within the body erupted through the surface of the pot. It is uncertain whether the pot was made close to the excavated area.

6.2.9 The bulk of the material from stratified deposits was recovered from three features, F102, F105, and F109. While deposits from a number of features (F103, F104, F110, and F112) have broad date ranges from c. AD100 to 400, it is clear that the bulk of the material from larger deposits (F102, F105, and F109) of pottery dates from the mid- to late 2nd century to probably the 3rd, perhaps even into the 4th century AD. While there was material which potential dates to the late 1st and early 2nd century in the assemblage, examples characteristic of a Romano-British pottery assemblage of this period, such as reeded-rim bowls, rusticated jars, and ring-necked flagons were absent.

25

6.2.10 Those vessels characteristic of later Roman period activity (late 3rd to 4th centuries AD, see Swan 2002, 67-73), are also mostly absent, e.g. Crambeck wares, Huntcliff-type jars, and East Yorkshire Calcite-gritted wares (a single sherd from F105, (1014) being the exception). Where deposits associated with features that have well-dated pottery, an intensity of occupation and activity in this area of the settlement is proposed from the second-half of the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD.

6.2.11 There was evidence for handmade pottery in a prehistoric tradition at East Park, suggesting pre-Roman activity in the vicinity. However, all handmade sherds were recovered from stratified deposits within features (F103, F105 and F109) contained Roman period material. All medieval and modern (e.g. white China) pottery was recovered from topsoil, subsoil and unstratified deposits.

6.2.12 The size of the assemblage is relatively small, and any statistical analyses at this stage would be limited. However, general observations may be proposed, and tentative conclusions suggested, which may be tested with further analysis. The presence of amphora is not unusual and may hint at connections with the military and their supply system. Olive oil (Dressel 20 vessels from southern Spain, and one amphora from North Africa) and wine (Campanian ‘Black-sand’ amphorae) were certainly consumed at East Park, but the amphora remains in this assemblage represent only a few containers indicating minimal use of these commodities. There seems to be a relatively large proportion of fine, table wares, such as beakers, cups, and bowls (e.g. samian and colour-coated wares, especially the near-complete, fine ‘Hunt Cup’, FV27 from F109, (1033)) indicating dining activities. Most of the coarse wares are utilitarian in character, such as jars for storage and cooking, mortaria for food preparation, and dishes/bowls (e.g. black-burnished wared) for dining. Given the absence of structures within the excavated area the presence of a clearly domestic assemblage is interesting. The high proportion of fine, table wares suggests sufficient levels of wealth of the inhabitants to dine in a clearly ‘Roman’ style.

6.2.13 The recovery of the jar FV33/SF11 from F103, fill (1024), which contained cremated remains, suggests burial activity in this area; the internment of cremated human remains in ceramic vessels at the sides of roads, in ‘back garden plots’, and in cemeteries is a common practice during the Roman period in Britain. The vessel does not have clear diagnostic features which may inform on its chronology (such as its rim), but further fabric analysis may help refine the 2nd to 4th century AD date.

6.2.14 The presence of a ‘waster’ wide-mouthed jar (FV31 from F112, fill (1042)), which was clearly made in or close to the excavated area, is extremely interesting, and warrants further investigation. In addition, a crude handmade (as in prehistoric pottery production) vessel (FV28 from F109, (1033) and (1034)) was recovered. The exterior of the handmade vessel is highly burnished, similar to black-burnished wares from the southern production centres, however, the interior is crudely formed with finger impressions left where it had been pressed into shape.

6.2.15 Previous excavations at East Park (see Carne and Mason 2006, 24) recovered the remains of pottery kilns and, if possible, the vessels recovered during the current scheme of investigations should be compared with previously recovered material, especially if ‘wasters’ were recovered.

26

6.3 Ceramic Building Material

David Griffiths

6.3.1 A total of 10 fragments weighing 186.7 grams of ceramic building material (CBM), 25 fragments weighing 178.3 grams of fired clay, and 59 fragments weighing 201.2 grams of daub/fired clay were recovered from excavations at East Park Roman settlement (Appendix 2).

6.3.2 All CBM fragments were recovered from topsoil, subsoil and unstratified deposits; none were recovered from stratified deposits or could be related to structures. Five fragments were identified with certainly as dating to the Roman period, and two fabric types (CBM1 and CBM2) identified within the group. The fragments were from tegulae (rood tile), however, all were very small, and no edges were present to inform on size. The remaining five fragments were likely modern and were allocated a general ‘CBM’ fabric code.

6.3.3 There were at least 25 fragments, weighing 178.3 grams, of fired clay, perhaps from the lining of hearths, ovens or kilns, located nearby. All were relatively small and irregular shaped, and none could be associated with any particular type of high temperature structure. The most numerous fragments were recovered from F109, with smaller numbers recovered from F102, F105 and F112, and two fragments from unstratified deposits.

6.3.4 A total of 59 fragments, weighing 201.2 grams, of predominantly daub, but also possibly fired clay, were recovered; these are considered separately here as they potentially relate to structures with wattle-and-daub walls. Some fragments of daub bare impressions of plant material. Forty-three fragments were recovered from F102 and may have come from a structure nearby. Datable material (see Griffiths Roman Pottery Assessment) suggests a Roman period date for F102. Three fragments were recovered from F108 and may date similarly from the Roman period. The remaining thirteen fragments were recovered from unstratified deposits.

6.4 Animal bone

Hannah Russ

6.4.1 A small assemblage of animal remains (15 fragments weighing 16.2g) was recovered via hand collection during a community archaeological excavation at East Park, Roman settlement (Appendix 4). The condition of the material studied and the prevalence of teeth over bone suggest that the burial environment at the site was generally not conducive for bone preservation.

6.4.2 Topsoil context 1001 (modern) contained a single fragment of an equid tooth (Equus sp. – horse/donkey/mule). It was in extremely poor condition. Animal remains were recovered from the upper (1003) and lower (1011) fills of an east-west aligned ditch (F109). The upper fill (1003) contained two fragments of a cattle premolar tooth and eight tiny fragments of bone that could only be attributed to the broad category ‘medium/large mammal’. The lower fill (1011) contained a single longbone shaft fragment from a medium mammal.

27

6.4.3 Two complete teeth and a fragment of animal bone were recovered from the fills of sub-circular pit (F102). The teeth came from the upper fill (1019) and were the best-preserved animal remains recovered from the site. These were identified as sheep/goat left M2 teeth, one from the upper jaw (maxillary) and one from the lower (mandibular). The lower fill (2016) contained a fragment of animal bone consistent with medium mammal.

6.4.4 No evidence for exposure to high temperatures, animal activity or butchery were observed on any of the specimens.

6.4.5 The range of taxa identified at East Park are consistent with those to be expected at a Roman settlement in the North East of England. Cattle, which would have been kept for meat, traction, milk and/or leather and sheep/goat for meat, milk and/or wool are common features within the assemblages of animal bones recovered from sites within the region and throughout Britain, being two of the main domestic livestock animals at that time.

6.4.6 Due to the small size, poor surface preservation and high fragmentation within the assemblage of animal remains from East Park it is not possible to comment further on the role of these animals at the site.

6.5 Cremated bone

Elina Peterstone Gordina and Malin Holst

6.5.1 In total, 207.3g of cremated bone recovered from six contexts and one urned cremation burial was submitted for assessment (Appendix 5).

6.5.2 Bone had good preservation from deposits (1001), (1005) and (1020), was moderately well preserved from (1015) and (1024), and poorly preserved from (1002) and (1003). Moderate warping and bone cracking, which occurs commonly during the cremation process, was evident in all cremated bone fragments. The almost equal proportions of good, moderate and poor bone preservation are most likely due to the various degrees of later disturbance of the site. Given the small weight of most of the assemblages, it is likely that the original cremation burials had been almost completely destroyed. Only the burial from deposit (1024) survived largely intact.

6.5.3 Consequently, there was a stark difference in the weight and amount of bone recovered from un-urned assemblages, which comprised just one or a few bone fragments. The weight of bone recovered from deposits (1001), (1002), (1005), (1003), (1015), and (1020). ranged from 0.5g to 2.2g, whilst the bone recovered from the urn weighed 201.5g. Deposit (1005) only contained one fragment of animal bone and was therefore excluded from further analysis. In deposits (1001), (1002), (1003), (1015), and (1020)., due to the low number of bone fragments and their insignificant weight, just up to 0.1% of the amount of bone expected from a modern adult cremation was present (1,001.5-2,422.5g, with an average of 1,625.9g; McKinley 1993). Even though urned burial (1024) weighed significantly more than the other assemblages, it comprised only 12.3% of a modern adult cremation (Table 2). Because of the truncated nature of almost all cremation deposits in this assemblage, a comprehensive analysis was challenging.

28

6.5.4 The cremated bone assemblage comprised relatively large bone fragments. The maximum bone fragment size ranged from 10.1mm in deposits (1001) to 63.3mm in urned burial (1024). The average maximum bone fragment size was 30.1mm per context. Because three of the assemblages only comprised one bone fragment, each made up 100% of the relevant sieve fraction; accordingly, the bone fragments in Deposits (1001) and (1002) measured more than 10mm each, while the bone fragment in deposit (1003) fell into the next category, 5mm. For the remaining three assemblages, the majority of the bone fragments were in the 10mm and 5mm sieved fractions, with the least amount of bone measuring 2mm or less (Table 2). The fragmentation data, along with the total weight and the maximum fragment size for each context is given above in Table 2.

6.5.5 All contexts contained bone that was buff/white (see Table 1), and only urned burial (1024) had some pale to darker grey colouration in some fragments. This indicated that in general, bone tended to be well burnt (i.e. had experienced high temperatures, plentiful oxygen supplies and burnt for a sufficient length of time to achieve full oxidation). On the other hand, since only one or a few fragments were present in five out of six assemblages, it is impossible to establish if there were any colour variations in the burials they came from. The darker hues of the urned burial certainly suggests that it may have been slightly less well burnt, perhaps through slightly lower temperatures, a shorter burning duration, or inadequate oxygen supply, although pyre conditions were still sufficiently hot and oxygenated enough to allow most of the bone to achieve full oxidation.

6.5.6 Despite the small amount of bone in most assemblages, all of them (excluding deposit (1005), which only contained animal bone) had identifiable elements of human bone. In fact, the proportion of identified bone within each context was invariably above 60%, and in four contexts, it was 100% (Table 3). The large proportion of identified bone in each context is likely due to the relatively large fragment sizes, as discussed above. The average proportion of bone identified per context was 91.4%.

6.5.7 Skull and long bone fragments made up 23.8% and 34.0% of the identified bone on average, respectively, followed by lower limb (28.8%), axial (12.7%) and upper limb (0.7%) elements. The relatively high proportion of skull and long bone fragments can be explained by the fact that they are easy to identify even when highly fragmented (McKinley 2004b, 298-299). Identified bone from the skull included the occipital bone (back of the skull), temporal bone (at the sides of the cranium supporting the ears), zygomatic bone (cheekbones), mandible (lower jaw), and generic vault fragments. Tooth fragments were, however, missing.

6.5.8 The upper limb was represented by a few fragments of scapula (shoulder blade) and humerus (the upper arm). The lower limb was mainly represented by fragments of femora, tibiae and fibulae, but metatarsals were also present. The axial skeleton was mainly represented by vertebra fragments, mostly thoracic (which bear the ribs) and lumbar (lower back) vertebrae, as well as os coxa (pelvis) fragments. The presence of some small bones from the feet suggests that either care was taken to recover them, or that the remains were scooped up in some way. Long bone fragments were present in deposits (1003), (1015), (1020) and (1024) but could not always be identified to specific bone elements.

29

6.5.9 A reliable minimum number of individuals (MNI) could not be established for the assemblage due to the fragmentation and/or absence of diagnostic elements. All contexts, including those containing small amounts of human bone represented one cremation burial each, then the minimum number of individuals in this assemblage is six, based on the identifiable fragments of bone. It has to be taken into account, however, that calculating the minimum number of individuals for such small assemblages can be misleading, because they come from an unknown number of burials. The only assemblage which came from an identified burial was urned burial (1024), and the remains of at least one individual were identified. No evidence for this burial containing more than one individual was found.

6.5.10 Age estimation was challenging for the cremated remains due to fragmentation and the small number of fragments, which meant that the diagnostic elements for age estimation were mostly not present. The analysis suggested that in the assemblage only adults were represented. All bone assemblages could be assigned an age, and it was based on robusticity of the bone fragments in five out of six assemblages. For the urned burial (1024), small fragments of the auricular surface had survived. Although these were badly eroded, it was possible to establish that this individual was at least 36 years old, or older, and thus fitted into the old middle-mature adult age category.

6.5.11 Only urned burial (1024) could be assigned biological sex, thanks to the surviving fragments of os coxae, which also allowed to determine the age of this individual, as discussed above. Accordingly, this individual was probably a male.

6.5.12 Due to the small number of bone fragments in most contexts from this assemblage, pathological lesions were only observed in the individual from urned burial (1024). Marginal osteophytes were present around the right and left auricular surface of the pelvic bones, and the first foot phalanx (the base of the big toe) in the adult male from Urned burial (1024). Taking into account that this individual was above the age of 36 or older, the observed changes are most likely the result of advancing age.

6.6 Metalwork

Stuart Noon and Josh Hogue

6.6.1 In total, three copper alloy objects (including one coin), four lead objects (including two spindle whorls), and 47 iron objects and were recovered from East Park. Most of the metalwork was recovered from topsoil (1001) and subsoil (1002) horizons, or as unstratified surface finds. A full catalogue of metalwork finds is given Appendix 7. A brief description of finds recovered in situ and other finds of likely Roman antiquity is given below.

6.6.2 A copper alloy Roman coin (SF2) was retrieved from the topsoil (1001). It was illegible but was likely a 3rd century AD nummus or barbarous radiate produced in Britain. Two lead weights (SF1) were also retrieved from the same topsoil horizon, both of which were probably spindle whorls. One is round in plan and cast in the form of a shallow dome with one face flat, it has a straight sided round central aperture which is 5mm in diameter. It is undecorated, although it has some concentric marks on the flat face probably caused by shrinkage during casting, and thickly covered in white patina. The thinness of the aperture may indicate that this weight or spindle whorl indicates that is dates broadly to the Roman era. The other weight or spindle whorl is biconical in

https://digventures.com/bright-water/ddt/cxt/EPR_1001


https://digventures.com/bright-water/ddt/rgf/EPR_2



30

shape with a large, roughly circular hole through the centre. The off-centre hole could suggest it is also Roman, but it may date much later. Five iron objects (SF5) were recovered from F102 and ten iron objects (including SF9) were retrieved from F105, most of the objects were undiagnostic, but the former assemblage (SF5) from F102 included a wrought iron knife, and an ring and spike that probably formed some kind of horse harness attachment.

6.7 Industrial waste

Gerry McDonnell

6.7.1 A small assemblage comprising a hearth bottom, 11 fragments of smithing slag, and one fragment of possible tap slag was recovered from East Park Roman settlement (Appendix 6). The small assemblage was dominated by hearth bottom and smithing slag reflective of smithing debris, although one unstratified piece displayed droplets and smooth flowed surfaces that was initially classified as possible tap smelting slag. It was further analysed by Hand-Held X-Ray Fluorescence (HH-XRF). The spectrum generated from the possible tap slag sample was typical of ironworking slag and showed no enhanced manganese peak; an elevated manganese content is a strong indicator that a slag derived from the smelting process. However, conversely the absence of a manganese peak does not confirm the slag as a smithing slag. It is probable that the slag is a smithing slag that became overheated in the hearth resulting in partial melting of the slag. The small assemblage is typical of a background scatter of smithing debris recovered from many sites. The hearth bottom is small and would be more typical of an Iron Age tradition rather than Romano-British examples.

6.8 Lithics

Joshua Hogue

6.8.1 In total, two worked flints and ten naturally broken/unworked flints were submitted for assessment (Appendix 8). The worked flints comprised an end scraper and a blade fragment recovered from subsoil horizon (1002). Each of these finds was consistent with having been manufactured during the Mesolithic (Butler 2005). Neither of the artefacts were in situ, both recovered from the subsoil blanketing the later Medieval archaeological remains and with evidence of post-depositional damaged consistent with having been subjected to movement and re-arrangement.

