FISHBOURNE RESEARCH AND CONSERVATION … · Plain, southern England, UK, Quaternary Science Reviews 16, 1227–52. Bates, M. R., Gibbard, P. L., ... Prehistoric Settlements. Stroud:

Addyman, P. V. & Leigh, D. 1973. The Anglo-Saxon village at Chalton, Hampshire: second interim report, Medieval Archaeology 17, 14–25.Addyman, P. V., Leigh, D. & Hughes, M. J. 1973a. Anglo-Saxon houses at Chalton, Hampshire, Medieval Archaeology 16, 13–33.Addyman, P. V., Holkins, B. G. & Norton, G. T. 1973b. A Saxo-Norman pottery kiln producing stamped wares at Michelmersh, Hants, Medieval Archaeology 16, 127–30.Aldsworth, F. 1983. Prehistoric flint-mines on Nore Down, West Marden, Sussex Archaeological Collections hereafter (SAC) 121, 187–9.Allen, M. J. 2005. Beaker settlement and environment on the Chalk Downs of southern England, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71, 219–45.Allen, M. J. & Gardiner, J. 2000. Our Changing Coast – a Survey of the Intertidal Archaeology of Langstone Harbour, Hampshire. CBA Research Report 124. York: Council for British Archaeology.Anonymous. 1936. Bronze hoard from East Dean, Antiquaries Journal 16, 461–2.Arnold, C & Wardle, P. 1981. Early medieval settlement patterns in England, Medieval Archaeology 25, 145–9.ApSimon, A.M., Gamble, C.S. & Shackley, M.L. 1977. Pleistocene raised beaches on Portsdown, Hampshire, Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 33, 17–32.Baker, P., Forcey, C., Jundi, S. & Witcher, R. (eds) 1999. TRAC 98 Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference Leicester 1998.Barber, L. 1993. The metalwork, in D. Rudling & L. Barber, Excavations at the Phoenix Brewery Site, Hastings, 1988, SAC 131, 98–100.Barber, L. & Priestley-Bell, G. forthcoming. Medieval Adaptation, Settlement and Economy of a Coastal Wetland: the Evidence from Around Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent.Barber, M. 2003. Bronze and the Bronze Age. Stroud: Tempus.Barber, M., Field, D. & Topping, P. 1999. The Neolithic Flint Mines of England. Swindon: RCHME/English Heritage.Barrett, J. C., Lewis, J. S. C. & Welsh, K. 2001. Perry Oaks – a history of inhabitation, part 2, London Archaeologist 9/8, 221–7.Bates, M. R., Parfitt, S. A. & Roberts, M. B. 1997. The chronology, palaeoecology and archaeological significance of the marine Quaternary record of the West Sussex Coastal Plain, southern England, UK, Quaternary Science Reviews 16, 1227–52.Bates, M. R., Gibbard, P. L., Macphail, R. I., et al. in press. Late Middle Pleistocene deposits at Norton Farm on the West Sussex Coastal Plain, southern England. Journal of Quaternary Science.Bates, W. 1983. A spatial analysis of Roman Silchester, Scott Archaeol Rev 2(2), 134–44.Bedwin, O. 1978. Iron Age Sussex – Downs and Coastal

30. References◆

Plain, in P. L. Drewett (ed.), Archaeology in Sussex to ad 1500, CBA Research Report 29, 41–51.— — 1980. Neolithic and Iron Age material from a coastal site at Chidham, West Sussex, 1978, SAC 116, 241–55.— — 1981. An excavation at the Trundle, 1980, SAC 119, 208–14.— — 1983. The development of prehistoric settlement on the West Sussex coastal plain, SAC 121, 31–44 Bedwin, O. & Pitts, M. W. 1977. The excavation of an Iron Age settlement at North Bersted, Bognor Regis, West Sussex 1975–6, SAC 116, 293–346.Bedwin, O. & Holgate, R. 1985. Excavations at Copse Farm, Oving, West Sussex, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51, 215–45.Bedwin, O. & Place, C. 1995. Late Iron Age and Romano-British occupation at Ounces Barn, Boxgrove, SAC 133, 45–101.Bell, M. G. 1977. Excavations at Bishopstone, SAC 115, 1–258.— — 1978. Saxon Sussex, in P. L. Drewett (ed.), Archaeology in Sussex to ad 1500, CBA Report 29, 64–9.— — 1983. Valley sediments as evidence for prehistoric land-use on the South Downs, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49, 119–50.— — 1989. Environmental archaeology as an index of continuity and change in the medieval landscape, in M. Aston, D. Austin & C. Dyer (eds.), The Rural Settlements of Medieval England. Oxford: Blackwell, 269–89.— — 2006. Submerged forests from early prehistory, The Archaeologist 59, 10–11. Bender, B., Hamilton, S. & Tilley, C. 1997. Leskernick: stone worlds; alternative narratives; nested landscapes, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 147–78.Beresford, G. 1979. Three deserted medieval settlements on Dartmoor: a report on the late E. Marie Minter’s excavations, Medieval Archaeology 23, 98–158.Bewley, R. 2003. Prehistoric Settlements. Stroud: TempusBiraben, J.-N. & Le Goff, J. 1975 The plague in the early Middle Ages, in R. Forster & O. Ranum (eds.), Biology and Man in History. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press, 48–80.Bird, D. 2006. Surrey Archaeological Research Framework 2006. Guildford: Surrey County CouncilBlaauw, W. H. 1850. Letters of Ralph de Neville, bishop of Chichester and chancellor to King Henry III, SAC 3, 35–76.Black, E. 1985. The Roman buildings at Bosham, SAC 123, 255–6.Black, E. W. 1993. The period IC bath-building at Fishbourne and the problem of the ‘proto-palace’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 6, 233–7.Blagg, T. F. C. 1990. First-century Roman houses in Gaul and Britain, in Blagg & Millet 1990 (eds), 194–209.Blagg, T. F. C. & Millet, M. J. (eds) 1990. The Early Roman Empire in the West. Oxford: Oxbow Monographs.Bone, A. & Bone, D. 2005. Lavant stone, SAC 142, 63–78.

F I SHBOURNE RESEARCH AND CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK 149

150 30 . REFERENCES

Boyden, J. R. 1956. Excavations at Goosehill Camp, 1953–5, SAC 94, 70–99.Bradley, R. 1990. The Passage of Arms. Cambridge University Press.— — 1992. Roman salt production in Chichester harbour: rescue excavations at Chidham, West Sussex, Britannia 23, 27–44.— — 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Routledge.— — 2003. A life less ordinary: the ritualization of the domestic sphere in later prehistoric Europe, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13/1, 5–23.Bradley, R. & Fulford, M. 1976. Excavations at Tournerbury, Hayling Island, 1959 and 1971, Proceedings of Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 32, 63–9.Brandon, P. F. 1963. The Commonlands and Wastes of Sussex. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of London.— — 1971. Demesne arable farming in coastal Sussex during the Later Middle Ages, Agricultural History Review 19, 113–34.— — 1974. The Sussex Landscape. London: Hodder & Stoughton — —1978. Introduction: the Saxon heritage, in P. F. Brandon (eds.), The South Saxons. Chichester: Phillimore, 1–12. Brewster, T. & Brewster, A. 1969. Tote Copse Castle, Aldingbourne, Sussex, SAC 107, 141–79.Britnell, R. 1986. Growth and Decline in Colchester 1300–1525. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Brück, J. 2001. Body metaphors and technologies of transformation in the English Middle and Late Bronze Age, in J Brück (ed.), Bronze Age Landscapes. Tradition and Transformation. Oxford: Oxbow, 149–60.Butler, C. 2001. A Mesolithic and later prehistoric flintworking site at East and West Hills, Pyecombe, West Sussex, SAC 139, 7–25.— — 2002 A Mesolithic site and later finds at Magham Down, near Hailsham, East Sussex, SAC 140, 139–44.— — 2003 The prehistoric flintwork, in J. Manley & D. Rudkin (eds.), Facing the Palace, SAC 141, Appendix D; ADS : http://ads.ahds.ac.uk.— — 2005 Prehistoric Flintwork. Stroud: Tempus Publishing.— — forthcoming, A collection of Mesolithic flintwork from the Horsham area: the Standing Collection, SAC.Butler, C. & Holgate, R. 2002. The flintwork at Redhill, in D. Rudling (ed.), Downland Settlement and Land Use London: Archetype.Burnham, B. C., Collis, J., Dobinson, C., Haselgrove, C. & Jones, M., 2001. Themes for urban research, c. 100 bc to ad 200, in James & Millet (eds), Britons and Romans, 67–76.Calkin, J. B. 1934. Implements from the higher raised beaches of Sussex, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 7, 333–47.Cartwright, C. R. 1984 Field survey of Chichester Harbour, 1982, SAC 122, 23–7.Chapman, A., Carlyle, S. & Leigh, D. 2005. Neolithic and Beaker pits, and a Bronze Age landscape at Fenstanton, Cambridgeshire, Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society XCIV, 5–20.Chatwin, D. & Gardiner, M. F. forthcoming. Rethinking the early medieval settlement of woodlands: evidence from the western Sussex Weald, Landscape History.

Clarke, S. & Robinson D. J. 1997. Roman urban form and cultural difference, in Meadows et al., 163–72.Clough, M. 1969. Two Estate Surveys of the Fitzalan Earls of Arundel (Sussex Record Society 67). Lewes: Sussex Record Society.Coates, R. 2005. Cogidubnus revisited, Antiquaries Journal 85, 359–66.Cooper, N. J. (ed.) 2006. The Archaeology of the East Midlands. (Leicester Archaeology Monographs 13.) Leicester: University of Leicester.Cooper, N. J. & Clay, P. 2006. The national and regional context of the research framework, in N. J. Cooper (ed.), The Archaeology of the East Midlands. (Leicester Archaeology Monographs 13.) Leicester: University of Leicester, 1–9.Cotton, J. & Field, D. 2004. Towards a New Stone Age: Aspects of the Neolithic in South East England. York: Council For British Archaeology.Creighton, J. 2001. The Iron Age–Roman transition, in eds James & Millet, Britons and Romans, 4–11.— — 2006. Britannia: the Creation of a Roman Province. London: Routledge.Creighton, O. H. 2005. Castles and Landscapes: Power, Community and Fortification in Medieval England. London: Equinox.Cunliffe, B. W. 1971. Excavations at Fishbourne, 1961–1969, vols. I & II, London: Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 27— — 1973a. The Regni. London: Duckworth.— — 1973b. Manor Farm, Chalton, Hampshire, Post-Medieval Archaeology 7, 31–59.— — 1973c. Chalton, Hants: the evolution of a landscape, The Antiquaries Journal 53, 173–90.— — 1973d. Saxon and medieval settlement pattern in the region of Chalton, Hampshire, Medieval Archaeology 16, 1–12.— — 1976. The Romano-British village at Chalton, Hampshire, Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 33, 45–67.— — 1978. Saxon Sussex: some problems and directions, in P. F. Brandon (ed.), The South Saxons. Chichester: Phillimore, 221–6.— — 1998. Fishbourne Roman Palace. Stroud: Tempus.Cunliffe, B. W., Down, A. & Rudkin, D. 1996. Chichester Excavations, 9. Chichester: Chichester District CouncilCurwen, E. C. 1925. Palaeolith from raised beaches in Sussex, The Antiquaries Journal 5, 72–3.— — 1929. Excavations at the Trundle, Goodwood, 1928, SAC 70, 33–85.— — 1931. Excavations at the Trundle, second season, 1930, SAC 72, 100–150.— — 1946. A hand-axe from the Chichester Gravels, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 12, 172–3.— — 1954. The Archaeology of Sussex. Second edition. London: MethuenDark, P. 2000. The Environment of Britain in the First Millennium ad, London: Duckworth.Davenport, C. 2003. The Late pre-Roman Iron Age of the West Sussex Coastal Plain: continuity or change, in D. Rudling (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to ad 2000. Norfolk: Heritage Marketing, 101–10.Devereux, B. J., Amable, G. S., Crow, P. & Cliff, A. D. 2005. The potential of airborne lidar for the detection of

