EXC_EVA_14_SPT_Report

Somerset Pavilion, County Cricket Ground, Taunton, Somerset.

An Archaeological Evaluation and Excavation

© Context One Archaeological Services 2015

Somerset Pavilion, County Cricket Ground, Taunton, Somerset.

An Archaeological Evaluation and Excavation

for

Somerset County Cricket Club

by

Brickfield Offices, Maperton, Wincanton, Somerset. BA9 8EG. T: 01963 824696 E: [email protected] W: www.contextone.co.uk

COAS reference: C1/EVA/14/SPT, C1/EXC/14/SPT Taunton Deane Borough Council planning reference: 38/13/0299 National Grid Reference: centred on NGR ST 22940 24915 Somerset Historic Environment Record PRN no: 32436 Somerset County Museums Service Accession Number: TTNCM 26/2014

COAS project team: Project Director: Richard McConnell Fieldwork Manager: Stuart Milby Post-excavation Manager: Dr Cheryl Green Fieldwork: Kerry Ely, Luke Jarvis Report: Orlando Prestidge Illustration: Tara Fairclough

January 2015

Context One Archaeological Services Ltd shall retain the copyright of any commissioned reports, tender documents or other projected documents, under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 with all rights reserved, excepting that it hereby provides an exclusive licence to the client for the use of such documents by the client in all matters directly relating to the project as described in the Project Design/Specification/Written Scheme of Investigation.

Front cover image: Site location shot from south-west. © Context One Archaeological Services 2015

Contents Non-technical summary......................................................................................... i 1. Introduction...................................................................................................... 1 2. Site location and topography.................................................................................. 1 3. Archaeological and Historical Background................................................................... 4 4. Methodology...................................................................................................... 5 5. Results............................................................................................................. 6 6. The finds.......................................................................................................... 8 7. Discussion......................................................................................................... 12 8. Archive............................................................................................................ 12 9. COAS acknowledgements....................................................................................... 12 10. Bibliography...................................................................................................... 12 Illustrations Table 1: Pottery by context.................................................................................... 10 Table 2: Animal bone: number of identified specimens present (or NISP), and type and quantity

of detailed information available............................................................................. 11

Illustrations Figure 1. Site setting and location of evaluation trenches & archaeological features............... 2 Figure 2. Detailed site setting showing heritage assets................................................... 3 Figure 3. Open area of excavation............................................................................ 9 Plates Plate 1. Overall Site shot showing cellar floor (103) (from S; 1m & 0.5m scales)..................... 7 Plate 2. Section of pit [105] and abutting wall (104) (from NW; 1m & 0.2m scales)................. 7 Plate 3. Section of angular pit [106] (from NW; 1m & 0.2m scales)..................................... 7 Plate 4. Section of pit [113] (from E; 1m & 0.2m scales)................................................. 7 Plate 5. Section across boundary ditch [111] (from E; 1m & 0.5m scales)............................. 8 Plate 6. Mortslake stone wall (104) (from N; 2m scale)................................................... 8 Plate 7. Ham stone wall [119] (from W; 1m scale)......................................................... 8

i

Non-technical summary Context One Archaeological Services Ltd (COAS) carried out an archaeological evaluation and subsequent excavation prior to the development of a new pavilion at the Somerset County Cricket Ground in Taunton, Somerset, over 6 days between 20 February and 20 August 2014. The project was commissioned by LED Architects and was funded by Somerset County Cricket Club. The archaeological evaluation was advised by Mr Steven Membery (Senior Historic Environment Officer, Somerset County Council) in advance of determining the planning application. The Site is within an Area of High Archaeological Potential as it is located close to the historic core of Taunton, with a medieval presence in the form of the 14th Century St. James’ Church and the remains of Taunton Priory within 200m of the Site. Following the identification of a possible Civil War defensive ditch during the evaluation, it was agreed with Mr Membery that further investigation should be carried out in order to fully characterise the feature and any other archaeology that may survive on Site. This took the form of a targeted open area excavation. The excavation established that the possible Civil War defensive ditch recorded during the evaluation was in fact a post-medieval pit. In addition, the investigations identified a number of features of archaeological interest. These included the remains of a post-medieval cellar, two walls of similar date, two further pits and a linear feature interpreted as a boundary. Collected finds comprised post-medieval pottery sherds, ceramic building material and animal bone while modern material was observed in the backfill of the cellar. The dateable finds did not provide any evidence of medieval activity on the Site.