6.9 Worked stone

Stuart Noon

6.9.1 There were multiple small fragments in the assessment of heat affected stone all relating to one object recovered (1026). It is probably part of a quern from the Late Iron Age to Roman period 100BC – 500AD. It could indicate settlement activity that was destroyed by fire and would be worth correlating this find with other known querns from that period for more secure identification and dating. In combination with other finds notably the CBM it could efficiently add to the understanding of the site and help address the questions in the project design. The material does not require any special conservation and retained material can be safely stored in a stable environment.


https://digventures.com/bright-water/ddt/fea/EPR_102





31

6.10 Glass

Stuart Noon

6.10.1 In total, there were three unstratified glass fragments from the assemblage, weighing 26.91g. One fragment was modern window glass. Two fragments were coloured green probably from wine bottles dating from the 19th to the 20th century. One fragment of a bluish hue is blown rather than strip glass and is probably Roman, possible a basal fragment from a vessel. The group as a whole has low significance in terms of the research aims of the site, and further work is unlikely to efficiently add to the understanding of the site or address the questions in the project design. The material does not require any special conservation and retained material can be safely stored in a stable environment.

6.11 Clay pipe

Stuart Noon

6.11.1 In total, there were 3 fragments in the assessment weighing 38.19g. There were three fragments of pipe stem from topsoil (1001). Two fragments appear to be 19th century with one fragment dating to the 17th century. The group as a whole has low significance in terms of the research aims of the site, and further work is unlikely to efficiently add to the understanding of the site or address the questions in the project design. The material does not require any special conservation and retained material can be safely stored in a stable environment.

6.12 Environmental

Rosalind McKenna

6.12.1 A total of five environmental samples and a hand-picked charcoal were submitted for assessment from East Park Roman settlement (Appendix 12).

6.12.2 Charred plant macrofossils were present in samples recovered from (1005), (1011), (1013) and (1015). Only indeterminate cereal grains were recorded in the samples, which were identified based on their overall size and morphological characteristics. Evidence of surface abrasion on the grain was indicative of mechanical disturbances that are common in features such as ditches, where rubbish and waste are frequently discarded. The presence of root / rootlet fragments within most of the samples indicates disturbance of the archaeological features, and it may be due to the nature of some features being relatively close to the surface, as well as deep root action from vegetation that covered the site. The presence of earthworm egg capsules, together with the remains of insect fragments and snails within some of the samples further confirms this.

6.12.3 Charcoal fragments were present within all of the samples, scoring a ‘1’ on the semi quantitative scale. The preservation of the charcoal fragments was very poor. The fragments were too small to enable successful fracturing that reveals identifying morphological characteristics. Where fragments were large enough, the fragments were very brittle, and the material crumbled or broke in uneven patterns making the identifying characteristics difficult to distinguish and interpret. Identifiable remains were absent from the samples.

32

6.12.4 The samples produced some environmental material of interpretable value, with the charred plant macrofossils from four of the samples. The deposits from which the samples derive, probably represent the deposition, or build-up of domestic waste associated with fires. The charred remains recovered are small in numbers and were of very poor quality - charred material that was within the samples appears to have been subjected to high temperatures of combustion, as the material tended to be abraded and fragmented, possibly as a result of post-depositional disturbance and taphonomic processes. The remains of plant macrofossils recovered from the sample showed the utilisation of indeterminate cereal grains. There is no evidence of cereal processing occurring at the site, or of any plant remains that may indicate some industrial use.

7 PUBLIC IMPACT

By Johanna Ungemach and Brendon Wilkins

Profiles for all project participants have been archived on the Digital Dig Team system and can be reviewed at https://digventures.com/dig-team/brightwater/ and by clicking on each individual profile

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 This section details the social impact of the East Park Roman settlement project public programming for visitors and project participants over the course of June and July 2019. DigVentures defines social impact as a measure of the positive and negative primary and secondary long-term effects produced by the programme, whether directly or indirectly, intended or unintended, over and above what would have happened in the absence of the project initiative. Results were analysed using a bespoke social impact methodology, drawing on DigVentures’ Theory of Change and Standards of Evidence framework (Wilkins 2019, 77; Wilkins 2019, 30).

7.1.2 Public engagement was integral to the research aims of East Park Roman settlement project (Aim 4), designed to ‘engage and train local people in the research of the Bright Water Study Area and provide opportunities for public engagement’ (Wilkins et al. 2019, 21). East Park is situated within an area of high deprivation (Source: English Indices of Deprivation 2015), with the North East as a whole having the second highest unemployment rate in the UK (Office for National Statistics, www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket ). The Bright Water area itself has higher rates of unemployment than the national and local averages, as well as poorer general health (Census 2011, www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011census ). The project therefore presented a major opportunity to help address the strong social and educational needs of the surrounding communities, based on the principle that archaeology can do so much more than answer a planning brief: it can transform lives and communities and provide the kind of public support that underpins positive, sustainable growth (Wilkins 2020: 33)

https://digventures.com/dig-team/brightwater/

http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmen

http://www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011census

33

7.2 Public programming

7.2.1 A carefully designed mix of professional excavation and public participation was programmed over the course of the three-week project (17th June until 5th July), creating a breadth and depth of participation opportunities from informal site visits to structured field training. This blended model comprised three weeks dedicated to servicing a research brief with participation and training of venturers in the trench to National Occupational Standards, with public events running alongside (Figures 10 -12):

▪ Excavation and finds room training for adults (17th June until 5th of July) – 120 participants

▪ Guided tours (18th June until 5th July) – 78 participants

▪ Educational sessions for school classes (1st July and 5th July) – 53 children from two schools

7.2.2 A ‘light’ online strategy was implemented to amplify the social footprint of the project. This included posting key developments on social media and on the project timeline, to keep the primary audience of dig participants, as well as Brightwater and DigVentures followers informed. It did not include a ‘full’ online strategy aimed at achieving the widest possible local or national coverage as this was not within the remit of the project or available team resources. The East Park Roman settlement project reached a minimum of 39.5k individuals across Facebook and Twitter, with an average engagement rate of 19% on Facebook, and 1.2% for Twitter. In addition, there were 587 unique visitors and 1440 unique page views of more in-depth information on the project microsite: https://digventures.com/bright-water/ including background information, dig updates, and archival site records. Whilst these results demonstrate a significant public appetite for the East Park Roman settlement project, any evaluation of social impact needs to go beyond a list of output numbers of participants and visitors (Gould 2016). DigVentures has developed a bespoke evaluation methodology for measuring the social impact of public archaeology programmes and this is discussed in specific relation to East Park further below.

7.3 Evaluation methodology

7.3.1 The East Park Roman settlement project audience was separated into two broad categories: project participants, who joined the project through a formal booking process, and site visitors, who attended site tours or visited the trench in between, with all opportunities delivered free of charge. DigVentures have developed a methodology for measuring the social impact of archaeology programmes for both participants and visitors, pictured as a Theory of Change detailing outputs, outcomes and impacts (see Appendix 13). In this framework, social impact can be conceived as the difference that activities make to people’s lives over and above what would have happened in the absence of that initiative. Outputs are a measurable unit of product or service, such as a community excavation; outcomes are an observable change for individuals or communities, such as acquiring skills or knowledge. Impact is therefore the effect on outcomes attributable to the output, measured against two metrics: scale, or breadth of people reached; and depth, or the importance of this impact on their lives.

https://digventures.com/bright-water/

34

7.3.2 The credibility of a Theory of Change rests on the level of certainty that organisational activities are the cause of this change. In order for this certainty to be achieved, the correct data must be collected to isolate the impact to the intervention. The DV Theory of Change is therefore linked to a Standards of Evidence framework designed to articulate and highlight the causal links between activity and change. These tools are then used to create a bespoke, project specific evaluation table linking activities, outputs, outcomes and evidence base (Appendix 13).

7.3.3 In support of this overarching methodology, two slightly different data collection strategies were undertaken for both project participants and site visitors; participants were interviewed pre and post dig experience (99% completion rate, or 119 in total), and visitors completed a questionnaire following their experience (19% completion rate, or 60 in total). The age, gender and professional background of participants was derived through digital analytics, with categories derived from the Office for National Statistics, followed by more in-depth analysis designed to reveal ‘whether or not people will have learnt about heritage, developed skills, changed their attitudes and/or behaviour, and had an enjoyable experience’. Questionnaires combined closed-end questions easily convertible to statistical data (usually attitudinal questions) and open-ended questions designed to elicit extended responses which were then coded for statistical analysis or otherwise consolidated in order to address the observable implications. The social impact results for both groups are discussed in turn below, with evidence organised according to the specific social outcome that activities were designed to achieve (Appendix 13, column 3).

7.4 Social impact – participants

7.4.1 To ensure that ‘a wide range of people will be involved in archaeology and heritage’, people were invited to actively participate in the excavation. To help decrease perceived barriers to participation, accessible day sessions were offered to give venturers a taste of the work happening in the trench, all of which followed DigVentures’ CIfA-endorsed Field School curriculum.

7.4.2 Gender profiles for participants were broadly balanced, with 55% female and 45% male, with the youngest aged 8 and the oldest 82. Participants represented a variety of full-time occupations (41%) and retirees (31%). The remainder were students, either of compulsory educational age or those attending university (21%), or people in long-term unemployment (7%). Those in full time employment were divided into categories based on the Office of National Statistics (ONS) classifications, the breakdown of which can be seen in Figure 13 illustrating that digging and finds lab opportunities were taken up by a significant number of people with low income, as well as young people. Examples of professions included tutor, foster carer, accountant, librarian, safety engineer, intelligent analyst, speech and language therapist, crane operator, poet, manager and customer service assistant. Taking this into consideration, all age groups and socio-economic backgrounds were well represented in the data, with a marked improvement on existing community archaeology provision compared with the typically retired, over 65 local civic society groups (Wilkins 2020, 33) (Figures 10 -12).

7.4.3 Participants joined the project from the immediate locality (43% of participants drove no further than 10 miles to take part in the project), regionally (two thirds of participants living no further than 50 miles from the site) nationally (a third of participants having travelled more than 50 miles to have the opportunity to take part

35

in the project, from as far as Hertfordshire, West Midlands, Gloucestershire, East Ayrshire, and London) and even internationally (one family joined the excavation from New South Wales, Australia) (Figure 14).

7.4.4 In addition to widening the demographic and socioeconomic range of participation (when compared to existing community archaeology provision), the project attracted an overwhelmingly new audience for archaeology, with 55% of participants having never taken part in archaeology activities before (Figures 10 - 12). Pre-experience interviews were completed with all project participants to help understand why each had decided to get involved in an archaeology project, and provide a baseline understanding against which the impact of the experience could be determined through post-experience interviews. Participants answered in their own words, and the responses were coded into nine categories.

7.4.5 The results show that almost 30% of participants took part in the project because it was local to them and therefore easily accessible, and/or because they are specifically interested in the Roman period. Some 24% of participants described themselves as ‘passive consumers of archaeology’ who embraced the opportunity to finally get hands-on with their interest; similarly 12% of participants were prospective archaeology students or able to tick this experience off their bucket list. Contrarily, only 6% of participants joined a friend or family member who was interested in the project, but they did not have pre-existing interest in archaeology themselves (Figure 15).

7.4.6 Post-experience ‘exit’ interviews were also undertaken for all participants, indicating how initial perceptions of archaeology changed and providing evidence for wider social outcomes, such as learning, skills acquisition and well-being. Participants were asked to summarise their highlight of the project in their own words, with responses then codified into five categories in order to visualise the results (Figure 15). The most important consideration for 50% of participants was the experience of real archaeology, and the opportunity to get hands-on experience with finds and in the trench.

36

7.4.7 Closely related to experience of real archaeology was the ‘thrill of discovery’ for 24% of participants, indicating an overwhelmingly positive experience for first time participations (Figures 10 - 12). Nevertheless, a little over a quarter of participants also described the social life, teamwork and camaraderie as the highlight of their experience, illustrating a powerful positive side product of taking part in archaeology. A closer assessment of interviewees answers (often elicited through follow up questions) reveals that in addition to having a good time (such as “This was the best day ever!”), more subtle impacts could be clearly discerned and will be analysed more in depth in the final report.

7.5 Social impact – communities

7.5.1 Alongside structured activities for project participants, other lighter touch opportunities were provided for site visitors throughout the course of the project. Observers were encouraged to talk to and interact with the team, and drop into the adjacent finds room to see what had been discovered. These more informal audience activities were supplemented with structured tours of the trench, detailing the history of the site, explaining the research process, and highlighting the day’s latest finds. Visitors were encouraged to complete a short evaluation form after their experience (19% of those visitors who took part), to understand the impact the project had on the wider community.

7.5.2 A similarly diverse demographic profile was also observed for site visitors, in terms of age, gender and socioeconomic background. Over a quarter of respondents were younger than 44, with 8% under 16 and 17% over 75. In terms of gender, 48% were female and 52% male, and all professional categories were represented (according to ONS classifications) including stage and events coordinator, housewife, teacher, fire service, massage therapist, playgroup leader, farmer and x-ray scientist (Figure 16).

7.5.3 Just over three quarters (78%) of visitor survey respondents stated that the dig was their main reason for visiting East Park, supporting the wider project outcome that a ‘wider range of people will be involved in heritage.’ This audience was predominantly local, with 75% of visitors living within 10 miles of the site, 15% within 10-20 miles, and the remaining traveling from further (Figure 15).

7.5.4 Although the visitor experience was designed to be as accessible as possible, evaluation feedback indicated that the social outcomes contributed significantly towards ‘learning about archaeology and heritage, leading to change in ideas and actions.’ 42% of respondents had never taken part in a site tour or visited an archaeological site before. Visitors described an improved perception of archaeology (15%), or strengthened in their pre-existing interest for the discipline (76%). More than half (56%) the respondents found archaeology to be more exciting as a consequence of their visit, and 49% stated that they are now more likely to get involved with archaeology in general. When asked whether they would like to get more involved with archaeology in their local area, 72% of respondents agreed (Figure 17).

7.5.5 As well as changing opinions of archaeology more generally, visitors also described an improved perception of the immediate Sedgefield locality, supporting the social outcome that ‘the local area will be a better place to live, work or visit’. 82% of respondents who claimed that their impression of the local area had changed (Figure 17), with one respondent clearly stating: “[I] didn’t realise the history of Sedgefield

37

was so interesting”. Another noted that they “were not aware of a Roman settlement here. Locally, the positive impact of the project went even further and provided visitors with a better understanding of their local archaeology, with people saying that it is “exciting to have this at the door” and gaining “appreciation of the wider range of history” in the area. Furthermore, Sedgefield and its surrounding area has become a better place to live for visitors who now “know what’s under our feet”.

8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

8.1.1 The overall aim of the 2019 fieldwork season at East Park was to define and characterise the physical extent of the site through a programme of excavation. Aims and objectives refined from the Project Design for Bright Water Landscape Partnership Lot 1: Ancient Environment and Early Settlement (DigVentures et al. 2019; see Section 3.1 above) are referenced, where appropriate, in the following discussion.

8.1.2 East Park is a lineated settlement with extensive network of enclosures, associated kilns or hearths, dating from the Roman era. Previous work has shown activity at the site dating from the second half of the 4th century AD, a period when many settlements were contracting or being abandoned elsewhere in Britain. Being one of the largest Roman sites in the region, uniquely without evidence for any military presence, it gives an opportunity to explore questions regarding the nature of occupation in the region during the Roman occupation of Britain (Petts and Gerrard 2006) (Aim 1, Q1 – 3).