30 . REFERENCES 151

archaeological features under woodland canopies, Antiquity 79/305, 648–60. Down, A. 1974. Chichester Excavations 2. Chichester: Phillimore.— — 1978. The Post-Roman pottery, in A. Down, Chichester Excavations 3. Chichester: Phillimore, 341–59.— — 1981. Chichester Excavations 5. Chichester: Phillimore.— — 1988. Roman Chichester. Chichester: Phillimore— — 1989. Chichester Excavations 6. Chichester: Phillimore.Down A. & Rule M. 1971. Chichester Excavations 1. Chichester: PhillimoreDown, A. & Welch, M. G. 1990. Chichester Excavations 7: Apple Down and The Mardens. Chichester: Chichester District Council.Drewett, P. L. 1975. The excavation of a turf barrow at Minsted, West Sussex, 1973, SAC 113, 54–65.— — 1976. The excavation of four round barrows of the second millennium bc at West Heath, Harting, 1973–75, SAC 114, 126–50.— — 1978 Archaeology in Sussex to ad 1500. CBA Research Report no. 29.— — 1982. The Archaeology of Bullock Down, Eastbourne, East Sussex. The Development of a Landscape. Monograph 1. Lewes: Sussex Arch. Soc. — — 1986. The excavation of a Neolithic oval barrow at North Marden, West Sussex, 1982, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52, 31–52.— — 1989. Anthropogenic soil erosion in Prehistoric Sussex: excavations at West Heath and Ferring, 1984, SAC 127, 11–29.— — 2003. Taming the Wild: the First Farming Communities in Sussex, in D. Rudling (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to ad 2000. King’s Lynn: Heritage Books, 39–46.Drewett, P. L., Holgate, B., Foster, S. & Ellerby, H. 1986. The excavations of a Saxon sunken building at North Marden, West Sussex, 1982, SAC 124, 109–18.Drewett, P. L., Rudling, D. R. & Gardiner, M. 1988. The South-East to ad 1000. London: Longman.Dunkin, D. J. 2001. Metalwork, burnt mounds and settlement in the West Sussex Coastal Plain: a contextual study, Antiquity 75/288, 261–2.Dunning, G. & Wilson, A. 1953. Late Saxon and early medieval pottery from selected sites in Chichester, SAC 91, 140–63.Ellis, C. 1986. The post-glacial molluscan succession of the South Downs dry valleys, in G. de C. Sieveking & M. B. Hart (eds.), The Scientific Study of Flint and Chert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 175–84.English Heritage. 1997. Research Agenda 1997. London: English Heritage.— — 1998. Exploring our Past: Strategies for the Archaeology of England. 2nd edition. London: English Heritage.Faulkner, N. 1994. Later Roman Colchester, Oxford J. Archaeol. 13(1), 93–120.— — 1996. Verulamium: interpreting decline, Archaeol. J. 153, 79–103.— — 2000. Change and decline in late Romano-British towns, in T. R. Slater (ed.), Towns in Decline, ad 100–1600. Aldershot: Ashgate, 25–50.— — 2002. The debate about the end of Roman Britain: a review of the evidence and methods, Archaeological Journal 159, 59–76.

Field, N. H., Matthews C. L. & Smith, I. F. 1964. New Neolithic sites in Dorset and Bedfordshire with a note on the distribution of Neolithic storage pits in Britain, Proceeedings of the Prehistoric Society 30, 352–81.Fitzpatrick, A. P. 1997. Archaeological Excavations on the Route of the A27 Westhampnett Bypass, West Sussex, 1992, vol. 2: The Late Iron Age, Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.Fitzpatrick, A. P. & Morris E. L. 1994. Introduction: the changing Iron Age of Wessex, in A. P. Fitzpatrick & E. L. Morris (eds.), The Iron Age in Wessex: Recent Work. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology, x–xi.Fitzpatrick, A. P., Allen, M. J. & Powell, A.B. forthcoming. Archaeological Excavations on the A27 Westhampnett Bypass, West Sussex 1992, vol. 1: the Prehistoric, Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon Landscapes. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Report.Fokkens, H. 1999. Cattle and martiality: changing relations between man and landscape in the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age, in C. Fabech & J. Ringtved (eds.), Settlement and Landscape. Proceedings of a Conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4–7 1998. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society, 35–43.Fowler, J. 1929. Palaeoliths found at Slindon, SAC 70, 197–200.— — 1931. Palaeolith from West Sussex, SAC 72, 158–9.— — 1932. The ‘one hundred foot’ raised beach between Arundel and Chichester, Sussex, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 88, 84–99.Fox, C. 1952. Hill-slope forts and related earthworks in south west England and south Wales, Archaeological Journal 109, 1–22.Francis. A. 2004. Chichester Harbour, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty: Archaeological Research Framework. London: Museum of London Archaeological SocietyGamble, C. S. & ApSimon, A. M. 1986. Red Barns Portchester, in S. N. Collcutt (ed.),The Palaeolithic of Britain and its Nearest Neighbours: Recent Trends. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, Department of Archaeology of Prehistory, 8–13.Gardiner, M. F. 1990. An Anglo-Saxon and medieval settlement at Botolphs, Bramber. West Sussex, Archaeological Journal 147, 216–75.— — 2001. Medieval fishing and settlement on the Sussex coast, Medieval Settlement Research Group Annual Report 16, 6–7.— — 2003. Economy and landscape change in post-Roman and early medieval Sussex, 450–1175, in D. Rudling (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to ad 2000. King’s Lynn: Heritage Books, 151–60.Gardiner M. F. & Coates, R. 1987. Ellingsdean, a Viking battlefield identified, SAC 125, 251–2.Gardiner, M. F., Cross, R., Macpherson-Grant, N. & Riddler, I. 2002. Continental trade and non-urban ports in mid-Anglo-Saxon England: excavations at Sandtun, West Hythe, Kent, Archaeological Journal 158, 161–290.Garwood, P. 2003. Round barrows and funerary traditions in Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Sussex, in D. Rudling (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to ad 2000. King’s Lynn: Heritage Books, 47–68.Gilchrist, R. 1995. Contemplation and Action: the other Monasticism. London: Leicester University Press.Godwin, H. 1975. A discussion on forests and forestry in Britain. Phil Trans Roy Soc. London B 271, 47–67.

152 30 . REFERENCES

Goodburn, D. M. 1987. Medmerry: a reassessment of a Migration Period site on the south coast of England, and some of its finds, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 16, 213–24.Goodburn, D. 1996. Report on the worked flint scatter and residual flintwork from the 1985–6 excavations, in B. Cunliffe, A. Down & D. Rudkin (eds.), Excavations at Fishbourne 1969–1988. (Chichester Excavations 9.) Chichester: Chichester District Council, 63–8.Gosden, C. 2007. Archaeology and Colonialism. Cambridge: CUP.Gregory, V. L. 1976. Excavations at Becket’s Barn, Pagham, West Sussex, SAC 114, 207–17.Grinsell, L. V. 1929. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Periods in Sussex, SAC 70, 172–82.— — 1934. Sussex barrows, SAC 75, 219–75.Grøn, O. 1995. The Maglemose Culture. (BAR International Series 616.) Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm.Guttmann, E. B. A. 2005. Midden cultivation in prehistoric Britain: arable crops in gardens, World Archaeology 37(2), 224–39.Guttmann, E. B. A. & Last, J. 2000. A Late Bronze Age Landscape at South Hornchurch, Essex, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 319–60.Hamilton, S. 2003. Sussex not Wessex: a regional perspective on Southern Britain c. 1200–200 bc in D. Rudling (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to ad 2000. King’s Lynn: Heritage Books, 69–88.Hamilton, S. & Gardiner, M. 1997. Knapp Farm, Bosham, SAC 135, 71–91.Hamilton, S. & Manley, J. 1997. Points of view: prominent enclosures in first Millennium bc Sussex, SAC 135, 93–112.— — 1999. The end of prehistory c. 100 bc to ad 43, in K. Leslie & B. Short (eds.), An Historical Atlas of West Sussex. Chichester: Phillimore, 22–3.Härke, H. 2004. The debate on migration and identity in Europe, Antiquity 78, 453–56.Hase, P. H. 1988. The mother churches of Hampshire, in J. Blair (ed.), Minster and Parish Churches: the Local Church in Transition, 950-1200. Oxford:University Committee for Archaeology, 45–66.Haselgrove, C., Armit, I., Champion, T., Creighton, J., Gwilt, A., Hill, J. D., Hunter, F. & Woodward, A. 2001. Understanding the British Iron Age: an Agenda for Action. English Heritage and Historic Scotland Hayman, G. & Reynolds, A. forthcoming. A Saxon and Saxo-Norman execution cemetery at 42–54 London Road, Staines, Archaeological Journal 162.Heron-Allen, E. 1911. Selsey Bill: Historic and Prehistoric. London: Duckworth.Hines, J. 2000. Welsh and English: mutual origins in post-Roman Britain?, Studia Celtica 34, 81–104.Hinton, D. 1981. Hampshire’s Anglo-Saxon origins, in J. Shennan & R. T. Schadla-Hall (eds.), The Archaeology of Hampshire: From the Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution. Winchester: Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society, 56–65.Holden, E. 1963. Excavations at the deserted medieval village of Hangleton part 1, SAC 101, 54–181.Holgate, R. 1987 Excavations at Halt Mesolithic site, near Horsham, West Sussex, 1985, SAC 125, 33–9.Holgate, R. 1997 The Flintwork in Knapp Farm, Bosham by M. Gardiner & S. Hamilton, SAC 135, 71-91.

— — 2003 Late glacial and post-glacial hunter-gatherers in Sussex, in D. Rudling (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to ad 2000. King’s Lynn: Heritage Books, 29–38.Holgate, R., Holden, E. W. & Holden, H. G. 1986. An Early Mesolithic site and prehistoric flintwork from Graffham Common and neighbouring areas on the Lower Greensand, West Sussex, SAC 124, 1–9.Hoskins, W. G. 1955. The Making of the English Landscape. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Howard-Davis, C. & Matthews, B. 2002. A prehistoric and later medieval agricultural landscape at Dean Way, Storrington, SAC 140, 7–19.Huggett, J. W. 1988. Imported grave goods and the early Anglo-Saxon economy, Medieval Archaeology 32, 63–96.Hughes, M. J. 1984. Rural settlement and landscape in Late Saxon Hampshire, in M. L. Faull, Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Settlement. Oxford: Oxford University Department for External Studies, 65–79.Hunt, H. & Owen, S. 2005. Ancient Colonizations. London: Duckworth.Hurst, J. & Hurst, D. 1964. Excavations at the deserted medieval village of Hangleton part 2, SAC 102, 94–142.Jacobi, R. 1978. The Mesolithic of Sussex, in P. L. Drewett (ed.), Archaeology in Sussex to ad 1500. CBA Research Report no. 29.— — 1987 Misanthropic miscellany: musings on British early Flandrian archaeology and other flights of fancy, in P. Rowley-Conwy, M. Zvelebil & H. P. Blankholm (eds.), Mesolithic Norhtwest Europe: Recent Trends. Sheffield: University of Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, 163–8.James, S. & Millett, M. 2001. Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda. CBA Research Report 125.Jarvis, M. G., Allen, R. H., Fordham, S. J. Hagelden, J., Moffat, A. J. & Sturdy, R. G. 1984. Soils and their Use in South East England. Soil Survey of England & Wales: Bulletin No. 15. Harpenden.Kenny, J. 1989. Selsey Bill (SZ 859924), in The Archaeology of the Chichester District 1988. Portsmouth: Chichester District Council, 32–6.— — 1994. Lavant : the reservoir site at Chalkpit Lane (SU 868 095), in The Archaeology of the Chichester District 1993. Portsmouth: Chichester District Council, 26–9.King, A. & Soffe, G. 1994. The Iron Age and Roman Temple on Hayling Island, in A. P. Fitzpatrick & E. L.Morris (eds.), The Iron Age in Wessex: Recent Work. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology, 114–16.Knight, M. 2002. New Prison at Former Rockwell and APV Works Westfield Road, Peterborough. Peterborough’s upland prehistory. Unpublished client report. Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report No. 369.Kirk, L. 1996. An Archaeological Excavation at St Thomas a Becket Church, Pagham, West Sussex. South Eastern Archaeological Services. Unpublished client report.Kowaleski, M. 1995. Local Markets and Regional Trade in Medieval Exeter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Laurence, R. 1994. Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. London: Routledge.Lawson, A. J. 2000. Potterne 1982–5: Animal Husbandry in Later Prehistoric Wiltshire. Wessex Archaeology Report No. 17.Legge, A. J. & Rowley-Conwy, P. A. 1988. Star Carr Revisited. London: Birkbeck College.

