LAND AT MIDGHAM, NEAR THATCHAM, BERKSHIRE … · sands overlying London Clay deposits (O.S 1977; Institute of Geological Sciences 1979). 1.2.3 The proposed extraction area lies on

LAND AT MIDGHAM, NEAR THATCHAM,

BERKSHIRE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION

C.A.T. JOB: 1211 C.A.T. REPORT: 01091

SEPTEMBER 2001

This report has been researched and compiled with all reasonable skill, care, and attention to detail within the terms of the project as specified by the Client and within the general terms and conditions of Cotswold Archaeological Trust Ltd. The Trust shall not be liable for any inaccuracy, error or omission in the report or other documents produced as part of the Consultancy and no liability is accepted for any claim, loss or damage howsoever arising from any opinion stated or conclusion or other material contained in this report or other documents supplied as part of the Consultancy. This report is confidential to the Client. Cotswold Archaeological Trust Ltd accept no responsibility whatsoever to third parties to whom this report, or any part of it is made known. Any such party relies upon this report entirely at their own risk.

© Cotswold Archaeological Trust

Headquarters Building, Kemble Business Park, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 6BQ Tel. 01285 771022 Fax. 01285 771033 E-mail: [email protected]

Land at Midgham, near Thatcham, Berkshire: Archaeological Evaluation

1

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................................................................... 2

SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 3

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Landuse, geology and topography ................................................................ 5 1.3 Archaeological background .......................................................................... 5 1.4 Archaeological specification and methodology ............................................ 6

2. EVALUATION RESULTS ........................................................................................ 8

2.1 Geological deposits ....................................................................................... 8 2.2 Palaeochannel ............................................................................................... 8 2.3 Post-medieval or modern feature .................................................................. 8

3. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 9

4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ 9

5. PROJECT TEAM ....................................................................................................... 10

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 10

APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................................... 13

Trench Stratigraphy ................................................................................................ 13


2

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1: Location map .................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2: Trench location plan, showing former stream course [804] and ditch [404] ... 12


3

SUMMARY

Site name: Land at Midgham

Location: Midgham, near Thatcham, Berkshire

NGR: SU 554 665

Type: Evaluation

Date of fieldwork: 17th-20th September 2001

Site code: BRM01

Location of Archive: West Berkshire Museum

In September 2001 Cotswold Archaeological Trust (CAT) carried out an

archaeological evaluation, in advance of proposed gravel extraction, of land adjoining

existing works at Midgham Quarry, near Thatcham, Berkshire.

The site lies in an area of archaeological potential as identified by previous

archaeological fieldwork in the site locality which has recovered stray finds and

occupation-related features of Mesolithic date.

Evaluation trenching has revealed no features of prehistoric or later date, with the

exception of a single ditch noted within trench 4a and a natural palaeochannel within

trench 8. The ditch yielded no dating evidence but contained settled topsoil within it,

alluding to a probable post-medieval or early-modern date. Natural palaeochannel

contained a basal silt fill, containing wood fragments, and a secondary peaty fill. No

artefactual material was present, however, from the stream channel fills, or from

subsoil and topsoil horizons within the site, to suggest the presence of settlement or

activity across the application area.


4

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 In July 2001 Cotswold Archaeological Trust (CAT) was commissioned by

D.K. Symes Associates, on behalf of Marley Building Materials Limited, to

carry out an archaeological evaluation of land at Midgham Quarry, near

Thatcham, Berkshire (centred on NGR: SU 554 665; Figs. 1 and 2). An

application has been made for the extraction of gravel from a site adjoining the

existing works.

1.1.2 The local planning authority, West Berkshire Council, has requested that an

archaeological field evaluation of the site be carried out in advance of

determination of the application.

1.1.3 The fieldwork has been undertaken in accordance with a detailed project

design (CAT 2001) approved by Veronica Fiorato, Archaeological Officer,

Heritage Section, West Berkshire Council. The fieldwork also followed the

Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Evaluations issued by the

Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA 1994) and the Management of

Archaeological Projects (MAP2) issued by English Heritage. Notification of

the start of site works was made to Ms. Fiorato and the opportunity given to

monitor the progress and quality of the fieldwork.