8.1.3 The earliest phase of site found during excavation was a boundary ditch, which is presumed to have been established before the arrival of the Romans (Aim 1, Q1-3). The boundary ditch is identifiable as a positive linear anomaly on the geophysical survey undertake at East Park between 2005 and 2009 (Hale 2010). The boundary ditch was only partially exposed in the trench. It had evidently been disturbed by later activity, having been truncated by ditches, and partially observed by layers related to the Roman trackway (Aim 2, Q4-5). The boundary ditch was also partially obscured by subsoil retained as machine stripping was halted early in the excavation due to the exposure of a burial urn relatively high up in the sequence. Consequently, the boundary ditch could only be securely identified in areas that were subsequently hand cleaned and excavated. The dating of the boundary ditch remains tentative at this stage. It is likely that the boundary ditch in-filled gradually and was at least partially open during the Roman period. However, prehistoric pottery of a handmade tradition was also recovered from the boundary ditch, and an earlier date would certainly seem consistent with the general trend towards the creation of new boundaries, perhaps reflecting territories, that proliferated in the Bronze Age and Iron Age.

8.1.4 The remains of trackway and associated trackside ditch were also identified during excavation. These features have previously been identified from geophysical survey and described as a Roman road (Hale 2010). The track only survived as a relatively thinly, which was heavily truncated by later ridge-and-furrow ploughing. The trackway was bounded by a trackside ditch and only survived very shallowly at its base (Aim 2, Q4-5). There were some difficulties identifying the trackway during excavation, with several additional layers of sand and gravel lacking finds initially interpreted as construction horizons, and preliminary phasing suggesting that the road was constructed before the boundary ditch (DigVentures, in press). Nonetheless, it is now

38

clear that the track was is use after the construction of the boundary ditch, with geological mapping and borehole descriptions indicating that some of the layers identified by excavators were in actuality naturally accumulated glaciofluvial sands and gravels (BGS 2020).

8.1.5 The layers genuinely associated with the use of the track and the trackside ditch yielded only a handful of potsherds, and indicate a relatively restricted date for the track between late-1st century AD and early-2nd century AD (Aim 1 Q1). An early date for the track may suggest that it was part of the road infrastructure established towards the beginning of the Roman occupation of Britain. This might support a longer antiquity to the Roman settlement at East Park then previously established and which dates primarily from the 4th century AD (Mason 2010). Nonetheless, most of the evidence for Roman activity dated to the 3rd/4th century AD, which suggests that there was a gap between the foundation of the road and the establishment of the roadside settlement (Aim 1 Q1).

8.1.6 A square enclosure was partially exposed within the trench and it could be seen cutting through the boundary ditch and the trackway. Most of the pottery from the excavations came from this feature and indicate that the enclosure dates from the 3rd/4th century AD (Aim 1, Q1-3). There were several of pits and spreads of material that could not be securely dated, but which may be associated with the enclosure. Unfortunately, environmental preservation and the survival of bone and mollusc shell was extremely poor, resulting in little information being available to elucidate the nature of subsistence activities at the site (Aim 2, Q4-8). However, a small assemblage of cremated bone was recovered, most of which came from a single mature male recovered from an urned burial which was discovered during machine stripping. Unfortunately, the urn vessel cannot be closely dated through type, so the exact age of the burial remains unclear. The internment of cremated human remains in ceramic vessels at the sides of roads, in ‘back garden plots’, and in cemeteries is a common practice during the Roman period in Britain, although these are most typically considered characteristic of the 1st – 2nd century AD. Fabric analysis of the vessel may help to clarify the age of the burial.

8.1.7 Whilst a number of questions remain, the excavations undertaken in 2019 have tentatively contributed to our understanding of the extent to which the settlement developed from local ‘native’ populations. The lack of substantial evidence for prehistoric activity suggests that the settlement was only established following the foundation of the road (Aim 1 Q2). Roman roads would have been attractive in terms of passing trade and the landscape surrounding East Park was also accessible, residing on a relatively dry flat ground, with local resources including a nearby watercourse immediately west and clay deposits used in modern brick manufacture within 500m (BGS 2020). These factors are especially notable considering evidence for kilns elsewhere within East Park Roman settlement (Mason 2010) (Aim Q3).

9 RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1.1 This work was undertaken as part of an ongoing programme of archaeological works at the East Park. Full analysis and reporting for all investigations will be undertaken once the additional stages of investigative work have been completed and assessed.

39

The following section highlights additional research which the project specialists have suggested should be considered as part of the full analysis and publication of the site.

9.2 Excavation

9.2.1 It is recommended that the further excavation is undertaken to enable additional information to be gathered as to the nature of occupation at East Park. This may provide information enabling the development of the site to be better understood, and may also provide a more robust environmental record helping to elucidate questions regarding subsistence and seasonality at East Park. Currently, most of the previous excavations have focused on the northern half of the site, excavations targeting enclosures within the southern part of the site are therefore particularly warranted. Give the outstanding issues with the chronology of the road further excavation of the associated ditches may help to clarify the date potentially through providing more diagnostic artefacts. An avenue of interest would be the eastern trackway ditch as it has yet to be excavated and has thus far only been identified through geophysical survey. Targeted excavation of geophysical anomalies thought to reflect small adjoining trackways, side streets or back alleys, may also be particularly useful for understand the development of the settlement and its potential spread outwards from the road.

9.3 Pottery

9.3.1 While the assemblage is relatively small there are many aspects which warrant further investigation, and the author recommends full analysis of the whole assemblage, to include detailed comparison with assemblages from the major Roman centres in the region, especially nearby Binchester (Ferris 2010), Piercebridge (Cool and Mason 2008), and Catterick (Wilson 2002a and b), and other regional settlements of interest (such as roadside settlements). The form and character of the settlement at East Park, Sedgefield, does not conform to either military, urban (town or vicus), or rural, such as a villa estate. Further investigations of the settlement, along with integration of previous excavations, will aid our understandings of the people living and working here; full analysis of the pottery assemblage would form an import aspect of this, providing information on social and economic activities taking place within the site (such as pottery production), and trade and exchange in the region and other areas of the province, and the wider Roman world.

9.3.2 All vessels fragments that may indicate form are recommended for illustration (see catalogue, Appendix 1). While an assessment of samian ware was undertaken by the author, it is recommended that these sherds are examined by an appropriate specialist (e.g. Gwladys Monteil) as there are a number of highly decorated sherds where source, date, and perhaps potter may be identified. The author recommends that the mortarium sherd with maker’s stamp (FV19 from Feature 105, context 1005) be examined by Kay Hartley, an expert in mortarium potters and their stamps. The presence of prehistoric tradition handmade pottery is not unusual in Romano-British assemblages in the north. Further analysis of these sherds by an appropriate specialist may inform on pre-Roman activity at East Park.

9.3.3 While the surfaces of much of the pottery are abraded due to the soil conditions, the assemblage is generally in good condition. There is great potential of the pottery assemblage to enhance our understanding of the inhabitants of the settlement at East

40

Park, and it is therefore recommended that it is retained in its entirety and deposited with the appropriate repository.

9.4 Other Finds

9.4.1 No further work is recommended for the CBM, animal bone, cremated remains, industrial waste, lithics, or environmental remains. All finds should be retained from the 2019 excavations until the completion of any follow up excavations and subsequent assessment of any additional material recovered. Following assessment of finds from all excavation years the site selection strategy will be reviewed by the team, DCCAS and County Durham Archaeological Archives, prior to any material being discarded.

10 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archaeological Ceramic Building Materials Group. 2002. Minimum Standards for Recovery, Curation, Analysis, and Publication for Ceramic Building Material (Draft, 2002).

Archaeology Services Durham University (ASDU) 2010. Sedgefield Community

Research Project East Park, Sedgefield, Co Durham. Geophysical surveys 2005-2009. ASDU Report 2331.

Ballin, T.B., 2000. Classification and description of lithic artefacts: a discussion of the basic lithic terminology. Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society 21, 9–15.

Barclay, A., Knight, D., Booth, P., Evans, J., Brown, D. H. and I. Wood. 2016. A Standard for Pottery Studies in Archaeology. Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group, Study Group for Roman Pottery & Medieval Pottery Research Group.

Baker, P. and Worley, F. 2019. Animal Bones and Archaeology - Recovery to archive. Historic England Handbooks for Archaeology.

Bass, W. M. 1987. Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual (Columbia)

Berni Millet, P, 2008. Epigrafía anfórica de la Bética. Nuevas formas de análisis, Col Lecció instrumenta 29, Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona.

Berry, A. C. and Berry, R. J. 1967. ‘Epigenetic variation in the human cranium’ Journal of Anatomy 101: 361-379

Bevan, L. 2019. Small Finds Assessment, Unpublished Artefact Assessment Report

Biejerinck, W, 1976, Zadenatlas der Nederlandsche Flora: Ten Behoeve van de Botanie, Palaeontology, Bodemcultuur en Warenkennis. Backhuys and Meesters. Amsterdam.

Brogan, G. 2010. Brakes Farm, Sedgefield. Archaeology County Durham 5: 38-39.

Brooks, S. T. and Suchey, J. M. 1990. ‘Skeletal age determination based on the os pubis: a comparison of the Acsádi-Nemeskéri and Suchey-Brooks methods’ Human Evolution 5: 227-238

Brothwell, D. R. 1981. Digging Up Bones (New York)

Buikstra, J. E. And Ubelaker, D. H. (eds) 1994. Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains (Fayetteville)

Butler, C., 2005. Prehistoric flintwork. The History Press, Stroud.

41

Caffell, A. and Holst, M. 2012a. Osteological Analysis, 3 and 6 Driffield Terrace, York, North Yorkshire, York Osteoarchaeology, No. 0212 Unpublished Osteological Report

Caffell, A. and Holst, M. 2012b. Osteological Analysis, Waterdale, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, York Osteoarchaeology, No. 2212 Unpublished Osteological Report

Carne, P. and Mason, D. 2006. The Sedgefield Archaeology Project. Archaeology County Durham 1: 24-27.

Carne, P. 2009. Excavations at East Park, Sedgefield, 2008. Archaeology County

Durham 4: 34.Charlton, B. and Mitcheson, M. 1984. ‘The Roman cemetery at Petty Knowes, Rochester, Northumberland’, Archaeology Aeliana (5)12: 1-31

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) 2014. Standard and guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of archaeological materials.

Claydon, M. 2008. Excavations at East Park, Sedgefield, 2007. Archaeology County

Durham 3: 41-2.

Cool, H. E. M. 2004. The Roman Cemetery at Brougham, Cumbria: Excavations 1966-67, Britannia Monograph Series 21 (London)

Cool, H. E. M. and Mason, D. J. P. 2008. Roman Piercebridge: Excavations by D W Harding and Peter Scott 1969-1981, Architect. Archaeol. Soc. Durham & Northumberland Res. Rep. 7, Durham.

Cox, M. 2000. ‘Ageing adults from the skeleton’, in M. Cox and S. Mays (eds), Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science (London): 61-82

De la Bédoyère, G., 1992. English Heritage Book of Roman Towns in Britain (London)

DigVentures internet home page, 2020, available: https://digventures.com/bright-water/background/east-park/

Dobney, K. and Rielly, K. 1988. A method for recording archaeological animal bones: the use of diagnostic zones. Circaea 5: 79–96

Down, A. and Rule, M. 1971. ‘Chichester excavation. Vol. I’. Archaeological Journal128:1: 277-278

Dungworth D. (Ed.) 2015 Archaeometallurgy Guidelines for Best Practice. Historic England

Dungworth,D. 2019. Examination of nails from Baginton, Warwickshire, Unpublished Artefact Assessment Report

English Heritage (2002) Environmental Archaeology: A guide to the theory and practise of methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation. English Heritage Publications. Swindon.

Ferris, I. M. 2010. The beautiful rooms are empty: excavations at Binchester Roman Fort, County Durham 1976-1981 and 1986-1991. Durham: Durham County Council.

Finnegan, M. 1978. ‘Non-metric variation of the infracranial skeleton’ Journal of Anatomy 125: 23-37

Garland, A. N. and Janaway, R. C. 1989. ‘The taphonomy of inhumation burials’, in C. A. Roberts, F. Lee and J. Bintliff (eds) Burial Archaeology: Current Research, Methods and Developments. British Archaeological Reports British Series 211 (Oxford): 15-37

42

Gillam, J. P. 1970. Types of Roman Coarse Pottery Vessels in Northern Britain. 3rd edition. Newcastle:

Gillam, J. P. 1976. Coarse fumed ware in northern Britain and beyond. Glasgow Archaeological Journal 4: 57-89.

Hale, D.N., 2010. Sedgefield Community Research Project, East Park, Sedgefield, Co Durham: Geophysical Surveys 2005-2009, Archaeological Services University of Durham Unpublished Report Series

Hather, J G. 2000 The identification of Northern European woods; a guide for archaeologists and conservators, London. Archetype Press.

Henderson, J. 1987. ‘Factors determining the state of preservation of human remains’, in A. Boddington, A. N. Garland and R. C. Janaway (eds) Death, Decay and Reconstruction: Approaches to Archaeology and Forensic Science (Manchester): 43-54

Hillson, S. 2003. Mammal Bones and Teeth. An introductory guide to methods of identification. London: Institute of Archaeology, University College London.

Hillson, S. 2005. Teeth. Second Edition. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holst, M. 2003. Osteological Assessment, Moss Street Depot, York, Field Archaeology Specialists, Unpublished Osteological Report

Holst, M. 2005. Osteological Analysis, Mill Mount, York, York Osteoarchaeology, No. 1005 Unpublished Osteological Report

Hope, V. M. 1999. ‘The Iron and Roman ages: c. 600 BC to AD 400’, in P. C. Jupp and C. Gittings (eds) Death in England: An Illustrated History (Manchester): 40-64

Inizan, M.-L., Reduron-Ballinger, M., Roche, H., Tixier, J., 1999. Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone, Préhistoire de la Pierre Tailée. Cercle de recherches et d’études préhistoriques, Nanterre.

İşcan, M. Y. and Loth, S. R. 1986. ‘Determination of age from the sternal rib in white females: a test of the phase method’ Journal of Forensic Sciences 31: 990-999

İşcan, M. Y., Loth, S. R. and Wright, R. K. 1984. ‘Age estimation from the rib by phase analysis: white males’ Journal of Forensic Sciences 29: 1094-1104

İşcan, M. Y., Loth, S. R. and Wright, R. K. 1985. ‘Age estimation from the rib by phase analysis: white females’ Journal of Forensic Sciences 30: 853-863

Jacomet, S, 2006, Identification of cereal remains from archaeological sites. IPAS. Basel.

Janaway, R. C. 1996. ‘The decay of buried human remains and their associated materials’, in J. Hunter, C. A. Roberts and A. Martin (eds) Studies in Crime: An Introduction to Forensic Archaeology (London): 58-85

Jones, G, Teaching Notes for Archaeobotany. Unpublished.

Jones RFJ. 1984. ‘The cemeteries of Roman York’, In Addyman P.V., Black V.E. (eds) Archaeological Papers from York, presented to MW Barley (York): 34– 42

Keefe. K and Holst. M. 2017 ‘Osteological Analysis, Hungate, North Yorkshire’, York Osteoarchaeology, No. 1817 Unpublished Osteological Report

Kennedy, K. A. R. 1989. ‘Skeletal markers of occupational stress’, in M. Y. İşcan and K. A. R. Kennedy (eds) Reconstruction of Life from the Skeleton (New York): 129-160

43

Kenward, H.K., Hall, A.R. and Jones A.K.G. (1980) A tested set of techniques for the extraction of plant and animal macrofossils from waterlogged archaeological deposits. Science and Archaeology 22, 315.

Leary, R. 2018. Romano-British Pottery, in Ambrey, C., Fell, D., Fraser, R., Ross, S., Speed, G., and P. N. Wood, A Roman Roadside Settlement at Healam Bridge: The Iron Age to Early Medieval Evidence, Volume 2, Artefacts. Northern Archaeological Associates: NAA Monograph Series No. 3.

Lovejoy, C. O., Meindl, R. S., Pryzbeck, T. R. and Mensforth, R. P. 1985. ‘Chronological metamorphosis of the auricular surface of the ilium: a new method for the determination of adult skeletal age at death’ American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68: 15-28

Martin-Kilcher, S, 1987 Die Römischen Amphoren aus Augst und Kaiseraugst, Forschungen in Augst 7:1, Augst Römermuseum, Bern.

Mason, D. 2007. Excavation and Survey at East Park (Sedgefield) Roman Settlement

Mason, D. 2006. Archaeology County Durham 2: 16-21.