30 . REFERENCES 153

Liddiard, R. 2005. Castles in Contexts: Power, Symbolism and Landscape 1066–1500. Macclesfield: Windgatherer Press. Long, A. & Roberts, D. 1997. Sea-level change, in M. Fulford, T. Champion, & A. Long (eds.), England’s Coastal Heritage. English Heritage Archaeological Reports 15, 25–49.Long, A. & Shennan, S. 1993. Holocene relative sea-level and crustal movements in Southeast and Northeast England, UK, Quaternary Proceedings 3, 15–19.Lyne, M. 2003. The pottery supply to Roman Sussex, in D. Rudling (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to ad 2000. King’s Lynn: Heritage Books, 141–50.— — unpublished. The Prehistoric, Roman and Saxon Pottery (from North Bersted).Maddicott, J. R. 1997. Plague in seventh-century England, Past and Present 156, 7–54.Magilton, J. 1995. Chichester Castle reappears in The Archaeology of Chichester and District 1995. Chichester: Chichester District Council, 23–6.— — 2001. Midhurst. Chichester District Archaeology 1. Chichester: Chichester District Council. — — 2003. The defences of Roman Chichester, in P. Wilson (ed.), The Archaeology of Roman Towns. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 156–67.Manley, J. 2002. ad 43 – the Roman Invasion of Britain. Stroud: TempusManley, J. & Rudkin, D. 2005. A pre-ad 43 ditch at Fishbourne Roman Palace, Chichester, Britannia 35, 55–99.— — 2005 Facing the Palace, SAC 141.Martin, D. & Martin, B. 2004. New Winchelsea Sussex: a Medieval Port Town. Field Archaeology Unit University College, London, Monograph No. 2. King’s Lynn: Heritage Marketing.McOmish, D., Field, D. & Brown, G. 2002. The Field Archaeology of the Salisbury Plain Training Area. Swindon: English Heritage.Meadows, K., Lemke, C. & Heron, J. (eds) 1997. TRAC 96 Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference Sheffield 1996. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Millett, M. J. 1990. The Romanization of Britain: an Essay in Archaeological interpretation. Cambridge: CUP. Millet, M. J. & Graham, D. 1986. Excavations on the Romano-British small town at Neatham, Hants 1969–86. Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society Monograph.MOLAS 2004. Chichester Harbour: an Archaeological Research Framework. London: Museum of London. Money, J. 1978. Aspects of the Iron Age in the Weald, in P. L. Drewett (ed.), Archaeology in Sussex to ad 1500: Essays for Eric Holden. CBA Research Report 29. York: Council for British Archaeology, 38–40.Munby, J. 1984. Saxon Chichester and its predecessors, in J. Haslam (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Towns in Southern England. Chichester: Phillimore, 315–30.— — 1985. Portchester and its region, in B. Cunliffe & J. Munby (eds.), Excavation at Portchester Castle: IV. Medieval, the Inner Bailey. London: Society of Antiquaries, 270–95.Nowakowski, J. 1991. Trethellan Farm, Newquay. The excavation of a lowland Bronze Age settlement and Iron Age cemetery, Cornish Archaeology 30, 5–242. Olivier, A. 1996. Frameworks for our Past. London: English Heritage.Oswald, A. 1995. A Causewayed Enclosure and the Trundle Hillfort on St Roche’s Hill, Singleton, West Sussex. London: RCHME.

Palmer, L. S. & Cooke, J. H. 1930. The raised beaches near Portsmouth, South Eastern Naturalist 35, 66–75.Perring, D. 2002. Town and Country in England: Frameworks for Archaeological Research. York: CBA.Piggott, S. 1954. The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge: CUP.Pitts, M. W. 1980. A gazetteer of Mesolithic finds on the West Sussex Coastal Plain, SAC 118, 153–62.Pitts, M. & Roberts, M. B. 1998. Fairweather Eden: Life in Britain Half a Million Years Ago as Revealed by the Excavations at Boxgrove. London: Arrow Books.Pope, M. 2000. Lower Palaeolithic surface finds from the northern scarp slope of the Downs at Kithurst Hill, near Storrington, West Sussex, SAC 138, 221–2.— — 2001. New investigations at Slindon Bottom Palaeolithic Site, West Sussex: an interim report, Lithics 22, 3–10.— — 2003. The earliest occupation of Sussex: Recent research and future objectives in D. Rudling (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to ad 2000. King’s Lynn: Heritage Books, 17–29.Pollard, J. 2002. The Ring-Ditch and the Hollow: excavation of a Bronze Age ‘shrine’ and associated features at Pampisford, Cambridgeshire, Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 91, 5–21.Preston, S. 2002. Chichester Road, Selsey, West Sussex. A Post-excavation Assessment. Thames Valley Archaeological Services. Unpublished client report.Prestwich, J. 1892. The raised beaches and ‘head’ or rubble drift of the south of England; their relation to the valley drifts and to the glacial period; and on late post-glacial submergence, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 48 263–343.Priestley-Bell, G. 2000. Interim Statement on the Archaeological Investigations at Land off Drayton Lane, Oving, Chichester, West Sussex. Archaeology South-East. Unpublished client report— — 2002. Interim Statement on the Archaeological Watching Brief at Land off Drayton Lane, Oving, Chichester, West Sussex: Phase 1 Extraction Area. Archaeology South-East. Unpublished client report.Reid, C. 1892. The Pleistocene deposits of the Sussex coast, and their equivalents in other districts, The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, London 48, 344–64.— — 1903. The geology of the country near Chichester, Memoirs of the Geological, Surrey, England and Wales. Keyworth: British Geological Survey.Revell, L. 1999. Constructing Romanitas: Roman public architecture and the archaeology of practice, in Baker et al., 52–8.Rippon, S. 1996. The Gwent Levels: the Exploitation of a Wetland Landscape. CBA Research Report 105. York: Council for British Archaeology.Roberts, B. & Wrathmell, S. 2000. An Atlas of Rural Settlement in England. London: English Heritage.Roberts, M. B. 1986. Excavation of a Lower Palaeolithic site at Amey’s Eartham Pit, Boxgrove, West Sussex: a preliminary report, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52, 215–45.— — 1992. Boxgrove: the Lower Palaeolithic site in Amey’s Eartham Pit (SU 924 085), in S. Woodward (ed.), The Archaeology of Chichester and District. Chichester: Chichester District Council, 21–4.

154 30 . REFERENCES

Roberts, M. B., Stringer, C. B. & Parfitt, S. A. 1994. A hominid tibia from Middle Pleistocene sediments at Boxgrove, UK, Nature 369, 311–13.Roberts, M. B., Gamble, C. S. & Bridgland, D. R. 1995. The earliest occupation of Europe: the British Isles, in W. Roebroeks & T. van Kolfschoten (eds.),The Earliest Occupation of Europe. Leiden: University of Leiden, 165–92.Roberts, M. B., Parfitt, S. A., Pope, M. I. & Wenban Smith, F. F. 1997. Boxgrove, West Sussex: rescue excavations of a Lower Palaeolithic landsurface (Boxgrove Project B 1989–1991), Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 303–58.Roberts, M. B., Parfitt, S. A. & Pope, M. I. 1999. Boxgrove: a Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eastham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. London: English Heritage Archaeol.Rep. Series, 17.Robinson, D. A. & Williams, R. B. G. 1983a. The Sussex coast past and present, in Geography Editorial Committee (eds), Sussex: Environment, Landscape and Society. Gloucester: Alan Sutton, 50–66.— — 1983b. The soils and vegetation history of Sussex, in Geography Editorial Committee (eds), Sussex: Environment, Landscape and Society. Gloucester: Alan Sutton, 109–26.Roe, D. A. 1968. A Gazetteer of British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Sites. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 8.— — 1981. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Periods in Britain. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Rudkin, D. 1986 The excavation of a Romano-British site by Chichester Harbour, Fishbourne, SAC 124, 51–77.Rudling, D. 1987 The investigation of a Roman tilery at Dell Quay, West Sussex, SAC 125, 81–90.— — 1998. The development of Roman villas in Sussex, SAC 136, 41–65.— — 2003a. The Archaeology of Sussex to ad 2000. King’s Lynn: Heritage Books.— — 2003b. Roman rural settlement in Sussex: continuity and change, in D. Rudling (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to ad 2000. King’s Lynn: Heritage Books, 111–26.Rush, P. (ed.) 1995. Theoretical Roman Archaeology: Second Conference Proceedings. Avebury.Rushton, N. 1999. The parochialisation of Sussex 1000–1086-1291, in K. Leslie & B. Short (eds.), An Historical Atlas of Sussex. Chichester: Phillimore, 36–7.Russell, M. 2006. Roman Sussex. Stroud: Tempus.Salisbury, E. F. 1961. Prehistoric flint mines on Long Down, Eartham, 1955–-1958, SAC 99, 66–73.Scaife, R. G. 1988 The elm decline in the pollen record of South East England and its relationship to early agriculture, in M. Jones (ed.), Archaeology and the Flora of the British Isles. O.U.C.A. Monograph 14. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 21–33.Scott, S. 1995. Symbols of power and nature: the Orpheus mosaics of fourth century Britain and their architectural contexts, in Rush (ed.), 105–23. Seager-Thomas, M. 1998. New evidence for a Late Bronze Age occupation of Selsey Bill, West Sussex, SAC 136, 7–22.— — 2001. Two early first millennium bc wells at Selsey, West Sussex and their wider significance, Antiquaries. Journal 81, 15–50.Scott-Jackson, J. 1996. Lower Palaeolithic finds at Wood Hill, East Kent: A geological and geomorphological approach to an archaeological problem, Lithics 16 10–15.

