Archaeological Monitoring Caville Hall Farm Burland Holme ...€¦ · (A614) at Caville Hall Farm, Burland, Holme Road, Howden, East Yorkshire. Monitoring of service trenches was

Archaeological Monitoring

Caville Hall Farm

Burland

Holme Road

Howden

East Yorkshire

Archaeological monitored evaluation (strip, map and record) for the erection of a farm

manager’s dwelling, followed by watching brief of foundation and service trenches.

Prepared on behalf of:

Mr. J. Longthorp (LKL Farming)

Planning Ref: DC/13/01720/PLF/WESTWW

HSMR Ref: PA/CONS/18479

National Grid Ref: SE76859 30616

Site Code: 2014.005.CHB

PastSearch

25 Chestnut Drive

Holme-upon-Spalding Moor

YORK

YO43 4HW

K.Adams, July 2014 PastSearch Report No: 004

Archaeological monitoring at Caville Hall Farm, Burland, Howden, 2014 Page 1

Contents

1. Summary ....................................................................................................3

2. Introduction ...............................................................................................4

3. Planning Background ..............................................................................4

4. Archaeological Background .....................................................................5

5. Historical Background .............................................................................6

6. Site Location and Geology .......................................................................6

7. Methodology ..............................................................................................7

8. Results ........................................................................................................7

9. Specialists Reports....................................................................................11

9.1 Environmental ........................................................................................11

9.2 Ceramic Building Material ....................................................................22

9.3 The Daub/Fired Clay and Faunal Remains (Animal Bone) ...........................25

10. The Recorded Find ...................................................................................28

11. The Other Finds .......................................................................................29

12. Discussion .................................................................................................32

13. Recommendations.......................................................................................33

14. Acknowledgements ....................................................................................33

15. Archive ......................................................................................................34

16. Bibliography .............................................................................................34

17. On-Line Sources ........................................................................................36

18. Appendices .................................................................................................37

Context Register .........................................................................................37

At End of Report:

Written Scheme of Investigation (Approved: 22 January 2014)

Figures

Plate


List of Figures (at end of report)

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: Plan of Archaeological Features and Crop Marks

Figure 3: Overall Plan of Areas 1 & 2, and Foundation Trenches

Figure 4: Plan of Area 1

Figure 5: Plan of Area 2 and Foundation Trenches

Figure 6: Sections 1 - 5

Figure 7: Sections 6 - 10

List of Plates (at end of report)

Plate 1: Development Site, Pre-excavation, 9 January 2014, Looking South.

Plate 2: Area 1, Machine Stripped, Pre-targeted Excavation, Looking Northwest.

Scale: 1m x 2.

Plate 3: Area 2, Machine Stripped, Pre-targeted Excavation, Looking Southeast.

Plate 4: Foundation Trenches, Looking Southeast.

Plate 5: Area 1, Ditch [119], Looking East. Scale: 20cm.

Plate 6: Area 1, Ditch [117] Truncated by Ditch [115], Looking East. Scale: 20cm

Plate 7: Area 1, Stake Hole [121], Looking North. Scale: 20cm.

Plate 8: Area 1, Ditch [113], Looking North. Scale: 50cm.

Plate 9: Area 1, Outer Enclosure Ditch [111], Looking Southeast. Scale: 1m.

Plate 10: Area 2, Inner Enclosure Ditch [221], Looking Southwest. Scale: 50cm.

Plate 11: Area 2, Inner Enclosure Ditch [224], Looking East. Scale: 1m.

Plate 12: Area 2, Pit [205], Looking south. Scale: 1m.

Plate 13: Area 2/Foundation Trench, Pit [226], Looking North. Scale: 1m.

Plate 14: Area 2, Post-hole [207], Looking North. Scale: 50cm.

Plate 15: Area 2/Foundation Trench, Pond [214], Looking West. Scale: 1m.

Plate 16: Area 2, Brick-lined Water Containing Pit [210], Looking West. Scale: 50cm.

Plate 17: Area 1, Service Trench [104], Looking North. Scale: 1m.

Plate 18: New Water Pipe Laid Under Hardcore, No Service Trench Dug.

Plate 19: New Electric Duct Laid Under Hardcore, No Service Trench Dug.

Plate 20: High Water Table Levels Restricted Depth of Targeted Excavation.

Plate 21: Test pit 1, Looking West, Scale: 1m

Plate 22: Test pit 2, Looking South, Scale: 1m.


1. Summary

An archaeological monitored evaluation topsoil strip, map and record, followed by

watching brief of foundation trenches was undertaken over a period of six days between

17th

– 21st March and 3

rd April 2014, on pasture scrub land to the west of Holme Road

(A614) at Caville Hall Farm, Burland, Holme Road, Howden, East Yorkshire.

Monitoring of service trenches was not required as the ducts and pipe for electricity and

water were laid under the hardcore of the access road to join the original service

trenches, therefore no further digging was carried out (Plates: 18 & 19).

It was hoped that the continuation of linear features previously recorded during

monitoring by Humber Field Archaeology in 2008, in an area approx. 122m x 70m to

the northeast of the current development site (Fig: 2) would be observed. In particular,

ditches A-B, H and I, two of which (A and B) had been recorded as trackway ditches.

However, no direct corresponding relationship could be determined between those and

the features encountered during the current monitoring.

Aerial photographs have recorded a number of crop marks within the immediate

vicinity, including a double ditch square enclosure (moated site). The northwestern end

of Area 1 and Area 2 were located over part of this crop mark. An approx. 4m length of

the eastern outer enclosure ditch was encountered, along with approx. 7m of the

northern arm and 17m of the eastern arm of the inner enclosure ditch during monitoring.

Targeted excavation revealed that both enclosure ditches had probably been sealed in

the 19th

/20th

century, as seen on the 1890 and 1909 OS maps.

Three pits and a post-hole were encountered, which may be associated with the inner

area of the enclosure ditches. The post-hole contained 11th

to 12th

century pottery with

sooting, and daub/fired clay fragments with heat discoloration/post breakage burning.

Four further ditches, to the east, were encountered, whose functions could not be

determined, also one possible stake hole.

Later features included a brick-lined water containing pit, which had been constructed of

re-used 14th

to 16th

century bricks, two ponds, which truncated the northern arm of the

inner enclosure ditch and a number of land drains.

The depth for targeted excavation of archaeological features had been restricted due to

the high water table caused by heavy rain fall over the previous months. Therefore,

particularly concerning the enclosure ditches, only the top fills were monitored. The

lower fills have been preserved in-situ.


2. Introduction

This report presents the results of monitored evaluation topsoil strip map and record,

followed by watching brief of foundation trenches was undertaken over a period of six

days between 17th

-21st March and 3rd April 2014, at Caville Hall Farm, Burland, Holme

Road, Howden, East Yorkshire, (NGR: SE76859 30616). The machine excavation of

the monitored topsoil stripping of the two areas for the dwelling house and the new

access road, and the watching brief of the foundation and service trenches was

monitored on behalf of Mr. J. Longthorp of LKL Farming, in response to a planning

condition (Reference: DC/13/01720/PLF/WESTWW) issued by East Riding of

Yorkshire Council on the 13th

November 2013.

Monitoring of service trenches was not required as the ducts and pipe for electricity and

water were laid under the hardcore of the access road to join the original service

trenches, therefore no further digging was carried out (Plates: 18 & 19).

The archaeological monitoring was undertaken to identify and record the

presence/absence of any archaeological features identified in the written scheme of

investigation produced and previously submitted to HMSR by PastSearch, and approved

by them on 22nd

January 2014.

3. Planning background

Permission for this development was granted on the 13th

November 2013 subject to an

archaeological condition. The condition was imposed to comply with the provisions of

Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

“The Scheme shall provide for:

i) the proper identification and evaluation of the extent,

character and significance of archaeological remains within the

application area;

ii) an assessment of the impact of the proposed development

on the archaeological remains;

iii) proposals for the preservation in situ, or for the investigation,

recording and recovery of archaeological remains and the publishing of

the findings, it being understood that there shall be a presumption in

favour of their preservation in situ wherever feasible;

iv) sufficient notification and allowance of time to archaeological

contractors nominated by the developer to ensure that archaeological

fieldwork as proposed in pursuance of (i) and (iii) above is completed

prior to the commencement of permitted development in the area of

archaeological interest; and

v) notification in writing to the Curatorial Officer of the Humber

Archaeology Partnership of the commencement of archaeological works

and the opportunity to monitor such works." (HSMR 8 July 2013)


The recommendation of a programme of staged observation, investigation and recording

during all below ground works has been requested as

“The site overlies the crop-marks of the historic deserted hamlet of

Caville, and the new building would be sited directly over the remains of

a medieval moated site within that hamlet. The request for this condition

is in line with the policy set out in paragraph 141 of the NPPF, and also

with Policy ENV7 of the JSP.” (HSMR 8 July 2013)”

4. Archaeological background

A monitored watching brief was carried out in 2008 by Humber Field Archaeology on

an area approx. 122m x 70m to the northeast of the current below ground works. The

results of which were summarised as follows:

“The monitoring has revealed evidence of substantial occupation deposits dating from

the medieval period. During the site strip and land reduction at the site, deposits

appearing to represent a drove/trackway or road ran north/south bisecting the area. The

eastern half showed the survival of settlement remains consisting of seven possible

structures with post-holes and associated pits. The western half consisted of a small

pond in addition to further pits and to the northwest linear arrangements which may

reflect plot or other, divisions of land. The pottery obtained from the upper fills of some

of the features during surface collection dates mainly from the late 12th to the mid 14th

century.

The excavation of the main access road to the south-east demonstrated the continued

presence of archaeological deposits in the form of spreads and ditches possibly forming

enclosures. Although no dating evidence was recovered it is more than likely that these

are also medieval in date. The excavation of a constructor’s access road to the east of the

main site revealed only a single pit which is also probably associated with the

settlement.

In addition, a small number of animal burials were encountered; however it is the

opinion of the author that these remains are in fact a remnant of the current use of the

farm as a piggery, with the remains belonging to selective culling and burial of those

animals.

A further positive result from the work is that the entirety of the archaeological site

remains almost wholly intact (in-situ), lying beneath a 0.50m thick layer of compacted

chalk hardcore. Following the stripping and the laying of the chalk mat, the only

excavations of note were 57 square foundation pits for the new portal framed building

which only disturbed recently re-deposited subsoil and the overlying chalk.

Overall, the monitoring at the site for the new grain store has demonstrated the existence

of medieval occupation in this area during the 12th to mid 14th century. It is probably

part of Caville deserted medieval village (DMV), associated with Caville Hall, formerly

a manor of some standing. The extents of this have not as yet been ascertained.” (D.

Jobling; HFA Watching Brief Report 1118, 2009).


5. Historical background

(Provided by the HSMR, 8th

July 2013. Ref: HSMR: PA/CONS/18479)

“The site of this proposed development overlies the site of the deserted medieval

settlement of Caville, which survived as earthworks until 1959, and are now represented

by prominent crop-marks visible on aerial photographs. Caville was a hamlet, which

also incorporates the remains of at least two, and possibly three moated sites: one of

these moats lies directly beneath the site of the proposed new dwelling. The former

earthworks suggest that the hamlet comprised at least six tofts (or building platforms)

ranged along an east-west track or hollow-way, with the moats situated towards the

eastern end of the settlement. Caville was first mentioned in a charter of AD 959, and takes its name from the Old

English for "tract of land where jackdaws are found". In 1086, the Domesday Book

records that the Bishop of Durham held 2 carucates and 3 bovates in Chewede [Cavil],

as part of his holdings in Howden and distrct. In a separate entry in Domesday Book,

the Bishop of Durham is recorded as holding 2 carucates and 2 bovates in Cavil. In

the 1334 Lay Subside, Cayvill [Cavil] paid £1 2s 5d, as part of the Liberty of Howden

(a similar amount to Leconfield). The 1377 Poll Tax records 25 tax-payers here. The

site of Cavell is marked on Speed's Map of 1610. This is presumably a post-medieval desertion, under either the Monkton or Galway

families. The lordship of Cavil, which included the hamlet of Cavil, was conveyed by

the Cavil family to Robert Monkton on his marriage in 1454. It passed to the

Viscounts Galway on the elevation of John Monkton (1695-1751) to that title in the

early is" century. The medieval Cavil Hall was demolished in the 18th century, and a

new hall was built on part of the old moated site. That hall subsequently suffered from

subsidence, and was demolished in 1969.”

“The lower part of the original hall was built of brick, while the upper part was of

wood and plaster, and the roof made up of large flat tiles. In front there were two

porches, one of 15 feet and the other of 6 feet square; it was defended by two moats

and two drawbridges.” (cavillconnections).

The Ordnance Survey map of 1890 indicates that the inner enclosure ditch of a moated

site in the development area was visible with an interior island. Only the northeast

corner and a small length of the eastern and northern arms of the outer ditch were

visible and partially open at this time. By 1909 both ditches of the moated site have

been completely filled. Only marshland/pond is indicated on the OS map of that date.

6. Site location and geology

The site is located on NGR: SE76859 30616 and lies on agricultural land to the west of

Holme Road (A614) at Caville Hall Farm, Burland, Holme Road, Howden, East

Yorkshire.

The underlying solid geology of the site is Mercia Mudstone Group - Mudstone.

Sedimentary Bedrock formed approximately 200 to 251 million years ago in the Triassic

Period. Local environment previously dominated by hot deserts. Superficial deposits of

Hemingbrough Glaciolacustrine Formation - Clay, Silty. Superficial Deposits formed up


to 2 million years ago in the Quaternary Period. Local environment previously

dominated by ice age conditions.

7. Methodology

All work carried out by PastSearch was undertaken by a qualified archaeologist in

accordance with IFA standards and guidelines (IFA 2008 a; b) and the Written Scheme

of Investigation submitted by PastSearch and approved by East Riding Council Planning

office 22 January 2014.