Mays, S. and Cox, M. 2000. ‘Sex determination in skeletal remains’, in M. Cox and S. Mays (eds) Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science (London): 117-130

McComish, J. 2012. An Analysis of Roman Ceramic Building Material from York and it’s Immediate Environs. Master’s Dissertation, University of York.

McDonnell J.G. 2001 “Pyrotechnology” in Brothwell, D. and Pollard A.M.P. (eds) Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, London pp. 493-506.

McKinley, J. I. 2004b. ‘The human remains and aspects of pyre technology and cremation rituals’, in H. E. M. Cool, The Roman Cemetery at Brougham, Cumbria: Excavations 1966-67, Britannia Monograph Series No. 21 (London): 283-309

McKinley, J. I. 1993. ‘Bone fragment size and weights of bone from modern British cremations and the implications for the interpretation of archaeological cremations’ International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3: 283-287

McKinley, J. I. 2000a. ‘The analysis of cremated bone’, in M. Cox and S. Mays (eds) Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science (London): 403-421

McKinley, J. I. 2000b. ‘Phoenix rising; aspects of cremation in Roman Britain’ in J. Pearce, M. Millett and M. Struck (eds) Burial, Society and Context in the Roman World (Oxford): 38-44

McKinley, J. I. 2004a. ‘Compiling a skeletal inventory: cremated human bone’, in M. Brickley and J. I. McKinley (eds) Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains. IFA Paper No. 7 (Southampton and Reading): 9-13

McKinley, J. I. 2004c. ‘Aspects of the cremation ritual as evidenced by the animal bones’, in H. E. M. Cool (ed) The Roman Cemetery at Brougham, Cumbria: Excavations 1966-67, Britannia Monograph Series No. 21 (London): 331-332

McKinley, J. I. 2006. ‘Cremation... the cheap option?’, in R. Gowland and C. Knüsel (eds) Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains (Oxford): 81-88

McKinley, J.I. 1994. ‘Bone fragment size in British cremation burials and its implications for pyre technology and ritual’, Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 339-342

Miles, A. E. W. 1962. ‘Assessment of the ages of a population of Anglo-Saxons from their dentitions’ Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 55: 881-886

44

Miles, A., Powers, N., Wroe-Brown, R. and Walker, D. 2008. St Marylebone Church and Burial Ground in the 18th to 19th Centuries: Excavations at St Marylebone School, 1992 and 2004-6 (London)

Molleson, T. 1995. ‘Rates of ageing in the eighteenth century’, in S. R. Saunders and A. Herring (eds) Grave Reflections: Portraying the Past Through Cemetery Studies (Toronto): 199-222

Molleson, T. and Cox, M. 1993. The Spitalfields Project. Vol 2. The Anthropology: The Middling Sort, CBA Research Report 86 (York)

Moorrees, C. F. A., Fanning, E. A. and Hunt, E. E. 1963a ‘Formation and resorption of three deciduous teeth in children’ American Journal of Physical Anthropology 21: 205-213

Moorrees, C. F. A., Fanning, E. A. and Hunt, E. E. 1963b ‘Age variation of formation stages for ten permanent teeth’ Journal of Dental Research 42: 1490-1502

Orton, C. R. 1980 Introduction to the pottery reports, in D. M. Jones, Excavations at Billingsgate Buildings ‘Triangle’, Lower Thames Street 1974, Transactions London and Middlesex Archaeological Society Special Paper 4: 37-8.

Ottaway, P. 2004. Roman York (Stroud)

Peacock, D. P. S. 1977. Pottery and early commerce. London: Seminar Press.

Petersone-Gordina, E. and Holst, M. 2018. Osteological Analysis of Flying Fields, Southam, Warwickshire, York Osteoarchaeology Ltd No 1518 Unpublished Osteological Report

Petersone-Gordina, E. and Holst, M. 2019. Osteological Analysis of Lunt, Baginton, Warwickshire, York Osteoarchaeology Ltd No 1319 Unpublished Osteological Report

Petts, D. and Gerrard, C. 2006. Shared Visions: The North-East Regional Research Framework for the Historic Environment. Durham: Durham County Council.

Platell, A. 2008. A New Roman Site at Whin Houses, Butterwick Moor, near Sedgefield.

Archaeology County Durham 3: 63.Roberts, C. A. and Cox, M. 2003. Health and Disease in Britain (Stroud)

Roberts, C. A. and Manchester, K. 2005. The Archaeology of Disease (third edition) (Stroud)

Rogers, J. 2000. ‘The palaeopathology of joint disease’, in M. Cox and S. Mays (eds) Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science (London): 163-182

Saunders, S. R. 1989. ‘Non-metric variation’, in M. Y. İşcan and K. A. R. Kennedy (eds) Reconstruction of Life from the Skeleton (New York): 95-108

Saville, A., 1981. Grimes Graves, Norfolk. Excavations 1971–72: Volume II, Department of the Environment Archaeological Reports. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London.

Scheuer, L. and Black, S. 2000a. ‘Development and ageing of the juvenile skeleton’, in M. Cox and S. Mays (eds) Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science (London): 9-22

Scheuer, L. and Black, S. 2000b. Developmental Juvenile Osteology (San Diego)

Schweingruber, F H, 1978 Microscopic wood anatomy. Birmensdorf. Swiss Federal Institute of Forestry Research

Smith, A. 2014. The Roman Rural Settlement Project Evidence for burial and other ritual practice in the Romano-British countryside of the West Midlands, West Midlands project seminar held in Birmingham 5th March 2014 https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/archaeology/West_Midlands_Ritual_Alex_Smith.pdf

https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/archaeology/West_Midlands_Ritual_Alex_Smith.pdf

45

Speed, G. and Holst, M. (eds) 2018. A1 Leeming to Barton. Death, Burial and Identity, 300 Years of Death in the Vale of Mowbray, NAA Monograph Volume 4 (Barnard Castle)

Spriggs, J. A. 1989. ‘On and off-site conservation of bone’, in C. A. Roberts, F. Lee and J. Bintliff (eds) Burial Archaeology: Current Research, Methods and Developments. British Archaeological Reports British Series 211 (Oxford): 39-45

Stace, C, 1997, New flora of the British Isles, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Swan, V. G. 2002. The Roman pottery of Yorkshire in its wider historical context. In P. Wilson and J. Price (eds) Aspects of industry in Roman Yorkshire and the North. Oxbow: Oxford. pp.35-79.

Thompson, T.J.U., Szigeti, J., Gowland, R.L. and Witcher, R.E., 2016. ‘Death on the frontier: military cremation practices in the north of Roman Britain’, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 10: 828-836

Tomber, R. and Dore, J. 1998. The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection. MoLAS Monograph 2. London.

Toynbee, J.M.C. 1971. Death and Burial in the Roman World. New York: Cornell University

Trinkhaus, E. 1978. ‘Bilateral asymmetry of human skeletal non-metric traits’ American Journal of Physical Anthropology 49: 315-318

Turner, R. 1990. ‘A Romano British cemetery at Lanchester, County Durham’, Archaeology Aeliana (5)18: 63-77

Walker, P. L. 1995. ‘Problems of preservation and sexism in sexing: some lessons from historical collections for palaeodemographers’, in S. R. Saunders and A. Herring (eds) Grave Reflections: Portraying the Past Through Cemetery Studies (Toronto): 31-47

White, R. and Hodder, M. 2018. Clash of Cultures. The Romano-British Period in the West Midlands (Oxford)

Wilkins, B. and Russ, H. 2019 Project Design: Bright Water Landscape Partnership. Lot 1: Built Heritage: Ancient Environment and Early Settlement. Unpublished DigVentures Document.

Wilson, P. R. 2002b. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its Hinterland. Excavations and Research, 1958-1997, Part 1. CBA Research Report 128. York.

Wilson, P. R. 2002b. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its Hinterland. Excavations and Research, 1958-1997 Part 2. CBA Research Report 128. York.

Ubelaker, D. H. 1989. Human Skeletal Remains; Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation (Washington)

Zohary, D, & Hopf, M, 2000, Domestication of Plants on the Old World. Oxford University Press Ltd. Oxford.

Online Sources:

British Geological Survey Geology of Britain viewer: http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk

Digital Plant Atlas: https://www.plantatlas.eu/

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/

https://www.plantatlas.eu/

Contains OS data © Crown copyrightand database rights 2018

528900

4344

00

4348

00

4352

00

4356

00

Figure 1 - Site location

Contains © CNES 2019 Distribution Airbus DS,© 2019 HERE, © 2019 Microsoft

Figure 2 - Post-excavation plan

F109

F109

F109

F107

F104

F104

F105

F102

F113

F106

F101

F112

F103

S.13

S.12

S.11

S.10

S.9

S.8S.7

S.6

S.5

S.4

S.3

S.2

S.1

Site outline

Excavated section

Section drawing

Phased features

Site outlineArchaeological feature

Projected feature

Key

Slot

528710

528720

4349

20

4349

30

4349

40

4349

50

Figure 2 - Site name: Phased plan

F109

F109

F109

F107

F104

F104

F105

F102

F113

F106

F101

F112

F103

Phase 4

S.13

S.12

S.11

S.10

S.9

S.8S.7

S.6

S.5

S.4

S.3

S.2

S.1

Site outline

Excavated section

Section drawing

Phased features

Site outlineSection drawing

Phased features

Key

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

528710

528720

4349

20

4349

30

4349

40

4349

50

Figure 4 - Sections 1 - 7

+ +

F104

[1016](1015)

N-facing section of roadside ditch F104

(1005)

(1021)

[1006]

(1022)

E-facing section of enclosure ditch F105

F105+ +

E-facing section of interface between enclosure ditchF105 and roadside ditch F104

F104F105+ +

[1006]

(1021)

(1002)

(1005)

(1015)

[1016]

[1027]

(1019)

(1026)

+ +

E-facing section of pit F102

F102+ +

[1004]

(1003)

(1031)

E-facing section through boundary ditch F109

F109

[1016]

(1015)(1003)

+ +

N-facing section of intersection of roadside ditch F104 andboundary ditch F109

F104

(1041)

(1040)

(1040)

(1041)

(1036)

(1029)

(1035)

+

+

N-facing section of slot through road and ‘road extension’ F107+F108

F107F108

S1.2 S1.1103.57 mK

103.68 mK

103.73 mK

103.66 mK

103.68 mK

103.52 mK 103.52 m 103.67 mK K

S2.1 S2.2 S3.2S3.1

S4.1

S7.1

S7.2

S4.2 S5.1 S5.2 S6.1 S6.2


(1001)

(1002)

(1003)

(1011)

(1039)

(1037)

[1038]

[1004]

(1035)

(1036)

(1029)

+ +

W-facing section of road F107, boundary ditch F109 and furrow F106

F107 F109 F106

(1005)

E-facing section of enclosure ditch F105

F105+ + 103.79 mK

S9.1 S9.2

(1001)

(1002)

(1003)

(1011)

(1034) [1004]

(1005)

(1014) [1006]

(1013)

+ +

E-facing section of enclosure ditch F105 and boundary ditch F109

F109 F105

S8.1 S8.2104.19 mK

103.92 mK

S10.1 S10.2


[1004]

(1043)

(1030)

[1044]

(1003)

(1011)

(1034)

(1002)

+ +

W-facing section of F110 cut by boundary ditch F109

F110 F109

[1004]

(1003)

(1011)

(1035)

(1041)+ +

SE-facing section of boundary ditch F109 and road F107

F107F109

(1001)

(1002)

(1007)(1035)

(1012)

[1008]

(1029)

+ +

W-facing section of furrow F101 and road F107

F101

S11.1

S13.1

S11.2103.72 mK

S12.2S12.1

S13.1

103.95 mK

104.38 mK

E-facing section of interface between enclosure ditch F105 and roadside ditch F104

W-facing section of F110 cut by boundary ditch F109E-facing section of boundary ditch F109

Figure 7 - Phase 1 photos

Roadside ditch F104, looking southN-facing section of slot through road and ‘road extension’ F107+F108

Road F107, looking northW-facing section of furrow F101 and road F107


E-facing section of pit F102E-facing section of enclosure ditch F105

E-facing section of enclosure ditch F105Area of blackening associating cremation urn F103, looking north


Figure 10 - Public engagement



Figure 13 - Age, gender and socio-economic background of participants

Figure XX: Average distance from site for visitors and participants of all visitors to the project

250+miles0%

50-100miles0%

10-20miles

0-10miles

20-50miles0%

100-250miles

Project

Visitors

75%50-100miles

50-100miles

10-20miles

0-10miles

20-50miles

100-250miles

Project

Participants

1%15%

9%

9%15%

10%

23%

43%

Figure 14 - Average distance from site for visitors and participants of all visitors to the project

Figure 15 - Motivations and highlights of participants

Figure 16 - Age, gender and professional background of visitors

Figure 17 - Changing perceptions of archaeology through participation

64

Appendices

Appendix 1. Trench and context descriptions

Context Description Interpretation/ Process of deposition

Dimensions (m) Feature

1001 Mid greyish brown, sandy clay

Topsoil Length 20.00

\ Width 20.00 Thickness 0.26


1002 Mid yellowish brown, sandy silt

Subsoil Length 20.00

\ Width 20.00 Thickness 0.28


1003 Mid greyish brown, silt Fill of [1004] Length

F109 Width 2.20 Thickness 0.35


1004 ESE-WNW aligned linear ditch, with U-shaped profile

Boundary ditch [1004]

Length F109 Width 2.20

Thickness 0.35 http://digventures.com/bright-water/ddt/cxt/EPR_1004

1005 Mid yellowish brown, silt Fill of [1006] Length

F105 Width 2.05 Thickness


1006 E-W aligned linear, with semi-steep sides to concave base

Enclosure ditch [1006]



1007 Mid reddish brown, sandy silt

Fill of [1008] Length



1008 E-W linear, shallow sides, irregular base

Furrow [1008] Length



1009 Road surface Length









65



Mid yellowish brown, sand, with gravel and cobble inclusions

Width F107

Thickness 0.20


1010 Light brownish yelllow, sand, with gravel inclusions

Road surface bedding

Length F107 Width


1011 Mid reddish brown, sandy silt

Fill of [1004] Length 2.00



1012 Light brownish yellow, sand Natural Length

F114 Width Thickness


1013 Dark grey, silty clay Fill of [1006] Length



1014 Dark grey, silty clay, with charcoal inclusions


F105 Width 1.40


1015 Dark reddish brown, silty sand




1016 NNW-SSE linear Roadside ditch



1017 Light whitish grey, silty clay Fill of [1004] Length 2.00












66



1018 Poorly sorted, sub-rounded and sub-angular, stones

Fill of [1004] Length 1.25

F109 Width 0.65 Thickness


1019 Poorly sorted, sub-rounded and sub-angular, stones

Fill of pit [1027]

Length 0.80 F102 Width 0.80


1020 Dark grey, silt, with frequent charcoal and ash inclusions

Charcoal spread

Length F103 Width

Thickness http://digventures.com/bright-water/ddt/cxt/EPR_1020

1021 Poorly sorted, sub-rounded and angular, stones

Cobbled surface



1022 Mid yellowish brown, silty sand

Fill of ditch [1006]



1023 Same as (1022) Length






1025 Not excavated Pit Length



1026 Mid brown, sandy silt Fill of pit [1027]












67



1027 N-S rectilinear, rounded corner, irregular base

Refuse pit Length 1.88



1028

Mid greyish brown, sandy silt, with 40% moderately sorted, sub-rounded and sub-angular, large stones

Fill of [1004]


Thickness 0.37


1029 Poorly sorted, sub-rounded and angular, pebbles and stones

Road surface Length



1030 Dark grey, silty clay Fill of [1044] Length



1031 Dark brown, silt Fill of [1004] Length



1032 Mid yellowish brown, sandy silt

Fill of Pit [1045]