Sheldon, J. 1978. The environmental background, in P. L. Drewett (ed.), Archaeology in Sussex to ad 1500. CBA Research Report no. 29, 3–7.Shennan, S. 1989. Experiments in the Collection and Analysis of Archaeological Survey Data: The East Hampshire Survey. Sheffield: Dept of Prehistory, University of Sheffield.Shephard-Thorn, E. R. & Kellaway, G. A. 1977. Amey’s Eartham Pit, Boxgrove Common, in E. R. Shephard-Thorn & J. J. Wymer (eds.), South East England and the Thames Valley, 66–8.— — 1978. Quaternary deposits at Eartham, West Sussex, Brighton Polytechnic Society Magazine, 4 1-8.Shephard-Thorn, E. R., Berry, F. G. & Wyatt, R. J. 1982. Geological Notes and Local Details for 1:10 000 sheets SU80NW, NE, SW and SE, SU90 NW, NE, SW and SE, TQ00NW, SW. West Sussex Coastal Plain between Chichester and Littlehampton. Keyworth: Institute of Geological Sciences.Simmons, I. G. R. & Dimbleby, G. W. 1974. The possible role of ivy (Hedera helix L.) in the Mesolithic economy of western Europe. J. Archaeol. Sci. 1, 291–6.Spikins, P. 1999. Mesolithic Northern England, BAR British Series 283. Oxford: Archaeopress.Stevens, S. 2000. An Archaeological Evaluation (Stage 1) at the Former Site of Westergate Community College, Ivy Lane, Westergate, West Sussex. Archaeology South-East. Unpublished client report.— — 2003. An Archaeological Investigation at Walwyn Close off Main Road, Birdham, West Sussex Project No. 1193, Archaeology South-East. Unpublished client report.— — forthcoming a. Excavations at Ropetackle, Shoreham.— — forthcoming b. Excavations at Bersted Street, Bersted, SAC.Stopford, J. 2005. Medieval Floor Tiles of Northern England. Pattern and Purpose: Production Between the 13th and 16th Centuries. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Streeten, A. D. F. 1981. Craft and industry: medieval and later potters in south-east England, in H. Howard & E. L. Morris (eds), Production and Distribution: a Ceramic Viewpoint, 323–46. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 120. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Streeter, D. 1983 Chapter 7: Biogeography, Ecology and Conservation in Sussex. in Sussex Environment, Landscape and Society in The Making of the English Landscape ed. The Geography Editorial Committee, University of Sussex, 127–47. Tatton Brown, T. W. 2005. The Vicars’ Hall and close at Chichester Cathedral, in R. Hall & D. Stocker (eds), Vicars Choral at English Cathedrals: Cantate Domino. History, Architectural and Archaeology, 23–8, Oxford: Oxbow Books.Taylor, M. 2003. Ecclesiastical sites in Sussex, in D. Rudling (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to ad 2000, 161–70. King’s Lynn: Heritage Books.Terrenato, N. 2005. The deceptive archetype: Roman colonization in Italy and postcolonial thought, in Hunt & Owen (eds), 59–72.Thomas, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.— — 1993. Discourse, totalization and the Neolithic, in C.Tilley (ed.), Interpretative Archaeology. Oxford: Berg, 357–94.Thomas, K. 1977. The land mollusca from the enclosure

30 . REFERENCES 155

on Offham Hill, in The excavation of a Neolithic causewayed enclosure on Offham Hill, East Sussex, 1976, by P. L. Drewett, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43, 234–9.Tomalin, D. 2000. Stress at the seams: assessing the terrestrial and submerged archaeological landscape on the shore of the Magnus Portus, in A. Aberg & C. Lewis (eds.), The Rising Tide: Archaeology and Coastal Landscapes . Oxford: Oxbow, 85–98.Topping, P. 2004. The South Downs flint mines: towards an ethnography of prehistoric flint extraction, in J. Cotton & D. Field (eds.), Towards a New Stone Age: Aspects of the Neolithic in South East England. York: Council For British Archaeology, 117–90.Tyers, I., Hillam, J. & Groves, J. 1994. Trees and woodland in the Saxon period the dendrochronological evidence, in J. Rackham (ed.), Environment and Economy in Anglo-Saxon England. CBA Research Report 89. London: Council for British Archaeology, 12–22.Ulmschneider, K. 2003. Markets around the Solent: unravelling a ‘productive’ site On the Isle of Wight, in T. Pestell & K.Ulmschneider (eds.), Markets in Early Medieval Europe: Trading and ‘Productive’ Sites. Macclesfield: Windgather Press, 77–83.Upex. S. 2002. Landscape continuity and the fossilization of Roman fields, Archaeological Journal, 159, 77–108.Wade, A. G. 1924. Ancient flint mines at Stoke Down, Sussex, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, East Anglia 4, 82–91.Waddington, C. 1999. A Landscape Archaeological Study of the Mesolithic–Neolithic in the Milfield Basin, Northumberland. British Archaeological Reports (British Series) 291. Oxford: BAR.Waddington, C., Bailey, G., Bayliss, A., Boomer, I., Milner, M., Pederson, K. & Shiel, R. 2003. A Mesolithic settlement site at Howick, Northumberland: a preliminary report. Archaeologia Aeliana 5th ser. 32, 1–12.Wallace, H. 1986. A Roman Decorated Spring and a Medieval Mill beneath the Millpond at Fishbourne, West Sussex. Privately published.Watts, D. G. 1958. The villages on the manors of Titchfield Abbey, Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club, 21 31–7.Welch, M. G. 1983. Early Anglo-Saxon Sussex. BAR Brit. Series, 112 (i–ii). Oxford: BAR.Wessex Archaeology. 1988. Archaeological Evaluation at Rookery Farm, Kingsley, Hampshire. Unpublished client report.— — 2000. Land off Claypit Lane, Westhampnett, West Sussex: Archaeological Evaluation Report. Wessex Archaeology. Unpublished client report.

— — 2002. Claypit Lane, Westhampnett, West Sussex: Assessment Report. Wessex Archaeology. Unpublished client report. West, R. G. & Sparks, B. W. 1960. Coastal interglacial deposits of the English Channel, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B243, 95–133.White, G. M. 1934a. A settlement of the South Saxons, Antiquaries Journal 14, 393–400.— — 1934b. Prehistoric remains from Selsey Bill, Antiquaries Journal 14, 40–53.Williams, H. 1998. Monuments and the past in early Anglo-Saxon England, World Archaeology 30, 90–108.Williams, R. B. G. 1971. Aspects of the geomorphology of the South Downs, in R. B. G. Williams (ed.), Guide to Sussex Excursions, 35–42. Town??: University of Sussex.Woodcock, A. G. 1978 . The Palaeolithic in Sussex, in P. L. Drewett (ed.), Archaeology in Sussex to ad 1500. CBA Research Report no. 29, 8–14.— — 1981. The Lower and Middle Paleolithic Periods in Sussex. Oxford: BAR British Series 94.— — 1986. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in Sussex. A summary of current knowledge, present research and future objectives, in S. N. Collcutt (ed.), The Palaeolithic of Britain and its Nearest Neighbours: Recent Trends. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, Dept. Archaeology and Prehistory, 31–5.— — 2003. The archaeological implications of coastal change in Sussex, in D. Rudling (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to ad 2000. King’s Lynn: Heritage Books, 1–16. Worrall, S. 2005. An Archaeological Evaluation on land at North Bersted, Bognor Regis, West Sussex. Project No. 2092. Archaeology South-East. Unpublished client reportWymer, J. J. 1977. Gazetteer of Mesolithic Sites in England and Wales. CBA Research Report 22— — 1999. Lower Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology.Yeakell, T. & Gardner, W. 1778–83. The First Sheet of an Actual Topographical Survey of the County of Sussex.Young, R. 2000. Mesolithic Lifeways: Current Research from Britain and Ireland. Leicester Archaeology Monographs No. 7. Leicester: University of LeicesterYork, J. 2002. The life cycle of Bronze Age metalwork from the Thames, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21(1) 77–92.

Electronic resourcesHampshire and the Isle of Wight EUS (www.ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/projArch/EUS/hampshire_eus_2003/downloads.cfm)Whittlewood Project (www.le.ac.uk/elh/whittlewood/index.htm)

A p p e n d i x 1 : S c h e d u l e d A n c i e n t M o n u M e n t S w i t h i n t h e

F R c F A R e A compi l ed by J ames Kenny

HAMPSHIRE

EH no. Name

34155 Bowl barrow on chalton down, 350 m south-east of Manor Farm

hA547 Black Barn, warblington

32546 Ringwork and Bailey at Motleys copse

hA38 tourner Bury, hayling island, South hayling

32547 Motte castle at Motley’s copse

34156 three bowl barrows on chalton down, 860 m east of netherley Farm

hA98 warblington castle

hA124 the castle

WEST SUSSEX

EH no. Name

20010 Brooms Farm west dean

29290 woolavington down east lavington


456 chilgrove chapel



12854 Bevis’s thumb compton

29287 crown tegleaze east lavington

365 lamb lea east dean

20060 waltham down east dean



20092 waltham down upwaltham

31204 court hill

445 warren down west dean

20013 Grevitts copse compton

31208/2 upwaltham hill upwaltham

31208/1 upwaltham hill upwaltham

31206 heathbarn down west dean

29237 locksash Farm

24394 Goosehill camp/Bow hill west dean

20104 Selhurst park east dean

20103 upwaltham hill Slindon

415 Brickkiln Farm west dean

20102 upwaltham hill Slindon/upwaltham

31. Appendices◆

WEST SUSSEX

EH no. Name

29241 pitlands Farm

12851 oval barrow Stoughton down Stoughton

31205 eastdean park

12852 Stoughton down Stoughton

24393 Bow hill Stoughton


31203/1 St Roche’s hill

31202 the trundle hillfort

31203/2 St Roche’s hill


29236 Goodwood country park east dean

31201 St Roche’s hill



24389 Bow hill Funtington/Stoughton



20073 charlton down Singleton


20072 charlton down Singleton

20101 Asdean down Stoughton

24399 Kingley Vale Funtington

24388 Bow hill Funtington/Stoughton

42 Bexley Bushes lavant down

29283/02 halnaker hill



29295 long down eartham

31210/02 halnaker house

74 Goodwood park

79 Valdoe wood lavant

82 lavant lodge

78 ounces Barn Boxgrove

75 waterbeach hotel Goodwood park

77 Redvins copse Boxgrove

86 lye wood west Stoke Funtington

76 waterbeach hotel Goodwood park Boxgrove

81 pook lane lavant

80 lavant house

95 Raughmere copse lavant

83 tomlins copse lavant/Funtington

85 chapel lane Funtington

F i ShBou Rne ReSeAR ch And con SeRVAtion FRAM ewo RK 157

158 31 . Appendice S

WEST SUSSEX

EH no. Name

84 chapel lane Funtington

96 Summerdale chichester

93 densworth copse Funtington

26 Boxgrove priory

94 densworth copse Funtington

97 chichester Barracks

92 Broyle house lavant

91 Broyle house lavant

90 plain wood lavant

89 Brandy hole lane new Fishbourne

88 east Broyle copse new Fishbourne

360 Mouthey`s plantation Funtington

360 oakwood Funtington


31391 Ratham Mill

345 little cotfield plantation Funtington

345 little cotfield plantation

97 chichester Barracks

98 otter Memorial college chichester

101 chichester city walls


103 chichester castle

102 priory park chichester


WEST SUSSEX

EH no. Name

375 little london car park chichester

233 Fishbourne Roman site


24 chichester Market cross

12886 tote copse castle Aldingbourne


462 Amphitheatre chichester









199 cakeham Manor west wittering

219 Becket’s Barn pagham

12887 St wilfrid’s chapel Selsey

31213 Stoke down west Stoke house

31212 Stoke down Funtington

31210/01 halnaker house

32246/01 Stane Street Roman road


A p p e n d i x 2 : S t R u c t u R e p l A n A n d l o c A l p l A n

p o l i c i e S o n A R c h A e o l o G y c o M p i l e d B y J A M e S K e n n y

WEST SUSSEX STRUcTURE PlAN (NoT foRMAlly AdoPTEd) fEbRUARy 1998Archaeology

B7(a) development will not normally be permitted where it would be harmful to sites identified as being of known or potential archaeological importance. the planning Authorities will ensure that:-

(1) where nationally important archaeological sites or monuments, whether scheduled or not, or their settings, are affected by a proposed de-velopment, provision is made for their physical preservation. on other important archaeological sites there will be a preference for mitigation of adverse effects of development by securing the preservation of remains in situ;

(2) where necessary, appropriate and satisfac-tory provision is made by the developer for a site evaluation to define the character and significance of the archaeological or historic interest of a site before any planning applica-tion is determined; and

(3) where it is acknowledged, if necessary after evaluation, that a site is not of such importance that it merits complete or partial preservation, appropriate and satisfactory provision is made by the developer, prior to destruction or dam-age, for the excavation and recording of the remains, the preservation of any finds and the subsequent publication of the results.

