Two Saxo-Norman pits in Lewes, East Sussex

SAXO-NORMAN PITS AT ST.SWITHUNS TERRACE, LEWES.

Lisa Jayne Fisher, BA MA

Archaeology Services Lewes

2 St.Johns Close

Mill Lane

South Chailey

Lewes

East Sussex

BN8 4AX

01273 400174 Mobile: 07570 797497

ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICES LEWES

Project No. ASL 28-14

February

SAXO-NORMAN PITS AT ST.SWITHUNS TERRACE, LEWES. 2015

Summary

In September 2014 ASL was commissioned to undertake an archaeological watching brief at 15 St.Swithuns Terrace, Lewes during ground works for the construction of a rear extension. Five separate site visits were made on 24th-26th and 29th – 30th September and two archaeological features were recorded and excavated within the limits of the work although the full extent of the features was not revealed across siteso they were only partially recorded. These features were then hand excavated to depths no greater 2.0m, at the limit of safe working levels and at the extent of the development formation level. Two medieval pits were identified (Cuts 103 & 113). These pits contained pottery dating between the 11th and 16th Centuries AD. Other artefacts recovered included bone and building materials.

Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Overall aims and specific objectives

3.0 Archaeological background

4.0 Methodology

5.0 Results; soil contexts

6.0 Features

7.0 Finds

8.0 The potential for further analysis

9.0 Discussion and interpretation

10.0 Archive

11.0 Acknowledgements

12.0 Bibliography

Tables:

Table 1: Pottery fabrics

Table 2: NISP (Number of identified specimens) of species present (bone)

2


Table 3: MNI of animal species recovered from the two pit contexts

Table 4: type and number of skeletal elements by NISP and MNI of Sheep, Cattle and Pig from Pits 103 and 113

Table 5: Marine Shell from St.Swithuns Terrace

Table 6:Terrestrial Mollusca from St.Swithuns Terrace

Table 7: Sample DetailsTable 8: Plant Macro-remains in the Flots and Residues

Table 9: Faunal remains in the Flots

Table 10: Artefacts recovered from the residues >2mm

Table 11: Assessment of the residues 500µ -2mm

Table 12: The Magnetic material from the residues

Table 13: Bone fragments from within the residue by context

Table 14: Breakdown by species and context

Table 15: Vertebrae recorded by size range

Plates:

Plate 1. The site before excavations began

Plate 2. West footings taken down to the chalk on day one revealing the corner of a pit [103]

Plate 3. After the western footing had been excavated, the vertical side of pit [103]

Plate 4. Excavated pit [103] looking west

Plate 5. Excavated pit [103] looking north

Plate 6. Excavated pit [113] looking west

Plate 7. Excavated SE corner underneath the house foundations showing natural Head deposit (118) adjacent to side of pit [113] which cuts through

3


Plate 8. Close view of SE corner underneath foundations revealing modern made up soil overlaying Pea Grit layer (117) which lenses onto natural Head deposits (118)

Plate 9. Excavated east facing section through [113] with cut of slope revealed

Plate 10. East facing section through [113] showing (111) which is alater re-cutting of the pit containing rubble and demolition material including an incised chalk block

Plate 11. East facing section through pit [113] showing close up detail of the later fill (111)

Plate 12. worked bone from context (116) basal deposits in pit [113]

Plate 13. The faience bead

Appendix – HER summary sheet

Figures

Fig.1 Location plan

Fig.2 Site plan

Fig.3 Site trench plan and elevations

Fig.4 EUS map showing extent of boundary within the study area outlined

Fig.5 EUS Historic Urban Character Areas of Lewes.

Fig.6 EUS Map number 8 showing the extent of urbanisation in period 5, from 1066AD

Fig.7 EUS map 4 showing listed buildings near to the site

Fig.8 Ordnance Survey 1st edition map from 1873

Fig.9 Site Plan

Fig.10 South facing section No.2 of pit [103]

Fig.11 West facing section No.1 of both pits

4


Fig.12 High medieval Ringmer ware jug handle from (104) and late Saxon pitcher handle from (108)

Fig.13 Early Ringmer jug handle late 12th century

Archive data tables:

Table 16: Pottery archive data

Table 17: Summary of CBM assemblage

Table 18: Geological Material

Table 19: Bone archive data

Table 20: Summary of other artefacts from all contexts

Table 21: Bone residue archive data

Table 22: Site context register

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This report is the result of an archaeological watching brief which was maintained during the excavation of ground works associated with development at 15 St.Swithuns Terrace, Lewes, BN7 1UJ (Fig.1 ) centred on TQ 413099.

1.2 This report has been produced for the owner, Mr.Carruthers andMs Joann Weedon by Lisa Fisher, Principal Archaeologist at Archaeology Services Lewes.

5


1.4 The archaeological watching brief recorded the excavation of footings trenches for the erection of a rear extension (Fig. 2).The watching brief also involved the monitoring and recording ofother associated ground-works which included the reduction of ground levels for the construction of a floating floor within the extension footprint (Fig.3). This took place in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation prepared by ASL in May 2014 in response to planning conditions placed on planning application number: SDNP/14/00108/HOUS. The WSI was submitted to and approved by the ESCC Archaeology Team as well as South Downs National Park Authority in May 2014.

1.5 The Watching Brief was continuous and took place over the course of five days in September 2014.

1.6 The underlying geology of the site lies on the boundary between Zig Zag chalk formation and the Lewes Nodular Chalk Formation. Alluvial deposits lie within 50m to the south. (http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html) . The development site itself lies at an approximate height of 20m above sea level.

1.7 A recent HER statement describes the site as follows:

The site is on a steeply sloping street to the south of the High Street, lined on both sides with terraced housing believed to date to early C20th. It is within the Lewes Conservation Area. Paine’s twitten runs along the bottom of the garden property and the walls of the twitten are Grade II listed. The ground around the house will have beendisturbed by the construction of the street: in particular the foundations and garden walls of the house and also the adjoining WC and shed, which has a concrete slab base.The area of the proposed extension is currently an area of concrete hardstanding , of unknown slab depth. Lewes is known as a Saxon Burh and medieval and post-medieval market town with the site lying close to the known extent of all these settlements. The Archaeological Notification Area is designated due to the potential remains of historic core of Lewes. Features nearby include the line of the medieval town wall and the town gate. Historic mapping shows that the area was undeveloped until the early C20th when the terraced housing was built. A structure on the footprint of the current buildingis located with a small square structure to the south.

1.8 The Extensive Urban Survey (EUS Figs.4-6) for Lewes has been consulted and is summarised below, which give a likely indication that the potential for archaeology to still exist in

6

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html


the ground is high and that such surviving archaeology is very vulnerable to development (Dr Roland B Harris, BA DPhil MIFA, 2005).

2.0 Archaeological background

2.1 The development is situated within an Archaeological Notification Area defining the historic core of the Saxon, medieval and post-medieval town of Lewes. This section of the town formed in the 11th century when William de Warren expandedthe size of the town (Fig.6). The site forms a tenement plot alongside one of the side streets to this medieval town, which is likely to have been a focus for occupation throughout the medieval and post-medieval periods. Although there may have been some disturbance to archaeological remains during the construction of the Victorian house, more robust and deeper buried remains are thought to have survived as was recently demonstrated by the archaeological excavations on the site of the former Baxters Printworks, which recorded a considerable quantity of medieval pits, walls, ditches and finds.

2.2 The EUS states that the Historic Character Type of this area isdefined as an irregular historic plot dating from at least 1066AD (EUS period 5). The full description of this area can be found in the EUS, defined as Historic Urban Characterisation Area (HUCA) 4, the Southern Lanes. The results have been condensed below.

2.2.1 HUCA 4 Southern lanes (Fig.4)

The site is in the centre of the late Anglo-Saxon and Norman town, and comprises thearea of gridded lanes and twittens south of the High Street, but within the medieval borough walls. Today the HUCA consists of a mixture of residential, office, and commercial buildings, together with gardens. There are 10 listed buildings, Fig.6. (nine Grade II; one Grade II*), of which one is Period 6 (1150-1349), ones is Period 8 (16th century), one is Period 9 (17th century), and four are Period 10 (18th century). Pelham House, St Andrew‟s Lane (Grade II*) is 16th century with substantial rebuilding in brick as the Goring townhouse in the 18th century. On the western and southern edge of the area, the medieval town walls (possibly overlaying the Anglo-Saxon burh defences for part of its length) survive, albeit in heavily patched and rebuilt form. 16 Station Street hides an early to mid-18th-century timber framed maltings behind a late 19th-century façade. Pre-1800 plots are poorly preserved,

7


with the best survivals off Station Street. However, the lanes and twittens that survive probably represent early planning of the Anglo-Saxon burh. Moreover, the lines of contemporary lost lanes (such as that between, and parallel to, St Andrew‟s Lane and Station Street) are still marked by property boundaries. The survival of the Anglo-Saxon gridded pattern of lanes, the probability of below-ground survival of Anglo-Saxon and medieval defences (largescale features likely to resist serious truncation), the late medieval part abandonment of the area, and the survival of several open areas mean that archaeological potential of nearly all this area is high. The combination of surviving post-medieval buildings; the preservation of the Anglo-Saxon gridded pattern of lanes and twittens; the survival of lengths of the medieval town wall (and possibly, the 9th-century ramparts) and the archaeological potential give this area a high Historic Environment Value (HEV) of 4. Following the late medieval abandonment to gardens, redevelopment has been a feature of the area. The tunnelling of the railway line saw the creation of an entrance between St Martin‟s Lane and Watergate Lane (opened 1847); St Swithun‟s Terrace was created in the early 20th century; and large-scale modern buildings include Southover House, Southover Road (the county planning department office), and Caburn Court, Station Street (flats). This degree of change and the lack of protection (for example, as Scheduled Monuments) for some of the key features mean that the vulnerability is high.

2.3 In addition to this information from the EUS, the site lies just 130m south of Lewes castle, (Listed Building No. 1013268). This Scheduled Monument, built by William de Warenneshortly after 1066, includes two mounds, Norman Walls, surviving ditches, the outer gateway as well as the bailey. This bailey area also has a surviving east wall and a barbicanbuilt to strengthen the gateway in the early C14th. In the C18th the south west motte was utilized as a pleasure garden. Excavations in 1985-88 revealed domestic buildings such as thehall, kitchens and a chapel. This building and its immediate structures such as the vaults and the Norman and C14th

gatehouses are all part of the scheduling.

2.4 Also of medieval date are the remains of the town wall which survive behind numbers 11-16 St.Swithuns Terrace which may pre-date the Norman Conquest in 1066 with the foundations potentially dating from the Saxon Burh. The walls above the foundations are thought to be C13th and C14th which, in turn, are in-filled with C18th and C19th garden walls in places. These walls are all listed (Number 1043787) and are built of

8


rubble stone with flint facing and lacing courses of red brick. The walls carry on over the north side of Southover Road. On the south-west corner of the walls rests a gazebo in the garden of Numbers 15 and 16 (The Caprons).

2.5 Nearby is the Post medieval Westgate Chapel which dates to 1583, and was converted in 1698 and restored in the Victorian period (Fig.7). This is Listed (No.1043839).

2.6 In addition to the town wall are the walls of Paines twitten which also runs behind the property and dates to the C18th andC19th in red and blue brick with some chequer and knapped flint with red and blue brick banding. This part of the wall is c.8-12 foot high and runs for a length of 100 yards. There are various blocked arches and some patches of quoining and doors to gardens beyond (Fig.8).

3.0 Overall objectives and Specific research aims

3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states:

141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly orin part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.

3.2 In line with the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the aims were to investigate the assets of thesite to seek a better understanding of the depth, extent, condition, nature, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains present.

3.3 To identify and record heritage remains on this site and to make the results of the investigation publicly accessible through submission of a report to the East Sussex Historic Environment Record and the project archive to the local museum.

3.4 To establish a chronological framework for the site where possible, given sufficient dating material.

9


3.5 Site specific objectives were:

What evidence is there for the location of the defences of theAlfredian burh?

What evidence is there for Anglo-Saxon secular settlement (andits economy), both within and without the burh?

What was the road layout, how did this evolve, and how did it relate to east-west routes, river crossings, a transhumant Downland-Wealden economy, and the burh?

What evidence is there for early burgage plots, and when and where did built-up street frontages first occur?

How and when did the town walls, gates and associated ditches develop?

4.0 Methodology

4.1 The ground-works comprised of the hand digging of a 600mm x 1000mm deep concrete perimeter trench foundation 5m x 3m for a brick and block constructed extension on top . In addition, the whole area was subjected to ground reduction in order to insert a floating floor all of which was monitored by an archaeologist.

4.2 The trench was tied in to the National Grid in conjunction with a site plan, with a levelled BM set in the road outside of the property, measured at a height of 19.612 m above sea level. Levels were taken for relevant existing ground levels and all features with all heights recorded on a levels register which will be kept in the archive.

10


Plate 1. The site before excavations began4.3 The methodology as laid out in the approved WSI was followed

with regards to the appropriate excavation and recording.

5.0 The Results; soil contexts

5.1 All archaeological deposits, features and finds were recorded according to accepted professional standards, using context record sheets numbers 100-118. Deposit colours were recorded by visual inspection and not by reference to a Munsell Colour chart.