Somerset Pavilion, County Cricket Ground, Taunton, Somerset. 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Context One Archaeological Services Ltd (COAS) carried out an archaeological evaluation and

subsequent excavation prior to the development of a new pavilion at the Somerset County Cricket Ground in Taunton, Somerset (NGR ST 22940 24915) (the ‘Site’) (Figure 1) over 6 days between 20 February and 20 August 2014. The project was commissioned by LED Architects and funded by Somerset County Cricket Club.

1.2 The initial phase of archaeological works was advised by Mr Steven Membery (Senior Historic

Environment Officer, Somerset County Council) in advance of determining a planning application (planning application reference number: 38/13/0299). The requirement followed advice by Central Government as set out in paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012) and the Taunton Deane Local Development Plan (2004, revised 2012). The evaluation was carried out by Context One in February 2014, the results of which are summarised below:

‘In total four trenches were excavated, three of which (T1, T2 & T4) were recorded as

archaeologically blank. T3 contained a large ditch, the full width of which extended beyond the limits of the trench. Given the size and location of the ditch and the date and type of finds recovered from it, it is possible that the ditch was once a part of Taunton’s civil war defences. Whilst it was possible to establish that the ditch turned a corner (from EW through NS), it was not possible to determine whether there was any more complexity to it.’

1.3 Following the identification of a possible Civil War defensive ditch during the evaluation, it was

agreed with Mr Membery that further investigation should be carried out in order to fully characterise the feature and any other archaeology that may survive on Site. This took the form of a targeted open area excavation.

1.4 The programme of works comprised five elements: the production of a Written Scheme of

Investigation (WSI) which set out the project strategy; field evaluation through trial trenching; field excavation; post-excavation and report production; and archive deposition. The WSI was updated for the excavation and was submitted to Mr Membery on 8 August 2014 prior to the commencement of the extended Site works.

2. Site location and topography

2.1 The Site (centred on NGR ST 22940 24915) was located in the centre of Taunton and to the south-

east of the cricket ground itself (Figure 1). The ground is bordered to the north by the River Tone and to the south by the cricket club car park and the grounds of St. James’ church. The Site is largely situated on level ground at an average height of c. 16m above Ordnance Datum (aOD). Prior to development works, the Site comprised a mixture of commercial buildings and areas of tarmac or hard standing.

2.2 According to the British Geological Survey (BGS 2014), the solid geology is predominantly recorded

as Mercia Mudstone Group comprising Mudstone And Halite stone. The superficial (drift) geology is recorded as Alluvium - Clay, Silt, Sand And Gravel. The soils are characterised by slightly acid loamy and clayey soils with impeded drainage (http://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes).


Figure 1. Site setting and locations of evaluation trenches, excavations & archaeological features


Figure 2: Detailed site setting showing heritage assets


3. Archaeological and Historical Background

3.1 The archaeological background for the Site has been drawn from the records held by Somerset

County Council as part of the Somerset Historic Environment Record (HER). In the following text, numbers preceded by 'PRN’ refer to records held on the HER. The archaeological landscape within the immediate environs of the Site is shown in Figure 2.

Prehistoric (500,000BC – AD43) 3.2 A number of prehistoric settlement sites have been recorded in the Taunton area including the

hillfort at Norton Fitzwarren, a possible late Iron Age farmstead in the centre of the town (Bennett 1984, 93; Gathercole 2002, 8) and the recently discovered Iron Age settlement excavated by COAS at Cambria Farm to the west of Taunton (Mason 2010).

Roman (AD43 – AD450) 3.3 Although Roman settlements have been identified in the area around Taunton, none have been

positively identified within the town itself (Gathercole 2002, 2 & 10-12). Despite this, there is a growing body of pottery and coin evidence (PRN 44423), along with the remains of a small number of ditches that hint at Roman activity within the town (ibid., 13).

Anglo-Saxon (AD450 - AD1066) 3.4 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for AD 722 makes the earliest documentary reference to Taunton (ibid.,

2); however this reference has usually been considered to refer to a fort (Bush & Aston 1984, 75). A charter produced in AD 904 makes it clear that Taunton was by then functioning as a town (Gathercole 2002: 2), which also possessed a market and a mint (Bush & Aston 1984, 75).