(b) where possible, conflicts between the preservation of known archaeological sites and land uses will be resolved by management agreements.

(c) the planning Authorities will promote measures to ensure the conservation, manage-

31 . Appendice S 159

ment and interpretation of archaeological sites in urban and rural areas.

9.21Ancient monuments and sites of known or potential archaeological interest also require protection. Scheduled ancient monuments are legally protected and cannot be altered or destroyed without the consent of the depart-ment of national heritage, but unscheduled monuments and archaeological remains are also vulnerable and vigilance is needed. where development may affect a monument or site the full significance of which is uncertain, the developer will be expected to provide an evalu-ation by an archaeologist. if the development is permitted without preservation in situ, a full investigation, with proper recording and publication and preservation of any finds, will be required. More detailed guidance is given in the county council’s Archaeology Strategy for West Sussex (1995).

HAMPSHIRE coUNTy STRUcTURE PlANArchaeology

e14 where nationally important archaeologi-cal sites and monuments, whether scheduled or not, and their settings are affected by a proposed development, there will be a presumption in favour of their physical preser-vation in situ. the need for the preservation of unscheduled sites of more local importance will be considered on merit. where preservation is not possible then, before planning permission is granted, it should be demonstrated that ap-propriate arrangements have been made for a programme of excavation and recording prior to development taking place.

346. the value, variety and vulnerability of sites and monuments justify the preservation of those most important to the archaeology, history and character of hampshire.

347. Archaeological sites and monuments and their settings are a finite and non-renewable resource. care must be taken to ensure that they are not needlessly or thoughtlessly destroyed. Although at present a number of archaeological sites and monuments are protected by national legislation, the majority rely on the Structure plan, local plans and the development control

process for their continued protection and management as reflected in ppG16.

348. when considering proposals for develop-ment, the local planning authorities will ensure the availability of accurate information on the condition and significance of archaeological sites affected by development proposals. Such information is essential for the decision-making process on planning and land-use issues and for monitoring the effectiveness of the planning process in protecting archaeological sites.

349. the authorities will promote, where practicable, the appropriate management and enhancement of important archaeological sites and monuments and where resources permit, assist owners to maintain them in good condition and to adopt sympathetic land management regimes.

350. the management of the maritime archaeo-logical heritage, whether above or below the low water mark, is as important as the man-agement of land-based archaeological sites. consequently, within the area administered by the local planning authorities, it is a ma-terial consideration in the planning process. coastal planning authorities should ensure that provision is made by developers for the identification, recording and protection of archaeological sites and historic wrecks (espe-cially protected wrecks) in the inter-tidal zone and on the seabed along the hampshire coast-line, before any development commences.

e15 development which is likely to have an adverse impact on landscapes included in eng-lish heritage’s Register of parks and Gardens of Special historic interest and the county coun-cil’s Register of parks and Gardens will not be permitted unless the local planning authorities are satisfied that the need for the development outweighs that impact.

351. nationally english heritage already recognises two particular types of historic landscape: designed parks and gardens, and well-preserved battlefield sites. consequently, two Registers have been compiled: the first contain lists of historic parks and gardens


and the second, battlefields which, although not statutory, should be considered a mate-rial consideration when preparing local plans and in day-to-day development control. the county council also has a Register of parks and Gardens, many of which are not included in the english heritage list.

352. in addition to historic parks and gardens and battlefield sites, there is the wider historic landscape, the conservation of which is equally important and which deserves to be protected from development. local planning authorities should take account of these historic compo-nents of the landscape in their local plans and development control work.

HAvANT boRoUgH coUNcIl locAl PlAN

he11 preservation of Archaeological Sites And Monuments of national importancedevelopment that would adversely affect a Scheduled Ancient Monument or other nation-ally important archaeological features, or their settings, will not be permitted.

161. Archaeological remains are vulnerable to damage and destruction, those which are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeo-logical Areas Act 1979 are protected under the provisions of the policy and their locations are shown on the proposals Map. he12 preservation of Archaeological Sites And Monuments of local importancedevelopment that would adversely affect archaeological sites or features of local impor-tance or their settings, will not be permitted unless the need for the development outweighs the need to preserve the site or feature.

162. there are important sites which are not scheduled ancient monuments, such as the wadeway which connects langstone to hayling island and the Roman Villa at warb-lington. where development can be justified and damage to the archaeology can be avoided by modifications to the layout, preservation of the remains in situ, is preferred. the council will seek to ensure satisfactory preservation and protection and, where appropriate, the interpretation of the remains.

he13 Archaeological AssessmentsApplications for development which are likely to affect archaeological remains should be ac-companied by an assessment of their value, the impact of the proposals and the opportunities for conservation. Such an expert assessment will have to be prepared and approved by the council in advance of any formal determina-tion of the relevant planning application.

163. if there are indications that important archaeological remains exist, an archaeological field assessment should be carried out. this is necessary to define their type and extent and therefore provides information which is useful for identifying the potential for minimising or avoiding damage.

he14 Archaeological investigationswhere the preservation of archaeological re-mains is not possible or feasible development should not begin until an agreed programme of archaeological investigations and recording has been carried out to an acceptable professional standard and at the applicant's expense.

164. where the destruction of archaeological remains is justified, detailed information is required before the remains are lost. Although every effort should be taken to preserve features of archaeological interest it will not be practica-ble, necessary or desirable to retain all these in situ in development sites. thorough recording is therefore essential and this should be based on advice from professional archaeologists. developers are expected to take the initiative in obtaining this advice at an early stage once it is clear that preservation is not justified for archaeological reasons.

cHIcHESTER dISTRIcT locAl PlAN fIRST REvIEW, AdoPTEd APRIl 1999

Environmental strategyProtection of the Archaeological Heritage

chichester district has a rich and distinctive archaeological character with sites and features ranging from Fishbourne Roman palace to bowl barrows in the downland area. the system of dykes near chichester, and the sequence of remains in chichester city itself are of particu-lar significance to the archaeological record, whilst the palaeolithic deposits in a 500 m band


along the southern edge of the downs, where remains of ‘Boxgrove Man’ were found, are of international importance. Some of these are Scheduled Ancient Monuments which cannot be altered or destroyed without the consent of the Secretary of State for culture, Media and Sport, who is advised by english heritage. Gov-ernment advice in ppG16, ‘Archaeology and planning’, indicates that where monuments and their settings are of national importance, they should normally be preserved, whether scheduled or not. there are many sites and monuments within chichester district which, although not scheduled, are worthy of preser-vation. wherever possible chichester district council will seek to encourage awareness of the archaeological heritage and will promote investigation of the archaeological record. this may include joint action with organisations such as english heritage. the policies aim to protect the ancient mon-uments and features and sites of archaeological interest within the district wherever possible. where development is proposed that is likely to affect a known or suspected site of archaeo-logical interest developers will be expected to comply with a number of requirements set out in policy Be3. these include submitting an archaeological assessment and field evalu-ation with planning applications. the case for preservation must be assessed on the merits of the individual case. in cases where preserva-tion in situ would not be required, developers may be asked to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the town and country plan-ning Act 1990 before planning permission is given, so as to secure excavation, recording and publication of remains prior to develop-ment starting. where planning permission is given, conditions may be attached to the grant of permission to ensure that excavation and re-cording is carried out before development work starts, and to ensure that a ‘watching Brief’ is maintained while work progresses. Full details of the archaeological investigation and records of sites, prepared by qualified archaeologists, will need to be submitted to the district plan-ning Authority.

PolIcIES

Historic parks and gardensRe28 Any proposals which have a significant detrimental impact on the character or setting of an historic park or garden, as listed in the english heritage register of parks and gardens of special interest in england, will be refused.

ArchaeologyBe3 the destruction of or damage to scheduled ancient monuments and other features and sites of archaeological interest by development will be prevented wherever possible. there is a presumption in favour of the preservation in situ of important monuments. where proposed development is likely to affect a known or suspected site of archaeological interest, one or more of the following requirements will be imposed.

Archaeological assessment and field evaluation(i) Applicants will be required to include, as part of their research into the development potential of a site a desk-based archaeologi-cal assessment and where appropriate a field evaluation of the archaeological remains. A statement of the findings will be required to accompany the planning application.

Preservation in situ(ii) in order to secure the preservation in situ of important archaeological features and their settings, the district planning Authority may require developers to modify their proposals. in appropriate cases, the use of conditions or the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the town and country planning Act 1990 may be required to secure a modifica-tion. planning applications must indicate how preservation in situ will be secured.

Arrangements for excavations, recording and publication(iii) if the district planning Authority decides that the preservation in situ of archaeological remains is not justified and that development resulting in their destruction should proceed, it will satisfy itself before granting planning permission that the developer has made satis-factory provision for the excavation, recording and publication of the remains before develop-


ment commences. Such work will be carried out to a specification approved by the district planning Authority. in appropriate cases, an agreement under Section 106 of the town and country planning Act 1990 will be required to secure the investigation.

Conditions to secure excavation and recording(iv) where the district planning Authority has decided that preservation in situ is not justified, it may impose a condition prohibiting the carrying out of development until excavation and recording have been carried out in accord-ance with a written scheme of investigation submitted by the applicant and approved by the district planning Authority. Such schemes shall include proposals for the publication of any findings.

Watching brief(v) the developer will be required to give notice to the district planning Authority of an inten-tion to commence development and to satisfy the district planning Authority that adequate provision has been made for access and subse-quent observation and recording of any finds and other evidence which may be revealed during the development works. the developer will also be required to notify an archaeologist approved by or appointed by the district plan-ning Authority of any items unearthed during development which he knows or suspects to be of interest, and to allow adequate time for records to be made by the archaeologist.

Field monuments(vi) where development is likely to affect ad-versely the setting of a nationally important field monument whether scheduled or not, permission will be refused.

ARUN dISTRIcT coUNcIl ARcHAEology SUPPlEMENTARy PlANNINg gUIdANcE, SEPTEMbER 2003

1.1 this is one in a series of Supplementary planning Guidance notes (SpGs), prepared by the local planning Authority to provide ad-ditional advice regarding the planning issues concerning archaeology within the district. the SpG is non-statutory, but is a material consid-eration the council will take into account when considering an application.

1.2 this guidance should be read in conjunction with policy AReA16 Ancient Monuments and Sites of national Archaeological importance and policy AReA17 Sites of Archaeological interest of the Arun local plan 2003.

1.3 these policies should be read in conjunction with policy ch11 — Archaeology, of the deposit draft west Sussex Structure plan 2001–2016. the Structure plan is currently being reviewed, and adoption is expected in 2004.