5.2 The topsoil (100) lay between 360mm and 500mm where it lay at

its deepest extent up against the northern boundary wall whereit formed a shallow bank. It consisted of a loose, dark brown silty clay with <25% sub-rounded brown river gravel <25mm in size and <10% sub rounded chalk <40mm in size and <10% sub-angular grey flint <80mm in size. This layer was hand excavated by shovel and contained some post medieval artefactsas well as some abraded medieval pottery. The modern artefactscontinued down to the base of this layer which lay across the whole trench, except in the area where an outside lavatory wasconstructed to the south of the site against the boundary wall.

5.3 Directly below the topsoil in the north part of the trench only lay a thin layer (101) of natural worm sorted ‘pea grit’ chalk which consisted of a loose to firm, light brown to off

11


white calcareous silty clay. This contained <20% rounded chalk<10mm in size and <10% sub-rounded and sub-angular chalk <50mmin size and occasional <5% sub-angular flint <30mm. There was a thicker lens of pea grit towards the base of this layer where it lay directly on the natural chalk geology below. Somesmall pieces of medieval pottery and bone were contained in this layer. This layer was interpreted as the interface between the base of the topsoil and the natural.

5.4 Layer (102) consisted of a firm off-white layer of natural chalk geology which lay directly underneath layer (101) in thenorth part of the trench only and below two cut features [103]and [113]. This layer was very hard and compacted with <25% large angular flint <140mm in size. Two pit features were cut through this layer and it was not evident in the southern partof the site due to the extent of one of the pits [113] where the feature was not fully excavated for safety reasons.

12


Plate 2. West footings taken down to the chalk on day one revealingthe corner of a pit [103] (scales 50cm)

6.0 Features

6.1 Pit [103] was a large sub-circular pit (Fig.10 and plates 2-5) which lay directly up against the northern boundary of the site and was not revealed in its full extent. After an initialclean up, the feature measured 1.45m wide and excavation revealed it to be 1.38m deep with vertical sides and a vertical break of slope to the top of the pit. A slight berm had to be left for safety reasons between the section face andthe boundary due to the presence of a high brick wall, in order to maintain stability. It is likely that the very top ofthe pit may have been truncated at some point in time. However, it was broadly contemporary with an adjacent pit [113] which had the full profile from top to bottom of the pitand lay at the same depth below the current ground levels so it is possible that this was the original top level. The bottom sloped sharply with a rounded base cut into the naturalchalk geology (102) although this was slightly over-excavated by the excavator on the day. It was filled with three fills (104), (105), (107) and (109) with another fill (110) representing a weathered chalk primary silting on the sides ofthe pit. Finds from within this feature include medieval pottery, bone, shell and some magnetic residue with a date range from 1075AD for the earliest basal fills to 1250 AD for the latest fills at the top of the pit

13


Plate 3. After the western footing had been excavated, the verticalside of pit [103] is revealed cut through the chalk (scales

1m)

6.2 The top fill of pit [103] consisted of a loose mid-light brownsilty clay (104) with <2% sub-angular flint <120mm in size and,10% sub-rounded chalk <60mm in size. The thickness of this fill was consistent at 500mm. Whole earth samples were taken but not processed due to levels of contamination at the top ofthis pit fill. Finds from within this layer included pottery sherds dating between 1200-1250 AD.

6.3 The second fill (105) lay directly underneath the top fill (104) and immediately above the third fill (107). It consistedof a loose light brown calcareous silty clay with <15% sub-rounded chalk <40mm which was 420mm on average but extended to600mm where soil build up occurred on the eastern edge of the pit. Some flecks of charcoal were contained with this fill and

14


pottery dating mostly c. 1075-1150AD but with 3 later sherds dating to 1150-1200 AD.

6.4 The third fill (107) lay directly below (105) and consisted of a loose mid-to orange brown silty clay with <30% sub-rounded chalk <110mm in size. This fill was 300mm thick excepton the eastern edge of the pit where it increased to 380mm thick. Pottery fro this layer dated to 1075-1150 ASD.

6.5 The fourth fill (109) of the pit [103] lay directly underneath(107) and at the base of the feature and so consisted of the primary silting at the base which was 100mm thick in the middle lensing out to the east. It was a loose medium brown silty clay with very small pieces of chalk <10mm as well as charcoal pieces <20mm but no dateable material.

Plate 4. Excavated pit [103] looking west (scales 1m)

15


6.6 The last fill of the pit [103] was a thin layer of silty chalk(110) which lined the pit, probably as a direct result of weathering. This consisted of a firm orange to brown chalky clay with occasional sub-angular flints <50mm and sub-angular chalk pieces <50mm.This layer was found around the majority edge of the pit and was <200mm on the west side but only <50mmon the east side where the context starts approximately half way down the side of the pit and is not evident at the top. This contained the earliest sherds from this feature dating between 1050-1150 AD.

Plate 5. Excavated pit [103] looking north (scales 1m)

6.7 Another large pit feature [113] was also excavated on site (Fig.11 and plates 6-11) but the full extent of this lay beyond the boundary of the garden in a north south direction as well as running underneath the house in an easterly direction. In addition, only a section was excavated by hand through the profile of this pit to a total depth of 2.0m and for safety reasons was not excavated further. As a consequencethe full profile of this pit was not revealed. An initial clean up revealed the pit ran for at least 2.90m east-west where it meets the house foundations and 3.30m north-south where it meets the garden wall to the south.

16


Plate 6. Excavated pit [113] looking west (scales 2m)

6.8 The top fill of cut [113] consisted of a firm to loose dark brown to orange silty clay (106) which contained some sub-angular chalk pieces and sub-angular flint <100mm. This layer contained was up to 250mm thick and contained some elements of residual material including some 15th century CBM but mainly pottery dating between 12th -15th century. It is likely that this layer was compromised when the outdoor privy was constructed in this part of the site as a layer of concrete was directly above this context. This layer lay directly on top of context (111) below and contained material culture with a mixed date range between 12th century (highly residual) to 18th century.

6.9 The second fill of the pit consisted of a loose, mid-orange brown silty clay (111) full of large flints and blocks of chalk <250mm x 250mm in size, presumably demolition/rubble layer. One of the chalk blocks was marked with a cross which is likely to be a setting out mark used by masons, indicating a previous use of this block as building material. This fill was up to 450mm thick and appeared to cut into context (112) below where a small scoop seems to have been excavated into the top of this context to the northern edge of the pit in order to perhaps bury some of this rubble material. This layeralso contained a mixed period assemblage which included pottery dating between 1200-1250AD as well as some residual

17


CBM dating to 15th-16th century but it is possible that this mayhave re-located from the mixed layer (106) directly above.

6.10 The third fill (108) was a firm grey silty soil which lay directly underneath layer (112) and was up to 1000mm thick. This contained <10% sub-rounded chalk up to 40mm in size and occasional flint. The majority of the pottery dated between 1050 – 1150 AD. A small sondage was excavated in the northern side of the pit to establish how deep the pit was and this context was described as (108A) but had the same profile as (108). Unfortunately this became too deep to work in safely and the bottom was never reached, despite this context being up to 1000mm at this point. An auger was utilized to establishthe depth of the feature at the base of this sondage which extended at least 160mm before seeming to hit natural chalk.

6.11 The fourth fill of the pit (114) was initially thought to be two fills, with the lower context assigned a separate number (115) which was subsequently found to be the same fill and wascombined. This lay directly underneath soil context (108) in asmall sondage which was excavated in the southern side of the pit up to approximately 600mm thick. This consisted of a looseto firm very light brown slit with up to 25% sub-rounded chalkpieces <80mm in size and up to 15% sub-angular flint <100mm insize. This is the lowest basal deposit which was sampled. An auger was also used in the base of this sondage to establish the base of the pit which was a higher depth compared to that in the northern sondage through (108A) at 120mm in depth whichseemed to hit Head Deposit rather than chalk. This appeared togive the pit a possible gently curved base to the south although it was unfortunately not possible to reveal the full profile of the using the auger due to wooden shoring in place to prevent trench collapse and so should not be taken as an absolute as access at this point was difficult. Pottery from this basal deposit was also 1050-1150AD.

6.12 Context (116) was a very hard to firm layer of mid-brown hardcore and rubble mixed with silty clay which lay under the house footings in the south east corner of the site up to approximately 300mm thick. This contained a high amount of bricks, flint nodules and CBM and as this was not possible to record safely it was included on a measured sketch only. However, as this area was adjacent to the side of the pit in the SE corner, a sample was taken from the lower levels to retrieve dating examples to compare with the rest of the site.

18


This successfully recovered some more pottery sherds dating to1050-1150 which matched those elsewhere on site at this level.

6.13 Context (117) was a firm, off white, silty calcareous clay which contained a high amount (25%) of ‘pea-grit’ chalk which was rounded and measured <0.5mm in size. This also contained up to 25% rounded flint also <0.5mm in size. This was a thin layer up to 100mm thick approximately underneath (116) in the south east corner of the site underneath the house foundations. This layer lensed out to the west which appeared to dip down to the following the cut of the pit [113] through the natural head deposits which lay directly below this context.

6.14 Context (118) was a firm, light yellow silty clay with some sand interpreted as natural head Deposits which lay directly underneath (117). It contained up to 20% large nodules of sub-angular flint <120mm in size as well as 20% large, sub-angularvery hard chalk pieces towards the base <130mm in size. This measured approximately 350mm was not fully excavated for safety reasons. This layer lensed down onto a layer of very compact flint and chalk at the base but was not excavated so was not possible to measure. The cut of pit [113] to the southeastern corner appears to have cut through this layer but as this lay under the unsupported corner of the house, a very rapid assessment was conducted and no scale drawings were taken. The whole southern footing was measured from a distanceand a comprehensive sketch section was drawn which will be retained in the archive.

19


Plate 7. Excavated SE corner underneath the house foundationsshowing natural Head deposit (118) adjacent to side of pit

[113] which cuts through (scales 50cm and 1m)

20

Pit [113] cutting throug

Natural Head deposit

Pea-grit (117)

Modern made-up layer (116)


Plate 8. Close view of SE corner underneath foundations revealing modern made up soil overlaying Pea Grit layer (117) which lenses onto natural Head deposits (118) (scales 50cm).

21


Plate 9. Excavated east facing section through [113] with cut of slope revealed (scales 1m and 50cm)

6.5 No other features were revealed. As some trenches were dug to a depth of over 1.20m below current ground levels, recording was limited in these areas for safety reasons.

22


Plate 10. East facing section through [113] showing (111) which is alater re-cutting of the pit containing rubble and demolition

material including an incised chalk block (scales 50cm, 1m and 2m)

Plate 11. East facing section through pit [113] showing close updetail of the later fill (111) (scales 2m)

7.0 Finds

7.0.1 The assemblage has mixed potential for further analysis. The most important material is the medieval pottery, as it appears to be from closely-dated deposits with no/negligible contamination in thelower fills of both pits. The medieval pottery, although of good quality, is of types well known and dated from urban excavations inLewes (Barber forthcoming) and the majority of the artefacts are recommended for discard.

23


7.0.2 Tables summarising the finds from the contexts are included inthe appendix with the assemblages discussed individually by category below.

7.1 The Pottery by Luke Barber

7.1.1 Spot DatesU/S – mixed C12th – 18th mixed

100 – Mixed: C11th-17th

104 – c.1200-1250 (high residual C11th-12th)

105 – Most c.1075-1150 but x3 c.-1150-1200

106 – Mixed C12th – 15th

107 – c.1075-1150

108 – Most c.1050-1150 but x2 more c.1150-1225

110 – c.1050-1150

111 – c.1200-1250 on pot but x1 C15th/16th brick?

112 – c.1200-1250 (very high residual 1075-1150)

114 – c.1050-1150

115 – c.1050-1150

116 – c.1050-1150

7.1.2 The archaeological monitoring recovered 160 sherds of pottery,weighing 1862g, from 13 individually numbered contexts. On thewhole the assemblage is characterised by small to medium-sizedsherds, many of which exhibit slight to moderate abrasion. As such a large proportion of the assemblage appears to have seenat least some reworking. The whole assemblage has been recorded for the archive using the Lewes fabric series as partof the current work (Barber forthcoming). The fabrics that arepresent are tabulated in Table 1 and the full breakdown by fabric, form and context is given in Table 16 (in the appendix). As the assemblage is fully listed in such detail only a very brief overview is presented here.

Table 1: Pottery fabrics (using Lewes fabric series)24


Lewes Code

Expansion County Code

Suggested date range

SNL1b Late Saxon Reduced Flinty Ware with Shell

F/AS 102 c.900/50 – 1100

SNL2 Late Saxon Coarse Oxidised Flinty Ware

F/AS 101 c.900-1075/1100

SNL3a Lewes Saxo-Norman Flinty Ware

F/M100 c.1000-1175

SNL3b Lewes Saxo-Norman Flinty Ware (reduced variant)

F/M101 c.975/1025 - 1125/50

SNL3c Lewes Saxo-Norman Flinty Ware (calcareous variant)

F+c/M100 c.1000/50 - 1150

SNL3d Lewes Saxo-Norman Flinty Ware (red flintvariant)

F/M102 c.1000/50 - 1150

SNL5 Clay Hill/Ringmer Flinty Ware

F+q/M101 c.1125/50 - 1200/25

SNL6b Fine sand and common flint tempered ware

Q+f/M100 c.1125/50 - 1225/50

SNL8 West Sussex chalky ware

C/M3 c 1000 - 11175/1200

SNL11 Medium/coarse sandy ware with rare shell

Q+s/M1 c.1075/1100 - 1200

HML1a Early Ringmer medium sand with common flints

Q+f/c/M100 c 1175/1200 - 1250

HML1b Developed Ringmer: fine/medium sandy withsparse flint

Q+f/c/M101 c 1225-1300/25

HML1c Developed Ringmer (calcareous variant)

Q+s/M6 c.1225-1275

25


HML2 Early Ringmer Sandy: medium sand

Q/M26 c.1200-1325

HML3a Developed Ringmer: well-fired sandy, veryrare flint

Q/M108a c.1275/1300 - 1375/1400

HML3b Developed Ringmer: well-fired sandy

Q/M108b c.1225 - 1375/1400.