Areas for the dwelling house and new access road were stripped by a tracked 360

excavator using a straight-edged toothless bucket approx. 1.50m wide. Foundation

trenches were excavated by a mechanical excavator using a straight-edged toothless

bucket, approx. 080m and 0.30m wide.

All archaeological features were cleaned and recorded on pro forma sheets using the

PastSearch context recording system. A written record was made of each deposit,

including a description and dimensions.

Plans of the trenches were produced at scales of 1:100. Sections were drawn at a scale of

1:50, 1:20 and 1:10.

A digital photographic record was made of all trenches. Black and white and colour

photographs were taken of selected features.

The excavated material (spoil) was visually examined for archaeological artefacts during

and after excavation.

8. Results

Areas 1, 2 and foundation trenches (Fig: 2-5; Plates: 2-17)

The site was recorded as two separate areas: Area 1 – Access Road (101-121); Area 2 –

Dwelling House, Car Parking and Foundations (201-227). For the purpose of this report

however, they will be combined to maintain stratigraphic order.

The access road (Area 1) measured approx. 60m x 4m, aligned roughly northwest-

southeast with a couple of gentle bends. The area for the dwelling house and the car

parking (Area 2) was approx. 21m (n-s) x 25m (e-w) and was situated at the north-

western end of the access road. The foundation trenches for the dwelling house were

later excavated at the west end of this initial stripped area, the outer trenches measured

0.80m wide, and those for the partition wall trenches 0.30m.


The initial stripping had reduced both areas by between 0.30m and 0.50m below ground

level (BGL). Within the limits of the foundation trenches the western side of Area 2

was reduced by a further 0.30m to 0.50m. Lower fills of enclosure ditches were

revealed but not fully removed, therefore remain preserved in-situ for future monitoring.

At the time of monitoring the water table was encountered at a high level due to the

amount of rain fall over the previous months. Therefore, where feature profiles

extended below approx. 0.60m BGL, targeted excavation was limited and base levels

not achieved.

The natural subsoil (103=203) ranged from light yellow sand to orange-yellow sandy

clay and changed regularly throughout the two areas.

Phase 1- Iron Age? to Medieval? (Figs: 4 & 6; Plates: 5 – 8)

The natural subsoil was truncated in Area 1 by four ditches, each over 4m long,

extending beyond the excavated limits. The southernmost was [119] (Figs: 4 & 6; Plate:

5), aligned northeast-southwest, with gradual sides and slightly concaved base

encountered at 0.60BGL. Width: 0.90m; Depth: 0.32m, having a single fill (118) of mid

grey silty sandy clay with moderate iron pan. Approx. 10m to the northwest was ditch

[117] (Figs: 4 & 6; Plate: 6) on an almost east-west alignment with gradual sides and

concave base encountered 0.64m BGL. Width: 1m; Depth: 0.34m The northern side of

this ditch had been re-cut by ditch [115] of similar profile, both having single fills (116)

and (114) respectively of mid grey silty sandy clay with moderate iron pan, 114 also had

occasional charcoal fragments. Width: 1.10m; Depth: 0.32m.

Between ditches [119] and [117], was a possible stake hole [121] (Figs; 4 & 6 Plate: 7),

0.20m diam., depth: 0.07m, with gradual sides and concave base, having a single fill of

grey silty sand.

The northernmost ditch [113] (Figs: 4 & 6; Plate: 8), located approx. 4m from [115],

was aligned northnorteast-southsouthwest with gradual sides and flat base encountered

0.88m BGL and a single fill (112) of mid grey silty sandy clay with moderate iron pan,

contained: daub/fired clay. Width: 1.74m; Depth: 0.32m. Between ditches [113] and

[115] was a layer of possible flooding (102) similar to the fills of these two ditches, up

to 0.10m thick, contained: pottery (Iron Age?, Roman & 13th

/14th

century); daub/fired

clay. The 13th

/14th

century pottery may be intrusive from the topsoil during machine

excavation.

These ditches may pre-date or may be contemporary with the moated site (see below),

the limits of the development area did not allow relationship between them to be

determined.

Phase 2 – Medieval Moated Site (Figs: 4 – 6; Plates: 9 – 14)

At the western end of Area 1and the eastern end of Area 2 were two ditches, [111] and

[221] set 11.20m apart, which formed a double ditch enclosure (moated site), as seen in

crop marks on aerial photographs. These ditches were probably originally dug in the

medieval period (late 12th

to early 17th

century), however the pottery and vessel glass

retrieved during targeted excavation were of 19th

/20th

century, and probably relates to

the disuse and filling of these features, as seen on the 1890 and 1909 OS maps (Table 5).


The easternmost of these ditches (the outer ditch) was [111] (Figs: 4 & 6; Plate: 9), on

an almost north-south alignment, having three known fills. The lowest (110) of mid grey

silty sandy clay, over 0.70m thick, contained: pottery (19th

century); RF1. Over which

was (109) of organic sandy clay, over 0.20m thick, contained: CBM (15th

to 19th

century); animal bone; vessel glass (late 19th

/early 20th

century). This was sealed by

upper fill (108) of silty sand, 0.30m thick. (Length: >4m; Width: 5.40m; Depth:

<0.40m)

To the west, and running parallel to [111], was [221] (the inner ditch) (Figs: 5 & 7;

Plate: 10), having two known fills. The lowest (220) of very dark grey silty sandy clay

with moderate iron pan, over 0.20m thick, contained: pottery (19th

/20th

century); CBM

(modern), and upper, sealing fill (219) of mottled grey/orange sandy clay (possibly re-

deposited natural) up to 0.20m thick. (Length: <17m; Width: 2.60m; Depth: ,0.20m).

This ditch probably turned westward after 17m, to become [224] (Figs: 5 & 7; Plate:

11). Only one fill (223) of mid grey silty sandy clay, which contained animal bone with

vivinite, was encountered at this point, possibly mainly due to a large pond and flooding

activity removing upper fills.

Features which may have been associated with the area enclosed by ditch [221]/[224]

were pits [205], [212] and [226], and post-hole [207] (Figs: 5 & 7; Plates: 12-14)

Pit [205] was located to the southeast and extended beyond the excavation limits, having

gradual sides and concave base 0.90m BGL, with a single fill (204) of mid grey silty

sandy clay. Diam: 1.60m; Depth: 0.50m.

Approx. 4.20m to the northwest was pit [212] sub-rectangular with rounded corners and

vertical sides and flat base. Having a single fill (211) of mid grey silty sandy clay.

Length: 2.70m; Width: 1.70m; Depth: 0.30m. Seven metres to the north of which was

pit [226], poss. circular, encountered during excavation of foundation trenches. One fill

(225) was encountered over 0.30m thick. Width: 0.80m; Depth: <0.30m. It had also

been disturbed by a later pond and flooding.

Circular post-hole [207] 0.60m diam. and 0.20m deep, with vertical sides and flat base

encountered at 0.40m BGL, had a single fill (206) of mottled silty sandy clay, contained:

pottery (late 11th

to early 12th

century: daub/fired clay.

Phase 3 – Modern (Figs: 5 & 7; Plates: 15 – 17)

Two large ponds (Figs: 5 & 7; Plate: 15) were encountered at the northern end of Area

two, (213) <5m (n-s) x <6m (e-w) at the northeast corner, and (214) 7m (n-s) x <7m (e-

w) at the eastern edge and extending beyond the excavated limits. Between the two was

a layer of flooding (202) up to 0.20m thick, each having organic sandy clay fills. Pond

214 was further excavated by the foundation trenches, to a depth of 1.50m BGL,

however the base of this feature was not encountered.

At the southeastern corner of Area 2 a small brick-lined pit [210] was encountered (Fig:

5; Plates: 16), probably for water collection and storage, with bedding sand (209), brick

lining (208) was constructed of re-used 15th

/ 16th

century brick, which had probably

been associated with the former Caville Hall building. The bricks measured ? x 130mm

x 50-54mm. There did not appear to be a brick base, and after disuse had been filled

with brick and stone rubble (222). The majority of this feature was removed during the

excavation of foundation trenches. Diam: 1m; Depth: < 0.20m.


The archaeological features were sealed in both areas by topsoil (101=201) of loam

sandy clay silt 0.20-0.40m thick, contained: pottery (13th

/14th

& late 18th

to 20th

century); vessel glass (late 19th

/early 20th

century); CBM (14th

to 21st century);

daub/fired clay. This layer was truncated by eight land drains, each containing circular

ceramic pipes. Three were located in Area 1: (105) aligned east-west, (106) aligned

north-south, and possibly joined (105). (122) aligned east-west. Five were located in

Area 2: (215) aligned northwest-southeast and truncated pond (214) and pit (212), (216)

(217) and (227) aligned northeast-southwest and truncated pond (213). Land drain

(216) was also connected to (218) on an almost north-south alignment.

Two modern services trenches were located in Area 1 (Fig: 4; Plates: 17), (104) water,

and (107) electricity, which served the buildings to the northeast, and into which ducts

would be laid from the proposed dwelling house.

Test pits (Figs: 1 & 2 Plates: 21& 22)

Two test pits were machine dug to locate the course of two land drains. Test pit 1 was

located 7m to the west of Area 2, measuring approx. 2m sq. to a depth of 1m, the

continuation of land drain 215 was encountered. Test pit 2 was located 23m to the north

of Area 2, measuring approx. 3m x 2m to a depth of 0.80m, which located the second

land drain. No archaeological features were encountered in these test pits.


9. Specialist Reports

9.1 Environmental

By John Carrot

Palaeoecology Research Services Ltd

PRS 2014/18

Summary

Fourteen sediment samples (from which six were selected for processing), recovered from

deposits encountered during a monitored watching brief at Caville Hall Farm, Burland, Holme

Road, Howden, East Riding of Yorkshire, were submitted for an assessment of their

bioarchaeological potential. The works were undertaken in advance of a residential

development and encountered ditches, pits, post/stake-holes and two large areas provisionally

interpreted as ponds, together with modern land drains and service trenches. Artefactual dating

evidence was scarce and restricted to post-medieval and modern material; some features may

have had an earlier, medieval, origin, however.

The two samples from the access road area of the development gave only very small quantities

of organic remains which appeared to be predominantly modern intrusions or contaminants,

with macrofossil remains likely to be of ‘ancient’ origin restricted to traces of indeterminate

charcoal and bone of no interpretative value and a dearth of useful microfossil and artefactual

remains.

Three of the samples from the area of the proposed dwelling itself gave small assemblages of

waterlogged plant and invertebrate remains indicating temporary standing water and

predominantly wet ground presumably reflecting seasonal variations within the ditches and

expansion/contraction of one of the ?pond areas. Full analysis of the plant and invertebrate

assemblages from these deposits would allow a more detailed reconstruction of the depositional

environment and past habitats of the site but this would only be of value if reliable and relatively

precise dates can be obtained and that these are of archaeological/palaeoecological interest.

The fourth sample from this area yielded a small assemblage of charred plant remains which

was dominated by grasses but also included occasional cereal grains; this was too small for

detailed analysis, however. All four of the samples also contained modern intrusive/contaminant

remains and microfossil and artefactual evidence was minimal.

None of the assessed deposits gave significant concentrations of remains indicative of human

activities or waste disposal and their fine-grained nature suggests essentially ‘natural’ infilling

of the features in low energy environments.

KEYWORDS: CAVILLE HALL FARM; BURLAND; HOLME ROAD; HOWDEN; EAST RIDING OF

YORKSHIRE; ASSESSMENT; ?MEDIEVAL; POST-MEDIEVAL; PLANT REMAINS; CHARRED PLANT

REMAINS; CHARCOAL; CHARRED CEREAL GRAINS; INVERTEBRATE REMAINS; WATER FLEAS

(CLADOCERA); CADDIS FLIES (TRICHOPTERA); BEETLES (COLEOPTERA); VERTEBRATE REMAINS

(INDETERMINATE AND TRACE LEVELS ONLY – SOME CALCINED); MICROFOSSILS; POLLEN

GRAINS/SPORES; DIATOMS

Introduction

An archaeological monitored watching brief was undertaken by PastSearch

(Archaeological Services), at Caville Hall Farm, Burland, Holme Road, East Riding of

Yorkshire (centred on NGR SE 76859 30616), on the 17th

to 21st of March and the 3

rd of

April 2014. The works were undertaken in advance of a residential development.


The site was recorded as two areas designated as Area 1 for the access road (Contexts

101-121) and Area 2 for the dwelling, car parking and foundations (Contexts 201-227).

Features in Area 1 comprised several ditches (all of which extended beyond the

excavation area) and a single possible stakehole, together with modern land drains and

service trenches. Area 2 revealed ditches, pits (including a brick-lined possible water

storage pit), a post-hole and two large areas provisionally interpreted as ponds, together

with modern land drains. The westernmost ditch in Area 1 and the easternmost in Area 2

may have formed a double ditch enclosure (the Area 1 ditch being the outer). Artefactual

dating evidence from both areas was scarce and restricted to post-medieval and modern

material; some features may have had an earlier, medieval, origin, however. At the time

of monitoring, the water table was high and prevented base levels being achieved for

some features.

Fourteen sediment samples (‘GBA’/‘BS’ sensu Dobney et al. 1992), six of which were

selected for processing (in consultation with the excavator), were submitted to

Palaeoecology Research Services Limited, Kingston upon Hull, for an assessment of

their bioarchaeological potential.

Methods

All fourteen of the sediment samples were inspected and their lithologies recorded,

using a standard pro forma, prior to the processing of six (selected in consultation with

the excavator) for the recovery of organic macrofossils (and artefactual remains) broadly

following the techniques of Kenward et al. (1980).

Three of the washovers contained uncharred organic material and were kept wet for

examination for macrofossils using a low-power microscope (x7 to x45 magnification).

The three remaining washovers were mostly mineral in nature or of charred plant

remains (although uncharred organic material was present this was clearly, or very

probably, intrusive/contaminant) and were dried prior to examination.

The residues were primarily mineral in nature and were dried prior to the recording of

their components. All of the residues were small and were recorded in their entirety;

sorting for artefactual remains was to 4 mm, however. The residue fractions were

scanned for magnetic material.