ARchAeoloGicAl ReMAinS2.1 the archaeology of Arun is rich and diverse. the present landscape has been modified by mankind for over 10,000 years, shaping the environment in which we live and work today. Archaeological remains are a finite resource, often our only means of discovering how past communities lived, worked and honoured their dead.

2.2 there are many threats to archaeological remains in both town and countryside. Such remains are vulnerable to destruction from ur-ban and rural development, road and pipeline construction, mineral extraction, forestry and agriculture. their protection must be recon-ciled with the need for economic growth and development.

2.3 the level of information and accuracy of data varies between records, depending on the available sources. Some sites are known only from 19th century or earlier chance discoveries and their exact location may be vague. others are based on modern excavations or surveys which can produce much more detailed in-formation.

2.4 protection is provided through the plan-ning process. the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 protects Ar-chaeological sites of national importance i.e. Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) from damage and destruction. english heritage is currently undertaking a review of all SAMs under the Monument protection programme. national Guidance has also been issued in the form of planning policy Guidance note 16: Ar-chaeology and planning which is fundamental


in the consideration of archaeological issues in the planning process.

2.5 planning policy Guidance note 15: plan-ning and the historic environment, provides a full statement of Government policies for the identification and protection of historic buildings and the provision for carrying out recording in historic buildings, where proposals involve removal or refurbishment of elements of the buildings historic fabric. conserva-tion Areas and other elements of the historic environment are also referred to in this ppG. it explains the role of the planning system in their protection. it complements the guidance given in ppG16.

2.6 planning policy Guidance note 20: coastal planning, covers planning policy for the coastal areas of england and wales. it notes that deci-sions on development proposals below mean low water mark are generally outside the scope of the planning system, although they are subject to control by a number of agencies depending on the type of activity. ppG20 rec-ognises that the coastal zone has a rich heritage both above and below low water mark and refers to ppG16 and to ppG15. Any develop-ment on the coast, including coastal defence works, needs to take archaeological considera-tions into account, preferably with a view to enhancing the archaeological resource.

3. ARchAeoloGy And deVelopMent3.1 if you are planning a development, it pays to seek archaeological advice from the local planning Authority as early as possible before submitting a planning application. Archaeo-logical advice will be sought from west Sussex Archaeological Service through Arun district council as the local planning Authority.

3.2 An initial consultation of the west Sus-sex Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) will show whether there are any known, or likely, archaeological remains within or adjacent to a proposed development. however the SMR is not a definitive database.

3.3 on the basis of this preliminary ap-praisal, it may be necessary to commission

an archaeological field evaluation. Such a field evaluation normally requires physical intervention, i.e. trenching, to establish the archaeological implications of the proposals. the report on this work should include an assessment of the impact of the development upon any archaeological remains and meas-ures to mitigate such impact. planning policy Guidance note 16, explains that it is open for an applicant to commission a desk Based As-sessment (dBA). this involves a review of any historic mapping or documentary evidence for the site and a visual inspection to establish that the site detail is recorded. A dBA can of course form part of a broader environmental impact Assessment or application 'dossier' on a sufficiently large scheme as could the results of field evaluation.

3.4 the first priority is the preservation of significant archaeological remains in situ. to achieve this, the archaeological impact of the development should be minimised by, for example, sympathetic foundation design or amendments to the layout. if this is not fea-sible, then detailed excavation, recording and publication is the second best option.

3.5 Archaeological implications will be a ma-terial consideration for the local planning Authority when making a planning decision. if further archaeological recording is neces-sary this can be secured, either by the use of planning conditions, or by a legal agreement under section 106 of the town and country planning Act 1990.

4. ARchAeoloGy in pRActice4.1 Archaeological work undertaken before determination of an application consists of a desk Based Assessment, a Field evaluation and a look at the SMR to check for the presence or absence of sites. these are explained below:

desk Based Assessment: a detailed appraisal of available information about a site before a plan-ning application is submitted or approved.

Field evaluation: a survey or trial excavation designed to assess the nature of archaeological remains within a proposed development area


before a planning application is submitted or approved. techniques may include fieldwalk-ing, geophysical survey and trial trenching.

4.2 Archaeological work undertaken after an application has been determined can be col-lectively called 'archaeological recording'. this can take a variety of forms:

evaluation and recording: a controlled pro-gramme of field work to provide a lasting record of archaeological evidence unavoidably destroyed by development.

watching Brief: the recording of archaeological evidence coming to light during the course of development.

4.3 it is national and local practice that the costs of archaeological work made necessary by development should be borne by the developer, or an agreement made between the landowner, developer and west Sussex county council as to who will pay for the cost of archaeological work.

5. SiteS And MonuMentS RecoRd5.1 the west Sussex Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) held by wScc is a database of all known archaeological sites and historic landscapes in the county. it includes sites dating from prehistory through to the post-medieval period.

5.2 it contains information on buried sites, revealed through excavation and survey or through aerial photography. it also contains records of earthworks, and other standing structures, as well as historic parks and gardens, and stray finds.

5.3 details such as the type of site, its date, location, description and sources are held on a computerised database and all sites are marked on a Geographic information System (GiS) and large-scale ordnance Survey maps. Additional information may include reports on surveys or excavations, correspondence, plans, published and unpublished material and photographs (including aerial photographs).

5.4 the level of information and accuracy varies between records, depending on the available sources. Some sites are known only from 19th century or earlier chance discoveries and their exact location may be vague. others are based on modern excavations or surveys which can produce much more detailed information.

5.5 the SMR is subject to continual change. it should not therefore be considered as being a definitive record. information on new sites and finds and additional details about existing sites are provided by professional archaeologists, museums, local researchers. the SMR needs to be continually updated in the light of new discoveries made in the course of archaeological investigations undertaken as a requirement of development or as a result of academic research and fieldwork.

5.6 the archaeological significance of a site can therefore be enhanced as new informa-tion leads to its re-interpretation. in addition, the SMR is reviewed in line with national data standards and developments in new technol-ogy, such as the use of Geographic information Systems.

5.7 west Sussex county council has confirmed that there are no nationally important remains in Arun district that are not scheduled. A table of the Scheduled Ancient Monuments located within the Arun district are listed in Appendix 1. however, a review, of nationally important archaeological remains, the Monument protec-tion programme, which is being undertaken by english heritage, may revise the list of Scheduled Ancient Monuments in the future. the information in this document is correct at the time of printing.

e oRGAniSAtion oF ARchAeoloGy in weSt SuSSex6.1 english heritage has advocated that the developer should make provision for recording archaeological remains on the ‘polluter pays’ principle since the 1980s.

6.2 Archaeological fieldwork required as a consequence of development proposals is undertaken by professional archaeological


contractors. developers can invite competitive tenders from such archaeological contractors based on written specification supplied by or validated by the west Sussex Archaeological Service on behalf of Arun district council. Archaeology officers in local government who advise on the implications of development pro-posals and monitor standards of fieldwork are known as archaeological ‘curators’ in contrast to the archaeological ‘contractors’ undertaking the work in the field.'

6.3 ‘written schemes of investigation’ are prepared on behalf of Arun district council, to provide the guidelines for different ar-chaeological contractors to offer a price for the work sought. these can be produced by the archaeological contractors themselves, based on a set of instructions and standard clauses supplied by the 'curator' and validated before

commencement of fieldwork. the west Sussex Archaeological team can also produce these.

6.4 in west Sussex, specialist archaeological advice is provided from within wScc envi-ronment Group who advises on all aspects of the built and natural environment. they also offer advice and liaise with a variety of special interest groups, museums, national agencies and statutory undertakers on the implications of all development proposals.

6.5 in addition, to the county council’s own archaeological services, other agencies include:

english heritageSussex Archaeological SocietySussex industrial Archaeology Societylocal Societies


A p p e n d i x 3 : S o i l S i n t h e F R c F S t u d y A R e A

Code Soil Series Description

22 unripened gley soils

Formed under saltmarsh vegetation in marine alluvium. occurs in estuaries & creeks. Salt-marshes lie above the reach of daily tides but are covered by periodic spring tides. Most extensive soils are saline raw gley soils with permanently wet, soft, unripened mineral horizons of varied texture & often a distinct humose & peaty topsoil. Marshes in langstone & chichester harbours are being eroded and are considered to be relic features.

342a upton 1 extremely calcareous loamy grey rendzinas mostly restricted to steeper slopes where cultivation and subsequent erosion have removed much of the original topsoil. Greyish brown, moderately stony silty clay loam. well drained, excess winter rain readily absorbed. Mostly on steep slopes primarily suited to permanent grassland.

343h Andover 1 Found on undulating chalkland. Variable flinty & chalky silty brown rendzinas over chalk. dark brown slightly stony silty clay loam, calcareous. well drained, winter rain readily absorbed with little run off. easy to work, dries rapidly in spring, can be cultivated in all seasons & well suited to minimum cultivation techniques.

343i Andover 2 Found on gentle chalkland slopes, formed in thin silty drifts over chalk. Some variation in depth, shallow, calcareous, Andover soils are brown rendzinas, well drained with moderate water retention, easy to work but flintiness can make cultivation difficult.

361 Sandwich deep calcareous & non-calcareous sandy soils on sand dunes, marine shingle & related beach deposits.

511f coombe 1 developed in flinty chalky drift in broad valley floors & on lower dipslope of chalk downs. Variation relates to thickness of drift overlying chalk, often deep in valley bottoms but shallow to chalk on valley sides. Fine, silty, dark brown slightly stony clay loam, calcareous earth in which subsoil merges into thick flinty chalky drift. well drained, surplus winter rainfall passes through easily, easy to work. woodland and old grassland.

571l charity 1 occurs on deep flinty non-calcareous silty drift which mostly overlies the chalk on its gently sloping lower dipslopes. deep, brown, flinty fine silty typical argillic brown earths at foot of South downs in w. Sussex. naturally well drained & easy to work but because of silty texture and weak soil structure prone to compaction. caps & subsoil pans can cause winter waterlog-ging, especially on level or gently sloping ground.

571z hamble 2 deep, stoneless silty soils developed on low lying land over thick, mainly Aeolian silty drift, overlying river terrace or raised beach sands & gravels. have calcareous subsoils. Most extensive on the broad plain around chichester. permeable & well drained, readily absorb winter rain. easily cultivated. Valuable land suitable for arable & horticulture.

581d carstens Brown, slightly stony fine silty clay loam over clayey typical palaeoargillic brown earths, exten-sive in S england where chalk is covered by Aeolian silty drift over clay with Flints & plateau drift. deep and freely drained, usually with reddish clayey well-structured subsoils which allow for good vertical drainage so is well suited to cultivation, rarely waterlogged.


Code Soil Series Description

711g wickham 3 Most extensive where thin drift covers tertiary clays & loams. typical stagnogley soils, devel-oped in fine loamy or fine silty drift over clay. in Se occurs widely on Bracklesham Beds & to lesser extent on Reading Beds. Most have slowly permeable clayey subsoils and can become waterlogged in winter.

711h wickham 4 Gently undulating land where underlying tertiary clay is thinly covered by loamy drift. con-sists of seasonally waterlogged soils with a slowly permeable subsurface horizon. dominant soils are typical stagnogleys, fine loamy or fine silty over clay, with grey & ochreous mottles throughout. Most soils in the association are waterlogged for long periods when undrained. the slowly permeable clayey subsoils & moisture retentive surface horizons lead to poor water infiltration & rapid run off. Because land is wet & heavy woods are common, some very old, dating back to prehistoric times. Most are mixed deciduous.

812a Frome Soils in chalky & gravelly alluvium beside streams draining the chalk & adjacent tertiary formations. thickness varies but in most valleys fine-textured deposits rest on flint and/or chalk gravel. calcareous marl & peat bands occur locally. calcareous alluvial gley soils, grey mottled, stoneless, silty clay loam with calcareous flint and/or chalk gravel at relatively shallow depth. Affected by high ground water and most soils show evidence of prolonged waterlogging. For-merly much used as water meadows.