Medieval (AD1066 – AD1547 3.5 By the time of the Domesday Survey in 1086, Taunton was clearly functioning as the administrative

centre for the Manor of Taunton Deane and was the third largest borough in Somerset (ibid., 75). 3.6 A number of major developments occurred in the 12th century including the conversion of a house

of secular priests into an Augustinian Priory in c. 1120 (ibid., 104). This was soon followed by the construction of the Castle, or at least it’s keep in 1138 (ibid), and subsequently the town’s defences (PRN 44459).

3.7 It may have been the proximity of the Priory to the Castle that led Henry of Blois to grant the

Priory a new site on land east of the town in 1158 (ibid). Excavations in Priory Avenue in 2005 (COAS forthcoming) located the Priory Church, and the adjoining cloisters near the corner of Gyffarde Street. A large number of burials were also uncovered in the lay cemetery to the south and west of the church and are clearly part of the cemetery located during archaeological excavations further to the south (PRN 16739, PRN 44436 and PRN 17297). Except for the Priory Church and adjoining cloisters, little is known of the layout of the other Priory buildings, although documentary records identify various structures including a chapter house, a western stable, a guest stable, a chapel, a prior’s house and a bakery (Bush 1984, 105).

Post-medieval and Modern (AD1547 – present) 3.8 The Priory was surrendered to the King in 1539 during the Dissolution and by 1633 it had been

largely demolished (Collinson 1791, Vol. III, 236). 3.9 Following cessation of hostilities as a result of the Civil War, the pattern of development around

the former Priory and the present day Cricket Ground is thought to have remained largely static up until the mid-19th century; the earliest available map to depict the area, produced in 1791, depicts the Site as undeveloped land.

3.10 Beyond the churchyard, the most significant development to affect the Site in the 19th century

was the establishment of the Cricket Ground in 1881 (Brace 2012).


3.11 The Cricket Museum itself, which was formerly known as the ‘Priory Barn’ (PRN 44205), still survives and is a Grade II* Listed Building. As indicated, the building dates to the 15th/16th centuries and is likely to have replaced an earlier structure of 13th-15th century date (ibid).

4 Methodology

4.1 The programme of archaeological work was carried out in accordance with the Heritage Service

Archaeological Handbook issued by Somerset County Council in 2011, and the codes, standards and guidelines set out by the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA 1985, rev. 2012; 1990, rev. 2008; 1994, rev. 2008). Current Health and Safety legislation and guidelines were followed on site.

4.1 The programme of archaeological work was carried out in accordance with the Heritage Service

Archaeological Handbook issued by Somerset County Council in 2011, and the codes, standards and guidelines set out by the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA 1985, rev. 2012; 1990, rev. 2008; 1994, rev. 2008). Current Health and Safety legislation and guidelines were followed on site.

4.2 The archaeological evaluation comprised four 1.8m square open cut trenches (Figure 1). The

trenches were located to test the depth of any underlying archaeological deposits and the impact on any such deposits from the foundations of the proposed pavilion building. Following this, the open area excavation measured approximately 104m square.

4.3 All trenches were laid out using a TopCon GRS-1 Global Positioning System pre-loaded with

Ordnance Survey grid co-ordinates derived from the WSI trench plan. 4.4 A tarmac cutting machine was used to remove hard standing and tarmac and a 360 degree tracked

machine fitted with a 0.90m wide toothless grading bucket was used for subsequent excavation work. Machining continued until archaeological features or natural geology was encountered, whichever was first.

4.5 One long face of each trench was cleaned by hand to define the sequence of deposits. All deposits

were recorded as individual contexts and ascribed a unique number. A representative section was then recorded using COAS pro forma evaluation trench sheets. A digital photograph was also taken of each section as well as the long axis of each trench. All photographs included an appropriate scale.

4.6 All archaeological remains were sampled by manual excavation to establish stratigraphic

relationships, recover sufficient artefacts to establish 'absolute' dates, determine feature/deposit morphology and character, and to recover any palaeoenvironmental indicators.

4.7 All features and associated deposits were drawn in section on dimensionally stable media at a

scale of 1:10. Stratigraphic relationships were recorded using a “Harris-Winchester matrix” diagram. Soil colours were logged using a Munsell soil colour chart. All deposits were recorded as individual contexts and ascribed a unique number with their details entered onto separate COAS pro-forma context recording sheets.