1.1.4 The report is structured as follows. The remainder of section 1 sets the

background to the fieldwork, examining the site landuse, geology and

topography, the archaeological background and the objectives and adopted

methodology of field evaluation. Section 2 summarises the fieldwork results,

whilst section 3 presents a discussion of these results.


5

1.2 Landuse, geology and topography

1.2.1 The application area lies on the southern side of the A4, between Thatcham

and Woolhampton, and to the east of the Midgham to Brimpton Road. The

site, approximately 0.8ha in size, is currently rough grassland with evidence

for past drainage and water management features visible on the surface of the

pasture.

1.2.2 The underlying geology of the site is recorded as river terrace gravels and

sands overlying London Clay deposits (O.S 1977; Institute of Geological

Sciences 1979).

1.2.3 The proposed extraction area lies on the floodplain of the River Kennet, c. 3m

below the level of the terrace gravels, at approximately 61m O.D.

1.3 Archaeological background

1.3.1 The Kennet Valley in this area is particularly noted archaeologically for its

evidence of Mesolithic occupation. This generally takes the form of stray

finds of worked flint (at SU 5550 6605, SU 5440 6610 and SU 5536 6610)

but a Mesolithic occupation site with intact deposits and associated artefactual

assemblages was excavated by Wessex Archaeology c. 200m to the south of

the application site at Kennetholme Farm (at SU 555 561).

1.3.2 In 1987 Wessex Archaeology carried out a field evaluation of the land

immediately to the east of the application site in advance of gravel extraction

(Heaton & Lobb 1987). The evaluation suggested that the main river channel

may have been further north than its present course and that Mesolithic

occupation may have been removed by river action or lay on the higher

ground to the south-west. Earthwork features relating to a ?post-medieval

water meadow system were noted.


6

1.3.3 Another evaluation of land at Midgham Bridge, Brimpton, to the south-east

(at SU 537 563) was carried out in 1988 by Wessex Archaeology (Trott &

Lobb 1988). A single Mesolithic flint blade was recovered from a former

stream channel but no other evidence of settlement was recovered. Again,

evidence for several palaeochannels associated with the Kennet river system

was recovered, particularly within the northern part of the site.

1.3.4 The application site has previously been the subject of a detailed pilot auger

survey carried out by Mike Allen of Wessex Archaeology. This showed the

existence of peat and later calcareous deposits associated with palaeochannels

and the changing riverine environment, and the possible existence of gravel

islands within the river system. It did not prove possible however to map the

palaeochannels over any distance to determine the exact extent of the gravel

islands within the site, although it was suggested that the islands were less

than 175m in extent.

1.3.5 Occupation from the later prehistoric, Roman and historic periods is recorded

within the locality but no previous archaeological finds or features are known

from the application area.

1.4 Archaeological specification and methodology

1.4.1 The evaluation was designed to establish whether archaeological deposits lay

within the study area and, if so, to determine their extent, date, character and

degree of preservation. This information would allow an informed decision

on their importance in a local, regional or national context to be made. The

information would clarify whether any remains were of sufficient importance

to warrant consideration for preservation in situ, or alternatively form the

basis of mitigation measures that might seek to limit damage to significant

remains.

1.4.2 A specific aim of the evaluation was to seek to characterise the palaeo-

topography in order to have a better understanding of the potential use of land


7

in the river Kennet valley, and to monitor the success of augering as a

technique for mapping buried topography on other similar sites.

1.4.3 The fieldwork methodology followed that set out within the evaluation

project design (CAT 2001). Seven 50m trenches and one 25m trench were

machine-excavated under archaeological supervision in the positions shown

on Figure 2. All trenches were 1.50m wide. Trench positions were varied

slightly from those shown in the original project design due to overhead

power cables, machine access requirements and the presence of deep drainage

ditches. Trenches 4 and 5 were split into two parts due to the presence of a

fence.

1.4.4 Machining was halted at the top of the first significant archaeological horizon

or otherwise at the level of the natural geological substrate. Excavation and

recording then continued by hand in accordance with CAT Technical Manual

1: Site Recording Manual (1996). A full written record was compiled and

photographs taken using both black and white and colour transparency film.

Levels taken on site were related back to a spot height on the A4 with a value

of 62.9m OD. CAT will make arrangements for the site archive to be

deposited with West Berkshire Museum.


8

2. EVALUATION RESULTS

2.1 Geological deposits

2.1.1 The natural geological substrate as encountered across the site varied from

clean yellow sands and gravels to dirtier, brown to black, gravels and white

calcareous sand/silts. The natural substrate was encountered at an average

depth of 0.40m below existing ground level.

2.2 Palaeochannel

2.2.1 A natural palaeochannel, or stream course, was partially exposed within the

south-east end of trench 8. The channel was in excess of 8m wide and 1m

deep with a gently-sloping NW side. It contained a basal fill of sand and silt

lenses (805), containing abundant twig fragments, and a secondary fill (806)

of dark brown peat. No artefactual material was discernible within either fill.

2.3 Post-medieval or modern feature

2.3.1 An E-W aligned ditch [404] was recorded at the NW end of trench 4a. The

ditch was approximately 0.90m in width and 0.40m deep with steeply-sloping

sides dropping to a flat base. A primary fill (405) of grey silt yielded no

artefactual material. Ditch [404] appeared, however, to have been cut through

subsoil (402) and subsoil and topsoil layers had both settled into the silted

ditch, suggesting a post-medieval or modern date for this ?drainage feature.


9

3. DISCUSSION

3.1 Extensive evaluation trenching across the application area has revealed only

one former stream course, within trench 8, and a probable post-medieval or

modern drainage ditch within trench 4. The absence of archaeological

features predating the post-medieval and/or modern period from the site is

reflected in a lack of artefactual material recoverable during visual scanning

of evaluation spoil.

3.2 The evaluation results in part correlate with those of the earlier pilot augering

exercise along the eastern edge of the site, which identified the presence of a

N-S aligned peat-filled palaeochannel. Sand and gravel deposits, however,

appear not to be confined to small ‘islands’ as previous augering results

suggested since these deposits are widely distributed throughout the site at

depths of 0.20-0.40m below present ground level (occasionally overlain by

thin lenses of calcareous sediment). No other former stream courses could be

discerned, although it is conceivable that more may lie within the site.

3.3 The absence of occupation-related features, and of finds either within

palaeochannel fills or subsoil/topsoil horizons, suggests that prehistoric

activity is either entirely absent in this area or has been removed by

subsequent river action within the site. In summary no significant deposits

have been encountered susceptible to damage from proposed gravel

extraction.

4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Cotswold Archaeological Trust would like to thank the following for their assistance

and advice over the course of the project: Douglas Symes, D.K. Symes Associates;

Mike Cox, John Larkham, Marley Building Materials Limited; Veronica Fiorato,

West Berkshire Council.


10

5. PROJECT TEAM

The project was managed for CAT by Mark Collard and the fieldwork carried out by

Alistair Barber and Jon Hart. This report was compiled by Alistair Barber and the

illustrations prepared by Gail Stoten.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, M.J, 1987 Kennet Valley Survey Middle: Pilot Auger Survey in

Archaeological Survey of the Lower Kennet Valley ed. S.J. Lobb and P.G.

Rose.

CAT, 2001 Land at Midgham. Project Design for an Archaeological Evaluation.

Cotswold Archaeological Trust.

Heaton, M & Lobb, S, 1987 Bath Road, Woolhampton, Berkshire. Archaeological

Evaluation 1987. Trust for Wessex Archaeology typescript report.

IFA, 1994 Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Evaluations.

Institute of Geological Sciences, 1979 Geological map of the United Kingdom, South.

O.S, 1977 Quaternary map of the United Kingdom, South.

Trott, M.R & Lobb, S.J, 1988 Kennetholme Farm, West of the Brimpton Road,

Midgham. Archaeological Evaluation. Trust for Wessex Archaeology

typescript report.


11

Figure 1: Location map


12

Figure 2: Trench location plan, showing former stream course [804] and ditch [404]


13

APPENDIX 1

Trench Stratigraphy

Trench 1 Present ground level: 61.40m OD. Context no. Description (101) Turfline/topsoil; dark grey-brown to black humic loam, 0.20m thick. (102) Subsoil: mid-brown clay-sand soil, 0.30m thick. (103) Natural substrate: yellow-buff sands and gravels and white calcareous silts/sands. Trench 2 Present ground level: 61.48-61.59m OD. Context no. Description (201) Turfline/topsoil; dark grey-brown to black humic loam, 0.20m thick. (202) Subsoil: mid-brown clay-sand soil, 0.30m thick. (203) Natural substrate: grey-brown gravels.

Trench 3 Present ground level: 61.45-61.72m OD. Context no. Description (301) Turfline/topsoil; dark grey-brown to black humic loam, 0.15m thick. (302) Subsoil: mid-brown clay-sand soil, 0.25m thick. (303) Natural substrate: yellow-buff sands and gravels

Trenches 4a and 4b

Present ground level: 61.43-61.50m OD.

Context no. Description (401) Turfline/topsoil; dark grey-brown to black humic loam, 0.15m thick. (402) Subsoil: mid-brown clay-sand soil, 0.25m thick. (403) Natural substrate: yellow-buff sands and gravels. [404] Ditch cut: E-W aligned. 0.70m wide and 0.20m deep with 45 degree sides and flat base (405) Primary fill of ditch [404]: light grey silt.

Trenches 5a and 5b

Present ground level: 61.14-61.19m OD.

Context no. Description (501) Turfline/topsoil; dark grey-brown to black humic loam, 0.15m thick. (502) Subsoil: mid-brown clay-sand soil, 0.25m thick. (503) Natural substrate: yellow-buff sands and gravels.

Trench 6 Present ground level: 61.48-61.60m OD. Context no. Description (601) Turfline/topsoil; dark grey-brown to black humic loam, 0.10m thick. (602) Subsoil: mid-brown clay-sand soil, 0.30m thick. (603) Natural substrate: yellow-buff sands and gravels and white calcareous silts/sands.

Trench 7 Present ground level: 61.36-61.73m OD. Context no. Description (701) Turfline/topsoil; dark grey-brown to black humic loam, 0.15m thick. (702) Subsoil: mid-brown clay-sand soil, 0.20m thick. (703) Natural substrate: yellow-buff sands and gravels and white calcareous silts/sands.


14

Trench 8 Present ground level: 60.89-60.94m OD. Context no. Description (801) Turfline/topsoil; dark grey-brown to black humic loam, 0.20m thick. (802) Subsoil: mid-brown clay-sand soil, 0.30m thick. (803) Natural substrate: yellow-buff sands and gravels and white calcareous silts/sands. [804] Palaeo-channel edge, stream course in excess of 8m wide. 1m deep. (805) Basal fill of [804]: white sands and silt interspersed with mid-brown silts and

containing roots and twigs. (806) Secondary fill of [804]: dark brown humic, peat, layer containing roots, twigs and leaf

matter.

Fig 1 Location plan

Studyarea

Bath Road

Sluice

Sluice

Sluice

Drain

Drain

Drain

Drain

Drain

1

2

3

4a

4b

5a5a

6 7

8

ditch [404]

palaeochannel[804]

N

Reproduced from the 2001 Ordnance Survey digital map with the permission ofOrdnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeological Trust AL50196A c

0 250m

Study areaEvaluation trenches

Archaeological features

555 556 557 558

663

664

665

666

667

Fig. 2 Trench location plan showing former stream course [804] and ditch [404]

Documents

LAND AT MIDGHAM, NEAR THATCHAM, BERKSHIRE … · sands overlying London Clay deposits (O.S 1977; Institute of Geological Sciences 1979). 1.2.3 The proposed extraction area lies on