Thickness http://digventures.com/bright-water/ddt/cxt/EPR_1032




1034 Yellowish brown, silty sand Fill of [1004] Length



1035 Mid yellowish brown, sand, with gravel

Natural Length

F114 Width Thickness 0.30


1036 Natural Length










68



Yellowish grey, sand, with gravel

Width F114 Thickness 0.14


1037 Reddish brown, sandy silt Fill of plough furrow [1037]



1038 E-W linear Plough furrow Length

F106 Width Depth 0.50


1039 Yellowish-brown, sandy silt Natural Length

Width Thickness


1040 Yellowish grey, sand, with gravel

Natural Length



1041 Light greyish brown, silty gravel

Upper surface of road extension

Length F108 Width


1042 Dark grey, silt, with frequent charcoal flecks.

Spread Length



1043 Dark grey brown, clayey silt Fill of [1044] Length



1044 E-W linear Cut of feature [1044]



1045 Sub-circular, concave sides Length










69



Cut of pit [1045]

Width 1.40 F113 Thickness 0.58



Appendix 2. Pottery and CBM catalogue

Feat

ure

Con

text

Smal

l fin

d no

FV

Edat

e

Ldat

e

War

e

Fabr

ic ty

pe

Cou

nt

Wei

ght

Abr

asio

n

Part

Form

Rim

d

Rim

%

Con

ditio

n

Dec

tec1

Dec

mot

if1

Dec

pos1

Dec

tec2

Dec

mot

if2

Dec

pos2

Dec

tec3

Dec

mot

if3

Dec

pos3

Com

men

t

Illus

trat

e

To s

peci

alis

t

F102 1019

FC/Daub

Fired Clay/Daub 19 66.4 A

F102 1019 NP Iron slag? Natural? 1 8.2

F102 1019 NP Stone 1 7.5

F102 1019 50 250 AM BAT AM1 1 27.7 A BDY Dressel 20

F102 1019 40 410 CW BBT 1 2 11.3 A BDY F102 1019 100 400 CW OXM3 5 18.4 A BDY BR, OSB F102 1019 100 400 CW REM3 1 2.6 H BDY

F102 1019 40 250 SA SA 1 4.3 H BDY Samian

F102 1019 100 400 CW OXM3 1 1.8 H BDY F102 1019 FC Fired Clay 2 0.7 F102 1019 150 410 FW LNV CC 1 0.1 A BDY

F102 1026 25 100 400 CW OXM3 2 29.6 A RIM+BDY Jar 126

22.5

BR, TOR and OSB Y

F102 1026

FC/daub Daub 14 35.4

F102 1026

FC/daub

Fired Clay/Daub 10 12.9

F102 1026 40 250 SA SA 1 0.1 A BDY Chip

F102 1026 26 150 400 CW REM9 1 20.7 A RIM+BDY

Dish/bowl 200 10

A more oxidised version with buff surface and buff to grey core Y

F102 1026 6 40 250 SA SA 1 13.1

Bowl sherd decorated (in relief) with image of goddess or entertainer holding a snake in each hand Y Samian

F103 1020 24 ? ? HM HM 2 16.5 A BDY Y Handmade

F103 1020 HM HM 1 3.3 F103 1020 100 400 CW OXF4 1 10 A BDY Buff fabric

F103 1024 33 100 400 CW REM8 1 382.3 U BSE+BDY Jar Base diam. 82mm, BE 100% Y

F104 1015 50 250 AM BAT AM1 1 24.8 H BDY Dressel 20

F104 1015 100 400 CW REM4 2 21.7 A BDY BR, OSB Burnished F105 1005 FC Fired Clay 5 14.6 A F105 1005 140 410 AM NAF AM1 1 13.5 H BDY

F105 1005 8 40 200 SA CG SA 2 5.4 H BDY Spindle Whorl Y Small Finds

F105 1005 14 40 250 SA SA 1 9 A RIM Bowl Y Samian

71

Feat

ure

Con

text

Smal

l fin

d no

FV

Edat

e

Ldat

e

War

e

Fabr

ic ty

pe

Cou

nt

Wei

ght

Abr

asio

n

Part

Form

Rim

d

Rim

%

Con

ditio

n

Dec

tec1

Dec

mot

if1

Dec

pos1

Dec

tec2

Dec

mot

if2

Dec

pos2

Dec

tec3

Dec

mot

if3

Dec

pos3

Com

men

t

Illus

trat

e

To s

peci

alis

t

F105 1005 15 140 230 SA SA 1 11.9 H BDY+FLG Bowl 220 7.5 Flanged bowl, Dr. 38 Y Samian




F105 1005 100 400 CW REM5 1 3.7 H BDY F105 1005 100 400 CW REM6 2 20.7 H BDY F105 1005 100 400 CW REM7 2 11.2 H BDY F105 1005 16 100 400 CW REC3 1 6.8 H RIM Jar 160 10 Y

F105 1005 100 400 CW REM3 1 18 A BDY burnished Vertical lines osb dark grey surface

F105 1005 FC Fired Clay 2 1.5 F105 1005 100 400 CW REM4 1 12.6 A BDY Dales-type body sherd F105 1005 120 250 CW BBT 2 1 1.7 H BDY F105 1005 100 400 CW REM8 2 5.7 A BDY

F105 1005 17 100 400 CW REM5 3 37.3 H RIM+BDY Jar

BRN, outside rim Y

F105 1005 NP Stone 2 24.2



F105 1005 100 400 CW REM4 1 9.4 H BDY F105 1005 100 400 CW REC2 1 1.9 H BDY F105 1005 100 400 CW REC2 1 7 H BDY F105 1005 40 410 CW BBT 1 1 2.8 H BDY F105 1005 100 400 CW REM9 1 2.8 H BDY Sooting, osb Medium gritty ware, similar to CAR16 kiln fabrics F105 1005 200 400 CW DT 2 8.7 A BDY Dales-type F105 1005 18 200 400 CW DT 1 3.8 A RIM Jar Dales-type F105 1005 150 410 FW LNV CC 1 2.4 A BDY F105 1005 100 400 FW OXF3 1 0.4 H BDY

F105 1005 150 400 FW CC2 1 1.3 A BDY

Black-slipped ao

F105 1005 19 150? 250? MO MO1 1 32.7 U FLG Mortarium 250 13 BR, AO STP RAI_?

TOF Perhaps Lincoln no. 1632, AD150-250 Y

F105 1005 NP Not pot 6 0.7 Shale and stone F105 1013 22 200? 300? FW LNV CC 1 5.3 A BDY Barbotine scale work body sherd Y

F105 1013

Prehistoric

Prehistoric HM HM 1 2.2 A RIM

Prehistoric

F105 1013 100 400 CW REM6 1 26.1 H BDY

72

Feat

ure

Con

text

Smal

l fin

d no

FV

Edat

e

Ldat

e

War

e

Fabr

ic ty

pe

Cou

nt

Wei

ght

Abr

asio

n

Part

Form

Rim

d

Rim

%

Con

ditio

n

Dec

tec1

Dec

mot

if1

Dec

pos1

Dec

tec2

Dec

mot

if2

Dec

pos2

Dec

tec3

Dec

mot

if3

Dec

pos3

Com

men

t

Illus

trat

e

To s

peci

alis

t

F105 1013 120 250 CW BBT 2 1 4.2 A BDY BR F105 1013 100 400 CW REM8 1 7 A BDY F105 1013 100 400 CW REM9 1 4.4 A BDY Is this Crambeck Reduced?

F105 1014 170 230 SA SA 1 4.7 H BDY Mortarium

Samian

F105 1014 300 400 CW EYCT 1 35.9 A BDY Calcite all burnt out

F105 1014

Prehistoric tradition

Prehistoric tradition HM HM 1 3.5 H BDY BR, ISB Heavy burning and residue on inner surface

Prehistoric

F105 1014 40 410 CW BBT 1 1 18 H BDY Burnished osb, buff isb F105 1014 NP Stone 1 3.7 F105 1014 FC Fired Clay 1 0.1 F105 1014 100 400 CW REF1 1 2.1 A BDY Burnished F105 1014 120 250 CW BBT 2 1 5 H BDY Burnished osf F105 1014 100 400 CW OXM3 1 0.1 H BDY Thin-walled vessel

F105 1014 23 150 300 FW LNV CC 1 5.2 A RIM Beaker 92 12.5 See Perrin 1999, 94-5, rim forms no' s 159, 162, fig. 61 Y

F105 1014 100 350 MO MH1 1 9.4 A BEAD Mortarium

F105 1014 100 400 CW REM9 2 9.5 H BDY F105 1014 100 400 CW REF2 1 13.5 A BDY F105 1014 100 400 CW REM9 1 1.7 H BDY

F105 1014 40 250 SA SA 1 4.8 A BDY Decorated body sherd Samian

F107 1029 40 80/90 AM CAM AM1 1 41.1 A BDY Campanian Y F107 1029 150 410 FW LNV CC 1 3.4 U BDY Incised rouletted decoration F107 1029 100 400 CW REM4 1 2.1 H BDY

F108 1040 FC/Daub

Fired Clay/Daub 3 44.7 Recorded by S. Noon


F109 1003 FC Fired Clay 2 3.5 h

F109 1003 FC Fired Clay 1 7 h

Dark grey/brown, similar fabric to GRC but irregular shape - not pot?

F109 1003 40 410 CW BBT 1 2 4.1 H BDY F109 1003 100 400 CW REF1 1 5.3 A BSE Flat base

F109 1003 HM HM 2 14.5 A BDY BR

Heavy sooting/possible reside to surface; incised linear decoration to outer surface of one sherd Y Prehistoric


F109 1003 FC Fired Clay 2 0.7 H

73

Feat

ure

Con

text

Smal

l fin

d no

FV

Edat

e

Ldat

e

War

e

Fabr

ic ty

pe

Cou

nt

Wei

ght

Abr

asio

n

Part

Form

Rim

d

Rim

%

Con

ditio

n

Dec

tec1

Dec

mot

if1

Dec

pos1

Dec

tec2

Dec

mot

if2

Dec

pos2

Dec

tec3

Dec

mot

if3

Dec

pos3

Com

men

t

Illus

trat

e

To s

peci

alis

t

F109 1003 NP Stone 1 0.7 F109 1003 FC Fired Clay 1 16.8 A Finger impressions


F109 1003 100 400 CW OXC1 1 30.7 A BDY F109 1003 100 400 CW OCM3 1 1.6 H BDY F109 1003 100 400 CW OXF2 1 3.7 H BDY F109 1003 100 400 CW REF2 2 30.5 A BDY F109 1003 FC Fired Clay 4 8.5 Natural? F109 1003 10 40 250 SA SA 1 21.8 A BSE Base diam. 100mm, BE 10% Y F109 1003 40 250 SA SA 2 3.4 H BDY


F109 1003

140/50 350 MO MH1 1 10.5 A BDY

Mortarium WRN

F109 1003 40 250 SA SA 1 12.8 H BDY F109 1003 100 40 CW REF3 1 3.9 H BDY F109 1003 100 400 CW OXM1 1 0.4 H BDY F109 1003 200? 300? FW LNV CC 1 5.1 A BDY Beaker? Barbotine scale work body sherd Y F109 1003 40 80/90 AM CAM AM1 1 46.7 H BDY F109 1003 100 400 CW REF3 1 2.5 H BDY F109 1003 100 400 CW REF3 1 6.8 H BDY F109 1003 100 400 CW REM1 1 44.8 A BDY F109 1003 100 400 CW REF1 1 6 H BDY F109 1003 100 400 CW REF4 1 7.2 H BDY Multiple inclised lines to outer body F109 1003 100 400 CW REM1 1 5.3 H BDY

F109 1003 100 400 CW REM2 1 32.2 A BDY

sooting to osb Deep turning marks to inner surface

F109 1003 100 400 CW REM3 1 4 H BDY

F109 1003 12 175 225 CW BBT 2 2 13.6 A RIM+BDY Dish 0 1 Burnished

arcs/ cross-hatch osb Y

F109 1003 100 400 CW REC1 2 23.7 A BSE+BDY Base diam. 70mm, BE 20%

F109 1003 100 400 CW REM2 1 7.3 A BDY

F109 1003 100 400 CW REM4 1 12.5 H BDY

Sooting to osb Burnished

cross-hatching (acute0 osb

F109 1003 100 400 CW REC2 1 10 A BSE sooting osb F109 1003 40 410 CW DOR BB1 2 6.2 H BDY

74

Feat

ure

Con

text

Smal

l fin

d no

FV

Edat

e

Ldat

e

War

e

Fabr

ic ty

pe

Cou

nt

Wei

ght

Abr

asio

n

Part

Form

Rim

d

Rim

%

Con

ditio

n

Dec

tec1

Dec

mot

if1

Dec

pos1

Dec

tec2

Dec

mot

if2

Dec

pos2

Dec

tec3

Dec

mot

if3

Dec

pos3

Com

men

t

Illus

trat

e

To s

peci

alis

t

F109 1003 120 250 CW BBT 2 1 12.7 A BSE burnished

intersecting arc

base Base diam. 140mm, BE 10%

F109 1003 100 400 CW REM2 1 0.7 H BDY F109 1003 NP Stone 1 1.2

F109 1003 13 100? 200? FW CC1 1 5.1 U RIM+NCK Beaker 96 8

slipped, black/grey ao Is this a version of Nene Valley? Y

F109 1003 150 410 FW LNV CC 1 2.1 U BDY

F109 1003 150 225 FW CNG BS 1 0.1 A BDY

Black-slipped ao

Barbotine ? osb Mid- 2nd to early 3rd AD

F109 1003 9 200 250 AM BAT AM1 1 470 A HDL+BDY

Dressel 20 Y

F109 1003 8 140 160 AM BAT AM1 1 131.6 H HDL Dressel 20 CRKD Y

F109 1011 FC Fired Clay 2 15.9 A F109 1011 20 175 225 CW BBT 2 1 13.9 A RIM Dish 250 2.5 Gillam (1976) Form 78 or 79, wall only Y F109 1011 40 410 CW DOR BB1 1 3 A BDY F109 1011 100 400 CW REM9 1 4.5 A BDY BR, AO F109 1011 100 400 CW REM5 1 2.8 A BDY F109 1011 100 400 CW REM5 1 8.5 A BFY

F109 1011 10 21 175 300 FW LNV CC 4 17.2 H NCK Flagon

Slipped (orange-brown) AO Y

F109 1011 32 175 300 CW REM1 2 109.3 U RIM+BDY Jar REM1 with dark grey-brown margins and surface Y


F109 1011 40 250 SA SA 1 2.2 A BDY Y Samian

F109 1011 NP Stone? 2 1.3 F109 1011 40 410 CW BBT 1 1 5 H BDY F109 1011 100 400 CW OXM3 1 10.3 H BSE Base diam. 60mm, BE 10%. Small jar?

F109 1017 7 40 250 SA SA 1 10.3 A BDY Bowl Bag marked ' (1017) on cut [1004]' Y Samian

F109 1033 50 250 AM BAT AM1 13 188.7 H BDY Dressel 20 CRKD; POOR Very poor condition

F109 1033 50 250 AM BAT AM1 51 97.7 H BDY Dressel 20 CRKD; POOR Very poor condition

F109 1033 50 250 AM BAT AM1 45 1157.1 H

BDY+HDL

Dressel 20 CRKD; POOR Very poor condition. Body sherds and handle stump

75

Feat

ure

Con

text

Smal

l fin

d no

FV

Edat

e

Ldat

e

War

e

Fabr

ic ty

pe

Cou

nt

Wei

ght

Abr

asio

n

Part

Form

Rim

d

Rim

%

Con

ditio

n

Dec

tec1

Dec

mot

if1

Dec

pos1

Dec

tec2

Dec

mot

if2

Dec

pos2

Dec

tec3

Dec

mot

if3

Dec

pos3

Com

men

t

Illus

trat

e

To s

peci

alis

t

F109 1033 50 250 AM BAT AM1 1 246.3 A BDY Dressel 20 FAIR

F109 1033 HM HM 5 36.5 A BDY Prehistoric

F109 1033 40 410 CW BBT 1 1 7.4 H BDY

F109 1033 27 175 300 FW LNV CC 48 81.8 a RIM+BDY Cup 80

42.5 Barbotine

Hound or hound(s) and hare? osb PERRIN 1999, 92, 'Hunt Cups' Y

F109 1033 28 ? ? CW BBT/HM? 13 258.8 A BSE+BDY BR, AO Could be BBT2 fabric? Y Handmade

F109 1033 HM HM 1 9.7 H BDY BR, AO Combed osb Combed decoration to osb Handmade

F109 1033 40 250 SA SA 1 3.1 H RIM Samian

F109 1033 100 400 CW REM4 2 4.9 H BDY F109 1033 29 150 200 CW BBT 1 1 10.9 H RIM Jar 130 5.5 Akin to Gillam (1976) Form 4, 63, late 2nd Y

F109 1034 28 ? ? CW BBT/HM? 1 7.5 A BDY Likely part of vessel FV28, context 1033 Handmade

F109 1034 40 250 SA SA 1 0.3 A BDY Chip Samian

F109 1034 100 400 CW REM4 1 6.4 H BDY

F109 1034 30 150? 230? SA SA 2 22.8 A RIM+BDY Bowl Plain, Dr. 31, AD150-230 Y Samian

F110 1030 40 250 SA SA 1 0.9 A BDY Chip Samian

F110 1030 100 400 CW REM3 1 2.4 H BDY

F112 1042 31 100 400 CW CW EP1 5 271.1 U RIM+BDY

Wide-mouthed jar/dish 240

37.5 Waster Y

F112 1042 FC Fired Clay 1 87.32 Recorded by S. Noon. Possibly hearth material.