HML5a Early Ringmer: Fine sandy with sparse flint

Q+f/c/M100 c.1175/1200 - 1250/75

HML5b Developed Ringmer: Fine Sandy Ware with Sparse Flint

Q(f)+f/c/M101

c.1225 - 1275/300

HML8 Fine/Medium Sandy Greyware

Q/M9 c.1275 - 1400

TL4a Hard fired Fine Earthenware

Q(f)/M126 c.1450 - 1550

EPML2a Glazed Red Earthenware(moderate sandy)

n/a c.1550-1725

LPML1 Glazed Red Earthenware(late)

n/a c.1750-1900+

7.1.3 Although there are a few Late Saxon, Late Medieval (Transitional), Early Post-medieval and Late Post-medieval sherds the vast majority of the assemblage belongs to the Norman/Early Medieval and High Medieval periods. A typical range of Lewes flinty wares and Ringmer types is present. The former include a few rims of early type suggestive of 11th- to mid 12th- century dates. These, along with the few Late Saxon sherds, are frequently residual – something very common in Lewes’ medieval deposits.

26


7.1.4 The two cut features both produced small assemblages of pottery. Pit [103] produced mid 11th- to mid 12th- century pottery from its lower fills (contexts [110] and [107]). The middle fill (context [105]) also contained pottery predominantly of this date but it also included three sherds of SNL5, more in keeping with a date in the second half of the12th century. The upper fill [104] again showed a large proportion of early sherds, but alongside more significant quantities of High Medieval pottery from the first half of the13th century. Whether the pottery in the lower fills is all residual or whether the latest pottery in [104] is intrusive (e.g. from subsidence of pit fills) is uncertain, however, thelatter suggestion is considered the most likely.

27


Fig.12 High medieval Ringmer ware jug handle from (104) and lateSaxon pitcher handle from (108)

7.1.5 The sequence to the south in pit [113] also has typical mixingin the upper fills. The lowest fills contain small quantities of mid 11th- to mid 12th- century types (contexts [115] and [114]). However, although the majority of sherds from [108] are in keeping with this date the fill produced two quite well-fired HML1a sherds that must be of later 12th- to mid 13th-century date though these may have been derived from context [112] above. Fill [112] also produced four sherds of later 11th- to mid 12th- century date as well as a single large (46g) HML1a bowl sherd of the first half of the 13th century. The rubbly fill above (context [111]) produced solely early/mid 13th- century pot (as well as a piece of possible intrusive 15th/16th- brick derived from [106]). As such it is possible pit[113] was cut and partially back-filled in the 11th/12th centuries, with final infilling occurring in the early 13th century, the whole being sealed by Late Medieval deposit [106].

28


Fig.13 Early Ringmer jug handle late 12th century

7.2 The Ceramic Building Material by Luke Barber

7.2.1 A small assemblage of brick and tile was recovered from the site. The material is summarised in Table 17 (in the appendix).

7.2.2 The brick and tile represents a background scatter typical of the town. The burnt clay may well be of Saxo-Norman date but the remainder of types are more typical of the High and Late Medieval periods.

7.3 The Geological Material by Luke Barber

7.3.1 Stone was recovered from three deposits. The material is summarised in Table 18 (in the appendix).

7.3.2 The majority of the stone probably relates to buildings – thisis certainly the case with the West Country roofing slate, which was very common in the town on well-to-do buildings of the 12th to 13th centuries. However, the Wealden sandstones are of types that were frequently used for quoins on buildings otherwise built of flint. The Horsham stone fragment is not definitely from a roofing slab and may have been brought in for general building. Horsham stone slabs were not generally in common use for roofing in the town until at least the 15th century and fill [108] clearly predates that by some way. The quern is of the most common stone type for medieval querns in Lewes and has no particularly diagnostic features.

7.4 The Bone by Sarah Green

7.4.1 Introduction

A small assemblage of faunal remains was retrieved from the archaeological work at St. Swithuns Terrace, Lewes. A total of339 fragments, from 13 individually numbered contexts, were recovered. On the whole the assemblage is characterised by small to medium-sized fragments, with almost a third from the axial skeleton. Approximately 43% were identifiable to species and this relatively low proportion reflects the fragmentation of the assemblage. The two cut features (Pits 103 and 113) produced 288 of the fragments, with the remainder

29


coming from modern contexts. The assemblage is fully listed as an appendix in Table 19 and so the main discussion and details that follow in this report will refer to those bones which were recovered from the archaeological contexts of Pits 103 and 113.

7.4.2 Methods

All skeletal elements were identified to species where possible to produce a basic fragmentation count of the number of identified specimens (NISP). The calculation of minimum number of individuals (MNI) was based on the most numerous counts of a single element, taking into account completeness and side. Ribs, vertebrae, and un-diagnostic fragments of long bone shaft were assigned to size categories. ‘Unidentified large’ bones are most likely to have come from cattle since there were no bones positively identified to horse and the shed red deer antler could well have been brought to the site in isolation. Bones described as ‘Unidentified medium’ are most likely to have come from sheep or pig, but could have been derived from goat or deer. All small splinters of bone were found to be mammal and were thus assigned to a general ‘Indeterminate mammal’ category.

The criteria of Boessneck (1969) for differentiating between the bones of sheep and goat, which are morphologically very similar, were applied where feasible. None of the caprine (sheep and goat) bones were positively identified as being goat, therefore the term ‘sheep’ will be used throughout this report to refer to all caprine bones. The ageing data of Silver (1969) was used to assess epiphyseal fusion of the post-cranial skeleton, with reference also to the combined data in Reitz and Wing (2008:72). Measurements (expressed in mm) were made in accordance with the scheme of von den Driesch(1976). For the few mandibular teeth, tooth wear and eruptionpatterns were assessed using Grant’s (1982) scheme.

7.4.3 Results

Preservation condition

The animal bones were generally in a good state of preservation, albeit fragmented. Only a few of the fragments

30


were eroded or abraded, indicating that burial had probably been quite rapid.

Gnawing was not frequently observed, visible on only 4 fragments, and loose teeth were also fairly low in frequency, at 19, all of which were from the cut features.

Species represented

With the exception of a shed, but sawn, red deer antler, only domestic species were represented in the assemblage. Sheep isthe most common species, followed by cattle and then pig. A small number of bird and one fish fragment were also recovered. The one rodent femur is likely to be from a later intrusion. The total numbers of fragments from each species is shown in Table 2. Minimum numbers of individuals (MNI), based on the most frequent bone from each species in each of the pits (taking into account size), are shown in Table 3.

Table 2: NISP (Number of identified specimens) of species present

Pit103

Pit113

Pits Modern Overall

Total

Sheep 24 45 69 13 82

Cattle 12 20 32 6 38

Pig 7 4 11 11

Red Deer 1 1 2 3

Rodent 1 1 1

Chicken 2 2 2

Goose/Duck 1 1 1

Total identified 48 69 117 21 138

Unidentified large 13 29 42 4 46

Unidentified medium

55 26 81 13 94

Unidentified small 3 3 3

31


Indeterminate mammal

17 23 40 12 52

Bird 2 2 4 1 5

Fish 1 1 1

Total unidentified 90 81 171 30 201

Grand Total 138 150 288 51 339

Table 3: MNI (Minimum number of individuals) of animal species recovered from the two pit contexts

Pit103

Pit113

Total

Sheep 4 3 7

Cattle 1 1 2

Pig 1 1 2

Red Deer 1 0 1

Chicken 1 0 1

Goose/ Duck 1 0 1

Total 9 5 14

Age at death

There was only one sheep and one pig mandible with teeth intact, along with four loose mandibular sheep teeth. The remainder of the teeth were incisor, canine or came from the upper jaw.

32


The two mandibles either contained too few teeth, or were damaged on the occlusal surface, and so it has not been possible to assign absolute age at death figures to any of thespecies represented. There was one fragment of sheep maxilla with two deciduous pre-molars (Udp3 and Udp4) in the assemblage which would suggest the presence of at least one infantile/juvenile animal. Of the loose teeth, two of the sheep lower molars showed little or no wear and may have been unerupted, indicating that sub-adult as well as adult animals were present.

Only a very small sample of long bones was available and epiphyseal fusion evidence was inconclusive. There were, though, a number of elements with unfused epiphyses, suggesting that a combination of adult and sub-adults were represented. With the exception of one sheep radius fragment and two unidentifiable femur fragments, none of the bones weresuggestive of foetal, infantile or juvenile animals.

Sex, size and conformation

There was one pig lower canine, which was identified as comingfrom a female, but no other clear sexual indicators were present for the other species represented. Although cattle horn cores are sexually dimorphic, there were no basal parts present and the six fragments recovered were too small for metric analysis.

Twenty-seven bones could be measured and whilst the resulting dataset is small, comparison with the ABMAP1 database of measurements from southern England medieval sites suggests that the St. Swithuns Terrace animals were of average size compared to contemporary livestock. No obvious outliers were observed.

Butchery and other modifications

Butchery in the form of chopping was observed on 43 of the bones, with just under half of those being fragments of long bone shafts. It is likely that the butchery marks represent portioning of the cattle, sheep and pig and marrow extraction.

1 Animal Bone Metrical Archive Project, http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/specColl/abmap/index.cfm

33

http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/specColl/abmap/index.cfm


In addition, there were 2 fragments of completely burnt bone in the assemblage, but none of the other elements showed any traces of burning. It is worth noting that only when bone actually comes into contact with fire does it change colour.

7.4.4 Discussion

Whilst a third of the assemblage from within the pits comprises bones from the axial skeleton (ribs and vertebrae), by their nature these bones cannot easily be identified to species. However, the majority of these bones come from ‘unidentified medium’ mammals, most likely to be sheep or pig.Where the species was able to be assigned, the most frequent elements for sheep were the pelvis, humerus, radius and metacarpal bones. With the exception of the femur, however, most parts of the skeleton are represented. Cattle bones, whilst small in number, also come from all parts of the skeleton, whereas for pig it is mostly the hind limbs and feetthat were recovered. A summary of the elements identified foreach of these three species is shown in Table 4.

In conclusion, the bones from the two pits appear to representfood remains and general refuse disposal.

Table 4: type and number of skeletal elements by NISP (number of identified specimens) and MNI (minimum number of individuals) of Sheep, Cattle and Pig from Pits 103 and 113

Element/Species

Sheep

Cattle

Pig

Total

Astragalus 1 1

Calceneous 1 2 3

Cuneform 1 1

Femur 2 2

Humerus 7 2 9

Metacarpal 9 3 12

34


MetacarpalIII

1 1

MetacarpalIII/IV

1 1

Metapodia 2 1 3

Metatarsal 1 1 2

MetatarsalII

1 1

Pelvis 12 12

Phalange 1 3 2 5

Phalange 3 2 2

Radius 6 1 1 8

Radius +Ulna

1 1

Scapula 2 1 3

Tibia 4 2 2 8

Ulna 1 1 2

Axis 1 1 2

Rib 2 2

Sacrum 1 1 2

ThoracicVertebrae

1 1

Horn core 2 7 9

Loose tooth 15 2 2 19

Mandible 7 2 1 10

Skull 5 4 9

Total NISP 82 38 11 131

35


MNI 7 2 2 11

See Excel sheets for full details of data recorded from the assemblage

7.5 The Marine Shell by Jan Oldham

7.5.1 A quantity of marine shell was recovered during the excavationand as a result of the later processing of soil samples. Thesehave been outlined in Table 5 below. The species consisted of Oyster (Ostrea edulis L.), Mussel (Mytilus edulis L.), Whelk (Purpura lapillus L.), Native Clam (Tapes decussatus ) and Cockle (Cerastoderma edule L.) are all are edible sea molluscs common to the shores of Britain during the medieval period.

Table 5 Marine Shell from St.Swithuns Terrace

Context number

Sample number

Hand picked

Shell type

Complete

shell & quantity

Fragments

Weight

100 x Oyster 2 x 1g

101 x Oyster x Less than1g

105 x Oyster 2 101g

105 2 Mussel - x 1g

105 2 Oyster - x 4g

105 2 Cockle - x Less than1g

106 x Oyster 25 975g

107 3 Mussel - x 3g

107 x Oyster x Less than1g

36


107 x Mussel x Less than1g

108 x Oyster 1 93g

108 x Native clam

1 3g

108 x Mussel 4 2g

108 x Whelk 1 1g

108 9 Mussel - x 2g

108 9 Oyster - x 2g


110 Oyster 1 58g


111 Whelk 1 14g

111 x Oyster 7 253g

111 x Native Clams

x 1g

114 5 Mussel - x 3g

114 9 Whelk - x 1g

114 x Oyster 4 87g

114 x Whelk 1 14g

114 9 Mussel - x 2g

114 10 Oyster - x 4g

114 10 Mussel - x 4g

37



115 11 Cockle - x 1g

115 12 Oyster - x 5g



7.5.2 Most of the shell retrieved was degraded and fragmented, therefore quantification was assessed by weight, the predominant shell being oyster at 1583g, followed by whelk shell weighing 30g , then mussel at 24g, native clams at 4g and finally the remains of approximately 2g of cockle . The deposition of shell is most likely to be the result of food waste disposal on the site, indicating a diet which included some sea molluscs.