4.8 The location, extent and altitude of archaeological features and deposits were mapped relative to

the National Grid and Ordnance Datum using a TopCon GRS-1 Global Positioning System receiving real-time calibrations to produce accuracies of 1-2cm.

4.9 A photographic record of the work was prepared and involved the use of digital images and

monochrome prints. This included shots of the excavated area, individual features and working shots to illustrate the nature of the archaeological operation mounted.

4.10 Upon completion of the evaluation and excavation, all trenches were backfilled by machine and

compacted. 4.11 All finds were removed from Site for processing in preparation for assessment and

archiving/discard.


4.12 Prior to assessment, all recovered finds, excluding metalwork, were first washed, air-dried and re-bagged. None of the finds required specialist treatment by a conservator. The finds were then separated into artefact types and quantified by context number, quantity and weight in grams. A specialist report of the artefact assemblage was compiled using both descriptive and tabular formats (see section 5).

4.13 The finds will be retained by COAS until the programme of archaeological work has been

completed. The Site landowner will then be contacted with a request to transfer the title of all retained finds to Somerset County Museums Service with the option of returning them to him/her as legal owners of the assemblage.

4.14 Should the Site landowner wish to donate the finds to Somerset County Museums Service and pay

for their deposition, a request will be made to the Museum to issue a discard policy on the retained finds. Once a retention strategy has been agreed, all remaining finds will be marked with an accession number (TTNCM 26/2014) in preparation for deposition with the museum according to their prevailing Deposit Guidelines.

5. Results

5.1 In the text, context numbers for cuts appear in square brackets, e.g. [1004]; layer, fill and

structure numbers appear in standard brackets, e.g. (1002). Where a feature is discussed, it is referenced with its cut and associated fill numbers. Test pit numbers are prefixed by the letters ‘TP’.

Deposit sequence 5.2 The stratigraphic sequence across the evaluation trench was quite varied, likely due to multiple

stages of occupation and construction work. The Site was covered by an overburden of hard-core (100) to a depth of 0.40m, overlying c. 1m of garden soil and debris (101) to the west of the cellar remains or a subsoil layer (116) of mid-pinkish grey-brown soil across the remainder of the Site to a depth of c. 0.9m. The natural (102) was a stiff, pinkish red-brown sandy clay.

Archaeological features (Figure 3) 5.3 A single archaeological feature was recorded during the evaluation consisting of a small cut thought

to be representative of a ditch [306]. This feature was located in TP 3, and was targeted for further investigation during the excavation. The three remaining test pits (TP’s 1, 2 and 4) were found to be archeologically blank. Other mixed deposits were present, including a layer of 1930s/1940s building debris (117) (containing Bakelite light fittings) that also filled the remains of a cellar (103) (see below). A modern water pipe was present towards the eastern extent of the area of excavation.

5.4 A number of further archaeological features were identified during the excavation. These consist

of the remains of a cellar, three pits, and two walls. The cellar (103) was located in the centre of the excavation area and was covered with a modern backfill (117) (Plate 1). It was constructed of Mortslake stone and lias with several old red bricks bonded by lime mortar, with a lias flagstone floor incorporating two riser steps for a doorway in the south-west corner. Within the floor were two storage features; a brick-lined rectangle in the south-east corner and a sub-rectangular brick plinth with a stone across the centre and remains of metal hinges in the north-east corner.

5.5 The ‘ditch’ feature [306] identified during the evaluation was found to be an irregularly shaped

pit [105], with straight sides and an irregular base measuring 1.44m by 0.96m and 0.40m deep (Plate 2). The backfill (107) comprised firm sandy clay containing animal bone and post-medieval pottery. Two further pits ([106] and [113]) were identified to the west of the cellar, both yielding animal bone and pottery sherds. Pit [106] had straight sides and an irregular base and was sub-rectangular in plan measuring 1.6m by 1.46m and 0.43m deep, although the south-eastern extent was not established due to the excavation baulk (Plate 3). The northernmost edge retained a 3mm skim of cemented mortar. The basal fill comprised firm reddish sandy clay (108) measuring 0.28m deep containing animal bone and pottery; the middle fill comprised friable brown-grey sandy clay (109) measuring 0.12m deep with animal bone; the upper fill was friable brownish red clay sand


measuring 0.10m deep. Pit [113] was rectangular in plan and aligned north-east to south-west, with concave sides and an irregular base (Plate 4). Although not fully exposed, it measured 2.19m by 3.46m and 0.37m deep. The primary fill was friable brown clay sand (114) with animal bone and pottery, while the upper fill comprised friable red clay with sand (118).