NA 1001 1 RB RB CBM CBM1 1 12.2 A

Tegulae Sandy underside, smooth top

NA 1001 RB RB CBM CBM1 1 1.7 A Fragment

NA 1001

Medieval

Medieval MED MED CREAM 1 19.6 A HDL

Green glazed AO

NA 1001

Medieval

Medieval MED MED CR 5 20.3 A BDY Unglazed

NA 1001

Medieval

Medieval MED MED OX 2 7 A BDY

Green glazed OSF

NA 1001 1 50 250 AM BAT AM1 1 197.4 A FOOT Dressel 20 Y

NA 1001 50 250 AM BAT AM1 1 197.6 A BDY Dressel 20

76

Feat

ure

Con

text

Smal

l fin

d no

FV

Edat

e

Ldat

e

War

e

Fabr

ic ty

pe

Cou

nt

Wei

ght

Abr

asio

n

Part

Form

Rim

d

Rim

%

Con

ditio

n

Dec

tec1

Dec

mot

if1

Dec

pos1

Dec

tec2

Dec

mot

if2

Dec

pos2

Dec

tec3

Dec

mot

if3

Dec

pos3

Com

men

t

Illus

trat

e

To s

peci

alis

t

NA 1001

Modern

Modern CBM CBM 3 33.6 A Uncertain date.

NA 1001 40 200 SA CG SA 1 6.1 H BSE POOR Central Gaulish NA 1001 40 200 SA CG SA 1 1.3 H BDY POOR Central Gaulish NA 1001 FC Fired clay 1 18

NA 1001 50 250 AM BAT AM1 1 25.2 H BDY Dressel 20

NA 1001

Modern

Modern CBM CBM 1 6.3 U Modern.

NA 1001

Prehistoric

Prehistoric HM HM 3 6.4 A BDY POOR

NA 1001 NP Shale 20 3.3 Count appx., very fragmentary. NA 1001 150 200 FW CNG BS 1 0.3 A BDY NA 1001 100 400 CW RE 1 11.4 H BSE NA 1001 100 400 CW RE 1 3.9 H BDY

NA 1001

Medieval

Medieval MED MED CR 1 2.5 A BDY

Green glaze

NA 1001 100 400 CW OX 2 2.7 H BDY NA 1001 NP Stone 1 18.7

NA 1001

Prehistoric

Prehistoric HM HM 1 4.3 A BDY

NA 1001

Modern

Modern MOD WW 2 2.5 U

NA 1002 100 400 CW OXM2 1 10 H BDY NA 1002 11 100 400 CW OXM3 1 2.9 H BSE Beaker? Slip? AO Base diam. 70mm, BE 10% Y NA 1002 100 400 CW OXF1 1 5.2 H BDY Possibly slipped? NA 1002 100 400 CW OXM4 1 2.7 H BDY

NA 1002 RB RB CBM CBM1 1 41.6 H

Tegulae/antifix? BR, AO Y

NA 1002 RB RB CBM CBM2 1 56.9 H

Tegulae

NA 1002 FC Fired Clay 1 3.7 A

NA 1002

FC/Daub

Fired Clay/Daub 2 5.2 A

NA 1002

Modern

Modern CBM CBM 1 7 H Tile? Not Roman? Coarse sand to underside


NA 1002 50 250 AM BAT AM2 1 28 H BDY Dressel 20

77

Feat

ure

Con

text

Smal

l fin

d no

FV

Edat

e

Ldat

e

War

e

Fabr

ic ty

pe

Cou

nt

Wei

ght

Abr

asio

n

Part

Form

Rim

d

Rim

%

Con

ditio

n

Dec

tec1

Dec

mot

if1

Dec

pos1

Dec

tec2

Dec

mot

if2

Dec

pos2

Dec

tec3

Dec

mot

if3

Dec

pos3

Com

men

t

Illus

trat

e

To s

peci

alis

t

NA 1002

140/50 350 MO MH1 1 10.3 H BDY

Mortarium WRN

NA 1002 50 250 AM? AM? 3 40.6 H BDY

Very heavily burnt post break- through the whole body of the fabric. Thick body; fabric looks too fine to be handmade

NA 1002 NP Not pot 1 10.5 Stone?

NA 1002

Medieval

Medieval MED MED 1 4.4 H BDY

NA 1002 100 400 CW REM4 1 5.5 H BDY NA 1002 150 410 FW LNV CC 1 7.3 A BDY NA 1002 40 200 SA SA 1 8.8 H BDY Central Gaulish? NA 1002 40 200 SA SA 1 7.6 H BDY Central Gaulish? NA 1002 40 200 SA SA 1 3.2 H BDY Central Gaulish?

NA 1002

FC/Daub

Fired clay/daub 11 36.6 H

NA 1002 NP Not pot 16 66.1 H stone/shale/unkown

NA 1002 50 250 AM BAT AM1 2 292.5 A BDY Dressel 20

NA 1002

Medieval

Medieval MED MED 10 23.7 H

BDY+RIM Oxidised and cream wares

NA 1002

Medieval


Green glaze

NA 1002 HM HM 2 31.3 A BDY Incised lines OSF Grooved decoration to outer surface Y Prehistoric

NA 1002 40 410 CW DOR BB1 2 7.4 H BDY NA 1002 40 410 CW DOR BB1 1 3.9 H BDY NA 1002 40 410 CW BBT 1 1 1.1 H BDY NA 1002 150 400 FW CC 2 0.8 H BDY Slipped Scraps

NA 1002

Medieval

Medieval MED MED OX 1 0.8 H BDY

NA 1002 150 410 FW CC 1 3 H BDY

Heavily abraded, oxidised fabric. Very little slip remains

NA 1002 40 250 SA SA 2 2.7 H BDY Scraps NA 1002 2 150 410 FW LNV CC 2 4 A RIM Beaker 100 6 Y

NA 1002 270 400 CW REM4 1 13.4 H BDY

Gritty Grey Ware. Piercebridge (gritty grey ware, Croom et al. 2008, CDROM, Ch. 9-185), Catterick (fabrics R5 and R8, Bell and Evans 2002a, 354), Healam Bridge (GRC fabrics, Leary 2018, vol. 2, 21-2), Greta Bridge (fabric GW3, Croom and Bidwell 1998, 164), and Bowes Castle (gritty grey ware, McBridge and Bidwell 2009, 141).

78

Feat

ure

Con

text

Smal

l fin

d no

FV

Edat

e

Ldat

e

War

e

Fabr

ic ty

pe

Cou

nt

Wei

ght

Abr

asio

n

Part

Form

Rim

d

Rim

%

Con

ditio

n

Dec

tec1

Dec

mot

if1

Dec

pos1

Dec

tec2

Dec

mot

if2

Dec

pos2

Dec

tec3

Dec

mot

if3

Dec

pos3

Com

men

t

Illus

trat

e

To s

peci

alis

t

NA 1002 NP Not pot 1 0.3 Red sandstone NA 1002 NP Not pot 1 0.7 Baked clay?

NA 1002

Medieval

Medieval MED MED 1 0.3 A HDL

Green glaze

NA 1002 200 400 CW GTA 1 3.1 Grog Tempered ware NA 1002 100 410 CW REM6 1 2.5 U BDY NA 1002 100 250 CW REF3 1 5.3 H BDY NA 1002 100 400 CW REM4 1 2.8 H BDY NA 1002 3 100 400 CW REM6 1 9.7 H RIM Jar NA 1002 100 400 CW REC1 1 4.1 H BDY NA 1002 100 400 CW OXM3 1 2.9 H BDY NA 1002 100 400 CW OXM3 1 0.7 H BDY Thin-walled NA 1002 100 400 CW REC1 1 1.6 H BDY BRNT

NA 1002

Medieval

Medieval MED MED CR 1 2.6 H BDY

NA 1002

Medieval


NA 1002 50 40 FW Parisian? 1 0.1 H BDY Thin-walled. Parisian ware? NA 1002 120 250 CW BBT 2 1 25.8 A BSE NA 1002 100 400 CW REC2 1 9.3 H BDY BRN, OSF NA 1002 4 175? 225? CW REM4 1 12.5 A RIM Dish 190 6.5 Dish. Burnished outer surface to top of rim. Y NA 1002 120 250 CW BBT 2 1 19.3 A BSE NA 1002 40 410 CW DOR BB1 2 16.1 H BSE

NA 1002 100 400 CW REM6 3 27.3 A BDY+BSE

NA 1002 100 400 CW REM6 1 6.7 A BDY NA 1002 5 100 400 CW REM6 1 10 A RIM Jar 200 7 Dark brown fabric Y

NA 1002

Medieval

Medieval MED MED CR 3 17.1 A

RIM+BDY

Green glaze

NA 1002

Medieval

Medieval MED MED OX 2 11.9 A BDY

Green glaze

NA 1002 40 80 AM CAM AM1 3 62.2 A BDY

NA 1002 6 100 200 MO MCTR WS 1 114.9 A BASE Mortarium WRN Base diam. 110mm, BE 25%. Y

NA 1002 50 250 AM BAT AM1 5 248 H BDY Dressel 20


NA 1002

140/50 350 MO MH1 1 10 H BDY

Mortarium WRN

NA 1002 7 50 250 AM BAT AM1 1 135.7 A RIM Dressel 20 160

27.5 Triangular rim - check Martin Kilcher forms Y

79

Feat

ure

Con

text

Smal

l fin

d no

FV

Edat

e

Ldat

e

War

e

Fabr

ic ty

pe

Cou

nt

Wei

ght

Abr

asio

n

Part

Form

Rim

d

Rim

%

Con

ditio

n

Dec

tec1

Dec

mot

if1

Dec

pos1

Dec

tec2

Dec

mot

if2

Dec

pos2

Dec

tec3

Dec

mot

if3

Dec

pos3

Com

men

t

Illus

trat

e

To s

peci

alis

t

NA 1002 4 40 250 SA SA 3 6.7 A BDY Figure on stool or upturned bucket? Toilet? Samian

NA US RB RB CBM CBM1 1 27.4 A

Tegulae

NA US

Modern

Modern MOD Plant pot 1 3.8 U BDY

Plant pot

NA US NP Shale 1 3.1 NA US 150 410 FW LNV CC 1 14.4 A NCK Beaker

NA US

Medieval v MED MED 1 1.5 A BDY

Green glaze

Appendix 3. Pottery and CBM fabric descriptions The fabric of the pottery and CBM was first examined by eye and sorted into fabric groups based on colour, hardness, feel, fracture, inclusions and manufacturing technique. Samples of the sherds were further examined under an x20 binocular microscope to verify these divisions. The size of the sample was as large as was felt necessary for each fabric group. National fabric collection codes are given wherever possible (Tomber and Dore 1998).

Colour: narrative description only

Hardness: after Peacock 1977

soft - can be scratched by finger nail

hard - can be scratched with penknife blade

very hard - cannot be scratched

Feel: tactile qualities

smooth - no irregularities

rough - irregularities can be felt

sandy - grains can be felt across the surface

leathery - smoothed surface like polished leather

soapy - smooth feel like soap

Fracture: visual texture of fresh break, after Orton 1980.

smooth - flat or slightly curved with no visible irregularities

irregular - medium, fairly widely spaced irregularities

finely irregular - small, fairly closely spaced irregularities

laminar - stepped effect

hackly - large and generally angular irregularities

Inclusions:

Type: after Peacock 1977

Frequency: indicated on a 4-point scale - abundant, moderate, sparse and rare where abundant is a break packed with an inclusion and rare is a break with only one or two of an inclusion.

Sorting: after Tomber and Dore 1998

Shape:

angular - convex shape, sharp corners

sub-angular - convex shape, sharp to rounded corners

rounded - convex shape, no corners

sub-rounded - convex shape, rounded to no corners

81

Size: after Orton 1980

subvisible - only just visible at x30 and too small to measure

fine - 0.1-0.25mm

medium - 0.25-0.5

coarse - 0.5-1mm

very coarse - over 1mm

Amphorae

BAT AM Baetican amphora, southern Spain. Tomber and Dore 1998, 84-5.

NAF AM1 North African (Lime-rich) amphora. Tomber and Dore, 1998, 101.

CAM AM1 Campanian ‘Black sand’ amphora. Tomber and Dore, 1998, 88.

Fine Wares

SA A range of samian ware fabrics from various sources.

CNG BS Central Gaulish Black-slipped ware. Tomber and Dore 1998, 50.

LNV CC Lower Nene Valley Colour-coated ware. Tomber and Dore, 1998, 118.

CC1 Colour-coated ware. Fine, pale-brown fabric. Hard, smooth, with finely irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant fine sub-rounded quartz, sparse coarse rounded quartz, sparse coarse rounded black, and common subvisible mica inclusions.

CC2 Colour-coated ware. Fine, orange-red fabric. Hard, smooth, with finely irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant subvisible quartz, sparse fine rounded iron-rich, and sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

Mortaria

MCTR WS Catterick Vicinity White-slipped ware. Tomber and Dore 1998, 195 (CTR WS).

MH1 Mancetter-Hartshill White-ware. Tomber and Dore 1998, 189 (MAH WH).

MO1 Fine, mid-grey fabric. Hard, smooth, with irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant fine rounded quartz, common very coarse rounded dark brown iron-rich, and very sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

Coarse Wares

CW EP1 East Park Fabric1. Heavily over-fired and vitrified, identification of inclusions not possible.

DT Dales-type ware. Coarse fabric, with black to dark-brown core and pale brown margins. Soft, rough, with irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant coarse and very coarse rounded quartz, and sparse sub-visible mica inclusions.

Oxidised wares, fine fabrics

82

OXF1 Fine, red-orange fabric. Hard, smooth, with irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant fine sub-round quartz, sparse fine sub-angular grey-black, sparse coarse sub-rounded grey sandstone, and sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

OXF2 Fine, orange-brown fabric. Soft, smooth, with smooth fracture. Well-sorted, abundant subvisible quartz, common fine sub-rounded quartz, sparse fine and coarse sub-rounded iron-rich, common lime staining, and sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

OXF3 Medium, orange-brown fabric. Soft, rough, with irregular fracture. Ill-sorted, abundant fine sub-rounded quartz, common medium sub-angular lime, common medium and coarse sub-rounded black, sparse fine gold mica, and sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

OXF4 Fine, brown-grey fabric. Hard, smooth, with smooth fracture. Well-sorted, abundant subvisible quartz, sparse medium and coarse sub-rounded quartz, sparse coarse sub-rounded iron-rich, very sparse subvisible mica inclusions, and common fine angular vesicles.

Oxidised wares, coarse fabrics

OXC1 Coarse, mid-brown fabric. Hard, rough, with irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant coarse sub-angular quartz and common coarse sub-round iron-rich inclusions.

Reduced greywares, fine fabrics

REF1 Fine, mid-grey fabric. Hard, rough, with finely irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant fine and medium sub-rounded quartz, sparse fine and medium sub-rounded black-brown iron-rich, and common fine sub-angular gold mica inclusions.

REF2 Fine, grey-brown fabric. Soft, smooth, with finely irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant fine sub-rounded quartz, sparse fine sub-rounded iron-rich, and very sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

REF3 Fine, mid-grey fabric. Soft, powdery, with smooth fracture. Well-sorted, sparse fine and medium sub-rounded quartz and sparse fine sub-rounded white inclusions.

REF4 Fine, mid-grey fabric. Hard, smooth, with finely irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant subvisible quartz inclusions.

Parisian Fine fabric, with dark grey cored and mid-grey margins. Hard, smooth, with smooth fracture. Well-sorted, abundant fine sub-rounded quartz, sparse coarse rounded quartz, sparse coarse sub-angular iron-rich, and sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

Reduced greywares, medium fabrics

REM1 Medium, mid-grey fabric. Soft, rough, with finely irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant sub-rounded quartz, common medium sub-rounded lime, sparse medium sub-rounded iron-rich, and very sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

REM2 Medium, brown-grey fabric. Soft, rough, with irregular fracture. Ill-sorted, common coarse sub-rounded quartz, and sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

REM3 Medium, mid-grey fabric. Hard, rough, with smooth fracture. Well-sorted, abundant medium and coarse sub-rounded quartz, abundant coarse lime staining, and sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

83

REM4 Medium fabric with grey-brown core and pale brown margins. Soft, rough, with hackly fracture. Ill-sorted, abundant fine sub-rounded quartz, common medium sub-rounded quartz, common coarse rounded grey-black, and sparse medium rounded lime inclusions.

REM5 Mediu, pale grey fabric. Soft, rough, with finely irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant subvisible quartz, sparse medium and coarse sub-rounded iron-rich, and very sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

REM6 Medium, mid-grey fabric. Soft, powdery, with irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant fine sub-rounded quartz, sparse coarse rounded quartz sandstone, sparse medium sub-rounded iron-rich, and sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

REM7 Medium fabric, with mid-grey core and mid-brown margins. Soft, rough, with irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant fine and medium sub-rounded quartz, and very sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

REM8 Medium, mid-grey fabric. Hard, smooth, with finely irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant fine and medium sub-angular milky quartz, sparse coarse sub-rounded lime, and sparse medium sub-rounded iron-rich inclusions.

REM9 Medium fabric, with brown-grey core and mid-brown margins. Soft, rough, with finely irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant fine and medium sub-rounded quartz, sparse medium sub-rounded iron-rich, and very sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

Reduced greywares, coarse fabrics

REC1 Coarse, grey-brown fabric. Soft, rough, with irregular fracture. Ill-sorted, abundant coarse sub-rounded quartz, sparse medium sub-rounded lime, sparse coarse sub-rounded iron-rich, and very sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

REC2 Coarse, dark grey fabric. Soft, rough, with laminated fracture. Ill-sorted, abundant fine sub-rounded quartz, common coarse sub-angular quartz, and very sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

REC3 Coarse fabric, with pale grey core and dark grey margins. Hard, smooth, with hackly fracture. Well-sorted, abundant fine sub-rounded quartz, abundant medium and coarse sub-angular quartz, sparse coarse sub-rounded iron-rich, and very sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

Black-burnished wares

DOR BB 1 Dorset Black-burnished ware. Tomber and Dore 1998, 127.

84

Black-burnished ware-types

BBT1 Coarse fabric, with red-brown core and dark brown margins. Soft, smooth, with hackly fracture. Well-sorted, abundant medium sub-rounded quartz, common medium and coarse round iron-rich, and very sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

BBT2 Medium, black to dark-grey fabric. Soft, smooth, with hackly fracture. Ill-sorted, common medium sub-rounded quartz, sparse medium sub-rounded iron-rich, and very sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

HM/BBT? Medium fabric, with dark grey core and mid-brown margins. Soft, smooth outer and rough inner surface, with hackly fracture. Well-sorted, abundant fine sub-rounded quartz, sparse medium rounded iron-rich, and sparse subvisible mica inclusions

Ceramic fabric descriptions

CBM1 Fine, orange-red fabric. Hard, smooth, with irregular fracture. Well-sorted, abundant fine sub-rounded quartz, sparse coarse sub-angular black-brown iron-rich, sparse fine sub-rounded lime, and very sparse subvisible mica inclusions.

CBM2 Coarse fabric with mid-grey core with orange-red margins. Hard, smooth, with hackly fracture. Ill-sorted, sparse medium and coarse rounded quartz, sparse fine and medium sub-angular black-grey, sparse fine rounded lime, and common coarse sub-rounded grog

Appendix 4. Animal bone catalogue

Context RF/SF Sample Count Weight(g) MNE Element Side Fragmentation

ID

Group Species

1001 1 4.3 1 Tooth # Fragment m Equus

1011 1 2.6 1 Longbone shaft # Fragment m Medium mammal

1003 2 1.7 1 Tooth # 90 m Bos

1003 8 0.6 # Unidentified # Fragment m Medium/large mammal

1019 1 3.3 1 Tooth L Complete m Ovis/Capra

1019 1 3.6 1 Tooth L Complete m Ovis/Capra

1026 1 0.1 1 Unidentified # Fragment m Medium mammal

Context

Taphonomy Age at death

Sexable Measurable Age

able

?

Teet

h

Use

fo

r ag

e es

timat

ion?

Epiphysis fusion

Burn

t

Cal

cine

d

Gna

wed

Butc

hery

Surfa

ce

pres

erva

tion

Dis

tal

Prox

imal

1001 0 0 0 0 5 n Molar fragment n n n 0 0

1011 0 0 0 0 4 n n n n n 0 0

1003 0 0 0 0 3 n Max premolar in wear n n n 0 0

1003 0 0 0 0 4 n n n n n 0 0

86

1019 0 0 0 0 2 n Man M2 in wear n n n 0 0

1019 0 0 0 0 3 n Max M2 in wear n n n 0 0

1026 0 0 0 0 4 n n n n n 0 0

Appendix 5. Cremated remains catalogue

Table 1. Summary of cremated bone assemblages

Con

text

Des

crip

tion

Bone

Col

our

Pres

erva

tion

ID

MN

I

Age

Sex

Wei

ght (

g)

Gra

ve g

oods

1001 Cremated bone

White Good H 1 Adult - 0.5 -

1002 Cremated bone

White Poor H 1 Adult - 0.5 -

1003 Cremated bone

White Poor H 1 Adult - 1.3 -

1005 Cremated bone

Buff/white Good A 1 - - - -

1015 Cremated bone

Buff/white Moderate H 1 Adult - 1.5 -

1020 Cremated bone

White Good H 1 Adult - 2.2 -

1024 Cremated bone from an urn

White-light to dark grey

Moderate H 1 OMA-MA

M? 201.5 Burnt residue (metal?)

Key: ID: H – human, A – animal, ? – unknown; Age: f – foetus, n – neonate, i – infant, j – juvenile ad – adolescent, na – non-adult, ya – young adult, yma – young middle adult, oma – old middle adult, ma – mature adult, a – adult, ? – unknown; Sex: M – male, F – female, ? – unknown

* Weight of bone >2mm expressed as a percentage of average weight of bone >2mm recovered from modern cremation burials (1625.9g, McKinley 1993)

Table 2. Cremated bone fragmentation per context

Context Sieve Fractions Total >2mm

Weight as % of modern

<2mm Total Max Frag. Size (mm)

10mm 5mm 2mm g % g % g % g % g g

1001 0.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.03 0.0 0.5 10.1

1002 1.6 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.0 1.6 28.1

1003 0.0 0.0 1.3 100.0 0.0* 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 1.3 18.7

1015 0.7 46.7 0.6 40.0 0.2 13.3 1.5 0.1 0.0 1.5 29.8

1020 0.5 22.7 1.6 72.7 0.1 4.5 2.2 0.1 0.0 2.2 30.4

1024 97.1 48.2 83.1 41.2 19.8 9.8 200.0 12.3 1.5 201.5 63.3

*one fragment less than 0.1g in weight

88

Table 3. Proportions of identified fragments per context

Context Skull Axial Upper Limb Lower Limb Long bone Total ID

g % g % g % g % g % g %

1001 0.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 100.0

1002 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 100.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 100.0

1003 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 100.0 1.3 100.0

1015 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 53.8 0.6 46.1 1.3 86.7

1020 0.7 31.8 0.9 40.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 27.3 2.2 100.0

1024 13.7 11.0 44.1 35.5 5.1 4.1 23.2 18.7 38.1 30.7 124.2 61.6

Average 2.5 23.8 7.5 12.7 0.9 0.7 4.3 28.8 6.8 34.0 21.9 91.4

Methodological Notes

Osteological analysis is concerned with the determination of the identity of a skeleton, by estimating its age, sex and stature. Robusticity and non-metric traits can provide further information on the appearance and familial affinities of the individual studied. This information is essential in order to determine the prevalence of disease types and age-related changes. It is crucial for identifying sex dimorphism in occupation, lifestyle and diet, as well as the role of different age groups in society. A summary of the cremated bone assemblages is provided in Table 1.

Preservation

Skeletal preservation depends upon a number of factors, including the age and sex of the individual as well as the size, shape and robusticity of the bone. Burial environment, post-depositional disturbance and treatment following excavation can also have a considerable impact on bone condition (Henderson 1987, Garland and Janaway 1989, Janaway 1996, Spriggs 1989). Preservation of human skeletal remains is assessed subjectively, depending upon the severity of bone surface erosion and post-mortem breaks, but disregarding completeness. Preservation is important, as it can have a large impact on the quantity and quality of information that it is possible to obtain from the skeletal remains.

The fragment size of cremated bone is frequently attributed to post-cremation processes. This is because skeletal elements retrieved from modern crematoria tend to be comparatively large before being ground down for scattering or deposition in the urn. Bone is also prone to fragmentation if it is moved while still hot (McKinley 1994, 340). It is possible that post-burning processes, such as raking of the pyre while the bone was still hot, influenced the bone preservation. All cremated bone assemblages showed signs of post-depositional alteration to some extent, and it is likely that bone preservation was affected as a result.

The colour of cremated bone is connected to the temperature of the pyre, amount of oxygen available during burning, and the duration of the cremation. High temperatures (c. 600ºC and over) and plentiful oxygen will result in fully oxidised white bone given adequate time, whereas temperatures between c.300 to 600ºC and/or lack of oxygen will result in partially oxidised bone ranging in colour from dark to pale grey (McKinley 2004a). Temperatures below c. 300ºC and absence of oxygen will lead to charring of the bone, expressed as brown and black colours (ibid).

Minimum number of individuals

89

A count of the ‘minimum number of individuals’ (MNI) recovered from a cemetery is carried out as standard procedure in osteological reports on inhumations in order to establish how many individuals are represented by the articulated and disarticulated human bones (without taking the archaeologically defined graves into account). The MNI is calculated by counting all long bone ends, as well as other larger skeletal elements recovered. The largest number of these is then taken as the MNI. The MNI is likely to be lower than the actual number of skeletons which would have been interred on the site but represents the minimum number of individuals which can be scientifically proven to be present

Assessment of age

Age was determined using standard ageing techniques, as specified in Scheuer and Black (2000a; 2000b) and Cox (2000). For non-adults age is usually estimated using the stage of dental development (Moorrees et al. 1963a; 1963b), dental eruption (Ubelaker 1989), measurements of long bones and other appropriate elements, and the development and fusion of bones (Scheuer and Black 2000b). In adults, the most reliable methods for estimating age are based on stages of bone development and degeneration in the pelvis (Brooks and Suchey 1990, Lovejoy et al. 1985) and ribs (modified version of methods developed by İşcan et al. 1984; 1985 and İşcan and Loth 1986 provided in Ubelaker 1989). These methods are usually supplemented through examination of patterns of dental wear (Brothwell 1981, Miles 1962).

The individuals were divided into a number of age categories. Non-adults were subdivided into ‘foetus’ (f: where the age estimate clearly fell below 38-40 weeks in utero), ‘perinate’ (p: where the age estimates converged around birth), ‘neonate’ (n: where the age estimate suggested 0-1 month), ‘infant’ (i; 1-12 months), juvenile (j; 1-12 years), and adolescent (ad; 13-17 years). Adults were divided into ‘young adult’ (ya; 18-25 years), young middle adult (yma; 26-35 years), old middle adult (oma; 36-45 years), and mature adult (46+ years). A category of ‘adult’ (a) was used to designate those individuals whose age could not be determined beyond the fact that they were eighteen or older. However, it is important to note that several studies (for example Molleson and Cox 1993, Molleson 1995, Miles et al. 2008) have highlighted the difficulty of accurately determining the age-at-death of adults from their skeletal remains, with age-at-death frequently being underestimated for older individuals. The categories defined here should be taken as a general guide to the relative physiological age of the adult, rather than being an accurate portrayal of the real chronological age.

Sex determination

Sex determination was carried out using standard osteological techniques, such as those described by Mays and Cox (2000). Assessment of sex involves examination of the shape of the skull and the pelvis and can only be carried out once sexual characteristics have developed, during late puberty and early adulthood. Evidence from the pelvis was favoured as its shape is directly linked to biological sex (the requirements of childbirth in females) whereas the shape of the skull can be influenced by factors such as age (Walker 1995). Measurements of certain bones were used to supplement the morphological assessment (Bass 1987).

90

Metric analysis

Bone from the cremation burials was not measured to obtain information about stature or robusticity, as would be possible for inhumation burials, partly due to the amount of fragmentation present, but also due to the fact that cremated bone suffers a variable amount of shrinkage during the cremation process (anywhere from 0-15%; McKinley 2000a, 406).

Non-metric analysis

Non-metric traits are additional sutures, facets, bony processes, canals and foramina, which occur in a minority of skeletons and are believed to suggest hereditary affiliation between skeletons (Saunders 1989). The origins of non-metric traits have been extensively discussed in the osteological literature and it is now thought that while most non-metric traits have genetic origins, some can be produced by factors such as mechanical stress (Kennedy 1989) or environment (Trinkhaus 1978). A total of thirty cranial (skull) and thirty post-cranial (bones of the body and limbs) non-metric traits were selected from the osteological literature (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; Finnegan 1978; Berry and Berry 1967) and recorded.

Non-metric traits were not observed in this assemblage.

Pathological analysis

Pathological conditions (disease) can manifest themselves on the skeleton, especially when these are chronic conditions or the result of trauma to the bone. The bone elements to which muscles attach can also provide information on muscle trauma and excessive use of muscles. All bones were examined macroscopically for evidence of pathological changes.

Joint disease

The term joint disease encompasses a large number of conditions with different causes, which all affect the articular joints of the skeleton. Factors influencing joint disease include physical activity, occupation, workload and advancing age, which manifest as degenerative joint changes and osteoarthritis. Alternatively, joint changes may have inflammatory causes in the spondyloarthropathies, such as septic or rheumatoid arthritis. Different joint diseases affect the articular joints in a different way, and it is the type of lesion, together with the distribution of skeletal manifestations, which determines the diagnosis (Rogers 2000; Roberts and Manchester 2005).

Degenerative Joint Changes

The most common type of joint disease observed tends to be degenerative joint changes (DJC). Degenerative joint changes are characterised by both bone formation (osteophytes) and bone resorption (porosity) at and around the articular surfaces of the joints, which can cause great discomfort and disability (Rogers 2000).

Dental health

Analysis of the teeth from archaeological populations provides vital clues about health, diet and oral hygiene, as well as information about environmental and congenital conditions (Roberts and Manchester 2005). Unfortunately, no teeth were recovered from any of the contexts, and thus it was not possible to assess dental health in this assemblage.

91

Supplementary information

Roman cremation cemeteries are relatively rare, and it is more common for a small number of cremation burials to be found in larger inhumation cemeteries, such as at Driffield Terrace (Caffell and Holst 2012a) or at Bainesse (Speed and Holst 2018). It has been suggested by many in the past that the funerary ritual of cremating the body was largely replaced by inhumation in the later second century (Hope 1999, Jones 1984). However, Ottaway (2004) suggests that cremation may have persisted as the preferred funerary rite of the social elite until the third century. Notably, research by the Roman Rural Settlement Project in the West Midlands has shown there to be a spike in cremation burials in the 2nd century AD, mostly based on late burials at Ryknield Street, Wall (Smith 2014).