7.6 Land molluscs by Jan Oldham

7.6.1 The presence of land molluscs was noted from the fill of the pits as follows:

Table 6 Terrestrial Mollusca from St.Swithuns Terrace.

Context number

Sample number

Hand picked Species Complete shell

& quantity

Fragments

Weight

104 x Cornu aspersum

x Less than 1g


x 2g


2 2g

38


105 2 Cornu aspersum

2 x 2g


x 1g


x 3g

108A x Cornu aspersum

3 5g

108A 9 Discus rotundatus

1 Less than 1g

108A 9 Cornu aspersum

2 x 8g


4 4g


4 4g


3 3g


4 x 10g

114 10 Discus rotundatus

5 Less than 1g


x 6g


1 x Less than 1g


1 Less than 1g

7.6.2 Two species of land mollusca were evident, both common snails,the largest quantity being Cornu aspersum or common garden snail,a species of small land snail or terrestrial pulmonate gastropod mollusc from the family Helicidae. Most of these were

39


fragmented and as such quantification was assessed by weight. A small number of Discus rotundatus, another species of small land snail from the family Discidae was also present.

7.6.3 Snails were also recovered through the processing of soil samples (Gray, L. below). As a general comment, it is not unexpected to find land snails amongst archaeological deposits– the species present are common and represent those who require a damp and shady habitat.

7.7 The Post Medieval finds by Lisa Fisher

7.71 In general there was a surprisingly low amount of post medieval finds retrieved on site, which has been summarised inTable 20, and in particular there were few artefacts of a modern date coming from the topsoil context (100). A few earlier pieces were residual and would have made their way into the topsoil through gardening activities disturbing the earlier layers below. The pottery consisted of twenty sherds, all from domestic storage vessels with no fine table wares present. The date ranges for these ceramics spans the mid 19th century to mid 20th century. Few other artefacts of note were recovered, which included just three fragments of modern glass, two corroded iron nails, twelve pieces of CBM, four small pieces of fire cracked flint, three clay pipe stems, five pieces of slate, two pieces of iron smithing slag clearlyindicating some secondary metal-working on the site, though the low quantities involved do not suggest it was anywhere in the immediate vicinity. The assemblage has been fully listed on pro forma for archive during the assessment stage.

7.8 The Flint by Lisa FisherJust one Bronze Age flint flake was recovered from context (104) in pit [103]. This piece is a fairly non diagnostic piece of hard hammer struck debitage which is patinated blue.

7.9 The Archaeobotanical Assessment by Lisa Gray MSc MA AIfA This report assesses the significance and potential of plant macrofossils in nine whole earth samples taken during a watching brief undertaken by Archaeology Services Lewes (ASL) during the excavation of groundwork associated with a rear extension at 15 St.Swithun’s Terrace, Lewes (Fisher in prep, 2& 3). Nine samples from a Medieval pit and ditch were selectedfor assessment (see table 7) below.

40


Table 7: Sample Details

Sample

Context Sampled

Feature Sampled Description

Spot DateAmountof

wholeearthsample

Amountofflot

produced

% ofcontext

sampled

%

processed

2 105 103

second fillof pit [103]

c. 1075-1150 butx3 1150-1200 c20L 30ml 40% 50%

3 107 103

third fill of pit [103]

c. 1075-1150

c20L 45ml 40% 100%

5 109 103

bottom fillof pit [103]

No datec1075-1200? 8L 5ml 100% 100%

6 110 103

chalky fillof pit [103]

c. 1050-1150

8L 1.25ml 40% 50%

9 108 113

forth fill of ditch [113]

most c.1050-1150but x2more c.1150-1225 c20L 75ml 25% 100%

10 114 113fill of ditch [113]

c. 1050-1150 c20L 30ml 10% 100%

11 115 113

basal fill of ditch [113]

c. 1050-1150

c10L 5ml 10% 100%

12 115 113

basal lensing onto chalk [113]

c. 1050-1150

c20L 15ml 10% 100%

13 116 113

SE corner house footings

c. 1050-1150

c10L 5ml 10% 100%

41


This report will state the abundance, diversity and potential of the plant macro-remains and advise on future work.

7.9.1 Methodology

Thirteen soil samples were taken and these ranges in size from8 to 40 litres (Fisher, in prep, 26). Nine samples were presented for assessment and these ranged in size from 8 to 20litres.

Sampling and processing was carried out by Archaeology Services Lewes. Processing was carried out using a flotation tank with a 500 micron mesh used to collect the residue and a 250 micron mesh to collect the ‘flot’ (light material washed into the 250 micron mesh sieve) (Fisher, in prep, 26). A magnet was passed over the residues during the processing stage. Flots and plant macro-remains from the residues were sent to the author for assessment. All but samples <2> and <6>were completely processed. Samples <2> and <6> were 50% processed.

Once with the author the 'flots' (material collected in the 250 mm sieve) were scanned using a binocular stereo-microscopewith magnifications of between 10 and 40 times. The quality ofpreservation, diversity of plant remain, mollusca and bone were recorded as were any artefactual remains. A magnet was passed over the flots to retrieve any hammerscale.

The correct botanical names for plant parts will not be used in this report. The term 'seed' has been used to replace 'achene', 'nutlet' and 'fruit' for clarity. Correct botanical nomenclature will be used in the tables if an analysis is carried out.

7.9.2 Results (table 8)

Stratigraphic Integrity

During excavation it was observed that the top context of the pits were compromised and degrees of residually were noted in fills (111) and (112) (pers.comm. Lisa Fisher 2015). Samples from neither of these fills were presented for assessment.

42


The most secure contexts were those in the basal deposits, fills (108) and (114/115) in pit [113] and (105) and (107) in pit [103]. Samples <2>, <3>, <9>, <10>, <11> and <12> were taken from these fills.

Examination of the flots revealed modern rootlet fragments in samples <2>, <6>, <9> and <10> and shells of the subterranean snail Ceciliodes acicula (Müller) were found in sample <2>, <3>, <5>, <6>, <9> and <10>. This snail borrows well below the ground surface (Kerney & Cameron 1979 , 149) and can be indicative of bioturbation as an rootlets. This indicates the likelihood of aerated soils that favours the survival of charred plant remains or more fragile uncharred plant remains.This is indicated by the plant macro-remains recorded in thesesamples (see table 8).

Plant Macro-remains in these samples (table 8)

Table 8: Plant Macro-remains in the Flots and Residues

Fill

Samp

ledesc

ript

ion

Charred

grainsCharredseeds

Charrednutshell

Charre

d wood

>4m

m

charre

d wood

<4m

m Dried

waterlogged Seeds

Mode

rn

A D P A D P A D P A A A D P A

2105

2nd fill of pit [103] 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 5 1 1 3 5

3107

3rd fill of pit [103] 2 1 3 - - - - - - 2 5 - - - -

5 109

bottom

- - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - -

43


fill of pit [103]

6110

clay/

chalky fill of pit [103] - - - - - - - - - 1 2 - - - 1

9108

fill of pit [113] 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 5 - - - 1

10

114

fill of pit [113] 2 1 - 1 1 2 - - - 3 4 - - - 1

11

115

?basalfill pit [113] 1 1 2 - - - - - - 2 5 - - - -

12

115

basallensing onto chalkin pit [113] 2 1 3 1 1 2 - - - 2 5 - - - -

13

116

SE corner house

2 1 3 1 1 2 - - - 1 5 1 - - -

44


footings [113]

Key: a = abundance [1=occasional1-10,2=moderate 11-100 and 3= abundant>100; d = diversity[1=low1-4 taxa types, 2=moderate5-10,3= high; p = preservation [1 = poor (family level only), 2= moderate (genus), 3= good (species identification possible)

The most frequent charred plant macro-remains were fragments of charred wood. None of these where fragments of roundwood ortwigs. Every sample contained fragments of charred wood largerthan 4mm2 (sieve mesh aperture size). Samples this size are easier to break to reveal the cross-sections and diagnostic features necessary for identification (Asouti 2006, 31; Smartand Hoffman, 1988, 178-179).

Charred cereal grains were found in both pits with most in samples <3>, <10>, <12>, and <13>. These were grains of barley(Hordeum sp.), wheat (Triticum sp.) and oat (Avena sp.). Most of these will be identifiable to genus and some to species but chaff was completely absent that will mean that it is not present to support these identifications.

Charred seeds were present in very low numbers in sample <2>, <9>, <10>, <12> and <13>. These were mostly pulses (present inbags labelled ‘charcoal’ from the residue scan). Charred nutshell fragments of hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) were found in samples <2> and <9>.

Uncharred violet (Viola sp.) seeds were present in samples <2> and <13>. These plants tend to be common in base rich soil andamong shaded grassland (Stace 2010, 332). They did not appear to be modern.

7.9.3 Faunal Remains in the flots (table 9).

Table 9. Faunal remains in the Flots

45


Sample

Fill

Sample

descri

ption

Terres

trial

mollus

ca Freshw

ater

mollus

ca Bone

fragme

nts

Modern

root/r

hizom

es

A D A D A D A

2 105

2ndfillof pit[103] 4 3 - - - - 5

3 107

3rdfillof pit[103] 2 1 - - 1 1 -

5 109

bottomfillof pit[103] 1 1 1 1 1 1 -

6 110

clay/chalkyfillof pit[103] 1 1 - - - - 1

9 108

fillof pit[113] 2 1 - - 1 1 1

10 114

fillof pit[113] 1 1 - - 1 1 1

11 115

?basalfillpit[113] 1 1 - - - - -

12 115

basallensing ontochalkin pit[113] 2 1 - - 1 1 -

13 116

SEcornerhousefootings[113] 1 1 - - 1 - -

Key: a = abundance [1=occasional1-10,2=moderate 11-100 and 3=abundant>100; d = diversity[1=low1-4 taxa types, 2=moderate5-10,3= high; p = preservation [1 = poor (family level only), 2=moderate (genus), 3= good (species identification possible)

This is not a zooarchaeological report but a general comment can be made here on the faunal remains observe in the flots.

46


Terrestrial snail shells, other than those of Ceciliodes acicula (Müller) were present in every sample, mostly in sample <2>, second fill of pit [103]. A freshwater snail shell was observed in sample <5>, bottom fill of pit [103].

Bone fragments were found in low numbers in samples < 3>, <5>,<9>, <10> and <12>. A fragment of burnt bone was seen in sample <5>. A fragment of a thorn from a thornback ray (Raja clavata) was found in sample <10>.

A dried waterlogged puparia was in the flot from sample <13>, SE corner house footings [113].

7.9.4 Inorganic Remains in the flots and residues.

A magnet was passed over each 'flot' and no magnetic material was found. Clinker was present in the items recovered from theresidue for sample <2> and <6>.

7.9.5 Discussion

Abundance and Diversity

The most abundant plant macro-remains were charred wood. Its diversity cannot be revealed at this stage. The charred grainsand seeds have low diversity and the grains are present in lowto moderate levels of abundance.

The flots will be kept in the author's archive until requestedback by Archaeological Services Lewes.

7.10 The Residue analysis by Lisa Fisher and Carol White

7.10.1 Processing was carried out using a flotation tank with a 500µ mesh used to collect the residue and a 250 micron mesh to collect the flot. A magnet was passed over the residues during the processing stage. All but samples <2> and <6> were completely processed. Samples <2> and <6> were 50% processed.

7.10.2 All artefacts retrieved from the residues >2mm were picked out by eye, after fractionating through 7mm, 4mm and 2mm sieves. The larger elements >2mm have been condensed belowin Table 10 with further comments discussing each category separately below. The smaller elements >500 microns have been condensed into table 11 below.

47


Table 10 Artefacts recovered from the residues >2mm

Sample Bone Pottery Magnetic residue (table 12)

Fire cracked flint

Context

2 33g 30g 15g 6g (105) Middle fill of pit [103]

3 57g 13g 9g - (107) Base of pit [103]

5 14g - - 1g (109) Weathered base of pit [103]

6 2g - 1g - (110) Weathered sides of pit [103]

9 114g 72g 84g Plus piece of slag 29g (108) Base of pit [113]

10 101g 43g 32g 2g (114) Base of pit [113]

11 29g 79g 15g 17g (115) Base of pit [113]

12 30g 82g 16g - (115) Base of pit [113]

13 29g 20g 8g 2g (116) Base of pit [113]

7.10.3 After extracting the magnetic material, the residues 500µ - 2mm were considered to have low potential for analysis. After discussions with the relevant specialists it was decided that these should be assessed by sampling a percentage of the remainingunprocessed contents. This was done by selecting a 5% sample from all processed samples. These were then subjected to assessment by means of a binocular microscope at x3 magnification. The results of these residues revealed some ecofacts but they were all considerably fragmented and do not hold any potential for further analysis. There were no complete molluscs and no complete profilesfor the charcoal elements, such as thin twiggy stems. No seeds were present. The results are logged in Table 11 below and no further analysis was carried out on these small fractions as they were better represented elsewhere with larger and more complete elements fully analysed by the relevant specialists.

Table 11 Assessment of the residues 500µ -2mm

Sample Comments Marine MolluscSmall mammalBone

FishBone

Charcoal Seeds Sample weight and% scanned

2 All fractured plus slate, roots and CBM present

* * - * - 20g - 5%

3 All fractured plus fresh insect eggs

- * - * - 45g -5%

48


5 No artefacts - - - - - 16g – 5%

6 No artefacts - - - - - 25g -5%

9 All fractured - * * * - 77g-5%

10 All fractured plus slate fragments

* * - * - 70g - 5%

11 All fractured * * - * - 33g - 5%

12 All fractured * * - * - 50g - 5%

13 All fractured * * - * - 20g - 5%

Frequency Key: None - ; Very low *; Low **; Moderate ***; High

7.10.4 The Magnetic Material from the residues by Lisa Fisher

During processing of the soil samples a magnet was passed over allresidues >500 microns. The majority of this material consists of slightly magnetic stones, quartz and other material such as roasted iron ore as outlined in Table 12 below. Of particular noteis the presence of forging hammerscale in contexts (105), (107), (108), (114), (115) and (116). The weight of these elements are relatively low, indicating a background ‘noise’ of smithing activity within the vicinity but this is unlikely to have been close to the pits. If a forge was nearby, the amount of hammerscale recovered would be substantially more that that recovered from the excavations. It should be noted that more magnetic material came from the lower contexts in pit [113] in comparison to the basal deposits in the smaller pit [103]. This could be due to the size of the features and volume of samples taken but it is certain that more magnetic material was deposited in pit [113]. Without full excavation of the features it is impossible to do volume comparisons. No further analysis was undertaken on the material.

Table 12 The magnetic material from the residues >500microns

Sample

number

Context number

Total weight Characteristics and comments

2 (105) 14g Approx. 50% hammerscale represented plus globular smithing (?) pieces as well as roasted ore and other magnetic material such as stones

49


and quartz.

3 (107) 9g Approx. 30% hammerscale represented plus globular smithing (?) pieces as well as roasted ore and other magnetic material such as stones and quartz.

5 (109) None

6 (110) 1g Mainly magnetic stones with a few globular smithing (?) pieces with one negatively charged piece.

9 (108) 84g Approx. <40% hammerscale represented plus globular smithing (?) pieces as well as roasted ore and other magnetic material such as stones and quartz and three larger pieces of slag.



12 (115) 16g Approx. 20% hammerscale represented plus globular smithing (?) pieces as well as roasted ore and other magnetic material such as stones and quartz. Small pin fragment 1mm wide and 10mmin length also retrieved.

13 (116) 8g Approx. 5% hammerscale represented but mainly other magnetic material such as stones and quartz with some roasted ore.

7.10.4 The Pottery from the residues by Lisa Fisher

The pottery recovered from the residues >2mm consisted of very small, abraded and fairly un-diagnostic sherds which have been condensed in Table 10 above. Given the abraded nature they were not considered for full analysis as the assemblage was much betterrepresented by the larger hand picked pieces from the excavation which were sent off to a specialist for full analysis.

50


Consequently, only the number and weight has been analysed and no further action was taken.

7.10.5 The Fire Cracked flint from the residues by Lisa Fisher

Some small pieces of fire cracked flint were recovered from the residues >2mm which were simply weighed, counted and condensed in Table 10 above. It should be noted that a higher number fire cracked flint came from the lower contexts in pit [113] in comparison to the basal deposits in the smaller pit [103]. This could be due to the size of the features and volume of samples taken but it is certain that more cracked flint was deposited in pit [113] which is a similar story to the magnetic material and these are likely to be associated.

7.10.6 The Bone from the residues by Carol White

Introduction

A total of 2,417 bones and teeth weighing 413g were recovered from 9 contexts from the residue of flotation of soil samples >2mm. Of these, 30 bones could be assigned to species and skeletal element, and 11 teeth were identified as Sheep. 196 vertebral fragments were identified, of which 173 were assigned to fish generally, 1 as Cod and 7 as probable Mackerel. The vast majority of the assemblage were small bone fragments which have been assigned to small or medium mammal.

Methodology

For ease of reference within the bone assemblage report as awhole, the methodology is broadly the same as for the mainreport prepared by Sarah Green.

Results

2,374 fragments were recovered from 9 contexts (Table 13)

Table 13 bone fragments from within the residue by context

Context No. No. of fragments

105 239

106 1

51


107 291

108 595

109 42

110 10

114 481

115 515

116 200

Total No.of fragments 2,374

Table 14 breakdown by species and context

Species by Context

Count of skeletal element

Sum of number of fragments

Bird 10 20

105 3 2

107 1 1

114 3 9

116 1 1

108 2 7

Cat 1

114 2

Cattle 2

114 2

Chicken 1

115 1

Cod 1 1

109 1 1

52


Dog 1

115 1

Fish 38 441

105 4 69

107 9 119

109 3 16

114 4 72

115 9 76

116 1 11

108 8 78

Goose 1

115 1

large mammal 13 26

106 1 1

107 4 4

114 4 5

108 4 16

Mackerel 3 7

114 1 3

115 2 4

med mammal 59 557

105 12 57

107 10 51

109 3 24

110 2 253


114 13 57

115 9 98

116 5 98

108 5 170

Mouse 1

115 1

Pig 3

105 1

108 2

Rabbit 1

105 1

Sheep 26 3

105 1

107 9

109 1

114 5

115 2 1

116 3

108 5 2

small mammal 15 1319

105 1 111

107 2 116

109 1 1

110 1 8

114 2 335

54


115 3 336

116 3 90

108 2 322

Turdus 1

105 1

Grand Total 178 2374

Species Represented

The assemblage, as residue of flotation, comprises mostly unidentifiable fragments. As can be seen from the table above,species positively identified were:

Mammals

Mouse, Cat, Dog, Rabbit, Pig, Sheep and Cattle were all represented. Phalanges of Cat, Dog, Pig, Cattle and Rabbit were identified and a pelvis of a Mouse. Carpal, caudal vertebra, humerus, maxilla, metapodial, phalange, ulna, rib fragments and teeth were all identified to Sheep.

Birds

The majority of the bird bone assemblage was too fragmented toidentify to species or skeletal element. Chicken is represented by a single coracoid; Goose by a proximal phalangeand Turdus (the Thrush family) is represented by the distal fragment of a tarso-metatarsal.

Fish

A total of 479 fish bones were recovered; of these eight boneswere identified as Cod (Articular bones and vertebrae) and Mackerel (pre-caudal vertebrae).

Table 15 vertebrae recorded by size range

Context

Residue

<3mm <4mm >4mm <5mm >5mm <6mm >6mm <7mm

105 2 29 6 2

55


107 3 26 3 2

108 9 21 6 1 4

109 5 1 1

114 10 19 6

115 12 22 1 10

116 3 11

From the table above it is evident that the majority of the vertebrae represent small species of fish, maybe of whitebait or sprat size. Seven elements in the assemblage were identified as modified scales, possibly the barbs noted along the spine of fish such as skate and trout. Certainly those identified were from a number of species.

Plate 12. Worked bone from context (116) basal deposits in pit[113]

Discussion

Due to the fragmented nature of the assemblage and the low number of identifiable bone to species, the results of this

56


report should be read in conjunction with the main bone assemblage report produced by Sarah Green. It is interesting to note that context (116) contained some worked bone, but these were too small to identify with any degree of success. The larger piece may have formed the handle of a knife but nothing further can be ascertained. The full archive data has been provided as table 21 which is in the appendix.

7.11 Miscellaneous find by Lisa FisherA small faience bead was recovered from the soil sample <3> from the third fill (107) of pit [103], which is just 2mm in diameter with a hole through the middle. It is likely that this bead would have been part of a necklace or rosary of some sort, with other beads creating a string. This came from a secure medieval context but no other such beads were recovered across the site.

Plate 13 The faience bead

8.0 The Potential for further analysis

8.1 The Pottery by Luke Barber

The pottery assemblage from the site all conforms to the pattern already established for the ceramics of Lewes during analysis workon the much larger combined assemblages from the Baxter’s and Lewes House sites (Barber forthcoming). It adds nothing new in both fabric and forms. The groups are small and often contain residual material and considering they have been archived during the current work are not considered to be retaining for long-term curation

8.2 The Ceramic Building Material by Luke Barber

57


The material has been useful in providing more dating evidencefor the upper deposits such as [111] but does not warrant any further analysis. The assemblage is recommended for discard.

8.3 The Geological Material by Luke Barber

The assemblage of stone from the site is of types well known to Lewes and far better represented in well-dated assemblages from earlier excavations. The material is not recommended for retentionin a museum.

8.4 The Bone by Sarah Green

Given the quantities and fragmentation state of materialinvolved, this small assemblage is not recommended for longterm curation.

8.5 The Marine Shell by Jan Oldham

Given the common species and their presence in the fill of pits, which suggests food debris, it is not recommended that the marine shell requires further analysis other than the recording of their presence and quantification as listed.

8.7 The Land Molluscs by Jan Oldham

In this instance, no further analysis is required other than the recording of their presence and quantification as listed.

8.8 The Post Medieval Finds by Lisa Fisher

There is no potential for further analysis with this assemblage which is recommended for discard.

8.9 The Flint by Lisa Fisher

This artefact is not recommended for long term curation.

8.10 The Archaeobotanical Assemblage by Lisa Gray

This would be very general information rather than specifically revealing the function of the features or activities at the site because charred plant macro-remains canbe transported widely and are often present in re-deposited soil.

However, these plant remains have local and regional significance and the potential to be fully identified and to provide useful information about fuel and diet.

58


8.11 The Residue Analysis by Lisa Fisher

As this analysis provided an overview of all artefacts from the residues between 4mm-2mm and a 5% sample assessment of the artefacts between 500µ - 2mm, the remaining residues were not deemed worthy of further analysis as they are better represented in the full analysis of the artefacts elsewhere in the report. It is not recommended that any further work is done on the residues which are recommended for discard.

8.12 Miscellaneous Finds by Lisa Fisher

No further analysis will be undertaken.

9.0 Discussion and Interpretation

9.1 The watching brief at St.Swithuns Terrace can be considered very successful with good dating evidence obtained for the deposits on site, and two well preserved medieval features, with a clear stratigraphic relationship.

9.2 The abraded Later Saxon pottery and medieval material suggests that this area of Lewes had seen activity from pre-conquest times through to the present day, and the presence of Saxo-Norman pottery confirms that the Saxon Burgh of Lewes appears to have extended to this area of the Burgh, although it is possible that the pottery is residual from agricultural practices in the outlying areas during the Norman period.

9.3 The smaller pit [103] contained a higher proportion of High medieval pottery sherds from the 13th century in the top fill (104) with the second fill mostly c. 1075-1150 and the third fill c. 1075-1150. The basal deposit representing the initial fill, context (109), contained few artefacts, just a handful of fragmented bone and represents the initial weathered chalk base inside. The earliest pottery (1050-1150) from this feature lay within context (110) which represents a weathered slump on the inside walls of the pit and would be the initial deposit, aside from the basal deposit (109) which is also likely to represent a weathered fill. This gives good evidencefor the pit being open for some time before back-filling occurred. The pottery dates the pit to the very early Saxo-Norman period .The size of the pit reflects those found elsewhere in Lewes, especially at Baxter’s printworks in both shape and size (Stevens, S., in prep.) Similar pit features include (SGP70) which was 1.4m wide and 1.5m deep, (SGP108) 1.6m wide and 1.2m deep and (SGP 109), 1.32m wide and 1.2m deep. They all contained pottery of a very similar date to

59


those found at St.Swithuns as well as similar silty clay fills.

9.4 The larger pit [113] was initially thought to be sufficiently large enough to be the Saxon burgh ditch which is believed to run east west as this feature does and at 1.50m deep it is certainly of a considerable size to fit the expected dimensions. However, in the south-eastern corner of the site excavations underneath the corner of the house revealed an area of natural head deposit. Health and safety prevented thisarea from being fully recorded although a measured sketch was completed. Photos clearly show this deposit (118) which had a fairly thick layer of pea-grit chalky clay (117) over the top of this showing a fairly lengthy period of stasis. The pit appeared to cut through this layer although visibility was difficult in this corner. The shape in plan of the pit appearsto be linear which would suggest that the cut is either of a considerable size or is rectilinear in shape, or did not startout initially as a pit. There were five different fills to this feature which revealed pottery and CBM dating from the mid 11th Century in the basal deposits through to the 18th century when the last filling up of the pit occurred. The post-medieval dating evidence from some disturbed layers (106)(mixed 12th – 18th century artefacts) and (111) (13th – 16th century artefacts) is evidence for low level activity continuing into the post-medieval period on site, when it is likely that the pit was re-cut and later deposits filled the top of the pit. However, some of these artefacts are highly likely to be residual in nature and may have translocated downfrom the mixed context (106) above. Whatever the nature of theresiduality is, it is evident that the larger pit was subjected to re-cutting which was not evident in the smaller pit. The earliest pottery from this feature dates to 1050 AD from the basal deposits and also gives the same date for the cutting of this pit in the early Saxo-Norman period. Similar pit features found at Baxters printworks excavations (Stevens ibid) include (SGP105) which was 2.5m wide and in excess of 1.2mdeep, (SGP159) which was 2.17m wide and 1.17m deep and in particular (SGP155) which was very similar in both size and fill at 3.0m wide and 1.96m deep.

9.5 Their primary function is unknown; the reasons why these pits wereexcavated in the first place may have been to extract building material, namely chalk, for construction purposes. However, this function cannot be proven. Their secondary function would have been as rubbish pits, as there were fairly moderate assemblages of

60


bone and other domestic refuse; only domestic species were represented in the bone assemblage with sheep the most common species, followed by cattle and then pig. Butchery in the form of chopping was observed. It is interesting to note that a good quantity of fish bones were retrieved (479) by soil processing; which included Cod, mackerel and smaller fish such as whitebait are likely. In addition, thorns originating from Thornback Rays were present. The Charred plant remains recovered Barley, Wheat, Oats and pulses as well as violet seeds and Hazelnut shells. As such the material culture represents typical deposits found in domestic refuse pits.

9.6 The fill was the wrong colour and structure for a cess-pit. Although a little magnetic material and charcoal was recovered from the soil samples, the quantity and morphology also suggests it did not have an industrial function. Likewise the few building stone fragments were not significant in number and are not necessarily indicators of in-situ construction.

9.7 The latest deposits of both pits contained 12th century potterywhich is likely to be residual in the larger pit as later mixed assemblage dating from the 15th century (as well as CBM dating to the18th century) was also present. This may suggest that the smaller pit was filled in fairly rapidly, which is backed up by the state of preservation of the bones which werein very good condition and not gnawed or abraded. However, there was a clear level of exposure in the smaller pit in the form of a weathered chalk lining to the inside of the pit which was not present in the larger pit.

9.8 It should be noted that the pea-grit context (101) lay directly at the base of the topsoil (100) outside of the pit features. The pea-grit layer is the interface between the natural chalk (102) and the base of the modern topsoil. No pea-grit layer was evident between the base of the topsoil andthe top of the pits and so is likely that this layer pre-datesthe pits as they cut through it.

9.9 There is evidence of some activity in the 18th century before a higher level of activity, probably associated with the developmentof the town in Victorian times when the house was constructed. This means the top fill of the pits is likely to have been disturbed. A concrete base for the outbuildings rested directly onthe mixed context (106) which has a date ranging from 14th – 18th century with some residual earlier pottery sherds found within.

61


9.10 The methodology adopted for this watching brief proved to be satisfactory, and the confidence rating should be considered to bereliable. The project aims and objectives were successfully met and it should be recommended that no further action is necessary.

10.0 Archive

10.1 Lewes Museum has been approached to take the paper archive but are not able to at present as the museum stores are full. In light of this, ASL will retain this until such a time as the museum store is able to take the archive or an alternative repository is found. None of the finds were considered significant and will be returned to the owner as requested. A digital copy of the report will be retained in accordance with the WSI as follows:

The County Archaeologist The Local Planning Authority The project archive held by ASL The owner The Historic Environment Record

11.0 Acknowledgements.

Thanks are due to Stuart and Joann for commissioning ASL. Thanks are also due to Jon Baczkowski for fieldwork and to thespecialists for their contributions as well as Kellie Irwin for processing the environmental samples. Site visits and guidance from the County Archaeology Team as well as Luke Barber were much appreciated during the fieldwork.

Lisa Jayne Fisher

Archaeology Services Lewes

March 2015

12.0 Bibliography

Asouti, E. 2006. 'Factors affecting the formation of an archaeological wood charcoal assemblage.' Retrieved on 13th February 2015 from World Wide Web: http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~easouti/methodology_application.htm

62


Boessneck, J., (1969) ‘Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries) and goat (Capra hircus)’, in D. Brothwell and E. S. Higgs, (eds.) Science in Archaeology (2nd edition), London: Thames and Hudson, 331-58.

Cohen, A. & Serjeantson, D. (1996) A Manual for the Identification of Bird Bones from Archaeological Sites. Archetype Press.

English Heritage 2011. Environmental Archaeology: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Methods, from Sampling and Recovery to Post-excavation (second edition) English Heritage

Grant, A. (1982) ‘The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age of domestic animals’ in B. Wilson, C. Grigson and S. Payne (eds.) Ageing and Sexing animal bones from Archaeological Sites. Oxford, BAR British Series, 109. 91-108.

Kerney, M.P. and Cameron, R.A.D. 1979. Land snails of Britain & North-West Europe. London: Harper Collins Publishers.

Reitz, E. J. & Wing, E. S. (2008) Zooarchaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Silver, I. A. (1969) ‘The ageing of domestic animals’ in D. Brothwell and E. S. Higgs (eds.) Science in Archaeology (2nd edition), London: Thames and Hudson, 283-301.

Schmid, E. (1972) Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. Amsterdam. Elsevier Science Publishers.

Smart TL, and Hoffman, ES, 1988 Environmental Interpretation of Archaeological Charcoal. In Hastorf, C.A. and Popper, V.S. Current Palaeobotany Chicago and London. University of Chicago Press.

Stevens, S., in prep; Post-excavation assessment and updated project design on archaeological excavations at the Baxter’s Printworks site, St.Nicholas Lane, Lewes, East Sussex. ASE Project No. 2056, Site Code BPL 06.

Von den Driesch, A. (1976) A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1. Cambridge Mass:Harvard University.

Wheeler, A. & Jones, A.K.G. (2009) Fishes Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology.

63


Websites

http://fishbone.nottingham.ac.uk/

Appendix HER summary report

Site Code. SST14

Site

identification

and address

15 St.Swithuns Terrace, Lewes, BN7 1UJ

County,

district and /

or borough

East Sussex, Lewes District

O.S. grid ref. TQ 413099

Geology.The underlying geology of the site lies on the boundary between Zig Zag chalk formation and theLewes Nodular Chalk Formation. Alluvial deposits lie within 50m to the south

Project number. ASL 28-14

Fieldwork type. Watching Brief

Site type. Small domestic extension to the rear of existingproperty

Date of

fieldwork.24th-26th and 29th – 30th September 2014

Sponsor/client. Mr Stuart Carruthers and Ms Joann Weedon

64

http://fishbone.nottingham.ac.uk/


Project

manager.Lisa Fisher

Project

supervisor.Lisa Fisher

Period summary 11th century to modern day

Project

summary.

In September 2014 ASL was commissioned to undertake an archaeological watching brief at 15St.Swithuns Terrace, Lewes during ground works for the construction of a rear extension. Five separate site visits were made on 24th-26th and 29th – 30th September and two archaeological features were recorded and excavated within the limits of the work although the full extent of the features was not revealed across site so they were only partially recorded. These features were then hand excavated to depths no greater 2.0m, beyond the limit of safe working levels and at the extent of the development formation level. Two medieval pits were identified (Cuts 103 & 113). These pits contained pottery dating between the 11th and 16th Centuries AD. Other artefacts recovered included bone and building materials.

65


Fig.1 Location plan of Lewes

66

The site


Fig.2 – Site location plan (ASL Ordnance Survey Licence 2014No. 100055392)

67

Fig.3 Site trench plan in red and elevations


Fig.4EUS map showing extent of boundary within the study area outlined

( © East Sussex County Council, West Sussex County Council, and Brighton & Hove City Council. OS Licence No. LA 076600 2004.)

69

Thesit


Fig.5. EUS Historic Urban Character Areas of Lewes. The site is coloured pink in HUCA 4.

70

The site


( © East Sussex County Council, West Sussex County Council, and Brighton & Hove City Council. OS LicenceNo. LA 076600 2004.)

Fig.6 EUS Map number 8 showing the extent of urbanisation in period 5, from 1066AD


71

Thesite


Fig.7 EUS map 4 showing listed buildings near to the site


72

Thesite


Fig.8. Ordnance Survey 1st edition map from 1873 showing the area to be open ground, possibly an orchard

( © East Sussex County Council, West Sussex County Council, and Brighton & Hove CityCouncil. OS Licence No. LA 076600 2004.)

73

Thesite


Fig.9 Site plan (drawn at 1:20)

74


Fig.10 South facing section No.2 of pit [103]

75


Fig.11 West facing section No.1 across site

76


Table 16: Pottery archive data

ContextFabric Form Decoration Rim No Weight ENV Comments

u/s SNL3a CP cp3a beaded flaring 2 28 2 oxidised (ox)

u/s SNL5 ? 1 12 1 ox

u/s HML 1a CP cp5h hollow-topped 1 60 1

u/s GRE ? Cl gl all over 1 22 1

100 SNL1b ? 1 4 1 reduced (redu)

100 SNL2 ? 2 10 2 ox

100 SNL3a ? 2 6 2 redu

100 SNL5 CP cp5m hollow-topped 3 26 3

100 HML1a ? 7 28 6 ox & redu

100 HML2 ? 2 8 2

100 HML5a JUG Gr gl patches 1 4 1 ox

100 HML5b ? 1 6 1 ox

100 HML8 ? 1 2 1

100 EPML2a ? Gr gl internally 1 2 1 mid C16th-17th

104 SNL3a ? 7 46 7bodysherds (bss)

104 SNL3b CP cp2a simple thickened flaring 8 42 5 redu bss

104 SNL5 CP 8 50 7 bss

104 HML1a CP 4 30 4 ox bss

104 HML1b ? 1 2 1ox bodysherd

77


(bs)

104 HML2 ? 1 2 1 ox bs

104 HML3b JUGApplied pellets, patchy green glaze 2 66 1

ox. Oval rod handle

105 SNL1b CP 2 12 2 redu bss

105 SNL2 CP 1 4 1 ox bs

105 SNL3a CP x1 Pie crust rimcp2f simple squared flaring 7 60 7

105 SNL3b CP cp1b simple flaring 10 92 4 redu

105 SNL3c CP 3 34 2 ox

105 SNL3d ? 1 6 1 ox

105 SNL5 ? 3 14 2 ox

106 SNL5 CP 1 10 1 ox bs

106 SNL6b ? 1 6 1 ox bs

106 SNL8 ? 1 6 1 ox bs

106 HML3a JUG Gr gl spots 2 54 2

106 TL4a ? 1 16 1 ox base (ba)

107 SNL2 CP cp2c everted 3 48 2 ox

107 SNL3a CP 2 28 1 ox

107 SNL3b CP cp1b simple flaring 2 24 1 redu

107 SNL3d ? 1 4 1

108 SNL2 JARDeep slashed small handle 2 44 1

px possibly a pitcher

108 SNL3a CP cp3a beaded flaring 6 62 6 ox

78


108 SNL3b CP 3 42 3

108 SNL3c CP 1 8 1 redu

108 SNL8 ? 1 2 1 ox

108 HML1a CP cp5g hollowed 2 16 2 ox

110 SNL3a CP cp2d simple squared 4 48 4 ox

110 SML3b CP 2 14 1 redu

110 SNL3d ? 1 6 1 ox

111 HML1a ? 2 16 2 ox

111 HML1a CURF Stabbed rod handle 1 274 1ox. Internallysooted

111 HML1c ? 1 8 1 ox

111 HML3a CP 1 4 1 ox

112 SNL3a CP Incised lines 3 20 2 ox

112 SNL3b CP 1 4 1

112 HML1a BOWL b5d tapering 1 46 1 ox

114 SNL1b CP 2 18 1 redu

114 SNL3a CP

cp1a simple flaring; cp2a simple thickened flaring 12 112 4

114 SML3b CP 6 80 5 sooted

114 SNL3c CP 2 26 2

114 SNL3d CP 2 10 2

114 SNL11 CP 2 44 2

115 SNL3a PITCHunstabbed furrowed ha 2 66 1 ox

79


116 SNL3a ? 2 18 1 ox

Table 17: Summary of CBM assemblage

Context

Type Fabric No./weight

Comments Date

100 Peg tile

Moderate/abundant medium sand

2/22g 12mm thick C13-14th

100 Ridge tile

Moderate fine/medium sand

1/16g 13mm thick, green glazed

Mid C13th– 15th

104 Brick? Well-fired silty fabric

1/6g Tiny slither: uncertain form

Post-medieval

105 Burnt clay

Fine silty 1/6g Amorphous Undatable

106 Peg tile

Sparse/moderate medium sand

2/46g 10mm thick C14th – mid 16th

106 Peg tile

Common iron oxidesto 3mm

1/20g 14mm thick Mid C16th– 18th

106 Burnt clay

Abundant fine sand 2/22g Flat face. 17mm+ thick. Daub

Undatable

107 Burnt clay


108 Burnt clay


111 Floor tile

Abundant fine sand, very occasional iron oxides

1/98g Slight bevelled edges, unstabbed base. 19mm thick, clear

C14th – 15th

80


glaze

111 Brick Off-yellow well-fired Flemish-typewith poorly mixed red clay streaking

1/54g Re-used – mortar on break. 40mm+ thick

C15th – mid 16th

Table 18: Geological Material

Context

Type No./Weight

Comments

108 Wealden sandstone (fine-grained, dull yellow)

1/6g Amorphous

108 Horsham stone (light grey) 1/36g Amorphous

108 Lower greensand 1/330g Part of 22mm thick rotary quern with burnt grinding face but no edges

111 West Country slate 2/16g Roofing

114 Wealden sandstone (fine-grained, dull orange)

1/24g Amorphous

114 Scorched flint 1/8g Amorphous

Table 19. Bone archive data

ID site Feature

context species skeletal

elementpart ofbone tooth side sex

numberof

frags

ageclass

proximal

fusion

distalfusion

tootheruption/

wear

individual

modifications comments measured

? (y/n)m1

(mm)m2(mm)

m3(mm)

m4(mm)

001 SST14 Modern 100 Sheep Radius

shaft + distal end

R 1 sub-adult

unfused

prox=004

no distal epiphysis

81


002 SST14 Modern 100 Sheep Mandible mandibula

r hinge L 1 adult sm. chop on ramus

003 SST14 Modern 100 Sheep

ThoracicVertebrae

spinous process 1 adult


shaft + proximal end

R 1 sub-adult fused distal

=001

005 SST14 Modern 100 UID Med Long

boneshaft fragment 1 chopped


boneshaft fragment 1






shaft + distal end

R 1 sub-adult

unfused ?gnawing no

epiphysis



011 SST14 Modern 100 UID Med Rib body

fragment 1

012 SST14 Modern 100 UID Med Rib

tuburcle + body (part)