5.6 The terminus of a narrow boundary ditch [111] was also identified on the eastern extent of the

excavation area (Plate 5). Aligned east-west with one concave and one almost straight side and an irregular base, the ditch was approximately 0.6m in width, 0.35m deep and ran for c. 3m into the Site before terminating. The primary fill comprised friable mottled grey and mid-pinkish red dirty sandy clay (112) while the upper fill comprised friable dark grey/ black gritty silty clay (115) with animal bone, pottery and CBM.

5.7 Pit [106] butted the west side of a wall (104), located to the west of the cellar and extending into

the Site from the south for approximately 2m where it either terminated at this point or had been truncated by the construction of the former toilet block. Measuring 0.85m wide and 0.9m deep in section, the wall consisted of two courses of Mortslake stone loosely bonded with lime and constructed directly above the natural (102) as opposed to within a foundation cut (Plate 6). A further wall (119) was identified at the eastern extent of the site butting the north wall of the cellar (103). Constructed of Ham stone blocks it measured c. 0.6m in width and c. 0.25m deep, although it had been badly disturbed by a modern water pipe (Plate 7).

Plate 1. Overall Site shot showing cellar walls & floor (103) (from S; 1m & 0.5m scales)

Plate 2. Section of pit [105] and abutting wall (104) (from NW; 1m & 0.2m scales)

Plate 3. Section of angular pit [106] (from NW; 1m & 0.2m scales)

Plate 4. Section of pit [113] (from E; 1m & 0.2m scales)


Plate 5. Section across boundary ditch [111] (from E; 1m & 0.5m scales)

Plate 6. Mortslake stone wall (104) (from N; 2m scale)

Plate 7. Ham stone wall [119] (from W; 1m scale)

6. The finds

6.1 A small assemblage of pottery sherds and fragments of ceramic building material and animal bone

were discovered during the evaluation and excavation. Datable finds (pottery and ceramic building material) are entirely of post-medieval date, and appear to cover a relatively restricted timespan. Bakelite light fittings were also observed in the backfill (117) of the cellar (103). Each element of the assemblage is discussed separately below and presented as tabular data with, where appropriate, weight in grams.

Pottery and Ceramic Building Material (CBM) by Lorraine Mepham (Wessex Archaeology) Pottery 6.2 The pottery assemblage amounts to 79 sherds (2599g), all of post-medieval date, and in a very

restricted range of ware types. Predominant here are coarse redwares, mostly glazed, and including examples of slip-decorated wares. Variations in colour and texture suggest that this assemblage includes the products of more than one redware source. The best-known of these (and almost certainly the largest) was at Donyatt, some 16km to the south-east of Taunton (Coleman-Smith and Pearson 1988), but other sources are known (either from waster material or from documentary sources) across south Somerset at Nether Stowey, Crowcombe and Wrangway amongst others, and across the Devon border at Honiton (Allan 2000, 123). One distinctively coarsely-tempered sherd from levelling layer (104) can be identified as North Devon gravel-tempered ware.


Figure 3: Open area of excavation


6.3 Forms are restricted to jars (one bucket-handled, two with applied thumbed strips around the rims), jugs (with either strap or rod handles), and bowls/dishes. There are two possible flowerpot sherds amongst the unglazed redwares. There are three vessels with sgraffito decoration, including a very abraded open form (bowl or dish) with an incised motif, possibly floral, on the base (from pit [106]), and a jug base from evaluation ?ditch [306] (= excavation pit [105]). Joining sherds from soil horizon/garden soil (101), and the fill of ?ditch [306]/pit [105] belong to an unglazed rounded jug with white painted slip decoration. A carinated bowl or dish from the latter feature is white-slipped externally below the carination.

6.4 Coarse redwares do not generally lend themselves to close dating, but there are features of this

small assemblage that suggest a relatively restricted date range, probably focusing on the 17th into early 18th centuries, a date range that would accommodate the slip-decorated vessels and the bucket-handled jar (used to collect water from the well: Coleman-Smith and Pearson 1988, 225), although there is a possibility that some of the redwares could be earlier in date. Other wares represented here are rare (one sherd of 17th/18th century English stoneware from pit [105], one sherd of 19th/20th century refined whiteware from soil horizon/garden soil (101)), but the almost complete absence of any factory-produced wares suggests an end date for the assemblage no later than the 1720s. The restricted range of ware types represented here indicates an assemblage with a firm emphasis on a utilitarian function.