All of the components of the washovers and residues were recorded using a five-point

semi-quantitative scale. The abundance scale employed was: 1 – few/rare, up to 3

individuals/items or a trace level component of the whole; 2 – some/present, 4 to 20

items or a minor component; 3 – many/common, 21 to 50 or a significant component; 4

– very many/abundant, 51 to 200 or a major component; and 5 – super-abundant, over

200 items/individuals or a dominant component of the whole. The abundance of

recovered organic and other remains within the sediments as a whole may be judged by

comparing the washover weights/volumes and the quantities of remains recovered from

the residue with the size of the processed sediment samples.

Plant and invertebrate macrofossil remains were identified by comparison with modern

reference material (where possible), and the use of published works (e.g. Cappers et al.

2006; Jacomet 2006; Harde 1984). Remains were identified to the lowest taxon possible

or necessary to achieve the aims of the project (within the constraints of an assessment).

Nomenclature for wild plant taxa follows Stace (1997), whereas cereals follow Jacomet

(2006) in which nomenclature follows van Zeist (1984), and beetles follow Kloet and

Hincks (1964-77).


Charcoal identifications were attempted for a small number of larger fragments (all over

4 mm). The fragments were broken to give clean cross-sectional surfaces and the

anatomical structures were initially examined using a low-power binocular microscope

(x7 to x45) and subsequently (where necessary) at higher magnifications (x60 to x600).

Identifications were made by comparison with modern reference material, where

possible, and with reference to published works (principally Hather 2000 and Schoch et

al. 2004); in the event, no identifications to species or even genus level were possible,

however.

Microfossil ‘squash’ subsamples (~5 ml) from five of the deposits were examined using the ‘squash’

technique of Dainton (1992). Originally designed specifically to investigate the content of eggs of

intestinal parasitic nematodes, this method routinely reveals the presence of other microfossils, such as

pollen and diatoms, and, where present, these other classes of remains were also recorded. The slide was

scanned at x150 magnification and at x600 where necessary.

During recording, consideration was given to the suitability of any macrofossil remains

for submission for radiocarbon dating by standard radiometric technique or accelerator

mass spectrometry (AMS).

Results

Notes from the initial inspection of all of the samples collected are shown in Table 1.

The results from the processing and assessment of the selected samples are presented

below in context number order by area.

Archaeological information, provided by the excavator, is given in square brackets. A

brief summary of the processing method and an estimate of the remaining volume of

unprocessed sediment follows (in round brackets) after the sample numbers.

Area 1 – Access Road

Context 110 [Primary fill of outer enclosure ditch [111]; undated – Context 109,

secondary fill of ditch [111], provisionally post-medieval]

Sample 3/T (6.5 kg/5 litres sieved to 300 microns with washover and microfossil

‘squash’; only ~5 ml of unprocessed sediment remains)

Just moist, mostly light/mid to mid grey (mid red-brown areas common – probable

decayed root trace), brittle to crumbly (working soft and somewhat plastic), clay silt.

Modern rootlet was present.

The tiny dry washover (7.0 g/15 ml) was mostly modern rootlet (abundance score 5),

with sand and small sediment concretions (to 5 mm but almost all to 2 mm) common

(both score 3). Other records comprised a little fine indeterminate charcoal (to 2 mm;

score 2) and coal (to 2 mm; score 2) and traces of beetle sclerites (score 2; including a

pronotum and a head fragments representing two different species of weevil

(Curculionidae)) – probably modern) and ‘seed’ fragments (score 2; including elder

(Sambucus nigra L.) fruits (score 2) – also probably modern).

The tiny residue (dry weight 142.5 g/140 ml) was mostly sand (abundance score 5) and

small lumps of undisaggregated indurated sediment (to 8 mm but mostly less than


4 mm; score 5), with a trace of very poorly preserved indeterminate bone (to 11 mm;

score 2). No magnetic material was present.

The ‘squash’ subsample was mostly inorganic, with a little organic detritus. A few

fungal hyphae were noted but no parasite eggs or other identifiable microfossils were

present.

Context 118 [Fill of ditch [119]; undated]



Moist, light to mid brown/grey-brown and mid grey (occasionally mid red-brown –

probable decayed root trace), crumbly (working somewhat soft), silty sand/sandy silt.

No obvious inclusions.

The minute dry washover (4.8 g/3 ml) was mostly fine sediment concretions (to 1 mm;

score 5) and indeterminate charcoal (to 3 mm but almost all less than 2 mm; score 4),

with some sand (score 3), modern rootlet (score 3), coal (to 2 mm; score 2), modern

‘seeds’ (score 2; almost all of which were provisionally identified as water-pepper

(Persicaria hydropiper (L.) Spach)) and a single small stone (to 4 mm).

The very small residue (dry weight 298.2 g/240 ml) was mostly sand (score 5) and small

lumps of undisaggregated indurated sediment (to 17 mm but mostly less than 4 mm;

score 5). Minor components comprised a little indeterminate silted charcoal (to 9 mm;

score 2 – the two largest fragments crumbled when species identification was

attempted), occasional small stones (to 4 mm; score 1) and a trace of calcined (to white)

indeterminate bone (to 4 mm; score 1). The trace level magnetic component (score 1;

<0.1 g) was all ?heat-affected sediment lumps and was returned to the residue.

The ‘squash’ subsample was mostly inorganic, with a little organic detritus (including

some microscopic ?charcoal). Some fungal hyphae were noted but no parasite eggs or

other identifiable microfossils were present.

Area 2 – Dwelling, car parking and foundations

Context 206 [Fill of post-hole [207]; undated]

Sample 7/T (7 kg/6 litres sieved to 300 microns with washover and microfossil ‘squash’;

no unprocessed sediment remains)

Just moist, mostly mid grey (with patches of light and light/mid brown and mid orange),

crumbly to unconsolidated (working soft), sandy clay silt, with some lumps of light

brown (buff) and mid orange clay. No obvious inclusions.

The small dry washover (20.2 g/40 ml) was mostly charcoal (to 8 mm but mostly less

then 2 mm; score 5), with some sand (score 3) and small sediment concretions (to 2 mm;

score 3), modern rootlet (score 2), earthworm egg capsules (score 1), a trace of calcined

indeterminate bone (to 3 mm; score 1), charred ‘grains’ (score 3; including fragments),

other indeterminate charred ‘seeds’ (score 1) and a single charred culm node. Charcoal

preservation was poor and none of the seven larger fragments examined could be

identified closely – two crumbled, one remained indeterminate and two were of a


diffuse-porous species; there were also two charred twig fragments of approximately 6

and 3 years growth but these could only be identified as ?ring-porous and ?diffuse-

porous, respectively. The charred ‘grains’ were mostly of grass (Poaceae; score 3) but

with an occasional wheat (Triticum) caryopsis (score 1) and a few (score 1) possibly of

rye (cf. Secale cereale L.) or brome (cf. Bromus).

The very small residue (dry weight 217.7 g/170 ml) was mostly sand (score 5) and small

lumps of undisaggregated indurated sediment (to 17 mm but mostly less than 4 mm;

score 5). There was a trace of largely indeterminate silted charcoal (to 9 mm; 0.4 g)

which included a single charred twig fragment (to 8 mm and approximately 2 mm in

diameter – identification was attempted but the fragment was rather vitrified in

appearance and could only be tentatively identified as of a ?diffuse-porous species; only

a single year of wood growth was represented). Burnt pieces of daub/fired clay (S.

Tibbles pers. comm.) were common (score 3) and the five largest (to 28 mm; 11.4 g)

were separated for submission to the appointed finds specialist (together with the rest of

the residue) for assessment. No magnetic material was present.

Context 213 [Fill of ?pond; post-medieval]



Moist, mostly mid to dark grey (with dark red-brown remnants from organic decay

common – perhaps all from decayed root and some certainly so, i.e. root trace), brittle to

crumbly (working soft), silt, with small patches of light to mid grey, soft (working soft

and sticky) clay silt. Modern rootlet was present.

The small wet washover (70 ml) was mostly rootlet and plant detritus (both score 5; the

former probably intrusive, of modern origin and forming the bulk of the washover).

Plant macrofossils likely to be preserved remains contemporary with deposit formation

were abundant (score 5), however, and exhibited highly variable preservation (from very

poor to very good). Identifiable (at least in part) plant remains included abundant rush

(Juncus) capsules and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica L.) achenes (both score 4), with

grass (Poaceae) caryopses common (score 3) and other taxa (some of which would be

identifiable to more detailed study) also noted (score 3). Invertebrate remains were also

abundant (score 5) and exhibited more consistent preservation (which was generally

recorded as ‘good’). The invertebrate assemblage was dominated by cladoceran (water

flea – most, if not all, Daphnia) ephippia (‘resting eggs’; score 5), but beetle

(Coleoptera) sclerites were also numerous (score 4) and included elytra (wing cases)

from at least two species of weevil and also rove beetles (Staphylinidae). Other

invertebrate remains noted were caddis fly (Trichoptera) larval cases (score 3), puparia

(score 2) and numerous earthworm egg capsules (score 4; these last almost certainly

representing modern intrusions).

The minute residue (dry weight 42.5 g/40 ml) was mostly small sediment concretions (to

5 mm; score 5), most of which appeared to be mineralised root/root trace, and sand

(score 5). Minor components comprised small stones (to 6 mm; score 2), coal (to 2 mm;

score 1), earthworm egg capsules (score 1) and a small number of mineralised and

sediment encrusted indeterminate ‘seeds’ (score 2). There was also a trace of fine ?slag

(to 2 mm; <0.1 g; score 2) which formed the entirety of the magnetic material present.


The ‘squash’ subsample was mostly organic detritus but approximately one third

inorganic. Some fungal hyphae and well preserved diatoms (of at least two forms) were

recorded. No parasite eggs were present.

Context 220 [?Primary fill of inner enclosure ditch [221]; post-medieval]

Sample 10/T (5 kg/4 litres sieved to 300 microns with washover and microfossil


Moist, varicoloured (mostly light and light/mid brown and light to mid grey, with light

to mid yellow-brown and mid grey – colours rather jumbled), brittle to crumbly

(working soft), silt., with occasional very dark grey/black ?humic patches. Modern

rootlet was present.

The small wet washover (75 ml) was very similar in general composition and relative

abundances of remains to that from the preceding sample (Sample 9, Context 213 –

above) although plant macrofossil preservation was markedly better (generally recorded

as ‘good’ and occasionally ‘very good’), no beetle sclerites or puparia were noted and

caddis fly larval cases were less numerous (score 2). Here most of the remains of grasses

were fruits of a Glyceria species (which are wetland/aquatic taxa).

The minute residue (dry weight 42.5 g/40 ml) was, again, mostly small sediment

concretions (to 6 mm; score 5), most of which appeared to be mineralised root/root trace

and some of which were orange in colour (presumably rich in iron oxides), and sand

(score 5). Lesser components comprised small stones (to 18 mm but mostly less than 4

mm; score 3), coal (to 2 mm; score 2), earthworm egg capsules (score 3), indeterminate

silted charcoal (to 6 mm but largely less than 2 mm – two larger fragments were

examined more closely but crumbled and remained unidentified), caddis fly larval cases

(score 2) and a single small piece of brick (to 17 mm; 0.1g – forwarded to the appointed

finds specialist, S. Tibbles). No magnetic material was present.

The ‘squash’ subsample was approximately equal parts organic detritus and inorganic. A

few fungal hyphae and poorly preserved (severely crumpled) ?pollen grains/spores

(none could be identified) were noted but no parasite eggs were present.

Context 223 [Fill of ditch [224]; undated]

Sample 13/T (4.75 kg/3.5 litres sieved to 300 microns with washover and microfossil


Just moist, mostly light to mid grey-brown (with patches of light brown and light grey-

brown), unconsolidated with occasional crumbly lumps (working somewhat soft),

?slightly clay, silty sand/sandy silt. No obvious inclusions.

The small wet washover (65 ml) was mostly modern rootlet and plant detritus (both

score 5), with waterlogged plant macrofossils again numerous (score 4), though rather

poorly preserved in comparison to those from Contexts 213 and 220 (above), and

including rush capsules (score 3), grass ‘seeds’ (score 3) and ?dock (cf. Rumex) achenes

(score 2) but dominated by elder fruits (score 4), small sediment concretions (to 2 mm;

score 3) and a trace of indeterminate charcoal (to 5 mm; score 1 – fragments smeared

when identification was attempted). Invertebrate remains were also numerous (score 4),


with earthworm egg capsules (score 3; almost certainly from modern intrusions),

cladoceran (mostly Daphnia) ephippia (score 3), caddis fly larval cases (score 2) and

beetles sclerites (score 3) recorded. The last included weevil pronota and elytra (score 2;

representing at least two species), ground beetle (Carabidae) elytra and heads (score 2)

and water scavenger beetle (Hydrophilidae) elytra (score 1; almost certainly either

Cercyon analis (Paykull) or Megasternum obscurum (Marsham)). Sclerotia (fruiting

bodies) of a soil-dwelling fungus (cf. Cenococcum geophilum Fr.) were also common

(score 3); probably of recent origin.

The minute residue (dry weight 36.7 g/25 ml) was mostly sand (score 5), with a little

sediment concretion (to 10 mm but most less than 4 mm; score 2 – predominantly

mineralised root/root trace), occasional stones (to 12 mm; score 1), a trace of charcoal

(to 5 mm; score 1 – the single fragment over 4 mm crumbled when identification was

attempted) and a single small piece of rotted wood or woody root (to 11 mm –

indeterminate to species). No magnetic material was present.

The ‘squash’ subsample was mostly inorganic, with some organic detritus (~15%). A

few fungal hyphae were noted and there were also a few poorly preserved (severely

crumpled) pollen grains/spores (only one could be tentatively identified as birch – cf.

Betula).