All of the examples of later Roman cremation cemeteries have been found in the vicinity of Roman forts. The 32 cremation burials from Waterdale cemetery near the Doncaster Roman fort dated to the first and second century AD (Caffell and Holst 2012b). The large cremation burial cemetery at Brougham, Cumbria, dated to the third or very early fourth century AD (Cool 2004; McKinley 2004b, 283). Contemporary cremation burials have been found at Petty Knowes, Northumberland, dating from the second and fourth centuries AD (Charlton and Mitcheson 1984) and at Lanchester, County Durham, between the mid second and late third century AD (Turner 1990). Most of the nine cremation burials at Catterick dated to the early Roman period, but one burial dated to the late third to fourth century AD (Speed and Holst 2018). The latter four examples come from the Northern Frontier, though, which can be subject to slightly different funerary rituals compared to the other parts of Roman England. This might have been true for the East Park Roman settlement as well. Other cremation cemeteries have been associated with major Roman towns, such as the first and second century cremation cemetery at St Pancras, Chichester (Down and Rule 1971). In the West Midlands, the Roman Rural Settlement project (which solely focused on rural burials), identified 81 cremation burials, which represented 16.2% of burials in the area, the majority of which derive from nucleated sites and were largely characterised by small groups of burials (74%; Smith 2014). A total of 51 of these burials were recovered from a cemetery west of Wall, at Ryknield Street, which was in use from the early Roman period to the fourth century AD (White and Hodder 2018, 150).

Although it is not possible to fully assess funerary ritual at the East Park Roman settlement due to the small amount of human remains recovered so far, the presence of cremated human bone, as well as an urned cremation burial, suggests that it was in line with early Roman cemeteries associated with larger towns and military sites. In general, variation in terms of presence of an urn is characteristic of Roman cremation cemeteries: for example, previous excavations at Hungate in 2002 (Holst 2003) recovered two cremation burials from the early third century AD, which had been interred in black burnished ware vessels. Cremated bone from 37 features (representing eighteen cremation burials and 19 assemblages of residual cremated bone) were analysed from Driffield Terrace, York, in 2012 (Caffell and Holst 2012a), but none of these cremation burials were urned. At Waterdale, South Yorkshire, only 9.4% of cremation burials were urned (Caffell and Holst 2012b). At Brougham, Cumbria (Cool 2004), cremated bone was recovered from 322 contexts and 241 features (McKinley 2004b, 283). The number of urned burials was 123, with nine unurned burials and 65 deposits of pyre debris (Cool 2004, 444-455). The proportion of urned burials at Brougham was 62.4% (of all cremation-related features), or 93.2% of contexts identified as cremation burials. A range of cremation related deposits were identified at this cemetery, including accessory burials, formal deposits of pyre debris, deliberately emptied graves, and cenotaphs (i.e. undisturbed groups of pots with little or no human bone present, Cool 2004, 18; McKinley 2004b, 284). At Chichester, most burials were urned in vessels, cists, caskets and boxes (Down and Rule 1971).

92

In the West Midlands, 56% of the 81 cremation burials recorded for the Roman Rural Settlement Project were interred in urns (Smith 2014).

With regard to pyre technology, the bone at East Park was predominantly buff-white and calcined, although some fragments from Burial [1024] had a light or darker grey hue. Incomplete calcination has been observed in other Roman cremation cemeteries. For example, a similar trend was observed in Southam, Warwickshire (Petersone-Gordina and Holst, 2018), as well as York during the Roman period: At Mill Mount the remains had only been moderately well cremated (Holst 2005), while at Driffield Terrace (Caffell and Holst 2012a), most contexts contained bone which displayed a whole range of colours, from brown and black indicative of charring, to shades of grey, to white, suggesting some bone was fully calcined. The cremation burials from Hungate, York, also exhibited differing degrees of calcination (Holst 2003, Keefe and Holst 2017). At Waterdale, South Yorkshire, the bone was predominantly buff/white, though nine contexts (18.4% of 49) had some fragments that displayed darker shades of grey, and one had a couple of black fragments.

According to Thompson ¬et al. (2016), in the forts of northern England it was common for the cremation pyre not to be tended, which led to uneven burning. Even though East Park was not a military site, this tradition might have been observed at to some extent. When the pyre is tended, the bone is being moved around and burns more evenly.

Unlike in a number of other Roman cremation cemeteries, animal bone was not found together with human bone in any assemblage from East Park; however, the cremated animal bone in Context [1005] might be interpreted as originally coming from a burial which possibly contained both, human and animal bone. Indeed, Roman funerary ritual did include placing full or partial animal carcasses on the pyre along with the deceased (Toynbee, 1971). Although evidence from ancient texts is biased in favour of a small minority of elite from the City of Rome, in general, archaeological evidence suggests that several of the described practices were adopted by the people elsewhere in the Roman Empire, especially the western provinces (Thompson et al. 2016). For example, at the Roman fort of Lunt, Baginton, animal bone fragments, most of which were from immature animals, were identified in over 60% of the cremation burials, and the similar colour of the animal bone suggested that it was indeed placed on the pyre (Petersone-Gordina and Holst, 2019).

For comparison, the proportion of contexts at Waterdale, South Yorkshire, containing animal bone was 8.2%. A total of 23% of burials at Brougham contained animal bone, and a smaller proportion of burials from some other sites cited contained animal bone (McKinley 2004c, 331). In fact, McKinley (2006, 84) observed that between 10-50% of Roman period burials contain a few grams of animal bone, typically pig or sheep and bird. Unfortunately, it is currently impossible to establish what, if any proportion of animal bone was present in burials from East Park settlement, due to the lack of undisturbed burials.

With regard to pyre goods, a small fragment of burnt residue, possibly metal, was found with Burial [1024]; it was not possible, however, to establish what this object was, and if it had any significance. As such, pyre goods are common in Roman cremation cemeteries: for example, at Chichester, most burials were furnished (Down and Rule 1971), and 66 small finds were present in Lunt, Baginton (Bevan 2019), some of which were not only well-preserved, but also very rare (Petersone-Gordina and Holst, 2019). A child’s burial in this cemetery was accompanied by four unique brooches, a round mirror, a hairpin, a ring, a glass intaglio, as well as three glass beads (ibid.).

Alternatively, nails are also commonly found in Roman cremation cemeteries: for example, nails for general carpentry use, such as applying cladding, were found in Lunt, Baginton (Dungworth 2019), and they may have derived from wood used for the pyre or from wooden

93

objects. The majority of nails found, however, are usually hobnails, applied to reinforce shoe soles during the Roman period. Shoes were either worn by the deceased or placed on the pyre with the body (Cool 2004, 438-439). At Brougham, hobnails were associated with a fifth of the deposits (Mould 2004, 391-392).

94

Appendix 6. Slag catalogue Context HB Weight Smith Slag

Count Smith Weight

Tap Slag? Count

Tap Slag? weight

1001

1 29

1002

1 27

1003

2 6

1014

2 2

1015 205 4 32

Unstratified

1 62 1 80

Totals 205 11 158 1 80

Table 4 Catalogues of the slags recovered from East Park, Roman (weight in grams).

Context HB Weight (gm)

D1 (mm) D2 (mm) DP (mm) Calculated Volume (cm3)

1015 205 69 58 46 386

Table 5 Dimension of the Hearth Bottom. D1- Major Diameter; D2 - minor Diameter; DP – Depth

Residue classifications

• Tap Slag– iron smelting slag that is characterised by its ropey flowed morphology, indicating a free-flowing slag. The slag is normally black in colour. The upper surface is smooth, sometimes with ripples.

• Hearth Bottom - a plano-convex accumulation of iron silicate slag formed in the smithing hearth.

• Smithing Slag - randomly shaped pieces of iron silicate slag generated by the smithing process. In general slag is described as smithing slag unless there is good evidence to indicate that it derived from the smelting process.

HH XRF Method

The instrument used was a Bruker S1 Turbosdr hand-held XRF instrument operating at 15kV. The technique is non-destructive. A beam of x-rays is generated in the instrument and focussed on a fresh fractured surface of the sample, the x-rays interact with the elements present in the sample resulting in the emission of secondary x-rays which are characteristic (in terms of their energy and wavelength) of the elements present in the sample. The energies of the secondary x-rays are measured and a spectrum generated showing a level of background noise with peaks of the elements present superimposed on the background noise. Slag samples were analysed for 30 live seconds and the spectrum is stored. All elements heavier than magnesium (Mg, Z=12), can be detected.

Appendix 7. Metalwork

Con

text

Feat

ure

SF N

o.

Mat

eria

l

Obj

ect (

s)

Perio

d(s)

Qua

ntity

Wei

ght (

g)

Description

1001 - 2 Cu alloy Coin C3rd 1 3.9 Roman grot illegible 3rd century numuus or radiate barbarous

Unstrat - Cu alloy Assorted, including possibly coin or token

C18th-Modern 4 6.7

2 fragments of modern metal, one modern button and one possible Post-medieval 18th century coin or token?

Unstrat - Cu alloy Gunmetal Modern 1 0.9

1001 - Fe Assorted, including horseshoe fragments Modern 8 158.8

Assortment of modern agricultural including nails and a fragment of horseshoe

1002 - Fe Nails Modern 3 79.3 1002 - Fe Undiagnostic Modern 1 1.8 1003 F109 Fe Undiagnostic Modern 1 10.5 1005 F105 Fe Undiagnostic Modern 5 2.9 1014 F105 9 Fe Undiagnostic Unknown 4 2.5 1021 F105 Fe Undiagnostic Unknown 1 9.9

1026 F102 5 Fe

Assorted, including probable horse harness fittings Unknown 5 50.7

A ring, spike and possible knife blade wrought iron. The ring and spike appear to form some kind of attachment probably horse harness related

Unstrat - Fe Undiagnostic Modern 19 153.9

96

Con

text

Feat

ure

SF N

o.

Mat

eria

l

Obj

ect (

s)

Perio

d(s)

Qua

ntity

Wei

ght (

g)

Description

1001 - 1 Lead Spindle whorls C1st-4th 2 50.7

Spindle whorls. The first is round in plan, and cast in the form of a shallow dome with one face flat, it has a straight sided round central aperture which is 5.0mm in diameter. The whorl is undecorated, although it has some concentric marks on the flat face probably caused by shrinkage during casting, and thickly covered in white patination. The thinness of the aperture may suggest a Roman date of about AD 43 – 410. The second is a complete lead spindle whorl or weight. The whorl is biconical in shape with a large, roughly circular hole through the centre. The off-centre hole could suggest Roman but it could be much later.

Unstrat - Lead Assorted, including petronel fragment C17th/18th 2 9.6

One fragment is undiagnostic the other is decorated possibly off a petronel 17th/18th century

97

Appendix 8. Lithic catalogue

Table 6. Worked lithic artefacts

Con

text

Type

Cou

nt

Wei

ght (

g)

Com

plet

e

Burn

t

Post

-dep

ositi

onal

da

mag

e Pa

tinat

ion

Mod

e of

per

cuss

ion

Perio

d(s)

Description

1002 Blade 1 1.5 N N Light Light N/A Meso A mesial blade fragment, possibly intentionally snapped, regular parallel margins and trapezoidal cross-section, unidirectional dorsal scars. >21.0 x 14.9 x 4.0g

1002 End scraper (on broken flake)

1 1.6 Y N Light Light N/A Meso A fragment, with broadly parallel margins on dorsal surface, indicating blank likely result of blade technology. It has a convex scraper at the distal end formed by short semi-abrupt retouch, continuing marginally down the left edge. It is missing the butt. It measures only 18.5 x 16.6 x 5.6 mm and is consistent with the ‘thumbnail scraper’-like forms observed in the Mesolithic.

98

Table 7 Naturally broken/unworked flint

Context n Weight (g)

1001 1 5.1

1002 5 10.3

1003 2 5.1

1005 1 2.4

1019 1 0.2

Total 10 23.1

99

Appendix 9. Worked stone catalogue Table 8. Worked stone catalogue

Context Material Type

Quantity Weight (g) Notes

1026 Heat affected stone

1 Too heavy for scales

Probably part of a quern from the Late Iron Age to Roman period 100BC – 500AD

Total 1 N/A

Appendix 10. Glass catalogue

Table 9. Glass catalogue



Unstrat Glass 1 5.01 Probably 19th

century bottle

Unstrat Glass 3 21.90 1 x modern window glass. 1 x green fragment probably from a wine bottle 20th century. One fragment bluish blown rather than strip glass probably roman off a vessel AD43-410

Total 4 26.91

Appendix 11. Clay pipe catalogue

Table 10. Clay pipe catalogue



1001 Clay pipe

2 36.3 1 x 17th century. 1 x 19th century sooted

1001 Clay pipe

1 1.89 19th century

Total 2 38.19

100

Appendix 12. Environmental catalogue Table 11. List of plant macrofossil taxa

Sample No. Context Feature Indeterminate Cereal Indeterminate Total

1 1005 F105 9 9

2 1011 F109 11 2 13

3 1013 F105 2 1 3

4 1014 F105 - - 0

5 1015 F104 1 1

Total 23 3 26

101

Appendix 13: Social impact methodology

Activities Outputs Outcomes Standards of Evidence

the processes and tasks undertaken by the organisation

a quantifiable unit of ‘product’ or ‘service’ measurable once completed

observable change for heritage, individuals or communities

data collection and confidence rating demonstrating the positive difference made by an intervention

For a

rcha

eolo

gy a

nd

herit

age

1. Stakeholder consultation with national and local heritage bodies, societies and local authorities

2. Archaeological investigation of nationally significant site

3. Accessible archaeological archive

✓ Scheduled Monument Consent ✓ Archaeological Project Design ✓ Archaeological Assessment Report

with recommendations ✓ Archaeological Archive

Through our work, heritage will be:

identified, interpreted and better explained

better managed and in an improved condition

Level 3 – Analytical report, synthesising specialist reports with previous regional, national and international work to determine significance, importance and potential of the site.

For p

eopl

e

4. Half-day familiy friendly DigCamp sessions

5. CIfA endorsed half-day Finds Lab workshops

6. CIfA endorsed half-day excavation skills training

7. Heritage skills workshops

✓ Excavation and finds room skills training for 81 YAC members

✓ 163 DigCamp participants (children under 12 and their parents)

✓ Excavation and finds room skills training for 132 participants

✓ 20 Participants in photogrammetry and creative skills workshops

By taking part in our work:

a wider range of people will be involved in archaeology and heritage

people will have greater wellbeing people will have learnt about the

archaeology and heritage of Pontefract Castle, leading to changes in ideas and actions

people will have more skills in excavation and finds processing, giving greater confidence to get involved

Level 3 – Field school training programme quality assured and endorsed by CIfA.

Level 2 – Project evaluation report including survey data for users of DigLab and project participants to determine changes for individuals as a consequence of taking part, and highlighting scalability, implementation and ability to meet national needs.

102

Activities Outputs Outcomes Standards of Evidence

For c

omm

uniti

es a

nd s

ocie

ty

8. Education programme for primary schools

9. Daily site tours during archaeological investigation

10. Published web content and native social posts

11. Traditional broadcast and print media

✓ 372 school pupils from six local schools benefit from tailored education content

✓ Daily site tours reach new and more diverse audiences (438 people)

✓ Visitor numbers of Pontefract Castle increase by 138% to 14,810

✓ 500,000 combined impression across Facebook & Twitter

✓ 7,000 unique microsite views ✓ Coverage by BBC Look North, BBC

Radio Leeds, Wakefield Express, Pontefract and Castleford Express

As a consequence of our work:

more and a wider range of people will be involved in heritage

people have learned about archaeology and heritage, leading to change in ideas and actions

the local area will be a better place to live, work or visit

Level 2 – Collection of evaluation survey data for participating schools, visitors to the archaeological site, temporary exhibitions and Trimontium Museum, to quantify audience demographics and determine any changes which took place as a consequence of the visit

Documents

Archaeological Excavation Report