Ceramic Building Material 6.5 Three fragments of CBM were recovered, comprising one fragment of flat roof tile from levelling

layer (104); one fragment of curved roof tile, probably pantile, from the upper fill of linear feature [111]; and one small brick fragment, in a coarse fabric, from pit [113]. All this material is post-medieval in date.

Animal Bone by Lorrain Higbee (Wessex Archaeology) 6.6 Eighty-one fragments of animal bone were recovered from seven contexts of post-medieval date.

Once conjoins are taken into account this figure falls to 58 fragments (Table 2). The assemblage includes bone elements from four domestic species. Cattle and sheep bones are common and include both cranial and post-cranial fragments. A few of the bones are from young livestock, of particular note are a calf humerus and scapula from soil horizon/garden soil (101) and pit [106], and a fragment of lamb skull from pit [106]. The butchery evidence, which includes axially split vertebrae and the use of a saw, is fairly typical for the period. Other identified species include pig and horse, the latter is represented by a near complete atlas vertebra from levelling layer (104).

Further Recommendations 6.7 The finds assemblage is relatively small, occurs in a limited range of types, and its potential is

correspondingly limited. Chronological evidence to aid in the dating of the site has been recorded. Finds have been recorded to an appropriate level, and no further work is warranted. Information presented here, in text and tables, could be incorporated in any publication report.The assemblage should be retained for long-term curation.

References 6.8 Allan, J.P., 2000. Post-medieval pottery studies in Somerset, in C.J. Webster (ed.), Somerset

Archaeology: papers to mark 150 years of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society, Somerset County Council, 123-6 Coleman-Smith, R. and Pearson, T., 1988. Excavations in the Donyatt Potteries, Chichester: Phillimore

Table 1: Pottery by context

F’work phase

Context Ware type No. Wt. (g) Comments

EVA 104 post-med redware 5 331 glazed, 2 x 2 conjoining; 1 small rod handle

EVA 104 N Devon gravel-tempered

1 15 glazed

EVA 105 post-med redware 3 195 glazed; 1 large rod handle

EVA 305 post-med redware 3 89 glazed


EVA 305 post-med redware 2 56 unglazed, conjoining, join context 101 (slip painted dec, jug rim)

EVA 305 post-med redware 10 204 max 6 vessels (2 conjoining, sgraffito jug base; 1 bowl rim; 1 carinated bowl with white slip ext below carination)

EXC 101 post-med redware 8 432 6 glazed (1 with applied thumbed strip around rim); 2 unglazed (1 joining context 305, with slip painted dec, handle scar, rounded jug)

EXC 101 post-med redware 1 25 unglazed, modern flowerpot

EXC 101 refined whiteware 1 25

EXC 107 post-med redware 8 98 glazed, 1 jug handle

EXC 107 post-med redware 1 5 white-slipped (glaze totally degraded?)

EXC 107 post-med black-glazed redware

4 27

EXC 107 post-med redware 1 5 sgraffito dec

EXC 108 post-med redware 11 274 glazed, 1 slipware; 1 bucket-handled jar; 1 jar rim with applied thumbed strip

EXC 109 post-med redware 2 151 glazed; 1 sgraffito dec (very abraded), open form with ?floral motif

EXC 109 English stoneware 1 2

EXC 114 post-med redware 6 210 glazed; 1 slipware; 1 strap handle; 1 small jar/bowl rim

EXC 114 post-med redware 2 44 unglazed (1 flowerpot?)

EXC 115 post-med redware 6 160 glazed; 1 large bowl/dish rim, 1 slipware

EXC 115 post-med redware 2 244 glazed, conjoining, plate rim with sgraffito dec

EXC 115 post-med black-glazed redware

1 7

TOTAL 79 2599

Table 2: Animal bone: number of identified specimens present (or NISP), and type and quantity of detailed information

available

Species N

cattle 32

sheep/goat 22

pig 3

horse 1

Total 58

Type of information N

gnawing 1

butchery 7

biometry 3

age - fusion 19

age - mandibles 2+ teeth 1


7. Discussion

7.1 Despite three out of the four evaluation trenches being recorded as archaeologically blank, the

excavation identified a number of features of archaeological interest. These included the remains of a cellar, two walls, three pits (one of which had been identified as a possible Civil War defensive ditch during the evaluation) and a linear feature interpreted as a boundary ditch. Dating evidenceprovided by pottery sherds date the features to the post-medieval period. The pottery assemblage is utilitarian in function, while the presence of butchered animal bone is indicative of domestic waste. The CBM fragments are likely remnants of post-medieval buildings and may relate to the demolished cottage on the Site.

7.2 All of the features appear to be focussed on the demolished cottage, dating from the 17th or 18th

century. The cellar and stone floor are the only remains of this property, with a boundary/garden wall located to the west and further small boundary/garden wall abutting the cellar to the east. A pit between the west boundary/garden wall and the cellar is likely to have been a rubbish pit within the garden of the cottage. Two further pits are present to the west of the west boundary/garden wall, along with a small ditch identified as a post-medieval garden boundary feature; the pits and small ditch may relate to another property. Both pits contained fills which were organic in nature and therefore likely to have been rubbish pits. Bakelite light fittings were identified within the backfill of the cellar. These can be dated to the 1930s/1940s and relate tothe levelling of the area for the construction of the cricket club car park. The presence of this material within the backfill of the cellar indicate that it was demolished and backfilled during this period. Despite the area being located close to the historic medieval core of Taunton, no evidence of medieval activity was identified.

8. Archive

8.1 The project archive is currently held by COAS and consists of the following: Item Number Format Context record sheets 22 Paper Context summary sheets 2 Paper Profile record sheets 1 Paper Drawing sheets 4 Permatrace Photographic register 1 Paper Sketch plan 1 Paper Digital images 98 .JPG 8.2 The paper archive has been scanned as a single file in .PDF format and will form part of the physical

Site archive to be deposited with Somerset County Museum. 8.3 Copies of this report will be deposited with the client/agent and included as part of the Somerset

Historic Environment Record.

9. COAS acknowledgements

9.1 We would like to thank the following for their contribution to the successful completion of this

project: Mrs Sally Donoghue , Operations Manager, Somerset County Cricket Club

Mr Steven Membery, Senior Historic Environment Officer, Somerset County Council

10. Bibliography

Bennett, J., 1984 No. 1 High Street, Excavations 1974, in Leach, P. (ed.)

The Archaeology of Taunton: Excavations and Fieldwork to 1980. Western Archaeological Trust Excavation Monograph Number 8. pp. 91-98


Brace, D., 2012 An Archaeological Watching Brief: Somerset Cricket

Museum, Taunton, Somerset. Context One Archaeological Services Ltd, unpublished report

British Geological Survey, 2014 http://www.bgs.ac.uk (accessed: 16 January 2015) Bush, R. J. E. & Aston, M., 1984 The Town; History and Topography, in Leach P. (ed.)

The Archaeology of Taunton Excavations and Fieldwork to 1980. Western Archaeological Trust Excavation Monograph Number 8, 75-103

Collinson, Rev. J., 1791 The History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset,

III Department for Communities and

Local Government (DCLG) 2012 National Planning Policy Framework, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

Gathercole, C., 2002 English Heritage Extensive Urban Survey: An

Archaeological Assessment of Taunton Institute of Field Archaeologists (IfA),

June 1985 (rev. November 2012) Code of Conduct. Reading: IfA

Institute for Archaeologists (IfA),

September 1990 (rev. October 2008) Code of Approved Practice for the Regulation of Contractual Arrangements in Field Archaeology. Reading: IfA

Institute for Archaeologists (IfA),

October 1994 (rev. October 2008) Standard and Guidance for an Archaeological Watching Brief. Reading: IfA

Mason, C., 2010 Cambria Farm, Taunton, Somerset. Context One

Archaeological Services Ltd, unpublished report Membery, S., Brunning, R., Croft, R.,

Payne, N. and Webster, C., 2011 Somerset County Council Heritage Service Archaeological Handbook. Somerset County Council

Milby, S., 2014 Written Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological

Programme of Works: Somerset Pavilion, Somerset County Cricket Ground, Taunton, Somerset. Context One Archaeological Services Ltd, unpublished

National Soil Resources Institute (NSRI), 2014

http://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes/ Cranfield University (accessed: 13 May 2014)

Documents

EXC_EVA_14_SPT_Report