Discussion
Phase 1 Natural deposits
In Trench 1 the natural deposits (108 and 109) are interpreted as alluvial deposits. In Trench 2 o undisturbed alluvial deposits were identified. This is probably the result of truncation. The natural here (207) probably represented partially decayed Mercian Mudstone.
The only feature in this phase is the linear one identified in Trench 2 (208). This is interpreted as an east to west aligned ditch and probably represents a property or field boundary. Its date remains uncertain. The three sherds of pottery recovered were of a Roman date and with the presence of other Roman finds in the vicinity such a date would seem probable. However, the environmental remains recovered question this dating since they are suggestive of a medieval date. In either case its presence is of considerable interest. If Roman it confirms the presence of Roman occupation in the area. If it is medieval its position and alignment are also of interest since it lies over 2.00m to the south of the existing churchyard boundary and thus must represent an earlier property alignment and division.
The presence of Roman pottery in this feature, whether in context or not, and the presence of clearly residual Roman pottery in other contexts (105 and 200) is also of interest since they support the argument for Roman settlement in the vicinity. No form sherds (substantial or distinctive sherds of pottery which enable closer identification and dating than the fabric) were present, however, and the assemblage cannot be closely dated although one fabric known to be of 2nd century date or later was present (HWCC Pottery Fabric Series, fabric 22).
The layer identified in this phase (204) had been heavily truncated by post-medieval activity and overlay the Phase 2 feature of uncertain date. Since so little of it survived interpretation is difficult. It may, however, represent a ground surface or ploughsoil. The presence of medieval pottery in an area of known medieval occupation is not surprising. Amongst the residual pottery of this date was a hard fired, buff ware jug dating from the 14th-15th century (Fig 6).
In Trench 1 (Fig 4) all deposits above natural were post-medieval in date. These comprised three layers of similar material (105, 106 and 107) and all contained brick fragments. They probably represent material of largely natural origin dumped in the area of the churchyard to raise its level. The purpose of this is uncertain. The uppermost of these (105) was cut by two features of indeterminate function (111 and 113). These features, and the layer they cut, were sealed by a spread of gravel, probably representing a surface, perhaps a path through the graveyard. This was sealed by the topsoil of the modern graveyard. Finds from these deposits were largely residual pottery (three Roman and one medieval). No post-medieval pottery was recovered but this is to be expected in an area which does not contain domestic occupation of this date.
In Trench 2 (Fig 5) layer 205 may represent a ground surface. This was cut by two features. The first (202) is interpreted as a posthole. This is approximately on the line of the pre-First World War western boundary of the churchyard and probably represents a fencepost or gatepost of that boundary. The second (203), would have been beyond that boundary, and, since it contains a varied assemblage of finds of differing dates, probably represents a shallow pit with a dump of mixed rubbish in it. These two were sealed by a series of mixed layers over 1.00m in depth (200). A varied assemblage of finds was recovered. These layers differed in soil content but clearly represent a series of dumped layers. The finds indicated mixed origins with pottery and part of a paraffin lamp in one layer suggesting dumping of domestic rubbish, human bone in another material from in the graveyard, and clay rich deposits suggesting redeposition of natural. These dumps were clearly intended to level up the ground over the slope in the graveyard caused by its western extension.
The presence of disarticulated human bone in five contexts (100, 104, 105, 200 and 201) is not surprising in a graveyard, however the absence of articulated burials is somewhat odd. This cannot be explained, though it may be coincidental and merely result from the location of the trenches.
[ Previous Page ] [ Contents ] [ Next Page ]
[ Home Page ]