814b new church 1 clayey & silty coarse loamy soils, forming complex pattern in marine alluvium in recently silted estuaries, main soils are slightly calcareous over coarse or silty coarse loam: dark greyish brown slightly mottled, stoneless, silty clay. Marshland, most of land is below or only slightly above level of high tide. without adequate drainage will be waterlogged for long periods in winter. in w. Sussex clayey & silty soils occur in complex pattern showing little relation to landform.

841e park Gate deep stoneless silty typical argillic gleys. Affected by seasonally high ground water & have grey & ochreous mottled subsoil. Soils develop in Aeolian silty drift, mainly over fluvial & marine gravels. occur on flat & gently sloping low-lying land in w. Sussex. Moderately permeable but affected by high winter water-table and can be seasonally waterlogged. easy to work with ap-propriate drainage.

Ref.: Jarvis et al. 1984.

◆

f i shbourne research and conservation framework 169

32. Notes

incorporatesthemiddle&Latebronzeageperiods.3 theeditorisgratefultoalistairmatson,avolunteerof

thesussexarchaeologicalsociety,forproducingthesetables.

4 theeditorisgratefultomarkGardinerforthissuggestion.

1 thenearestframeworkstonotegeographicallyarethatcompletedforsurreyin2006(bird2006),andtheforthcomingoneforthesoutheastregion.

2 traditionallyinbritaindividedintotheearlybronzeage2200–1500bc,middlebronzeage1500–1000bcandLatebronzeage1000–700bc.thetermLaterbronzeage

33. Acknowledgements◆

S t e e r i n g g r o u p

John Manley, Ceo, Sussex Archaeological Society DaviD RuDkin, Director, Fishbourne roman palace, Sussex Archaeological Society luke BaRBeR, research officer, Sussex Archaeological Society RoB SyMMonS, Curator, Sussex Archaeological Society JaMeS kenny, Archaeology officer, Chichester District CouncilDaviD BiRD, former County Archaeologist, Surrey County CouncilDaviD RuDling, Lecturer in Archaeology, university of SussexnaoMi SykeS, Lecturer in Archaeology, university of nottinghamBaRRy Cunliffe, professor of european Archaeology, university of oxfordgoRDon hayDen, student, Southampton universityJane TiMBy, freelance finds specialistanTony king, professor of Archaeology, university of Winchestergeoff Dannell, freelance finds specialistkay haRTley, freelance finds specialistMalColM lyne, freelance finds specialistPeTe WilSon, Head of research policy (roman Archaeology), english HeritageWenDy MuRiel, graduate, Sussex university

C o n t r i b u t o r S

MaTTheW PoPe, freelance archaeologistChRiS BuTleR, freelance archaeologistPeTeR DReWeTT, professor of Archaeology, university of SussexDaviD Dunkin, freelance archaeologistDaviD yaTeS, Lecturer in Archaeology, university of readingJohn Manley, David rudkin, James Kenny, Luke barber – see aboveMaRk gaRDineR, Lecturer in Archaeology, Queen’s university, belfastBill WaDSWoRTh, freelance environmental specialist

the editor would like to thank all members of the Steering group for giving their time so generously to this project. He would also like to thank all contributors for providing copy in such a timely fashion. Luke barber played an important role in liaising with all the contributors. institutional plaudits for support and funding are owed to english Heritage, Chichester District Council and the Sussex Archaeological Society. pete Wilson from english Heritage provided much guidance and help. in particular the editor would like to thank his two research volunteers — Wendy Muriel for producing the distribution maps and Alistair Matson for the references in Section 30 and selecting and locating most of the other illustrations.

F i SH bourne re SeArCH AnD Con ServAtion FrAM eWor K 171

34. General index; Site index; List of acronyms used in the FRCF

◆

f i shbourne research and conservation framework 173

G e n e r a L i n d e X

Note:apagereferenceinitalicsindicatesanillustration.

AaaisseeareasofarchaeologicalimportanceaggregatesLevysustainabilityfund(aLsf),18,19,22,73ahobseeancienthumanoccupationofbritainprojectaimsandobjectives,3–5aLsfseeaggregatesLevysustainabilityfundancienthumanoccupationofbritainproject(ahob),17anglo-saxonperiod,5environmentalassessment,121gapanalysis,101–6keyresearchprojects,106,145periodsummary,57–61sitedistributions,58,102,103unpublishedexcavations,103–4,113aonbsseeareasofoutstandingnaturalbeautyarchaeologicallysensitiveareas(asas),133archaeologysoutheast,23areasofarchaeologicalimportance(aais),133areasofoutstandingnaturalbeauty(aonbs),133–4see alsochichesterharbour,chichesterharbouraonb;easthampshireaonb;sussexdownsaonbarundistrictcouncil,archaeologysupplementary

PlanningGuidance,132,162–5asasseearchaeologicallysensitiveareas

Bbarrowsneolithic,31,32,32bronzeage,35,36–7,37,39,40boxgroveProject,18,22see alsovaldoeassessmentsurveybronzeage,5environmentalassessment,120gapanalysis,83–6keyresearchprojects,86,144periodsummary,35–40sitedistributions,36,84,85burialsandcemeteriesironage,45romanperiod,52,93,98anglo-saxonperiod,57,58,60–61medievalperiod,65

Cc14dating,neolithic,79castles,medievalperiod,63,64

causewayedenclosures,neolithic,31–2see alsosite indexundertrundle,thecdasseechichesteranddistrictarchaeologysocietychcseechichesterharbourconservancychichesterintensiveurbansurvey,5,111,112see alsosite indexchichestercitywallsconservationmanagementPlan,140chichesteranddistrictarchaeologysociety(cdas),140,142chichesterdistrictcouncil,13,90,111,138,142chichesterdistrictLocalPlan,11,132,160–62smr,7,133chichesterandfishbourneurbanarchaeologydatabase,138chichesterharbourchichesterharbouraonb,132,133archaeologicalresearchframework,79,139–40managementPlan,11,133moLassurvey(2004),5,139–40diatomresearch,128inter-tidalsurveyprojects,75,77,83,144,147see alsosite indexchichesterharbourconservancy(chc),5,11,13,139–40,142churches,61,64–5,67,102coastalcorridormappingproject,18,19coastlineseeriversandcoastlineconservationcurrentarchaeologicalconservationstrategies,131–4ongoingarchaeologicalresearchandconservationprojects,139–42potentialimminentchangesinculturalresourceconservation,137–8problemswithcurrentconservationofarchaeologicalresource,135–6consultations,13countrysideagency,137

Ddepartmentforculture,mediaandsport,138departmentofnationalheritage,141diatomresearch,127–9down,alec,5,44,51,93,98

Eeasthampshireaonb,132,133,140see alsosouthdownsJointcommitteeedwardJamesfoundation,141eiasseeenvironmentalimpactassessmentsenglishheritage,9,13,22,47,71,90,138researchframeworks,9,139see alsoaggregatesLevysustainabilityfund;scheduledancientmonumentsenvironmentagency,142

174 inde Xes

environmentalassessment,117–23environmentalgapanalysis,125–30environmentalimpactassessments(eias),134environmentalstewardshipscheme,136,138europeanunion(eu),90eusseeextensiveurbansurveyexcavationarchives,potentialforfurtherworkmesolithic,75neolithic,80anglo-saxonperiod,102–4medievalperiod,68,107,110extensiveurbansurvey(eus)project,111,138

FfishbourneromanPalacerepresentedonsteeringGroup,13asresearchfacility,99–100see alsosite indexflintmines,neolithic,31,32

Ggapanalysis,71–112environmental,125–30Geographicalinformationsystems(Gis),125,133,138,142geology,18,18,19,19,23,48,95geologicalsurveyoffishbourneenvirons,71–2andsitedistributionsPalaeolithic,72mesolithic,77neolithic,81bronzeage,85ironage,89romanperiod,95anglo-saxonperiod,103medievalperiod,109GisseeGeographicalinformationsystems

Hhabitatanalysis,129–30hampshirecountycouncil,141,142smr,7,133structurePlan,132,159–60hampshireandwighttrustformaritimearchaeology,141,142havantboroughcouncil,LocalPlan,132,160heritageLotteryfund,5,90heritageProtectionreview,138hillforts,ironage,41,42–3see alsosite indexundertrundle,the

Iinstituteofarchaeology(London),141intensiveurbansurvey(ius)project,5,111,112,138ironage,5environmentalassessment,120–21gapanalysis,87–91ironage–romantransition,9–10keyresearchprojects,91,144

periodsummary,41–5researchpriorities,9–10,41sitedistributions,42,88,89unpublishedexcavations,87–8,113iusseeintensiveurbansurvey

Kkeyresearchprojects,143–7Palaeolithic,73,144mesolithic,76,143,144neolithic,81,144bronzeage,86,144ironage,91,144romanperiod,99,145anglo-saxonperiod,106,145medievalperiod,112,145

LLampeter,universityof,18LangstoneharbourProject,141–2LdfsseeLocaldevelopmentframeworks(Ldfs)Lidar(Lightdetectionandranging),86Localdevelopmentframeworks(Ldfs),137

Mmaritimearchaeologytrust,141medievalperiod,5environmentalassessment,121gapanalysis,107–112keyresearchprojects,112,145periodsummary,63–8sitedistributions,64mesolithic,5environmentalassessment,118–19,123gapanalysis,75–8keyresearchprojects,76,144periodsummary,25–9sitedistributions,29,76,77unpublishedexcavations,113methodologicalstatement,7mills,67minsters,60–61,102moLasseemuseumofLondonarchaeologyservicemonasteriesandmonasticsites,60,61,64–5museumofLondonarchaeologyservice(moLas),5,139

Nnationaliceagenetwork(nian),18nationalParkseesouthdownsnationalParknaturalengland,137,138naturalhistorymuseum,17neolithic,5environmentalassessment,119–20,123gapanalysis,79–82keyresearchprojects,81,144periodsummary,31–4sitedistributions,34,80,81

inde Xes 175

nianseenationaliceagenetworknottingham,universityof,13,89–90,98

Ooxford,universityof,13oxfordarchaeology,23

PPalaeolithic,5environmentalassessment,118,123gapanalysis,71–3keyresearchprojects,73,144periodsummary,17–23sitedistributions,21,72pits,neolithic,32–3,79planningpolicy,131–3,135PlanningPolicyGuidancenote16(PPG16),131–2,133,135policyalignments,9–12pollenanalysis,129Portsmouth,universityof,141–2PortsmouthharbourProject,141–2PPG16seePlanningPolicyGuidancenote16

Rraisedbeaches,20,23,48,72raisedbeachmappingProject,18slindon/Goodwood-slindonraisedbeach,19,20,21,117reading,universityof,13researchagenda,9researchstrategy,9resourceassessment,9Rhythms of the Tideproject,5riversandcoastline,17coastalchange,121–3sea-levelchange,117,126,136andsitedistributionsmesolithic,76neolithic,80bronzeage,84ironage,88romanperiod,94anglo-saxonperiod,102medievalperiod,108romanperiod,5environmentalassessment,120–21gapanalysis,93–100ironage–romantransition,9–10keyresearchprojects,99,145periodsummary,47–55researchpriorities,9–11,47sitedistributions,48,94,95unpublishedexcavations,93,113royalsocietyfortheProtectionofbirds,142

Sscheduledancientmonuments,131,132,157–8problems,135–6sea-levelchange,117,126,136sitesandmonumentsrecords(smrs),7,125,132–3soilsinfrcfstudyarea,20,166–7solentthamesregion,researchframework,139southdownsJointcommittee,133southdownsmanagementPlanconsultationdraft,134,140southdownsnationalPark,137South-East Regional Plan 2006–08(englishheritage),47south-eastregionalresearchframework,11,139southampton,universityof,18,106southamptoncitycouncil,142southernarchaeology,5,49,98southernriversProject,22steeringGroup,13,171studyarea,3–5,4soils,20,166–7studyperiod,5surreycountycouncil,13sussex,universityof,13sussexarchaeologicalsociety,9,13,90,98,112sussexdownsaonb,132,133,137,140see alsosouthdownsJointcommittee

Ttogidubnus,4–5,49,96,98

UuniversitycollegeLondon(ucL),18,22see alsoboxgroveProjectunpublishedexcavations,113mesolithic,113ironage,87–8,113romanperiod,93,113anglo-saxonperiod,103–4,113urbanarchaeologydatabase,138

Vvaldoeassessmentsurvey,18,22,73villas,roman,53–5,101,104

Wwessexarchaeology,5,141westdeanarchaeologicalProject,141westdeancollege,141westsussexcountycouncil,13,22–3,138,142An Archaeological Strategy for West Sussex(1995),11archaeologicallysensitiveareas,133smr,7,133structurePlan,132,158–9winchester,universityof,13woodland,59,86,117–20,121,123,130

176 inde Xes

s i t e i n d e X

Note:apagereferenceinitalicsindicatesanillustration.