L 1

013 SST14 Modern 100 UID Med Tibia

distal shaft fragment

1

014 SST14 Modern 100 Bird Long

bone shaft 1

015 SST14 Modern 100 Sheep Calceneo

us complete R 1 sub-adult

unfused fused no proximal

epiphysis



017 SST14 Modern 100 Sheep Astragal

us complete L 1 adult fused fused





020 SST14 Modern 100 Sheep Radius shaft

fragment R 1

infant/juvenilebased onporosity

021 SST14 Modern 100 UID UI fragment 1

82



023 SST14 Modern 101 UID Large Long

boneshaft fragment 1 chopped ?humerus/

femur

024 SST14 Modern 101 Sheep Pelvis

part acetabulum

L 1

025 SST14 Modern 101 Cattle Metacarp

aldistal end R 1 adult fused shaft

chopped

026 SST14 Modern 101 Sheep Pelvis Ischium L 1

027 SST14 Modern 101 UID Large flat

bone fragment 1

028 SST14 Modern 101 Sheep Pelvis

acetabulum fragment

L 1

029 SST14 Modern 101 Sheep Phalange

1 complete 1 sub-adult fusing fused

030 SST14 Modern 101 Sheep Phalange

1 complete 1 adult fused fused






036 SST14 Pit103 104 Sheep Humerus

shaft + distal end

L 1sub-

adult /adult

fused

037 SST14 Pit103 104 Sheep Pelvis acetabulu

m + ilium R 1 adult

038 SST14 Pit103 104 UID Large flat

bone fragment 1

039 SST14 Pit103 104 Cattle Horn

core fragment 1


core fragment 1


m + ilium L 1 adult

83


042 SST14 Pit103 104 UID UI fragment 1

043 SST14 Pit103 104 UID Med Long



m + ilium R 1 adult chopped at ilium

toothmark, puncture

045 SST14 Pit103 104 Sheep Mandible ramus

angle 1

046 SST14 Pit103 104 UID Med Skull braincase

fragment 1

047 SST14 Pit103 104 UID Med Mandible condyle 1 gnawed

048 SST14 Pit103 104 Chicken

Carpo metacarpus

complete R 1 y GL39.87

Bp11.10

Did7.14

049 SST14 Pit103 104 UID Med

Cervicalvertebrae

neural arch 1 adult

050 SST14 Pit103 104 UID Med Rib body

fragment 1

051 SST14 Pit103 104 Sheep Loose

tooth complete UM1/M2 L 1

052 SST14 Pit103 104 UID Med flat

bone fragment 1


core fragment 1


core fragment 1

055 SST14 Pit103 104 Pig Metapodi

adistal end 1 sub-

adultunfuse

d





058 SST14 Pit103 104 UID Small Radius

shaft + distal end

R 1 fused surface erosion

059 SST14 Pit103 104 UID Med UI fragment 1

060 SST14 Pit103 104 UID Long



bone fragment 1

84


062 SST14 Pit103 104 Pig Loose

tooth complete LC R F 1

063 SST14 Pit103 104 UID Med pelvis ilium

fragment 1


065 SST14 Pit103 104 Bird Long


066 SST14 Pit103 104 Rodent Femur complete R 1 sub-

adult fused unfused

possibly rat

067 SST14 Pit103 104 UID

?calceneous

fragment 1


core fragment 1


bone fragment 1

070 SST14 Pit103 104 UID Large long





fragment 1



074 SST14 Pit103 105 Sheep Pelvis

acetabulum + ischium

R 1 adult


bone fragment 1

076 SST14 Pit103 105 Sheep Tibia shaft R 1 chopped


ThoracicVertebrae

body + spinous process

1 abs?

unfused body

078 SST14 Pit103 105 UID Large Long


079 SST14 Pit103 105 Pig Radius


L 1 sub-adult

unfused chopped



081 SST14 Pit103 105 Sheep Pelvis ilium

fragment R 1

85


082 SST14 Pit103 105 Sheep Metacarp

al


R 1 sub-adult fused y Bp

21.73


al complete R 1 sub-adult fused unfuse

d

distal epiphysis absent

y Bp20.44

SD12.97

084 SST14 Pit103 105 Cattle Metacarp

al

split shaft +proximalend

R 1 fused chopped +split




tooth complete LM1/M2 L 1 unerupted/ a

087 SST14 Pit103 105 Cattle Loose

tooth complete LC L 1 adult





090 SST14 Pit103 105 UID Med Rib fragment 1

091 SST14 Pit103 105 Pig Tibia

shaft + some proximal

R 1 adult fusedchopped on shaft (?+prox)

092 SST14 Pit103 105 Chicken Humerus

shaft + distal end

R 1 adult

093 SST14 Pit103 105 UID Med Sacrum

cranial articulation +bodyfrag

1 fused


Cervicalvertebrae

body 1 sub-adult

unfused

unfused


al

shaft + distal end

R 1 adult fused y Bd21.39




098 SST14 Pit103 105 Cattle Sacrum

cranial articulation

1 fused

099 SST14 Pit103 105 UID Large Tibia shaft

fragment 1 chopped


101 SST14 Pit103 105 Sheep pelvis

acetabulum + ischium

L 1 adult

86


102 SST14 Pit103 105 Red Deer Antler Coronet

(shed) 1sawn at tine level


104 SST14 Pit103 105 UID Med Sacrum fragment 1

105 SST14 Pit103 105 Cattle Phalange

1 complete 1 adult fused fused y GL54.17

Bp21.61

Bd21.04


ThoracicVertebrae

spinous process +sm arch

1

107 SST14 Pit103 105 Bird

Carpo metacarpus

major metacarpal

R 1


bone fragment 1


bone fragment 1


bone fragment 1



113 SST14 Pit103 105 UID Skull fragment 1




bone fragment 1

116 SST14 Pit103 105 Goose/

DuckTibiotarsus

proximal end 1



bone fragment 1

119 SST14 Pit103 105 UID Small Femur

shaft + distal end

R 1 unfused

same as158?

v. young but with surface erosion



Cervicalvertebrae

body fragment 1

87


122 SST14 Pit103 105 Sheep Cuneform complete L 1 adult fused fused y GB

31.33

123 SST14 Pit113 106 Cattle Metacarp

al


R 1 adult fused chopped mid-shaft y Bp

63.28

124 SST14 Pit113 106 Cattle Mandible corpus,

no teeth L 1 corpus to diastema

125 SST14 Pit113 106 Cattle Scapula

part glenoid +blade frag

L 1

126 SST14 Pit113 106 UID Large Rib fragment R 1

127 SST14 Pit113 106 Cattle Tibia shaft

fragment L 1 chopped mid-shaft

128 SST14 Pit113 106 UID Large Vertebra

e

wing or spinous process

1

129 SST14 Pit113 106 Sheep Tibia

shaft + distal end

R 1 sub-adult

unfused

no epiphysis

130 SST14 Pit113 106 Cattle Skull maxilla

fragment R 1 no teeth

131 SST14 Pit113 106 Cattle Tibia shaft R 1 chopped

132 SST14 Pit113 106 Cattle Femur distal

shaft R 1 chopped mid-shaft



134 SST14 Pit113 106 Cattle Femur distal

fragment ?L 1

135 SST14 Pit113 106 UID Large Rib fragment 1

136 SST14 Pit113 106 Cattle Humerus

distal shaft fragment

L 1 chopped at shaft


138 SST14 Pit103 107 sheep Scapula

blade + spine fragment

R 1


boneshaft fragment 1 Burnt -

white

140 SST14 Pit103 107 Sheep Sacrum fragment 1 c.2

vertebrae


fragment L 1

142 SST14 Pit 107 Cattle Rib head + L 1 head 88


103 body fragment

eroded, so ID difficult

143 SST14 Pit103 107 Sheep Mandible angle

fragment R 1


al shaft R 1 gnawed at distal end


Lumbar vertebrae

complete 1 sub-adult

unfused

unfused

Epiplateis 159

146 SST14 Pit103 107 Cattle Skull zygomatic

fragment L 1

147 SST14 Pit103 107 UID Large Humerus

greater trochanter fragment

1



149 SST14 Pit103 107 UID Large

ThoracicVertebrae

fragment 1


151 SST14 Pit103 107 UID Med Rib fragment R 1

152 SST14 Pit103 107 Sheep Mandible

hinge articulation frag

L 1

153 SST14 Pit103 107 Pig Metatars

al II complete R 1 sub-adult fused fusing y GL

58.62


fragment 1 ? Part of frontal





ThoracicVertebrae

fragment 1

158 SST14 Pit103 107 UID Small Femur complete L 1 unfuse

dunfuse

dsame as119?

v. young but with surface erosion


ThoracicVertebrae

epiphyseal plate 1 from

145?

distal plate to 145?

160 SST14 Pit103 107 Pig Metacarp

al III complete L 1 sub-adult fused unfuse

dno distal epiphysis y Bp

14.17

161 SST14 Pit103 107 Pig Loose


89


162 SST14 Pit103 107 Sheep Humerus distal

end R 1 adult fusedsm. cut marks on trochlea

y Bd26.89


bone fragment 1


bone fragment 1

165 SST14 Pit103 107 UID Med Vertebra

e fragment 1


fragment 1


168 SST14 Pit103 107 UID Skull braincase

fragment 1

169 SST14 Pit103 107 UID Med Mandible corpus

fragment 1

no enough to id aveolar sockets




173 SST14 Pit113 108 Pig Tibia

shaft + distal end

R 1 sub-adult

unfused

174 SST14 Pit113 108 UID Large Skull braincase

fragment 1

175 SST14 Pit113 108 Sheep Skull frontal

fragment ?L 1




178 SST14 Pit113 108 Sheep Mandible

diastema + P2 socket

R 1

179 SST14 Pit113 108 Sheep Skull frontal

fragment L 1


ThoracicVertebrae

spinous process 1

181 SST14 Pit113 108 sheep Pelvis Ischium L 1

90


182 SST14 Pit113 108 Sheep Skull maxilla +

P2 socket R 1

183 SST14 Pit113 108 Sheep Metapodi

ashaft fragment 1




fragment 1


fragment 1



fragment 1

189 SST14 Pit113 108 UID flat

bone fragment 1



192 SST14 Pit113 108 Sheep Radius distal

epiphysis 1 sub-adult

unfused

badly eroded

193 SST14 Pit113 108 Sheep Phalange

1 complete 1 adult fused fused y GL32.16

Bp12.20

Bd10.23

194 SST14 Pit113 108 Sheep Horn

core tip 1

195 SST14 Pit113 108 Bird Tibiotar

sus

shaft + distal end

R 1


197 SST14 Pit113 108 Fish Vertebra

e body 1





tooth complete LM1/M2 R 1 a


tooth complete UP3 L 1 ?203

91



tooth broken UM1/M2 R 1 b / c


tooth complete UP2 L 1 ?201

204 SST14 Pit113 108 Cattle Loose

tooth complete LI1 L 1

205 SST14 Pit103 110 Cattle Mandible hinge

sadle L 1

206 SST14 Pit103 110 Sheep pelvis ilium

fragment R 1


fragment 1 suture visible

208 SST14 Pit103 110 UID Large Mandible

angle/ramus fragment

1



Lumbar vertebrae

complete 1 sub-adult

unfused

unfused

211 SST14 Pit103 110 UID Med Vertebra

ebody fragment 1 chopped






215 SST14 Pit103 110 Sheep Ulna proximal

end 1 gnawed

unable to ID side because gnawing




bone fragment 1

219 SST14 Pit113 111 Cattle Calceneo

us complete R 1 adult fused fused y GL110.11

GB45.98

220 SST14 Pit113 111 Sheep Radius +

Ulna

shaft + distal end

L 1 adult fused y Bd24.78

SD15.05

221 SST14 Pit113 111 UID Large Scapula blade

fragment 1

92


222 SST14 Pit113 111 Pig

Metacarpal III/IV

proximal shaft 1 eroded

223 SST14 Pit113 111 Cattle Axis partial

arch 1


3 complete 1 y DLF46.87

Ld36.33

MBF17.24


ThoracicVertebrae

spinous process 1



227 SST14 Pit113 111 UID Med Skull

maxilla fragment + tooth socket

1



bone fragment 1


bone fragment 1


tooth complete UM1/M2 L 1 roots open


tooth complete LM1/M2 L 1 ?unerupted

233 SST14 Pit113 112 UID Large Skull frontal

fragment 1


e fragment 1 foramen present


e fragment 1

236 SST14 Pit113 112 Sheep Radius


L 1sub-

adult /adult

fused chopped at shaft


e fragment 1






241 SST14 Pit113 114 Bird Tibiotar

sus


1 chicken type

93



ThoracicVertebrae

body + arch 1 unfuse

dunfuse

d


fragment 1

244 SST14 Pit113 114 Cattle Radius


L 1sub-

adult /adult

fused chopped at shaft y Bp

75.40


al

shaft + distal end

R 1 adult fused chopped at shaft y Bd

25.34

246 SST14 Pit113 114 Sheep Pelvis

Ischium +spine + acetabulum

R 1

chopped at acetabulum


al


R 1sub-

adult /adult

fused chopped at shaft y Bp

22.69

248 SST14 Pit113 114 Cattle Ulna shaft 1


ThoracicVertebrae

spinous process +sm arch

1


ThoracicVertebrae

spinous process 1

251 SST14 Pit113 114 Cattle Metatars

al


R 1sub-

adult /adult

fused chopped y Bp41.68


end L 1 adult fused chopped y Bd34.09


boneshaft fragment 1 chopped ?femur


fragment 1


bone fragment 1

256 SST14 Pit113 114 Sheep Mandible diastema

+ tooth LC R 1 uneruptedcanine


shaft + distal end

L 1sub-

adult /adult

fused

gnawing and puncture marks

y Bd23.67

258 SST14 Pit113 114 Cattle Skull occipital

fragment 1

259 SST14 Pit113 114 Sheep Skull maxilla +

teethUdp3, Udp4 L 1

Udp3worn,Udp4

unerupted


bone fragment 1

94


261 SST14 Pit113 114 Sheep Horn

core tip 1

262 SST14 Pit113 114 UID Large rib fragment 1


bone fragment 2


al

shaft + distal end

L 1 adult fused chopped y Bd27.84

265 SST14 Pit113 114 Cattle Skull zygomatic

fragment 1



fragment 1


fragment 1

269 SST14 Pit113 114 UID Large Skull frontal

fragment 1


bone fragment 1





273 SST14 Pit113 114 Sheep Metapodi

ashaft fragment 1 chopped





276 SST14 Pit113 114 UID UI fragment 1 burnt

black

277 SST14 Pit113 114 UID Skull fragment 1




95



fragment 1


fragment 1


bone fragment 1



tooth complete UM1/M2 R 1


tooth

3rd pillar absent

LM3 L 1 c 3rd pillar broken off


tooth complete UM1/M2 L 1roots totally open

288 SST14 Pit113 114 sheep Loose

tooth fragment UM1/M2 R 1 n/aocculsal surfaces eroded


bone fragment 1


end L 1 adult fused chopped at shaft

septal aperture y Bd

34.20



292 SST14 Pit113 115 UID Large Tibia shaft

fragment 1


al complete L 1 adult fused fused y GL111.04

Bp20.82

Bd22.71

SD12.70


fragment 1

295 SST14 Pit113 115 Pig Mandible corpus +

teeth

LP4, LM1, LM2

L 1 a, d, dM2 appears burnt or damaged


3 complete 1 adult fused fused y DLS60.53

Ld45.58

MBS16.74

297 SST14 Pit113 115 Sheep Mandible corpus +

teeth

LP3, LP4, LM1

L 1 n/a, f, e

LP2 lost ante mortem+ socket healed




96





303 SST14 Pit113 115 Pig Metatars

al

Metatarsal III / IV

? 1Juvenile /sub-adult

fused unfused

distal epiphysis absent


305 SST14 Modern 116 Cattle Calceneo

us complete L 1 adult fused fusedcorpus calcaei gnawed

306 SST14 Modern 116 Cattle Phalange

1 complete 1 adult fused fused

307 SST14 Modern 116 Cattle Rib

head + body fragment

L 1

308 SST14 Modern 116 Cattle Humerus

Proximal,greater trochanter

R 1

309 SST14 Modern 116 UID Med Rib fragment R 1

310 SST14 Modern 116 UID Large

ThoracicVertebrae

body + arch 1

311 SST14 Modern 116 UID Large Skull braincase

fragment 1

312 SST14 Modern 116 UID Skull braincase

fragment 1

313 SST14 Modern 116 UID Med

Lumbar vertebrae

body 1 fused unfused

314 SST14 Modern 116 Red Deer Antler tine 1 sawn

315 SST14 Modern 116 Red Deer Antler +

SkullFrontal +antler 1 antler

sawn off

316 SST14 Modern 116 Cattle Horn

core fragment 1





97


321 SST14 Pit113 106 Sheep Axis complete 1 sub-

adult fused unfused

unfused @ caudal end y BFcr

43.06


shaft R 1 chopped

323 SST14 Pit113 106 Sheep Humerus

shaft + distal end

L 1 adult fused chopped y Bd29.00



al shaft L 1 chopped


shaft R 1 chopped


shaft + distal end

L 1sub-

adult /adult

fused chopped y Bd25.56


ThoracicVertebrae

spinous +arch fragment

1


Lumbar vertebrae

body fragment 1


bone fragment 1

331 SST14 Pit113 106 Sheep Scapula

body + spine fragment

L 1


fragment 1


tooth complete UM1/M2 R 1 roots open

334 SST14 Pit113 106 Sheep Skull

Maxilla +P3, P4 sockets

L 1 no teeth


core fragment 1

336 SST14 Pit113 106 UID Med rib fragment 1

Table 20 Summary of other artefacts from all contexts

Context Category Sub-division

Quantity Weight Thickness Date Comments

Post

98


medieval ceramics

100 Cream earthenware

1 3g Early C20th Plain flat topped rim from an ointment jar

100 Plain earthenware

11 86g C20th Plain plant pot sherds

100 Sussex ware 6 89g Late C19th-early C20th

Iron glazed sherds including one bowl fragment with overturned rim

100 Salt-glazedwares

2 37g Late C19th 1 flagon sherd and one grey and brown striped stoneware bottle (?) sherd

100 Glass Clear 3 4g C19th? Two clear flat window glass fragments and one dark brown unidentifiable fragment. All patinated.

100 Metal Iron 2 27g Corroded nails, 103mm long and one 36mm long

100 CBM Brick 12 87g C18th – C20th

Small fragments, some handmade

104 Worked flint

1 33g Bronze Age? Hard hammer struck flint flake debitage,patinated blue

100 Fire cracked flint

1 18g

104 1 11g107 1 5g108 1 11g100 Other finds Clay pipe 3 6g C17th –

C20thAll stem fragments 5-7mm diameter, one brown in colour

100 Slate 5 22g Post medieval

Very small fragments <,6mm thick and patinated so of some age

108 Slag 1 46g Medieval – early post medieval

Very holey, probable bloomery slag

114 1 71g Medieval -early post medieval

Very holey, probably bloomery slag

100 Misc. 1 safety pin, an elastic band and a tinbutton from the topsoil

99


100

site Feature

context

residue species skeletal

elementpart ofbone tooth side sex

numberof

frags

ageclass

proximal

fusion

distalfusion

tootheruption/

wear

individual

modifications comments

measured?

(y/n)

m1(mm)

m2(mm)

m3(mm)

m4(mm)

SST14 107 3 Fish articular bone fragment L possibly

Cod

SST14 107 3 Fish articular bone fragment possibly

Cod

SST14 115 12 Fish basioccipital complete

SST14 107 3 Sheep carpal complete

SST14 109 5 Cod caudal vertebra fragment 1 y >9mm

SST14 116 13 Sheep caudal vertebra complete fused fused

SST14 114 10 Sheep caudal vertebra unfused unfuse

d

SST14 115 12 Chicken Coracoid incomplete L

SST14 109 5 Sheep Humerus

mid shaft and distal

R fused Y Bd 28.01

SST14 115 12 med mammal ischium fragment

SST14 116 13 birdlong bone frag

mid shaft 1

SST14 114 10 largemammal

long bone frag

mid shaft 1


long bone frag

mid shaft 1


long bone frag

mid shaft frag

2

SST14 114 12 med mammallong bone frag

mid shaft 1 possibly

boiled


shaft fragment 1


shaft fragment 1


mid shaft 1 burnt

white

Table 21. Bone residue archive data



mid shaft 1


fragment 5


mid shaft 7


mid shaft 8


mid shaft 13


mid shaft

SST14 114 10 smallmammal

long bone frag

fragment 1


long bone frag

fragment 8

SST14 107 3 Sheep lower tooth m1

SST14 114 10 Sheep lower tooth dp1




SST14 108A 9 Sheep lower tooth m1


mandiblefrag

mid-length 1

SST14 105 2 med mammal mandiblefrag

mid length frag

1

SST14 114 10 med mammal mandiblefrag fragment 1

SST14 114 10 med mammal mandiblefrag fragment 1

SST14 107 3 med mammal maxilla frag fragment 1

102


SST14 108 9 Sheepmaxilla with teeth

m2 m3 R

SST14 105 2 Sheep metapodial

mid shaft

nodata

SST14 114 10 Fish modifiedscales 3 barbed

SST14 108 9 Fish modifiedscales 4 barbed

SST14 114 10 med mammal Occipital L

SST14 115 12 Mouse Pelvis incomplete L

SST14 114 10 Cat Phalange1 complete R adult fused fused y GL

10.71Bp 3.49

Bd 2.55

SST14 115 11 Dog Phalange1 complete fused fused Y GL

17.05Bp 6.62

Bd 4.23

Sc 3.29

SST14 105 2 Rabbit phalange1 complete R fused fused Y GL

13.42Bp 4.85

Bd 3.36

SST14 107 3 Sheep phalange1 complete L fused fused Y GL

33.22Bp 12.02

Bd 11.28

SST14 114 10 Cattle phalange1 fragment unfused

SST14 114 10 Cat Phalange2 complete R adult fused fused y Gl

7.95Bp 2.98

Bd 2.72

SST14 105 2 Pig phalange2 complete R unfused fused Y Bd

9.53

SST14 108 9 Pig Phalange2 complete R fused fused Y GL

21.61Bd 11.91

Bp 14.79

Sc 12.07

SST14 107 3 Sheep phalange2 complete R fused fusing Y GL

15.82Bp 8.82

Bd 6.11

SST14 108 9 Pig Phalange3 complete R fused fused Y DLS

20.53MBS 7.48

Ld 17.91

SST14 115 11 Mackerelprecaudal vertebra

fragment 2


fragment 2


fragment 3

103


SST14 115 12 Goose ProximalPhalange

incomplete L y GL

38.57

SST14 105 2 med mammal radius mid shaft no data no

data

SST14 107 3 largemammal rib frag fragment 1

SST14 114 10 largemammal rib frag

mid shaft frag

1

SST14 108 9 largemammal rib frag

mid shaft frag

4

SST14 110 6 med mammal rib frag mid shaft 1




SST14 105 2 med mammal rib frag fragment 1


SST14 107 3 med mammal rib fragmid shaft frag

1


1


1



3




13

104


SST14 108 9 Sheep rib frag proximal 1

SST14 105 2 med mammal scapula fragment 1

SST14 105 2 Bird skull frag fragment 1

SST14 107 3 Fish skull frag fragment 2

SST14 115 12 Fish skull frag fragment 5


skull frag fragment 1


skull frag fragment 1

SST14 107 3 med mammal skull frag fragment 1





SST14 107 3 med mammal sternum fragment fusing1.5 present, fusing

SST14 108 9 BirdTarso-metatarsus

fragment juvenile

SST14 105 2 TurdusTarso-metatarsus

fragment juvenile

SST14 116 13 Sheep tooth fragment burnt blue

SST14 107 3 Sheep tooth LI

SST14 115 11 med mammal tooth frags fragment 2

SST14 108 9 Sheep tooth frags 1

105



UID large fragment 1


UID large fragment 10

SST14 110 6 med mammal UID med fragment 1









SST14 107 3 Bird UID small fragment 1





SST14 107 3 Fish UID small fragment 6



106








UID small fragment 1










UID small fragment 9 possibly

mole















SST14 107 3 Sheep ulnashaft and distal

L fused

107


SST14 114 10 Cattle upper tooth m1

SST14 115 11 Sheep upper tooth m1


SST14 107 3 Sheep upper tooth MI

SST14 107 3 Sheep upper tooth M1


SST14 114 10 Bird vert frag fragment 4

SST14 105 2 Bird vert frag fragment fused fused

SST14 109 5 Fish vert frag fragment 1 y <3mm

SST14 109 5 Fish vert frag fragment 1 y >6mm



SST14 108 9 Fish vert frag fragment 1

SST14 107 3 Fish vert frag fragment 1






108














SST14 106 largemammal

vert frag 1


vert frag fragment 1

SST14 115 12 med mammal vert frag 1


SST14 105 2 med mammal vert frag fragment 1



109





SST14 105 2 med mammal vert frag unfused

SST14 107 3 med mammal vert frag fragment

SST14 115 12 Sheep vert frag 1 fused fused burnt

black

SST14 116 13 Sheep

Vertebral epiphysis

unfused

SST14 116 13 med mammal

Worked long bone frags

fragment 5 Worked bone

2374

Table 22: Site context register

St.Swithuns Terrace Site Code:SST14

Project No: ASL 28-14

Context register

Context NumberContext Type Sub Division Description Fill of Filled By Above Below

Contemp.With Comments

100 Layer Topsoil 101

101 LayerNorth side of

site only Sub-soil Natural (102) Cut 103 and 113 cut through this layer

102 Deposit Natural geology 100,101 Chalk deposit

103 Cut Early Medieval pit 107,105,104 102 100 Sub-circular pit 1.2m deep

104 Fill Top fill of cut 103 103 105 100 102 pea-grit not evidentover top of pit

105 Fill Second fill of cut 103 103 107 105 106 Fill Top fill of pit 113 113 111 100?? 107 Fill Third fill of cut 103 103 103 105 108 Fill Fourth fill of cut 113 113 114 112 109 Fill fourth fill of cut 103 103 107

110 Fill fourth fill of cut 103 103 107 Possible lining of pit to sides only

111 Fill second Fill of cut 113 113 112 106 Logged as demolition layer

110


112 Fill Third Fill of cut 113 113 108 111

113 Cut Medieval pit/ditch 108, 111, 112, 114,

115 102 natural 114 Fill Fifth fill of cut 113 113 108

115 Fill Sixth fill of cut 113 113 114Same as114

116 DepositSE corner byhouse only Modern hard core layer 117

117 LayerSE corner byhouse only

Weathered sub-soillensing onto natural 118 116

118 Deposit Natural head deposit 117

Black = modern Green = pit

103 Pink = Pit 113 Brown= natural

111

Documents

Two Saxo-Norman pits in Lewes, East Sussex