Discussion and statement of potential

The very small quantities of organic remains recovered from the two samples from Area

1 which were processed (from Contexts 110 and 118 – both ditch fills) appeared to be

predominantly modern intrusions or contaminants (e.g. rootlet, ‘seeds’ and, from

Context 110, occasional beetle sclerites). Macrofossil remains likely to be of ‘ancient’

origin were restricted to traces of indeterminate charcoal and bone (calcined in Context

118) of no interpretative value and useful microfossil and artefactual remains were

absent.

The sample from Context 207 (fill of post-hole [206]) in Area 2 was processed primarily

for potential artefact recovery to provide dating evidence. Such material was restricted

to a little daub/fired clay (forwarded to the appointed specialist) but a small assemblage

of charred plant remains was also recovered. The latter was primarily charcoal, none of

which could be identified to species, together with a small charred ‘grain’ assemblage

dominated by remains of grasses. There were also occasional charred cereal grains,

however, including wheat (Triticum) and possible rye (cf. Secale cereale L.) and/or

brome (cf. Bromus). The charred cereal remains could provide sufficient suitable

material for radiocarbon dating (via AMS) – there were also three small charred twig

fragments (indeterminate to species but each of only a few years of wood growth) which

could be submitted – but the assemblage was too small for any detailed interpretation.

Some modern intrusive remains (rootlet, earthworm egg capsules) were also present so

the possibility of bioturbation would need to be considered should dating of the deposit

as a whole be attempted via radiocarbon assay of the charred plant remains.

The three other samples processed from deposits in Area 2 (Contexts 213, 220 and 223)

each gave small assemblages of waterlogged plant and invertebrate remains likely to be

contemporary with deposit formation; although the bulk of the material recovered was


intrusive rootlet in each case (earthworm egg capsules were also recorded from all three

deposits). The general characters of the macrofossil assemblages were very similar with

wetland and aquatic taxa indicating saturated ground and standing water (rush capsules

– Juncus; Glyceria sp. fruits; cladoceran ephippia; caddis fly (Trichoptera) larval cases)

and lesser numbers of plant remains (e.g. stinging nettle, elder and ?dock) suggesting

drier waste ground. Overall, the assemblages suggested temporary standing water and

wet ground presumably reflecting seasonal variations within ditches [221] and [224]

(Contexts 220 and 223) and expansion/contraction of ?pond 213. Charred plant remains

were restricted to traces of indeterminate charcoal of no interpretative value and

artefactual material recovered confined to a trace of fine ?slag (Context 213) and a

single small piece of brick (Context 220). Microfossil remains were few and

consequently of no significant interpretative value but occasional diatoms from Context

213 provided a little additional evidence for aquatic deposition and there was a single

pollen grain from Context 223 which could be tentatively identified as birch (Betula).

Waterlogged remains from all three of these deposits could provide sufficient material

for AMS dating, although some care would need to be taken in the selection of plant

remains to avoid the possibility of bias from ‘reservoir effect’ (if aquatic carbon transfer

has occurred during periods of increased water levels); given the presence of intrusive

rootlet, the possibility of bioturbation of the deposits should also be considered.

None of the assessed deposits gave significant concentrations of remains indicative of

human activities or waste disposal and their fine-grained nature (relatively little material

remained after processing to 300 microns; hand-collected remains were also few – K.

Adams pers. comm.) suggests essentially ‘natural’ infilling of the features in low energy

environments (e.g. still or very slow moving water).

Recommendations

No interpretatively valuable concentrations of ‘ancient’ organic remains were recovered

from the samples of deposits in Area 1 which were processed for the assessment. The

corresponding assemblages from assessed deposits in Area 2 were of more interest,

notably those with waterlogged preservation (Contexts 213, 220 and 223). Full analysis

of the plant and invertebrate assemblages from these deposits would allow a more

detailed reconstruction of the depositional environment and past habitats of the site but

this would only be of value if reliable and relatively precise dates can be obtained

(perhaps by radiocarbon dating – see below) and that these are of

archaeological/palaeoecological interest. The small charred plant assemblage from the

fill of post-hole 207 (Context 206) in Area 2 was too small to warrant any further study.

If radiocarbon dating is considered desirable then charred cereal remains from Context

207 and waterlogged plant and/or invertebrate remains from Contexts 213, 220 and 223,

could be submitted for AMS; subject to the caveats expressed above.

Retention and disposal

All of the recovered remains and the unprocessed sediment samples should be retained

for the present pending a decision regarding dating of the deposits/features and the

desirability of more detailed study to provide information on the past environments of

the site.


Table 1: Caville Hall Farm, Burland, Holme Road, East Riding of Yorkshire: Notes

from initial visual inspection of sediment samples. Note: area, context and sample

numbers appear in bold face for the samples processed for the assessment.

Context Sample

No. of

tubs

(approx.

litres)

Context type;

provisional date Potential Sediment description and notes

109 2 1 (5)

Secondary fill of

outer enclosure

ditch [111]; post-

medieval

Low

Moist, very dark brown to grey-

brown, brittle to crumbly or

unconsolidated (working soft),

silt. Modern rootlet present –

possible some fine charred

content?

110 3 1 (6)

Primary fill of

outer enclosure

ditch [111];

undated

Low

Just moist, mostly light/mid to

mid grey (mid red-brown areas

common – probable decayed

root trace), brittle to crumbly

(working soft and somewhat

plastic), clay silt. Modern

rootlet present.

112 4 1 (8) Fill of ditch

[113]; undated Very Low

Just moist, light to mid

brown/grey-brown (with a slight

yellowish cast in places), crumbly

(working soft), sandy silt. No

obvious inclusions.



Just moist, light to light/mid grey-

brown (occasionally mid slightly

orange brown), crumbly to


silt, with occasional lumps (to 30

mm) of ?indurated (more or less

dry), brittle, mid brown clay.

Small stones (2 to 6 mm) present.



Moist, light to mid brown/grey-

brown and mid grey

(occasionally mid red-brown –

probable decayed root trace),

crumbly (working somewhat

soft), silty sand/sandy silt. No

obvious inclusions.


Context Sample

No. of

tubs

(approx.

litres)

Context type;


204 1 1 (6) Fill of pit [205];

undated Very Low

Moist, mostly light/mid to mid

grey-brown (with patches of light

grey and light brown), crumbly to


?slightly clay, sandy silt. No

obvious inclusions.

206 7 1 (7) Fill of post-hole


Just moist, mostly mid grey

(with patches of light and

light/mid brown and mid

orange), crumbly to


sandy clay silt, with some lumps

of light brown (buff) and mid

orange clay. No obvious

inclusions.

211 8 1 (9) Fill of pit [212];

undated Very Low

Just moist, mix of light to mid

yellow-brown and mid grey

(occasionally light/mid orange-

brown, mid grey-brown and buff),

brittle to stiff and slightly crumbly

(working more or less plastic),

slightly silty clay (more silty in

places). Modern rootlet present.

213 9 1 (7) Fill of ?pond;

post-medieval

Low-

?Medium

Moist, mostly mid to dark grey

(with dark red-brown remnants

from organic decay common –

perhaps all from decayed root

and some certainly so, i.e. root

trace), brittle to crumbly

(working soft), silt, with small

patches of light to mid grey, soft

(working soft and sticky) clay

silt. Modern rootlet present.

214 11 1 (6) Fill of ?pond;

post-medieval

Low-

?Medium

Moist, mostly mid to dark grey

(with dark red-brown remnants

from organic decay present –

perhaps all from decayed root and

some certainly so, i.e. root trace),

brittle to crumbly (working soft),

silt.


Context Sample

No. of

tubs

(approx.

litres)

Context type;


220 10 1 (5)

?Primary fill of

inner enclosure

ditch [221]; post-

medieval

Low-

?Medium

Moist, varicoloured (mostly

light and light/mid brown and

light to mid grey, with light to

mid yellow-brown and mid grey

– colours rather jumbled),

brittle to crumbly (working

soft), silt., with occasional very

dark grey/black ?humic

patches. Modern rootlet

present.



Moist to wet, light/mid brown to

mid grey-brown, soft (working

soft and slightly sticky), ?slightly

clay, silt. No obvious inclusions.



Just moist, mostly light to mid

grey-brown (with patches of

light brown and light grey-

brown), unconsolidated with

occasional crumbly lumps

(working somewhat soft),

?slightly clay, silty sand/sandy

silt. No obvious inclusions.

225 14 1 (5) Fill of ?pit [226];

undated Very Low

Just moist, mostly mid grey and

grey-brown (with some mid

brown patches and mid red-brown

root trace), crumbly (working

soft), silt (occasionally sandy silt),

with some lumps of light brown

and light/mid grey crumbly sand.

No obvious inclusions.


9.2 Ceramic Building Material

S.E. Tibbles

Cert. Arch. Dip Arch

Introduction and Methodology

The assemblage of ceramic building material (hereafter CBM) comprised thirteen

complete and part pieces, with a total weight of 7854.5 grams. Five forms were

identified: brick, roof tile, land drain, roof/wall tile and industrial ceramic (Table 2).

The assemblage was subject to basic quantification (count and weight) and information

regarding dimensions, form and type was recorded and catalogued accordingly. The

presence of original surfaces was taken into consideration to aid identification. The

CBM was classified adopting a best-fit policy based on surviving dimensions and

general characteristics.

It should be noted that the diversity of size and colour within bricks and tiles caused

during the manufacturing process, must be taken into consideration when comparing

examples within collected assemblages and local typologies. The varying sizes and

colours can be attributed to the variation in the clays used, shrinkage during drying,

firing within the kiln or clamp and the location of the brick/tile within the kiln. The

dating of brick and tile can be highly contentious due to its re-usable nature, therefore

the date range given is that of known dates where material has been recorded.

The Assemblage

The assemblage of CBM was recovered from six contexts including samples of a brick

water container (see Table 2 for details). A ‘chip’ of CBM from the processing of

environmental sample 10 was not identifiable by form or type.

Brick

The brick assemblage comprised seventeen part samples (Table 2), with a total weight

of 4406.6 grams. The majority of the bricks (88%) were medieval, dated between the

14th

and 16th

centuries. The remainder of the assemblage was of post-medieval (6%) and

modern (6%) date.

Sixteen fragments of medieval CBM were recovered from three contexts: secondary fill

(109) of outer enclosure ditch [111], topsoil within Area 2 (201) and brick water

container (208).

The three brick samples from water container (208), had complete width and thickness

dimensions of 130mm and 50-54mm (5 1/8” x 2”– 2 1/8”). Two joining fragments formed

c. half a brick, which was a second, with an over-fired header. The other sample had a

Type 1 tally mark (Tibbles 2011, 129) on the upper bed surface, two parallel strokes

made by a finger tip. Both bricks were of 15th

/16th

century date.

Of the remaining medieval bricks, two had complete thicknesses of 49mm and 53mm.

Abraded surfaces were recorded on seven fragments and a further over-fired second was

noted from topsoil (201).


The post-medieval brick fragment from fill (109) displayed abraded broken surfaces,

indicative of water-rolled material. No complete dimensions were recorded. The modern

brick from topsoil (201) was also non-diagnostic, with no complete dimensions.

Roof tile

Two types of roof tile were identified, flat-tile and pantile, one and two fragments

respectively. All were recovered from topsoil Area 2 (201). The medieval flat-tile had a

reduced core, a thickness of 13mm and a weight of 43 grams. No diagnostic features

such as means of suspension were present.

Of the two fragments of pantile, one had a compete thickness of 14mm with a partial

suspension nib, recently broken. This tile was of modern date. The remaining fragment

was of late 18th

/19th

century date with no complete dimensions. The pantiles had a

combined weight of 42.6 grams.

Roof tile/wall? Tile

Topsoil within Area 2 (201) produced a fragment of machine-moulded roof/wall? tile of

20th

/21st century date. The tile had a thickness of 14mm and a weight of 145.6 grams. A

small patch of cream mortar was recorded on one edge with ‘MAD[E] [IN]

[ENGL]AND’ on the underside/reverse.

Land drain

The assemblage of land drain was recovered from four contexts, (101, 109, 201 and 215)

(Table 2), with a combined weight of 3134.8 grams. One diagnostic sample from (215)

had complete dimensions of length 305mm, diameter 135mm and wall thickness 17mm,

identified as a Type 5d (Tibbles, in prep). The remainder of the assemblage was

fragmentary, with only complete wall thicknesses recorded on four fragments, between

>13mm to 15mm. The land drain assemblage was dated from the late 19th

to 20th

century.

Industrial ceramic

One fragment from topsoil Area 2 (201) was identified as industrial ceramic, probably a

service pipe. The fragment had a weight of 81.4 grams and a wall thickness of 24mm.

No distinguishing features were recorded.

Not identifiable

The processing of environmental sample 10 produced a small ‘chip’ with a weight of 0.5

grams. The ‘chip’ was not identifiable by form or type, however, the fabric was of early

modern date.


Table 2: The Ceramic Building Material by Context

Area &

Context

Type Date Comments Quantity Weight

(g)

Area 1:

(101)

Topsoil

Land

Drain

Late 19th

century

Non-diagnostic. 1x complete

thickness: 15mm.

2 66.9

Area 1:

(109)

Secondary

fill of outer

enclosure

ditch [111]

Brick Late 15th/16

th

century

Non-diagnostic. 1 23.2

Late 17th

century

Non-diagnostic. All broken

surfaces rounded – water

rolled.

1 86.4

Land

Drain

Late 19th

century

Non-diagnostic. Sole plate.

Thickness: 15mm.

1 34.1

Area 2:

(201)

Topsoil

Brick Late 14th/15

th

century

Non-diagnostic. Abraded

surfaces. 1x complete

thickness: 49mm.

7 1030

15th/16

th

century

Non-diagnostic. 1x complete

thickness: 53mm.

3 432

16th century Non-diagnostic. Over-fired –

waster/second.

1 142

20th century Non-diagnostic. 1 173

Roof Tile Medieval Non-diagnostic. Flat-tile.

Thickness: 13mm.

1 43

Late 18th/19

th

century

Non-diagnostic. Pantile. 1 3.9

20th/21

st

century

Diagnostic. Pantile. Nib

broken. Thickness: 14mm.

1 38.7

Roof/

Wall?

Tile

20th/21

st

century

Non-diagnostic. ‘MAD[E]

[IN] [ENGL]AND’ on

underside/reverse. Small

patch of cream mortar on 1

edge. Thickness: 14mm.

1 145.6

Area 2:

(201)

Topsoil

(cont.)

Land

Drain

Late 19th

century

Non-diagnostic. Including 2x

joining fragments. Slight

curvature to form. Thickness:

>13mm.

3 33.8

Industrial

Ceramic

20th century Non-diagnostic. Service?

Pipe. Wall thickness: 24mm.

1 81.4

Area 2:

(208) Brick

water

container

Brick 15th/16

th

century

Representative sample.

Diagnostic. Joining

fragments. ? x 130mm x

50mm. One header over-fired

– second?

2 1060

Representative sample.

Diagnostic. ? x 130mm x

54mm. Tally mark on upper

bed surface, Type 1 (Tibbles

2011) – two parallel strokes

made by finger tip.

1 1460


Table 2: The Ceramic Building Material by Context (cont.)

Area &

Context

Type Date Comments Quantity Weight

(g)

Area 2:

(215) Land

drain

Land

Drain

20th century Complete. Ribbed/corrugated

outer surface. Ribs run

longitudinally along the

length of the drain. Type 5d

(Tibbles in prep). Length:

305mm Width: 135mm Wall

Thickness: 17mm.

1 3000

Area 2:

(220)

Primary fill

of inner

enclosure

ditch [221]

– from

Sample 10

NK Early

Modern

‘Chip’. No distinguishing

features.

1 0.5

Total 30 7854.5

Discussion

The majority of the CBM assemblage (53%) was dated between the 14th

and 16th

centuries. This material represents residual elements of a building(s)/structure(s),

possibly within the deserted medieval village and/or the original medieval Caville Hall,

since demolished.

The 15th

/16th

century samples from the post-medieval water container [208] indicate re-

used materials, again, possibly from the aforementioned building(s).

The post-medieval material (only 7% of the overall assemblage) reflects casual

deposition. The remainder of the assemblage was of late 19th

to 21st century date and for

the most part, reflects land management, i.e. drainage of the area. The modern ‘chip’

from ditch [220] and land drain from (109) may be intrusive.

Due to the paucity of the assemblage, the archaeological potential of the ceramic

building material is limited, however the assemblage does enhance the evidence of

structures within the area, as also noted within the CBM assemblage recovered during

earlier archaeological investigations at the site (Tibbles 2009, 15).

Recommendations

No further work is required on the ceramic building material and the majority is not

recommended for deposition within a museum; the brick samples from water storage

container should be retained. Unless the landowner requests its return, the remainder of

the CBM assemblage may be discarded.

9.3 The Daub/Fired Clay and Faunal Remains (Animal Bone)

Introduction and methodology

This assessment aims to identify the archaeological potential of the assemblage of

daub/fired clay and animal bone, recovered from the archaeological investigation at

Caville Hall Farm, Holme Road, Howden, East Yorkshire, in keeping with the specific

aims of the written scheme of investigation (Adams 2014) and the requirements of


MoRPHE, ‘PPN3: Archaeological Excavation’ and MAP2 (English Heritage 2008;

1991).

The assemblage of daub/fired clay comprised c.1081 pieces, recovered from four

contexts: (101) topsoil, (102) ‘flooding’, fill (112) of ditch [113] and fill (206) of post-

hole [207]. The majority (98.8%), was recovered from post-hole [207], including

amorphous ‘crumbs’ recovered from the processing of an environmental sample, S.7.

The overall assemblage had a total weight of 551.4 grams.

The small assemblage of four fragments of animal bone was recovered from two

contexts: fill (109) of outer enclosure ditch [111] and fill (223) of ditch [224]. The

material was subject to basic quantification by count and weight (Table 4) and details

were recorded on ‘bulk finds’ sheets.

Daub/fired clay

For the most part, the assemblage comprised amorphous ‘crumbs’ with no

distinguishing or diagnostic features. Only thirty-one larger pieces were present. All

were abraded, however diagnostic features in the form of original surfaces and/or

rod/sail impressions were recorded on thirteen fragments (see Table 3 for further

details).

1 rod/sail impression – x2 joining fragments. Diameter of rod/sail impression: 15mm.

1 rod/sail impression & 1 flat-ish original surface – x1 fragment. Diameter of rod/sail

impression: 13mm.

1 flat-ish original surface – x8 fragments (including x2 joining fragments).

1 convex original surface: x2 fragments.

Heat discolouration/burning, including post-breakage, was noted on 1068

fragments/crumbs; (101, 102, 112 and 206), two, one, two and 1063 pieces, respectively.

The fired clay was of a ‘soft’ fabric with inclusions of frequent coarse quartz grains

(0.5-1mm), with occasional fine mica flecks (0.1-0.25mm), fine black flecks (0.1-

0.25mm), coarse rounded stone (0.5-1mm) and impressions from degraded organic

temper (e.g. straw/grass).

Table 3: The Daub/Fired Clay by Context

Context Comments Quantity Weight (g)

Area 1: (101)

Topsoil

1x fragment with 1 flat-ish original surface. Heat

discolouration/post-breakage burning.

2x amorphous fragments, no original surfaces.

3 36

Area 1:

(102)

‘Flooding’

Amorphous fragment, no original surfaces. Heat


1 7.8

Area 1:

(112) Fill of

ditch [113]

2x joining fragments with 1 rod/sail impression,

diameter: 15mm. Heat discolouration.

5x fragments (including 2x joining) with

remnants of 1 flat-ish original surface.


10 207


Table 3: The Daub/Fired Clay by Context (cont.)

Context Comments Quantity Weight (g)

Area 2: (206)

Fill of post-

hole [207]

1x fragment with 1 flat-ish original surface & 1

rod/sail impression, diameter: 13mm. Heat


2x fragments with 1 convex original surface.

2x fragments with 1 flat-ish original surface.

12 80.3

Area 2: (206)

Fill of post-

hole [207].

From

Environmental

Sample 7.


Heat discolouration/post-breakage burning.

c.1050x crumbs. Heat discolouration/post-

breakage burning.

1055 220.3

Total 1081 551.4

Animal bone

The four fragments of animal bone had a combined weight of 111.7 grams. The surfaces

of the bones were ‘battered’ and eroded, but overall in fairly good condition. All were

from domestic species and no complete bones were present. The majority (75%) were

from large mammals such as cattle or horse (Bos/Equus).

Secondary fill (109) of ditch [111] produced a tooth, an upper molar, probably horse and

a femur head (ball joint) from a juvenile cattle/horse with an un-fused epiphysis.

Two fragments of long bone shafts (not identifiable by type) were recovered from fill

(223) of ditch [224], a fragment from large mammal, cattle/horse and a fragment from a

medium-sized mammal such as a pig or sheep/goat (Sus/caprovid). Blue crystalline

adhesions (vivianite?) were evident on the internal and external surfaces of both bones,

including below the small patches of mortar? also adhering to the surfaces of the

pig/caprovid shaft. Viviantie? would indicate anoxic, waterlogged burial conditions.

Table 4: The Animal Bone by Context

Context Species Comments Quantity Weight

(g)

Area 1:

(109)

Secondary

fill of

outer

enclosure

ditch [111]

Cattle/Horse

(Bos/Equus)

Femur head (ball joint). Juvenile – un-

fused epiphysis.

1 26.5

Horse (Equus) Tooth, upper molar. Incomplete. 1 25.1

Area 2:

(223) Fill

of ditch

[224]

Cattle/Horse

(Bos/Equus)

Fragment of long bone shaft

(unidentifiable). Vivanite?

1 46

Medium-sized

mammal (e.g.

pig/caprovid)

Fragment of long bone shaft

(unidentifiable). Vivanite? including

below patches of mortar? also adhering

to surfaces.

1 14.1

Total 4 111.7


Discussion and recommendations

The paucity of diagnostic features and fragmentary nature of the assemblage of

daub/fired clay, inhibits an interpretation as to original use. The material could have

served a multitude of functions, for example material from an oven or hearth, wall or

partition. Although some of the material may represent objects such as loomweights, no

conclusive indicators for potential occupational activities were present.

Based on the rod/sail impression and flat original surfaces, the material recovered from

post-hole [207] was most likely re-used as packing. As to whether this material was re-

used broken objects or fragmented structural material, is inconclusive.

Overall, the daub/fired clay assemblage is probably of medieval date and indicates the

presence of structures, including free-standing and/or potentially, individual objects

reflecting occupation within the immediate vicinity.

The assemblage of animal bone is too small to be of any archaeological significance. All

of the faunal remains were from domestic species, with both medium-sized mammals

(such as pig, caprovid) and large mammals (cattle/horse) present. No evidence was

recorded to suggest activities such as bone-working. The assemblage most likely

represents residual elements of domestic waste.

No further work is considered necessary. Unless the land owner requests its return, the

animal bone and daub/fired clay (with the exception of the amorphous crumbs from

Sample 7) is recommended for retention as part of the site archive, but this would be at

the recipient museum’s discretion.

10. The Recorded Find

S.E. Tibbles

Cert. Arch. Dip Arch


This assessment aims to identify the archaeological potential of the recorded find

recovered during the archaeological investigation at Caville Hall Farm, Holme Road,

Howden, East Yorkshire, in keeping with the specific aims of the written scheme of

investigation (Adams 2014) and the requirements of MoRPHE, ‘PPN3: Archaeological

Excavation’ and MAP2 (English Heritage 2008; 1991).

One recorded find, a fragment of worked stone, was recovered from the primary fill

(110) of outer enclosure ditch [111]. Details were recorded on a ‘recorded find’ sheet as

part of the site archive.

The quern/millstone?

The worked stone was in fair condition, however, it was incomplete. Although no

evidence of the working/grinding surface was present, the remnants of a roughly pecked

upper?/lower? surface was recorded.


Quern/Millstone?

Incomplete. Gritstone. Remnants of one original upper?/lower? surface, roughly pecked.

No remains of working/grinding surface. Maximum dimensions: Length: 115m Width:

17mm to 53mm Thickness: >82mm

RF No.1 Context: (110) Area 1. Primary fill of outer enclosure ditch [111].

Discussion

On its own the recorded find is of limited archaeological potential. It probably reflects

residual elements of domestic waste pertaining to occupation of the area, possibly during

the medieval or post-medieval periods.

Recommendations

No further work is considered necessary on the recorded find. The quern/millstone?

should be retained and deposited within the appropriate museum, unless the land owner

requests its return.

11. The Other Finds

Karen Adams

Pottery identification by Peter Didsbury

Aims and objectives

This assessment, which is in keeping with the specific aims of the Written Scheme of

Investigation (Adams 2014) and the requirements of MoRPHE, ‘PPN3: Archaeological

Excavation’ and compliant with MAP2 requirements (English Heritage 2008; 1991),

aims to identify the archaeological potential of the finds assemblage recovered from the

archaeological investigation on pasture scrub land to the west of Holme Road (A614) at

Caville Hall Farm, Burland, Holme Road, Howden, East Yorkshire.


The finds assemblage comprised of two material categories: pottery and vessel glass,

having been retrieved from contexts (101) topsoil, Area 1; (102) ‘flooding’; (107) fill of

service trench; (109) fill of outer enclosure ditch; (110) fill of outer enclosure ditch;

(201) topsoil, Area 2; (206) fill of post-hole; (220) fill of inner enclosure ditch.

All material types were subject to basic quantification by count and weight, the details

of which were recorded on ‘bulk’ and ‘finds context’ sheets, where applicable. The

assemblage was appropriately packed for long term storage.

Condition of the assemblage

All of the material categories were stable and in good condition.

Quantification of the assemblage

Pottery: 28 sherds

Vessel glass: 4 shards


Catalogue by material type

11.1 Pottery

Fabric terms compatible for those in use for Hull and Beverley typologies, or follow

those of Watkins 1987.

Code Common Name

GREG Green Glazed Earthernware

HM Handmade

INDCER Industrial Ceramics

LBLAK Late Black Ware

MED Medieval

MODSW Modern Stoneware

OW Orange Ware

PIMP Pimply Ware

RG Roman Grey

STAFFS Staffordshire

UNAT Unattributed

A total of 28 sherds of pottery, with a combined weight of 629.10g; having an average

sherd weight (ASW) of 22.47g was retrieved from seven contexts(101) topsoil, Area 1;

(102) ‘flooding’; (107) fill of service trench; (110) fill of outer enclosure ditch; (201)

topsoil, Area 2; (206) fill of post-hole; (220) fill of inner enclosure ditch.

The majority of the assemblage was of late 18th

to early 20th

century date, however

possible Iron Age sherds along with Roman and 13th

/14th

century sherd were retrieved

from flooding layer 102, indicating possible activity during those periods in the vicinity.

Some 13th

/14th

century sherds were also collected from the topsoil of both areas, and

late 11th

to 12th

century from post-hole fill 206, which may be associated with the

former Caville Hall building.

The assemblage is consistent with domestic waste and background agricultural scatter.

Table 5: The Pottery Assemblage by Context.

Context

No.

Fabric

Code

Date Description Quantity Weight

(g)

101

Area 1

Topsoil

OW 13th/14

th

century

Body sherd, jug, with rod handle

stump, copper glaze over white slip.

1 45.3

GREG Post-

Medieval

1 21.2

LBLAK Late 18th to

early 20th

century

Open form (bowl) sherd. 1 21.9

TPWW Mid 19th to

early 20th

century

Body sherd 2.9

INDCER 19th to 20

th

century

Sanitary ware, heavy duty stoneware

type ceramics.

3 221.3


Table 5: The Pottery Assemblage by Context (cont.)

Context

No.

Fabric

Code

Date Description Quantity Weight

(g)

102

‘Flooding'

Layer

HM Iron Age? 1 basal sherd,

6 body sherd, same vessel

7 32.5

RG Roman Joining body sherds 2 21.5

OW 13th/14

th

century

From different vessels 2 21.3

UNAT Not Known Unattributed 1 6.5

107

Fill of

Service

Trench

LBLAK Late 18th to

early 20th

century

Body sherd 1 4.6

110

Fill of

Outer

Enclosure

Ditch

[111]

GREB 19th century 1 2.0

201

Area 2

Topsoil

OW? 13th/14

th

century?

1 body sherd, green lead glaze,

1 basal angle.

2 21.0

STAFFS? 18th century

onwards

Body sherd, light coloured fabric

with rich brown glaze

1 1.1

206

Fill of

Post -hole

[207]

UNAT Not Known Body sherd, worn, sandy/gritty fabric 1 8.2

PIMP Late 11th to

12th century

Basal sherd, general sooting 1 14.5

MED Medieval Body sherd, splash glaze 1 4.7

220

Fill of

Inner

Enclosure

Ditch

[221]

MODSW 19th/20

th

century

1 bottle basal sherd,

1 flanged open form

2 178.6

Total 28 629.10

11.2 The Glass Assemblage

A total of four shards of glass, having a combined weight of 790.80g was retrieved from

two contexts: (101) topsoil, Area 1; (109) fill of outer enclosure ditch.

The assemblage was of late 19th

to early 20th

century date, and consistent with domestic

waste.

Table 6: The Glass Assemblage by Context.

Context

No.

Form Date Description Quantity Weight

(g)

101

Area 1

Topsoil

Rim/Neck Late 19th/Early

20th century

Pale green/blue 1 12

109

Fill of

Outer

Enclosure

Ditch

[111]

Basal Late 19th/Early

20th century

Joining shards, pale green/

blue.

2 171.8

Body Late 19th/Early

20th century

Pale green/blue 1 6.7g

Total 4 790.80


Discussion and recommendations

With the exception of seven sherds of Iron Age?, two sherds of Romano-British, one

sherd of 11th

to 12th

century and five sherds of 13th

/14th

century pottery, the assemblage

is of relatively recent date and of limited archaeological potential. The assemblage is

consistent with normal domestic waste and background agricultural scatter.

No further work is considered necessary. Unless the land owner requests its return, the

finds assemblage is not recommended for retention, although the Iron Age?, Romano-

British, 11th

to 12th

century and 13th

/14th

century pottery sherds may be considered for

deposition within the relative museum.

12. Discussion

A monitored watching brief (HFA 2009) located to the northeast of the proposed site

encountered a substantial amount of archaeological activity dating to the medieval

period. It was hoped that the continuation of some of the linear features from this site

would be observed, in particular that which had been identified as a drove

road/trackway. However, no direct corresponding relationship could be determined.

Aerial photographs have recorded a number of crop marks within the immediate

vicinity, three of which being probable moated sites, including a double ditch square

enclosure, over which part of the proposed site had been located. Another similar

cropmark is located on the opposite side of the A614.

There are 114 identified moated sites within the Vale of York and within this part of the

East Riding of Yorkshire further examples can be found at Portington, Welham Bridge,

Holme-upon-Spalding Moor, Newland and Storwood. Those at Portington and

Storwood are listed on the English Heritage database for Scheduled Monuments.

A moated site is usually defined as “an area of ground , often occupied by a dwelling or

associated structure, bounded or partly bounded by a wide ditch, which in most cases

was intended to be filled with water” (CC Taylor – CBA Report No. 17). They are often

square or rectangular in plan and may have other features such as fish ponds or leats

associated with them.

The aerial photograph for the moated site, partially located in the developments area,

indicated that the interior island would be approx. 25m² (dimensions taken from Google

Maps).

An approx. 4m length of the western outer ditch was encountered, along with approx.

7m of the northern arm and 17m of the western arm of the inner ditch. The northern arm

and north eastern corner of the inner enclosure ditch had been disturbed by later ponds.

Targeted excavation revealed that both enclosure ditches had probably been sealed in

the 19th

/20th

century, as seen on the 1890 and 1909 OS maps. The eastern side of the

outer ditch had also been truncated by a modern service trench.

The development site is located in an area which is prone to standing water (Plate 1),

and close to the known wetlands area (P. Halkon). Therefore, although environmental

samples from the lowest encountered fills of these ditches included grasses indicating


wetland/aquatic taxa, it could not be determined if they were directly associated with the

ditches or from general surrounding area or the later ponds which had truncated them.

The lowest fills of both the inner and outer ditches have been preserved in-situ.

Within the enclosed area of the inner ditch, were three pits and a post-hole. The post-

hole contained 11th

to 12th

century pottery with sooting, which may suggest use for

cooking. Also daub/fired clay fragments which may have originated from wall surfaces

or have been objects such as loom-weights and re-used as post-packing.

Four further ditches, to the east, were encountered, whose functions could not be

determined, may be contemporary/associated with the moated site, or pre-date it. The

limits of the development area did not allow relationship between them to be

determined. One possible stake hole was also encountered in area 1.

Later features included a brick-lined water containing pit, which had been constructed of

re-used 14th

to 16th

century bricks, two ponds, and a number of land drains.

13. Recommendations

The monitoring of this site has encountered further archaeological activity of the

medieval period, which is probably part of the deserted medieval village (DMV) of

Cavill. In particular part of a double ditch square enclosure (moated site) was

encountered which appears to have been sealed in the 19th

/20th

century. The lowest fills

of these ditches have not been fully excavated and the majority of the enclosure (as

recorded in aerial photographs) has been preserved in-situ.

Further ditches were located to the east of the enclosure and may be associated with it or

of archaeological activity of an earlier period.

No further work is recommended for the proposed site, however it is recommended that

monitoring be carried out for future work within the vicinity.

Unless the land owner requests its return, the majority of the finds assemblage is not

recommended for retention, although the Iron Age?, Romano-British, 11th

to 12th

century and 13th

/14th

century pottery sherds, animal bone, daub/fired clay,

quern/millstone fragment and the brick example from 208 may be considered for

deposition within the relative museum.

14. Acknowledgements

PastSearch would like to thank Mr. J. Longthorp (LKL Farming) for his invaluable

assistance and co-operation throughout the duration of the monitoring, and machine

driver Terry.

The on-site recording was undertaken and the figures were reproduced by Karen Adams.

PRS are grateful to Karen Adams, of PastSearch, for providing the material and the

archaeological information.


15. Archive

The archive consists of:

A context register, context sheets, a plan and section register, plan and section drawings,

contact sheets of digital photographs, black and white photographs and colour slides, a

hard and digital copy of the report.

Following the completion of the archaeological monitoring, an ordered and indexed

archive has been compiled in accordance with English Heritage guidelines (1991). The

archive will be deposited within the relevant museum.

16. Bibliography

Adams, K.. (2014)

Caville Hall Farm, Burland, Howden, East Yorkshire. Written scheme of investigation

by archaeological evaluation (strip, map and record) for the erection of a farm

manager’s dwelling. (Unpublished)

Blakeman, A. (2002)

Bottles and Pot Lids, A Collector’s Guide

Cappers, R. T. J., Bekker, R. and Jans J. E. A. (2006).

Digitale Zadenatlas van Nederland. Groningen Archaeological Studies 4. Groningen:

Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library.

Council for British Archaeology, (1978)

Research Report No 17: Medieval Moated Sites

Dainton, M. (1992)

A quick, semi-quantitative method for recording nematode gut parasite eggs from

archaeological deposits. Circaea, the Journal of the Association for Environmental

Archaeology 9, 58-63.

Dobney, K., Hall, A. R., Kenward, H. K. and Milles, A. (1992)

A working classification of sample types for environmental archaeology. Circaea, the

Journal of the Association for Environmental Archaeology 9 (for 1991), 24-6.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (2005)

Land Character Type 7 – Humberhead Level, Foulness Open Farmland

English Heritage (1991)

Management of Archaeological Projects (MAP2)

Halkon, P., 2013

The Parisi. Britons and Romans in Eastern Yorkshire. (Gloucester)


Harde, K. W. (1984).

A field guide in colour to beetles. London: Octopus Books.

Hather, J. G. (2000).

The identification of the Northern European Woods: a guide for archaeologists and

conservators. London: Archetype Publications.

Hedges, A. A. C. (1975)

Bottles and Bottle Collecting, Shire Album 6

Humber Field Archaeology (2009), Jobling, D

Archaeological Observation Investigation and Recording on Land North of Caville Hall

Farm, Holme Road, Eastrington, Report No. 1118, July 2009.

Institute of Field Archaeologists ( 2008a)

Standard and Guidelines for Archaeological Excavation, September 1995, Revised

October 2008

Institute of Field Archaeologists (2008b)

Standard and Guidelines for an Archaeological Watching Brief, October 1994, Revised

October 2008

Jacomet, S. (2006)

Identification of cereal remains from archaeological sites – 2nd

edition. Basel: IPAS,

Basel University.

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, 3-15.

Kloet, G. A. and Hincks, W. D. (1964-77)

A checklist of British insects, second edition. London: Royal Entomological Society.

Lee, J. (2011)

Excavations at Blanket Row, Hull, 1997-2003, East Riding Archaeologist Vol.13. East

Riding Archaeological Society (Hull).

Schoch, W. H., Heller, I., Schweingruber, F. H. and Kienast, F. (2004)

Wood anatomy of central European species. Online version: www.woodanatomy.ch

Stace, C. (1997).

New flora of the British Isles: 2nd

edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tibbles, J. (2011)

‘Ceramic and Other Building Materials from BWH97 and BWH98’ in J. Lee, 2011.

126-134.

Tibbles, J. (in prep)

The History, Manufacture and Usage of Ceramic Land Drains.

http://www.woodanatomy.ch/


Tibbles, S. (2009)

‘The Finds (Other Than Pottery)’ in D. Jobling, 2009. 15-16.

van Zeist, W. A. (1984)

List of names of wild and cultivated cereals. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1, 8-16.

17. On-line Recources

British Geological Survey, 2012

Geology of Britain Viewer, www.mapapps.bgs.ac.uk [Accessed 09/01/2014]

Cavill Connections

www.cavillconnections.co.uk [Accessed: 20/06/2014]

Domeday Book: www. domesdaymap.co.uk [Accessed: 24/03/2014]

Ordnance Survey Map (2014)

www.ukmapcentre.com/index.html [Accessed: 09/06/2014]

Old-maps

www.old-maps.co.uk/maps.html [Accessed: 24/3/2014]

Scheduled Moated Sites

www.english-heritage.org.uk [Accessed: 14/7/2014]

Wetlands Heritage of the Vale of York

www2.hull.ac.uk/science/waerc/origins/vale_of_york.aspx [Accessed: 14/7/2014]

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

http://www.cavillconnections.co.uk/

http://www.ukmapcentre.com/index.html

http://www.old-maps.co.uk/maps.html

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/


18. Appendices

Context Register

Area 1:

Context Interpretation

101 Topsoil

102 Flooding Layer

103 Natural

104 Service Trench

105 Land Drain

106 Land Drain

107 Service Trench

108 Fill of Outer Enclosure Ditch [111]



111 Outer Enclosure Ditch

112 Fill of Ditch [113]

113 Ditch


115 Ditch


117 Ditch


119 Ditch

120 Fill of Stake-hole [121]

121 Stake-hole

122 Land Drain


Area 2

Context Interpretation

201 Topsoil

202 Subsoil

203 Natural

204 Fill of Pit [205]

205 Pit

206 Fill of Post-hole [207]

207 Post-hole

208 Brick Lining of Water Containing Pit

209 Bedding Sand of Water Containing Pit

210 Water Containing Pit


212 Pit

213 Pond

214 Pond

215 Land Drain

216 Land Drain

217 Land Drain

218 Land Drain

219 Fill of Inner Enclosure Ditch [221]


221 Inner Enclosure Ditch = [224]

222 Fill of Water Containing Pit


224 Inner Enclosure Ditch = [221]


226 Pit

227 Land Drain

Caville Hall Farm

Burland

Holme Road

Howden

East Yorkshire

Written scheme of investigation by archaeological evaluation (strip, map and record)

for the erection of a farm manager’s dwelling

Prepared on behalf of:

Mr. J Longthorp

LKL Farming Ltd

Planning Ref: DC/13/01720/PLF/WESTWW

HSMR Ref: PA/CONS/18479

National Grid Ref: SE76859 30616

Site Code: 2014.005.CHB

PastSearch

25 Chestnut Drive

Holme-upon-Spalding Moor

YORK

YO43 4HW

K.Adams

January 2014

WSI for Caville Hall Farm, Burland, Howden, East Yorkshire Page 1

Contents

1 Summary..................................................................................................2

2 Introduction.............................................................................................2

3 Aims and Objectives................................................................................4

4 Methodology............................................................................................5

5 Timetable and Staffing.................................................................................11

6 References......................................................................................................12

Appendix 1 – Location Plan............................................................................14

Figure 1: Proposed Site Plan (not to scale – supplied Brian Scott Designs).............14

Appendix 2 – Photographs..............................................................................15

Plate 1: Aerial Photograph (Bing Maps 2014 )..........................................................15

Plate 2: Area for Dwelling (facing northwest)............................................................15

Plate 3: Area for New Access Road (facing east).......................................................16

Plate 4: General Site Photograph (facing northwest)..................................................16


1 SUMMARY

The purpose of this written scheme of investigation is to present an archaeological strategy in

support for the below ground works associated with the erection of a Farm Manager’s

dwelling at Caville Hall Farm, Burland, Goole. (NGR: SE76859 30616). Application

number: DC/13/01720/PLF/WESTWW, HSMR Ref PA/CONS/18479.

The ground works are expected to be undertaken over a period of days in February 2014.

2 INTRODUCTION

Site archaeological background

The following information has been provided by the HSMR (8 July 2013).

“The site of this proposed development overlies the site of the deserted medieval

settlement of Caville, which survived as earthworks until 1959, and are now represented by

prominent crop-marks visible on aerial photographs. Caville was a hamlet, which also

incorporates the remains of at least two, and possibly three moated sites: one of these moats

lies directly beneath the site of the proposed new dwelling. The former earthworks suggest

that the hamlet comprised at least six tofts (or building platforms) ranged along an east-

west track or hollow=way, with the moats situated towards the eastern end of the settlement. Caville was first mentioned in a charter of AD 959, and takes its name form the Old

English for "tract of land where jackdaws are found". In 1086, the Domesday Book records

that the Bishop of Durham held 2 carucates and 3 bovates in Chewede [Cavil], as part of his

holdings in Howden and distrct. In a separate entry in Domesday Book, the Bishop of

Durham is recorded as holding 2 carucates and 2 bovates in Cavil. In the 1334 Lay

Subside, Cayvill [Cavil] paid £1 2s 5d, as part of the Liberty of Howden (a similar amount

to Leconfield). The 1377 Poll Tax records 25 tax-payers here. The site of Cavell is marked

on Speed's Map of 1610. This is presumably a post-medieval desertion, under either the Monkton or Galway

families. The lordship of Cavil, which included the hamlet of Cavil, was conveyed by the

Cavil family to Robert Monkton on his marriage in 1454. It passed to the Viscounts

Galway on the elevation of John

Monkton (1695-1751) to that title in the early is" century. The medieval Cavil Hall was

demolished in the 18th century, and a new hall was built on part of the old moated site.

That hall subsequently suffered from subsidence, and was demolished in 1969.”

Site location and geology

The site is located on NGR: SE76859 30616 and lies on agricultural land to the west of

Holme Road (A614) at Caville Hall Farm, Burland, Howden, East Yorkshire.


The underlying solid geology of the site is Mercia Mudstone Group - Mudstone. Sedimentary

Bedrock formed approximately 200 to 251 million years ago in the Triassic Period. Local

environment previously dominated by hot deserts. Superficial deposits of Hemingbrough

Glaciolacustrine Formation - Clay, Silty. Superficial Deposits formed up to 2 million years

ago in the Quaternary Period. Local environment previously dominated by ice age conditions.

Planning background

Permission for this development was granted on the 13 November 2013 subject to various

conditions including an archaeological condition that:

“The Scheme shall provide for:

i) the proper identification and evaluation of the extent,

character and significance of archaeological remains within the

application area;

ii) an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on

the archaeological remains;

iii) proposals for the preservation in situ, or for the investigation,

recording and recovery of archaeological remains and the publishing of the

findings, it being understood that there shall be a presumption in favour of their

preservation in situ wherever feasible;

iv) sufficient notification and allowance of time to archaeological

contractors nominated by the developer to ensure that archaeological fieldwork

as proposed in pursuance of (i) and (iii) above is completed prior to the

commencement of permitted development in the area of archaeological

interest; and

v) notification in writing to the Curatorial Officer of the Humber

Archaeology Partnership of the commencement of archaeologicalworks and the

opportunity to monitor such works." (HSMR 8 July 2013)

The recommendation of a programme of staged observation, investigation and recording

during all below ground works has been requested as

“The site overlies the crop-marks of the historic deserted hamlet of Caville,

and the new building would be sited directly over the remains of a medieval

moated site within that hamlet. The request for this condition is in line with

the policy set out in paragraph 141 of the NPPF, and also with Policy ENV7

of the JSP.” (HSMR 8 July 2013)”


3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The HSMR has recommended a staged scheme to preserve or record the archaeological

deposits which should include the following provisions :

“1. Evaluation

Topsoil strip, followed by detailed cleaning and recording of the exposed surfaces. If

archaeological deposits and features are shown to survive, then these should be

sampled by targeted excavation, in order to determine the depth, date, nature, extent,

quality of survival and importance of any remains.

The results of this preliminary stage should enable the impact of the proposed

development on any archaeological deposits to be fully assessed. An informed and

reasonable decision can then be taken regarding the future treatment of the remains.

2. Further Work

Should the evaluation show that the site contains significant archaeological features,

mitigation measures should be explored to achieve physical or in situ preservation of the

remains. If destruction is unavoidable, detailed excavation of selected areas, followed by

post-excavation analysis and publication of results, should take place in order to achieve

preservation by record.” (HSMR 8 July 2013)

This written scheme of investigation is for the first stage – that of evaluation (strip, map

and record).

The aim of this archaeological evaluation shall be to

N Establish the presence/absence, nature, date, depth, quality and importance of and

archaeological features and deposits, including burials.

N Enable an assessment of the potential and significance of the archaeology of the site to

be made, and the impact which development will have upon them.

N An informed decision can then be taken regarding the future treatment of the

remains and any mitigatory measures appropriate either in advance of and/or during

development.

The current knowledge of the site and its environs suggests that archaeological remains of

medieval date might be present. The objective of the archaeological investigation will

therefore be to:

N Identify and record all archaeological features and artefacts exposed during the below

ground works;

N Establish the sequence of archaeological deposits;

N Determine the form and function of any archaeological features identified;

N Retrieve dating and palaeoecological evidence from archaeological features;


N Identify the spatial distribution of activity.

The results will be presented in appropriate detail in a post-excavation assessment report.

Assessment of the results of the fieldwork will also aim to provide recommendations as to the

need, or otherwise, for further research on any of the excavated material and will determine

the appropriate methods for dissemination of the results should they be of any archaeological

significance.

All archaeological work will be carried out to a sufficient standard to satisfy the aims of the

project and the requirements of HSMR, as outlined in their Notes for archaeological

contractors proposing to work in the area covered by the Humber SMR (Evans 1999); the

work will also conform to the standards promoted in the Institute of Field Archaeologists’

Standards and Guidance for archaeological excavation (IFA 2008a; b).

4 METHODOLOGY

4.1 Strip, Map and Recording of Areas for Dwelling and New Access Roads

(Fig:1, Plates 1- 4)

The evaluation (strip, map and record) shall comprise of the stripping of all topsoil from the

areas for the dwelling (approx. 930m²) and new access roads (approx. 365m²) using an

appropriate mechanical excavator (eg: JCB) with a toothless bucket down to the required

levels.

The exposed surface will then be thoroughly cleaned, in order to assist the identification of

any features. The monitoring will involve identifying, planning and photographing features

to a standard acceptable to HSMR. Should a number of such features be located, HSMR will

be notified and a decision will be made whether to sample-excavate them there and then as

part of this initial phase of work. Should more extensive or significant features be exposed, a

meeting will be convened between the contractor, the client and HSMR to determine further

strategy. This could involve further archaeological recording and excavation (‘preservation

by record’).

[If the construction programme is to be excavated in phased stages, then the archaeological

work may be similarly phased, but the basic approach and methodology will remain the

same].

Excavation

A sufficient sample of any archaeological features and deposits revealed will be excavated in an

archaeologically controlled and stratigraphic manner, in order to establish the aims of the

evaluation (see 3 above). The complete excavation of features is not regarded as necessary; a

sufficient sample should be investigated to understand the full stratigraphic sequence in each

trench, down to naturally occurring deposits. The following categories of features will be

examined as follows:


N A 100% sample of all stake holes.

N A 50% sample of all post holes, and of pits with a diameter of up to 1.50m.

N A minimum 25% of pits with a diameter over 1,50m; including a complete section

across the pit to recover its full profile.

N A minimum 20% sample of all linear features, up to 5m in length; and a 10% sample

for featured greater than 5m in length.

Where features of archaeological interest are present, recording procedures will be those

generally used on archaeological excavations. Plans will be completed at an appropriate

scale (e.g. 1:20 or 1:50). Sections will also be drawn at an appropriate scale (e.g. 1:10), and

written context description will be compiled. 35mm format photographs in monochrome

print film and colour slide will be taken using a Nikon FG-20 SLR camera and digital

photographs will be taken using a Fuji Finepix XP50, 14 mega pixel resolution. The level of

features or deposits relative to Ordnance Datum will be determined where possible.

Any artefacts recovered will be bagged according to their context. The recovery and

processing of the finds will be undertaken in accordance with IFA and ULIC standards and

guidlines (2008d; Watkinson and Neal 1998). Soil samples will be taken from features or

deposits deemed likely to have palaeoenviromental potential (see below). The environmental

sampling and subsequent assessment and/or analysis (if required) will be in line with the

recommendations of English Heritage policy guidance (2011 2nd

edition).

If finds or archaeological remains of special significance are encountered, negotiations

between the client, PastSearch and HSMR should take place to determine appropriate

procedures.

Finds Strategy

Finds encountered will be recorded to professional standards; in line with IFA and MoRPHE

guidelines and also compliant with specifications of MAP2 (IFA 2008c; English Herutage

2008; ibid 1991) using recognised procedures and numbering systems compatible with the

accessioning system employed by the recipient museum. Recording, marking and storage

materials will be of archive quality. Finds of particular interest – ie. Those other than bulk

finds such as animal bone, pottery or ceramic building materials – will be allocated a

Recorded Find number and their description will be entered onto an appropriate pro forma

sheet. A site-specific accession number will be agreed with the Museum Service.

The analysis/conservation of any finds from the site will be dealt with as follows: after

quantification of any such material, the clients will be provided with cost estimates for any

necessary work so that funding can be agreed – contingency sums only will be included in

any cost estimates.

Artefacts such as gold or silver, as defined under the categories of ‘treasure’ in accordance

with Section C of The Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice, will be reported to the Coroner.


Human Remains

If human burials are encountered, they will be recorded in situ and removed in accordance

with the conditions set out in a license for the removal of Human Remains, issued by the

Ministry of Justice. PastSearch will contact the Ministry on the client’s behalf.

Human remains will be treated with due respect and adequately recorded using recording

forms designed specifically for such use, in line with procedures outlined in IFA Guidelines

to the Standards for Recording Human Remains (Brickley and McKinley 2004) ans Engkish

Heritage guidelines (2004; 2005). Any skeletal material will be lifted and arrangements

made for storage, unless licence specifies reburial or cremation.

Strategy for the recovery and sampling of biological remains

Environmental samples to be taken from any identifiable archaeological features; the

sampling and subsequent assessment and/or analysis will be in line with the recommendations

of English Heritage policy guidance (2011 2nd

edition).

When the material has been quantified, estimates for the assessment (and where necessary,

subsequent analysis) will be passed to the client to arrange funding; only indicative

allowances for this work will be included in any initial cost estimates.

The aim of sediment sampling within the context of this evaluation will be to gather

sufficient material for analysis of biological remains within archaeological features and to

assess their bio-archaeological potential. To this end a number of samples will be taken from

excavated features. It is not intended to introduce an extensive blanket sampling policy

involving the routine sampling of features; rather, a range of dated and undated contexts will

be targeted, combining judgement with systematic sampling where this is appropriate. These

may include burnt deposits and those with visible preserved organic material from specific

types of features e.g. pit fills, ditch fills, occupation deposit/floor silts (if clearly

uncontaminated, i.e. separated from modern soils, sealed beneath other clay floors).

A selection will also be made of deposits with no visible potential. The exceptions will be

deposits which are unstratified, unsealed (liable to contamination), ground makeups or other

deposits which are likely to have been imported and contain residual or intrusive material,

except where specific questions are posed. This is in line with the recommendations of

English Heritage policy guidance (2011 2nd

edition).

An initial examination of all collected environmental samples will be carried out by a

representative of Palaeoecology Research Services (PRS). In light of this examination and

the results of the fieldwork, suitable material will be sent to PRS, based in Hull, for

assessment, the results and recommendations of which will be included in the report.

Spot/ID samples

A small number of spot samples, such as concentrations of small bones, seeds etc. might be

taken, as may sample of wood for identification.


Animal Bones

Animal bones will be hand-collected from all excavated features, and will be bagged and

labelled according to their excavated context. Where deposits are noted to contain dense

concentrations of bones, then these will be sampled as BS samples as described in the English

Heritage policy guidance (2011, 2nd

edition). Collected bones will be examined by PRS.

Specialist dating

Specialist dating may be considered in certain circumstances, normally where contexts or

features cannot be dated by other ‘conventional’ methods (e.g. pottery, artifacts,

documentary). There are three main types which may be considered, broadly:

dendrochronological sampling of preserved timbers; archaeo-magnetic assay of slow-

accumulated waterlain silts and hearth/kiln structures; radiocarbon/accelerator mass

spectroscopy (AMS) dating of organic material recovered either from GBA/BS samples or

taken as Spot/ID samples (e.g. bone, shell, organic sediments). Costs for such analyses will

be approved with the client before expenditure

Off-site works

Upon completion of the evaluation, the artefacts, soil samples, and written and drawn

information will be retained for assessment which will comply with IFA and MoRPHE

guidelines and also compliant with specifications of MAP 2 (IFA 2008c; English Heritage 2008;

ibid 1991). At which time its full potential and significance can be properly assessed. The site

records will be indexed and assessed, leading to the production of a detailed report; this will

include the discussion of each excavation area in turn, with a unified phasing structure based

on the stratigraphic sequence.

All finds will be examined, catalogued and prepared for the archive. Any finds recovered

will be cleaned and examined; recording, marking and storage materials will be of archive

quality.

Collected material will be sent to the appropriate sub-contracted specialist for assessment, the

results and recommendations of which will be integrated into the report and the site phasing

checked for consistency.

Provision will be made for the radiography of stratified metal finds and the assessment of the

conservation needs of the whole finds assemblage by a recognized specialist, such as the

York Archaeological Trust (YAT) conservation laboratory. A sum will be allocated to allow

for initial conservation or stabilization of artefacts found. If applicable, a report will be

produced by the conservator on the results of this assessment for inclusion in the main

evaluation report.

The pottery will be assessed by a sub-contracted pottery specialist with experience of

regional ceramic forms and fabrics.

Soil samples will be sent to an environmental specialist following an initial selection process

for more detailed examination, including paraffin flotation for the recovery of insect remains


in necessary. Arrangements will also be made to assess specialist samples where these have

been taken.

The animal bones and any human bones will be assessed by suitably qualified specialists.

Artefacts requiring radiocarbon, dendrochronology or species identification will also be

selected for specialist analysis.

Archive preparation and deposition (including finds retention/disposal)

The archive will be prepared(including finds retention/disposal) in accordance with our usual

procedures which are in line with those recommended by English Heritage (2008) and the

IFA (2008c; Brown 2007). The site archive, including finds and environmental material,

subject to the permission of the relevant landowners, will be labelled, conserved and stored

according to the United Kingdom Institute for Conservation (UKIC) (Walker 1990) and the

Museums and Galleries Commission (MGC 1992).

It is intended that the site archive will be deposited with a suitable repository which meets the

criteria for the storage of archaeological material, they will be contacted at an early stage in

the project. Finds remain the property of the landowner until such time as they may grant

title to a museum.

Upon completion of post-excavation work, the ownership of the finds can be transferred to

the museum, with the written archive also being transferred by the archaeological contractor.

All recorded finds would be deposited as a matter of course, but discussions would need to

take place upon completion of post-excavation work to determine which bulk finds were of

sufficient importance to be deposited as per the recipient museums guidelines. An allowance

will be made as a contribution to the recipient museum towards the long-term curation and

storage of materials.

Report production

Within 6 weeks of the completion of the work, a report will be produced by the archaeologist

and submitted to the developer, the local Planning Authority and the HSMR.

The final report will include the following (as appropriate)

N A summary (non-technical) of the results of the evaluation.

N A description of the background to the project, including site/project code, planning

reference, SMR casework number, national grid reference, dates of fieldwork, and the

historical and archaeological background of the site.

N A written description and analysis of the methods and results of the archaeological

fieldwork, including in the context of the known archaeology of the area. There will

be phasing and interpretation of the site sequence which will be supported by figures:

a location plan with scale, a plan of the developer's plan showing the area monitored

(i.e. the footprint of the new dwelling and any associated ground-works), indicating


the position of archaeological features in relation to the foundations etc. with scale,

section and plan drawings (where archaeological deposits are exposed), with ground

level, Ordnance Datum and vertical and horizontal scales. The report will also contain

a number of photographs where significant archaeological deposits or artifacts are

encountered, also general photographs to show the prevailing condition of the site at

the time of the fieldwork.

N Specialist artefact and environmental reports, as necessary, which will take account of

an assessment of the long-term conservation and storage needs of the objects, and a

view to the potential for subsequent study of both the environmental samples and

artefacts.

N Recommendations for the future treatment of archaeological remains on the site, the

potential impact of the proposed development, and the need for further post-

excavation and publication work.

N Appendices, as appropriate, including a copy of the specification and/or project

design and indexes of contexts.

N A summary of the material held in the site archive, and details of the archive location

and destination.

N References and bibliography of all sources used.

N Acknowledgments.

Digital copies of the reports (in PDF format) will be supplied to the client, the HSMR and to

the Local Planning Authorities. A hard copy will also be submitted to the HSMR and if

requested, to the client.

Copyright, confidentiality and publicity

Unless the client wishes to state otherwise, the copyright of any written, graphic or

photographic records and reports rests with the originating body; that is the archaeological

organization undertaking the fieldwork and analysis.

The results of the work will remain confidential, initially being distributed only to the clients,

their agents, and HSMR, and will remain so until such time as it is submitted in support of a

planning application and is then deemed to have entered the public domain. All aspects of

publicity will be agreed at the outset of the project between the client and HSMR.

A brief note on the findings will be submitted for publication in a local or regional

archaeological journal. However, the findings may be of insufficient importance to merit

more detailed publication. Recommendations as to the need or otherwise for additional post-

excavation works to produce a published report, will be identified in the assessment reports.

Health and Safety, insurance

Health and Safety will take priority over archaeological matters. Under the terms of the

Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1992, PastSearch prepare a Risk Assessment

for any excavations undertaken. Overall policy is in line with recommendations set out by

SCAUM Manual Health and Safety in Field Archaeology (Allen and St. John Holt 2006).


Members of staff are given a Health and Safety induction at commencement of all projects.

PastSearch is fully covered by a Public Liability Insurance Policy.

Monitoring

The work will be monitored by HSMR to ensure that it is carried out to the required standard.

This working scheme of investigation has been submitted to them for approval. The

opportunity will be afforded for them to visit the site and to inspect and comment upon the

excavation and recording procedures.

5 TIMETABLE AND STAFFING

Timetable for the work

The works expected to be undertaken over a period of days in February 2014. The on-site

work will be followed by a post-excavation period, during which the assessment report will

be produced, including (as appropriate) any specialist assessments.

Project Team, Staff Experience and Technical Expertise

The on-site monitoring will be carried out by a Project Officer. Subsequent hand-cleaning

and investigation, recording or surveying, will require the assistance of Site Assistants.

The off-site team will comprise the Project Officer, Finds Officer and an Illustrator, with the

assessment of any pottery and ceramic building material being undertaken by a specific sub-

contracted specialist, and contributions from other artefact and environmental specialists as

required. The above will be under the overall direction of the Project Officer. The project

team includes the following, with expertise drawn as necessary from the external specialists

listed.

Project Manager K. Adams – Extensive professional experience in archaeological fieldwork since 1986, on

excavations covering a large range of archaeological periods, in particular Iron Age and

Romano-British. Also finds processing in accordance with MAP2 and MoRPHE

requirements.

Site/Finds Assistants Experienced staff who have who have worked in the region on numerous projects.

Finds Analysis

S. Tibbles, Cert. Arch. (Hull) & Dip. Arch. (Hull) – has extensive experience in finds

assessments and publications.


Pottery Specialists

P. Didsbury, MPhil, Cert.Ed. – who has extensive experience of pottery research on material

from the region, and in particular, has published reports on Saxon, medieval and post-

medieval regional assemblages.

T. Manby - has extensive experience of prehistoric pottery from the region and has published

report on regional assemblages.

Ceramic Building Materials

J. Tibbles, BA (Hons), Cert.Arch. (Hull), Dip.H.E, AIFA. – has extensive experience in CBM

assessments and publication reports for all periods. Has also developed the regional typology

for CBM over recent years.

S. Tibbles, Cert. Arch. (Hull) & Dip. Arch. (Hull) – has extensive experience in CBM

assessments and publications. Has developed the regional Romano-British tegula typology.

Lithics P. Makey, Lithics/R.H. Lithics.

Worked Stone

S. Harrison, Ryedale Archaeological Services.

Environmental Specialists Palaeoecology Research Services (biological remains).

Soil Specialists

Wetlands Archaeology and Environments Research Centre, University of Hull.

Conservation

York Archaeological Trust Conservation Laboratory (conservation, specialist reports on

wood and leather).

Archaeomagnetics

Archaeomagnetics, Division of Archaeological, Geographical & Environmental Sciences,

University of Bradford

Geophysics

GSB Prospection Ltd

Human Remains

York Osteoarchaeology

Dendrochronology

I. Tyers, Dendrochronological Consultancy Ltd.

Radiocarbon/AMS Beta Analytic.


6 REFERENCES

Allen, J.L. And St. John Holt, A. 2006

Health and Safety in Field Archaeology, Standing Conference of Archaeological Unit

Managers.

Brickley and McKinley (eds) 2004

Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains, IFA Paper No.7.

British Geological Survey 2012

Geology of Britain Viewer, http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html [Accessed

8 January 2014]

Brown, D.H. 2007

Archaeological Archives: A guide to best practice in the creation, compilation, transfer and

curation, Published by IFA on behalf of the Archaeological Archives Forum.

English Heritage 2011

Environmental Archaeology, A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Methods from Sampling

and Recovery to Post-excavation, Second edition, Swindon.


PPN3: Archaeological Excavation (MoRPHE)


Guidance for best practice for treatment of human remains excavated from Christian burial

grounds in England, Swindon


Human Bones from Archaeological Sites Guidelines for producing assessment documents

and analytical reports, Swindon

English Heritage, 1991

Management of Archaeological Projects (MAP2)

East Riding of Yorkshire Museums Service 2006,

Policy on Archaeological Archives (Revised June 2006)

East Riding of Yorkshire Museums Service 2009,

Guidelines for sampling/disposal of archaeological material prior to deposition in museums

(Draft April 2009).

Evans, D. 1999

Notes for Archaeological contractors proposing to work in the area covered by Humber SMR.

Institute of Field Archaeologists 2008a

Standard and Guidance for archaeological excavation, September 1995 (revised October

2008).

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html


Institute of Field Archaeologists 2008b

Standard and Guidance for archaeological watching brief, October 1994 (revised October

2008).

Institute of Field Archaeologists 2008c

Standard and Guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of

archaeological materials, September 2001, revised October 2008

Museums and Galleries Commission 1992

Standards in museum care of archaeological collections

National Planning Policy Framework 2012

The Treasure Act, 1996

Code of Practice (2nd Revision)

Walker, K. 1990

Guidelines for the preparation of excavation archives for long term storage, United Kingdom

Institute for Conservation.

Watkinson, D and Neal, V 1998

First Aid for Finds, RESCUE and the Archaeology Section of the United Kingdom Institute

for Conservation, 3rd

edition, London

APPENDIX 1

Figure 1: Proposed Site Plan (not to scale – supplied Brian Scott Designs).


APPENDIX 2

Plate 1: Aerial Photograph (Bing Maps 2014 ).

Plate 2: Area for Dwelling (Facing northwest).


Plate 3: Area for New Access Road (facing east).

Plate 4: General Site Photograph (facing northwest).

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

1:100010 0

Metres

20

N

Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Licence number 100048957 PastSearch 2014cc

6.4m

Caville Hall Cottages

4768

50

4769

00

4769

50

430600

430650

430700

HullHowden

East Yorkshire

NorthLincolnshire

North Yorkshire

@A4

Figure 2: P

lan of Archaeological F

eatures

1:100010

0Metres

20

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

Key

A - W

est Side of Trackw

ayB

- East Side of Trackw

ayC

- Ditch

D - D

itchE

- Spread

F - SpreadG

- Spread

2008 Monitored A

rea (HFA)

H - D

itchI - D

itch2014 Monitored Area

2014 Foundation TrenchesC

ropmarks as O

bserved on Aerial Photos (HSM

R)

N

PastS

earch 2014c

Proposed tree planting




After Brian S

cott Designs LLP

TP1

TP2

@A3

and Crop M

arks

Figure 3:O

verall Plan of A

reas 1 & 2,

1:2001

0Metres

5

N

PastS

earch 2014c

@A3

and Foundation Trenches

Figure 4: P

lan of Area 1 N

Metres

1:1001

0.50

2

105

122

106

119

121

117

113

107

111

115

109

108

109110

104S

.4

S.1

S.2

S.3

S.5

103102

103

103

103

103

103103

103

PastS

earch 2014c

@A3

Figure 5: P

lan of Area 2

N

Metres

1:1001

0.50

2

213

214

203221

212

210

224207

205

227

226

216

217

218S.6

S.7

S.8

S.10

215

S.9

202

PastS

earch 2014c

and Foundation Trenches

@A3

1:40

Metres

0.50 1

1:10

Metres

.10 0 .50

Figure 6: Sections 1-5

S.1

S.2 S.3

S.4

S.5

113

115 117

119

121

111

107 101

108109 110109

112

101 114 116

118

120

103

103103

E W

W

NW

W

E N S

SE

E

@A4

@A4

PastSearch 2014c

Figure 7: Section 6 - 10

1:40Metres

0.50 1

1:10

Metres

.10 0 .50

S.6 S.7

S.8

205

221

212

204

201

220219

201

211215

E W E W

W E

S.9W E

207206

@A4

201

214

224223203

203

S.10S N

1:50

Metres

.50 0 1

@A4

PastSearch 2014c

Plate 1: Development Site, pre-excavation, 9 January 2014, Looking South.

Plate 2: Area 1, Machine Stripped, Pre-targeted Excavation, Looking Northwest. Scale: 1m x 2.

Plate 3: Area 2, Machine Stripped, Pre-targeted Excavation, Looking Southeast.

Plate 4: Foundation Trenches, Looking Southeast.

Plate 5: Area 1, Ditch [119], Looking East. Scale: 20cm.

Plate 6: Area 1, Ditch [117] Truncated by Ditch [115], Looking East. Scale: 20cm

Plate 7: Area 1, Stake-hole [121], Looking North. Scale: 20cm.

Plate 8: Area 1, Ditch [113], Looking North. Scale: 50cm.

Plate 9: Area 1, Outer Enclosure Ditch [111], Looking Southeast. Scale: 1m.

Plate 10: Area 2, Inner Enclosure Ditch [221], Looking Southwest. Scale: 50cm.

Plate 11: Area 2, Inner Enclosure Ditch [224], Looking East. Scale: 1m.

Plate 12: Area 2, Pit [205], Looking South. Scale: 1m.

Plate 13: Area 2/Foundation Trench, Pit [226], Looking North. Scale: 1m.

Plate 14: Area 2, Post-hole [207], Looking North. Scale: 50cm.

Plate 15: Area 2/Foundation Trench, Pond [214], Looking West. Scale: 1m.

Plate 16: Area 2, Brick-lined Water Containing Pit [210], Looking West. Scale: 50cm.

Plate 17: Area 1, Service Trench [104], Looking North. Scale: 1m.

Plate 18: New Water Pipe Laid Under Hardcore, No Service Trench Dug.

Plate 19: New Electric Duct Laid Under Hardcore, No Service Trench Dug.

Plate 20: High Water Table Levels Restricted Depth of Targeted Excavation.

Plate 21: Test Pit 1, Looking West, Scale: 1m

Plate 22: Test Pit 2, Looking South, Scale: 1m.

Documents

Archaeological Monitoring Caville Hall Farm Burland Holme ...€¦ · (A614) at Caville Hall Farm, Burland, Holme Road, Howden, East Yorkshire. Monitoring of service trenches was