Aaldingbourne,20,58,60–61,64,66aldingbournerife,38,83appledown,58bronzeage,39anglo-saxoncemetery,58,59,59,60,98,101,103,104ashling,west,36,39,39,86

Bbatsford,67battenhanger,48,53,93,101,140,141,146beddingham,57beptondown,67bersted,north,36,42,48bronzeage,37,38,40ironage,4,44,121romanperiod,53,54,93,113bersted,south,58,60,66–7oldshripneyLane,60bevis’sthumb,32,32,34,79bignor,68,83bilsham,38birdham,40bishopstone,60,120–21boarhunt,61bognorregis,33,38see alsobersted,north;bersted,southbosham,58,64mesolithicandbronzeage,knappfarm,26–7,40romanperiod,53,98anglo-saxonandmedievalperiods,60,64,66,67boshamstream,39botolphs,57,101,103bowhill,36,54,86barrows,36–7,38,39,40devil’sJumps,36–7,37,39flintmines,32boxgrove,21,58,64boxgrovePriory,13,60,64,64,111ouncesbarn,4,44,48,53,54Palaeolithicsite,17,18,20,21,22,22,71boxgroveProjectseegeneral indexbrackleshambay,36,38bremererife,127broadbridgefarm,48,55,98bullockdown,120buryhill,119

Ccarne’sseat,44chalkpitLane,Lavant,33,40,43,87,113chalton,36,58,64bronzeage,37anglo-saxonperiod,58,101,102–3,104–5,106,145,147churchdown,58,59,103,105,106,113,145,147

manorfarm,59,103–4,105,113,145,147medievalperiod,67,109chichester,4,48,64,142by periodneolithic,33bronzeage,38ironage,42,44,45,51,88–9,147romanperiod,4,48,51–2,93,96,97,98,113,147amphitheatre,52,131citywalls,52,98,131,136port,98potterykilns,49,52stPancrascemetery,52,93,146togidubnusinscription,49anglo-saxonperiod,59,60,104,113potteryandkilns,58,60,103,106medievalperiod,63,68,110,111,112,145,146burialsandcemeteries,64,65castle,64ecclesiasticalsitesandbuildings,64,65,66potteryandkilns,66,68,110,112,145,146by site/buildingblackfriarscemetery,65broyle,59cathedral,64,65,66chapelstreet,44,51,68,93citywalls,52,98,131,136,140Graylingwell,33,38LittleLondoncarpark,131marketcross,110,141stJames’shospitalcemetery,64,65stPancrascemetery,52,93,146shippamssite,44,52,68,98,112swanfielddrive,68towerstreet,52see alsogeneral indexchichesterchannel(fishbournechannel),5,51,97,128chichesterdykes(chichesterentrenchments),4,44–5,87,88,89,131,136atouncesbarn,44,53chichesterharbourmesolithic,27–8ironageandromanperiod,120,122–3see alsogeneral indexchidham,33,42,42,43,48,55,120chilgrovechilgrove1romanvilla,29,48,54,76,101chilgrove2romanvilla,48,54,101chilgrovevalley,anglo-saxonperiod,58,59,101,102,103,104–5,106,145,147chithurst,61churchdownseechalton,anglo-saxonperiodcopperasPointseedellQuaycopsefarmseeoving;shiptonGreencourthill,29,31,32,34,76

Ddean,east,38dean,west,64,67,141dellQuay,27,98,111copperasPoint,romantilery,48,55,98dengebottom,44

inde Xes 177

donnington,64,67,142drayton,38,40,108duncton,65durforddurfordabbey,64durleighmarshfarm,68

Eearnleymanor,64,66eartham,amey’searthamPit,21,71,117easebourne,60–61easebournePriory,64oldbuddington,67eastdeanseedean,easteastmardenseemarden,eastelsted,67emsvalley,83

Ffishbourne,20,21,67a27eastof,26,49,113fishbournechannelseechichesterchannelfishbournecreek,39fishbourneromanPalace,4,48,141by periodmesolithic,26,26ironage,4,9,88,97,147romanperiod,4,9,49–51,50,51,97–8,147excavations,3,5,49,131asscheduledancientmonument,131,136,136flansham,38funtington,39

GGoodwood,36,37,39,43see alsocarne’sseatGoosehillcamp,42–3,42Graffham,28,68Graylingwellseechichester,by site/building

Hhalnakerhill,31,32,34,58,60,102hangleton,67hartingbeacon,60,102,142havant,60,111,138havantthicket,59oakParkschoolsite,67haylingisland,29,36,42,64,76,78bronzeage,38ironagesalterns,42,43temple,4,45,49,88,96,97,113,146romanperiod,temple,4,48,52–3,93,97,99,113,146anglo-saxonperiod,templesite,58,103,105,113,145,147see alsotournerburyhillfortheyshott,66,68

highdown,101,103highleigh,67hookdyke,142hunston,142

Iidsworth,64,67iping,61,118

Kkingleyvale,36,39,86kingsley,83knappfarmseebosham

LLambsdownhill,64,67Langstone,140Langstoneharbour,27,75,77,98,141–2Lavant,21,42Palaeolithic,20manorfarm,21,22neolithic,Lavantdownflintmines,32bronzeage,38,39romanperiod,Lavantcaves,72anglo-saxonperiod,60see alsochalkpitLaneLavantvalleyPalaeolithic,Lavantvalleymappingproject,23bronzeage,38,83romanperiod,48Lodsbridge,64Lodsworth,68Longdown,32Lordington,67

Mmarden,east,42,43see alsoappledownmarden,north,32,37,58,60,79marden,up,48,64,67marden,west,48see alsonoredown;watergatehangerromanvillamerston,64,67michelmersh,58,103middleton,122midhurst,64,65minsted,28mixen/mixonreef/hole,23,38,72mundham,61,64,67

Nnoredown,32,34northberstedseebersted,northnorthmardenseemarden,northnortonspinney,29,76nutbournecreek,29,76

178 inde Xes

Oouncesbarnseeboxgroveoving,20,21,38,40copsefarm,4,32,42,44oxendown,86

PPagham,60,64becket’sbarn,59,106churchyard,40,59,106Paghamharbour,122–3,128ironageandromanperiod,120,122anglo-saxonperiod,101,103,105,106,145,146medievalperiod,111PaghamLagoon,29,76Peartreeknap,20,21Portchester,manorandcastle,103,111Portfield,20

Rracton,64,67ractonParkfarm,39rathammill,131redlandsfarm,64,66rowlandscastle,48,64,64romanpotteryindustry,48,53,55,98,99ryebankrife,83

Sselham,64selhurstPark,42,44,142selsey,21,36,58,64,122–3,122by periodPalaeolithic,20bronzeage,37,38,39,40ironage,42,43–4,121romanperiod,48,121anglo-saxonperiod,58,59,60,64,103,106medievalperiod,64by sitechichesterroad,40GolfLinksLane,39medmerryfarm,58,59,103,106Pontins’broadreedsholidaycamp,39westbeach,40shiptonGreen,copsefarm,64,67shulbredePriory,64sidlesham,64see alsohighleighsingleton,58,102,105,130,143,145,147anglo-saxonminster,61,102,105slindon,18,19,20,21,72,73raisedbeachseegeneral indexunderraisedbeachessouthberstedseebersted,southstanestreet,98stanstedforest,59stoke,west,23,32see alsotrumleycopse

stokeclump,37,43stokedown,38storrington,83stoughton,32,37,58,61

Ttangmere,61thorneyisland,42,43,61thornham,48,55tournerburyhillfort,42,42,43,131treyford,65,67trumleycopse,38,39trundle,the,34,36,42,58neolithic,31–2,31,79,82,119bronzeage,39ironage,42,43,82,87anglo-saxonperiod,60,102

Uupmardenseemarden,up

VvaldoeQuarry,18,22,73

Wwadeway,the,140wakefordscopse,29,76walderton,33warblington,64,67watergatehangerromanvilla,54,93,101westashlingseeashling,westwestcopse,58,60westdeanseedean,westwestheath,28,67,118westmardensee marden,westweststokeseestoke,westwestwitteringseewittering,westwestergate,communitycollege,38,40westhampnett,36,38,42claypitLane,40oldPlacefarm,44westhampnettbypass,29,34,58,76,117mesolithic,26–7,113neolithic,32–3bronzeage,37,39,40ironage,4,43,45,45,49,90romanperiod,52,98anglo-saxonperiod,57,60,98westwardhouse,93,146wittering,west,58,61,64woolbeding,61,67

YYapton,38

inde Xes 179

L i s t o f a c r o n Y m s u s e d i n t h e f r c f

aai areasofarchaeologicalimportanceahob ancienthumanoriginsofbritainProjectaLsf aggregatesLevysustainabilityfundaonb areaofoutstandingnaturalbeautyasa archaeologicallysensitiveareasbGs britishGeologicalsurveybP beforePresentcdas chichesteranddistrictarchaeologysocietychc chichesterharbourconservancydba deskbasedassessmentdPd developmentPlandocumentseba earlybronzeageeia earlyironageesri environmentalsystemsresearchinstituteinc.eus extensiveurbansurveyfeP farmenvironmentPlanfrcf fishbourneresearchand conservationframeworkGis Geographicalinformationsystemher historicenvironmentrecordhLs higherLevelstewardshipius intensiveurbansurveyLba LatebronzeageLdf LocaldevelopmentframeworksLia LateironageLidar Lightdetectionandrangingmba middlebronzeagemia middleironagemis marineisotopestagesmoLas museumofLondonarchaeologyservicenian nationaliceagenetworknsri nationalsoilresourcesinstitute, cranfielduniversityPPG PlanningPolicyGuidancerss regionalspatialstrategiessam scheduledancientmonumentsmr sitesandmonumentsrecordsPG supplementaryPlanningGuidancenotesucL universitycollege,Londonunesco unitednationseconomicsocialand culturalorganisationwsro westsussexrecordoffice

Documents

FISHBOURNE RESEARCH AND CONSERVATION … · Plain, southern England, UK, Quaternary Science Reviews 16, 1227–52. Bates, M. R., Gibbard, P. L., ... Prehistoric Settlements. Stroud: