Pococks Field, Eastbourne

Wessex Archaeology
Land At Pococks Field, Kings Drive,

Eastbourne Park, Eastbourne,
East Sussex
Archaeological Evaluation Report
Ref: 68030.01 January 2008

LAND AT POCOCKS FIELD, KINGS DRIVE,
EASTBOURNE PARK, EASTBOURNE
EAST SUSSEX
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT
Prepared for
CgMs Consulting
Morley House
26 Holborn Viaduct
London
EC1A 2AT
By
Wessex Archaeology
Portway House
Old Sarum Park
SALISBURY
Wiltshire
SP4 6EB
Report reference: 68030.01
January 2008
© Wessex Archaeology Limited 2008, all rights reserved

Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786
CgMs Consulting
Land at Pococks Field, Kings Drive, Eastbourne Park,
Eastbourne, East Sussex
SUMMARY
Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by CgMs Consulting to carry out an

archaeological evaluation of land scheduled for development at Pococks
Field, Kings Drive, Eastbourne Park, Eastbourne, East Sussex which is
centred on (NGR) TQ 6025 0050.
The project was designed to test the archaeological potential of an area of

land at the southern half of the Site which is topographically situated at the
base of slopes from the north and west. A previous geophysical survey
indicates that the higher ground in the north is densely occupied by
archaeological features which are not observed to continue into the lower
southern half. Geotechnical test-pitting on the Site confirmed that alluvial and
colluvial deposits covered the southern area possibly obscuring the
continuation of any archaeological features present throughout this area.
A total of eight archaeological test-pits were excavated (six hand-dug and two
machine dug) which all contained a consistent sequence of colluvium
overlying alluvial clays containing residual prehistoric artefacts. No
archaeological features were observed beneath the alluvium within the test-
pits. Although dating evidence recovered from the site was minimal, the
alluvium is believed to have been laid down prior to the late-medieval period
and the colluvium to have formed in the late-medieval and post-medieval
periods.
An existing earthwork, situated to the south of the Site, which was also
investigated during the fieldwork, appears to be a relatively recent historical
boundary. An extension to one of the test pits accomplished a profile through
the feature which was a shallow boundary ditch with a bank on its northern
side. Cartographic evidence indicates a boundary in a similar location on the
1875 Ordnance Survey map of the area. This boundary may however
perpetuate a long established division between ‘dryland’ and ‘wetland’ areas
within the site.
The results of the evaluation, which supplement the geophysical survey

results, indicate that dryland archaeological features may be restricted to the
higher ground on the north of the site.
CgMs Consulting
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by CgMs Consulting to undertake

the work and Wessex Archaeology would like to thank them for their help and
advice. Thanks are especially due to Duncan Hawkins, of CgMs Consulting,
and to Casper Johnson, of East Sussex County Council, for their assistance
and advice.
The archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Jonathan Milward with

assistance from Neil Fitzpatrick, Matt Kendall, Luke Brannlund and Antonio
Ramon Ferrer.
This report was compiled by Jonathan Milward with assistance from Caroline
Budd. The illustrations were prepared by Linda Coleman. The specialist finds
report was prepared by Lorraine Mepham and the environmental samples
were reported on by Dr Cathie Barnett.
The project was managed on behalf of Wessex Archaeology by Caroline

Budd.
CgMs Consulting

EAST SUSSEX
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1
1.1 Project Background .......................................................................1
1.2 Planning Background and Development Plan Framework.........1
1.3 Topography and Geology..............................................................2
2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ....................2
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................2
2.2 Palaeolithic (450,000BC-12,000BC) ..............................................2
2.3 Mesolithic (12,000BC-4000BC)......................................................3
2.4 Neolithic and Bronze Age (4000BC-600BC).................................3
2.5 Iron Age and Romano-British (600BC-AD410) ............................3
2.6 Anglo-Saxon and Early Medieval (AD410–1066) .........................3
2.7 Late-Medieval and Post-Medieval (AD1066–to date)...................4
2.8 Recent Investigations ....................................................................4
3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................4
3.1 General............................................................................................4
3.2 Specific ...........................................................................................5
4 METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................5
4.1 General............................................................................................5
4.2 Hand-dug test-pits .........................................................................5
4.3 Contingency works ........................................................................6
5 RESULTS.................................................................................................6
5.1 Test pits ..........................................................................................6
5.2 Earthwork .......................................................................................7
6 FINDS.......................................................................................................8
6.2 Pottery.............................................................................................8
6.3 Ceramic Building Material (CBM)................................................10
6.4 Worked and Burnt Flint ...............................................................10
6.5 Other Finds...................................................................................11
7 ENVIRONMENTAL ................................................................................11
8 DISCUSSION .........................................................................................11
9 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................13
10 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................13
11 APPENDIX 1: TEST PIT SUMMARIES .................................................14
12 APPENDIX 2: FINDS QUANTIFICATION TABLE.................................18
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site and trial pit location plan
Figure 2 Representative sections with corresponding plates
Figure 3 Deposit model
i
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting

EAST SUSSEX

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
1.1.1 Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by CgMs Consulting

(hereafter ‘the Client’) to carry out a programme of archaeological
evaluation by hand excavated trial pits and limited machine excavated
trial trenching to assess the survival of below ground remains on land
at Pococks Field, Kings Drive, Eastbourne Park, Eastbourne, East
Sussex (hereafter ‘the Site’).
1.1.2 The Site covers an area of c. 3.2 hectares, centred on National Grid
Reference (NGR) TQ 6025 0050 (Figure 1).
1.1.3 It is intended that the Site be redeveloped as residential housing with

associated vehicular access and parking.
1.2 Planning Background and Development Plan Framework
1.2.1 In November 1990, the Department of the Environment issued

Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG16) ‘Archaeology and Planning’
which provided guidance for planning authorities, property owners,
developers and others on the preservation and investigation of
archaeological remains.
1.2.2 In considering any planning application for development, the local

planning authority will be guided by the policy framework by
government guidance, in this instance PPG16, by the emerging
South East Plan, by current Local Plan policy and the Local
Development Framework Core Strategies.
1
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
1.2.3 A staged programme of archaeological works consisting of an

archaeological desk based assessment (CgMs 2005) and geophysical
survey (ASE 2007) were carried out in response to the guidelines.
Following the findings an archaeological evaluation was
commissioned in order to provide information with which to inform the
local planning authority prior to determination of any application for
development of the Site.
1.3 Topography and Geology
1.3.1 The Site is situated at the interface of the higher ground to the west
with the lower lying marshland of the Eastbourne Levels to the east.
The ground level reduces from a high of approximately 13m above
Ordnance Datum (aOD) on the north-west to approximately 5m aOD
in the south-east. The Site falls in gentle slopes from north-west to
south-east and from west to east. West of the Site the ground level
rises up toward the Downland, whilst to the east of the Site lies the flat
marshland of the Eastbourne, Mountney and Pevensey levels (CgMs
2005).
2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 A previous desk-based assessment prepared by CgMs Consulting

(CgMs 2005) focused on a Study Area of 1km around the Site. The
results of which are summarised below.
2.1.2 There are no Scheduled Monuments within the Study Area.
2.1.3 The Site has been subject to a number of archaeological interventions

in recent years, carried out by The Eastbourne Natural History and
Archaeological Society, which have revealed archaeological potential
dating specifically to the Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman, late medieval
and post-medieval periods.
2.2 Palaeolithic (450,000BC-12,000BC)
2.2.1 Other than a single hand axe recovered from Lottbridge Drove, no
finds of Palaeolithic material are recorded within the study area.
2
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
2.3 Mesolithic (12,000BC-4000BC)
2.3.1 No finds of Mesolithic date are recorded in the area although the
desk-based assessment identifies the location as ‘ideal for hunter
gatherer groups wishing to exploit the upland environment to the west
of the Site and the wetland environment to the east’ (CgMs 2005).
2.4 Neolithic and Bronze Age (4000BC-600BC)
2.4.1 No evidence of Neolithic activity is recorded in the vicinity of the Site.
2.4.2 Previous archaeological interventions have identified evidence for

Bronze Age pits and ditches. The features suggest a dryland
environment in the east of the Site during the Bronze Age period. A
middle Bronze Age cremation burial was also recorded from the
nearby St Anne’s Road.
2.4.3 The wetland environment east of the study site was heavily exploited
in the early and middle Bronze Age before a marine transgression in
the late Bronze Age caused an abandonment of earlier activity sites
such as Shinewater. The south of the site may have fluctuated
between marginal marshy land and true wetland at this time.
2.5 Iron Age and Romano-British (600BC-AD410)
2.5.1 The Iron Age / Romano-British period is most predominantly

represented on the Site. All past archaeological interventions on the
Site have revealed evidence dated to this period. Large quantities of
pottery recorded within the vicinity of the Site suggest the presence of
a significant settlement or activity site.
2.5.2 A substantial earthwork dated to the Iron Age period was recorded to
the north of the Site during excavations by the Eastbourne Natural
History and Archaeological Society (ENHAS).
2.5.3 Romano-British building material in conjunction with high quality

ceramics and coins recovered from Eastbourne Hospital and Cross
Levels Way, to the north of the Site, indicate the presence of a
substantial high-status structure in the area.
2.6 Anglo-Saxon and Early Medieval (AD410–1066)
2.6.1 Several Anglo-Saxon cemetery sites are recorded on the higher

ground to the west of the Site. Although there are no known locations
of accompanying settlements in the area. It is probable that the
3
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
cemeteries served settlements at Willington and Eastbourne. Small

quantities of Saxon material are recorded from Cross Level Way.
2.7 Late-Medieval and Post-Medieval (AD1066–to date)
2.7.1 Archaeological investigations on the low lying area in the extreme

east of the Site revealed evidence for a probably agricultural complex
of late-medieval date. Earthwork platforms for buildings were recorded
on the Site in conjunction with metalled surfaces and ‘pond’ like
structures. The complex appears to have been in use from the twelfth
century to c.1700.
2.7.2 Previous land use on the Site is recorded as pasture by historic

mapping.
2.8 Recent Investigations
2.8.1 A Geotechnical survey was carried out on the Site by RSK-ENSR

Group in October 2005 (CgMs 2005). Of the fourteen test pits
excavated four (TP 7, 8, 9 and 14 (Figure 1) identified an undulating
layer of silt, then interpreted as alluvial clays, with a depth of between
0.55m and 1.50m, overlain by 0.20m topsoil confined to the southern
area of the Site.
2.8.2 A geophysical survey was carried out on the Site by Archaeology

South-East (ASE 2007) which identified a pattern of probable
enclosure boundaries on the Site in conjunction with possible
associated discrete features (Figure 1). The boundaries are indicative
of ditches, probably multiphase, some possibly representing part of a
late prehistoric settlement adjacent to a droveway which survives as
an upstanding earthwork feature and possibly remained in use into
the post-medieval period. The ditches were observed to terminate
prior to the supposed alluvial clays in the southern area of the Site,
previously indicated by Geotechnical test pit data (CgMs 2005)
(Figure 1 TP 1-14), although it was unclear if the supposed alluvial
clays are relatively recent and mask underlying archaeological
features.
3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
3.1 General
3.1.1 To determine or confirm the presence/absence and the specific nature

of any remains present in the southern part of the Site.
4
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
3.1.2 To determine or confirm the character, condition, approximate date or

date range, distribution and potential of any remains, by means of
artefactual or other evidence in the southern lower section of the Site.
3.2 Specific
3.2.1 To determine or confirm the presence/absence and the specific

nature, distribution and condition of any archaeological features
present below the alluvium in the southern area of the Site.
3.2.2 To confirm the presence/absence of the continuation of field systems,

previously identified by the geophysical survey, beneath the supposed
alluvium.
3.2.3 To confirm the results of the Geotechnical test pit data from the Site
with a view to assessing the requirement for further Geotechnical
investigations.
3.2.4 To confirm the results of the geophysical survey by targeting the

location of the trial pits on previously identified anomalies.
3.2.5 To provide information on which to base future decisions concerning

the treatment of any archaeological remains on the Site.
4 METHODOLOGY
4.1 General
4.1.1 All works were undertaken in accordance with the standards set out
within the Specification (Wessex Archaeology 2007).
4.1.2 All works were conducted in compliance with the standards outlined in
the Institute of Field Archaeologist's Standard and Guidance for
Archaeological Excavations (as amended 1994), excepting where
they are superseded by statements made below.
4.1.3 All exposed deposits were recorded using Wessex Archaeology's pro
forma recording system, including the production of a full
photographic and drawn record.
4.1.4 The trial pits were tied in to the Ordnance Survey National Grid using
GPS surveying equipment.
4.2 Hand-dug test-pits
5
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
4.2.1 A total of six hand-dug test-pits (2m x 2m x 1m in depth) were

excavated as indicated on Figure 1.
4.3 Contingency works
4.3.1 Following on-site consultation with the Client and the ESCC County
Archaeologist it was agreed that further work was required in addition
to the hand-dug test-pitting. This consisted of two machine dug and
hand finished test-pits and an extension to one of the original test-pits
(Test-pit 16) to investigate an adjacent linear earthwork.
4.3.2 It was also agreed to continue excavation of the original test-pits to

the depth of the natural chalk identified by the Geotechnical survey
(CgMs 2005). In compliance with Health and Safety regulations
further excavation within the test pits, beyond 1.2m depth, was limited
to small investigative sondages only.
5 RESULTS
5.1 Test pits
5.1.1 The test-pits (Figure 1; TP15 – 20) were distributed across the
southern area of the Site on the projected locations of the continuation
of archaeological features, or over anomalies, identified by the
geophysical survey.
5.1.2 Test-Pit 16 was located adjacent to an existing linear earthwork and

was later extended to establish the character and date of the feature
(Figures 1 and 2; discussed below).
5.1.3 The test pits were dug to depths ranging from 1.2m – 1.52m at which
point the underlying weathered chalk bedrock was encountered in all
but Test-Pits 17, 21 and 22. However, the natural geology in the
vicinity of Test-Pit 7 was recorded during the previous Geotechnical
investigations at a depth of approximately 1.6m (CgMs 2005).
5.1.4 Detailed descriptions of the individual test-pit records are contained in

Appendix 1. The broader site specific results of the evaluation
demonstrated that the southern part of the site was covered by a layer
of hill washed colluvium, approximately 0.8m thick, which contained
residual prehistoric and Roman artefacts in conjunction with those
dating to the late medieval and post-medieval periods (Figure 2).
5.1.5 It is likely that the colluvium was formed through downslope erosion,
either from the north of the site or the lower slopes of the downs to its
6
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
west as a result of post-Roman, late medieval and post-medieval

ploughing.
5.1.6 The colluvium overlay homogenous compact and cohesive light grey-
brown silty marl type alluvial clay, approximately 0.4m thick. This had
very few inclusions apart from rare small fragments of chalk but did
include pieces of burnt and worked flint, bone, prehistoric pottery and
Ceramic Building Material in very rare quantities (Figure 2). The
deposit was notably deep in Test-Pit 17, 0.78m thick, where it was
sub-divided into three subtly different layers (172, 173, and 174).
5.1.7 The presence of small quantities of ceramic building material may

indicate a late Roman or post Roman formation date for the upper
part of the alluvial sequence. The likely date range of the sealing
colluvium indicates a pre-late medieval formation date for the
alluvium. Only one alluvial context [162] in test pit 16 produced post
Roman finds and this test pit appears to be located at the interface of
the dryland and wetland environments.
5.1.8 In test pits 21 and 22 the base of the alluvium was not observed. The
deposit was encountered at depths of 0.75m to >1.4m and 1.05m to
>1.3m respectively.
5.1.9 All of the test pits, with the exception of 21 and 22 contained a range
of pottery dating from the prehistoric to the post-medieval periods.
The pottery assemblage is thought to have been redeposited from the
adjacent area of extensive archaeological remains, as indicated by
the geophysical survey. Test Pit 19 contained a small cluster of
prehistoric worked flint, discussed below; this is also likely to be
redeposited.
5.2 Earthwork
5.2.1 An extant linear earthwork, aligned east-west, which runs across the
southern area of the Site was investigated in an extension to Test Pit
16 (Figure 1). The feature, comprising a shallow ditch and bank on
the northern side (Figure 2), forms a clear boundary between the
area of concentrated dryland archaeology in the north and the area of
deep colluvium and underlying alluvium in the south.
5.2.2 A strip of topsoil was mechanically removed north-south across the

feature to reveal the surface of the underlying colluvium. A sondage
was excavated in the base of the ditch to establish the presence /
7
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
absence of any earlier obscured feature. No evidence of an earlier

feature was observed.
5.2.3 Root disturbance was observed throughout the colluvial bank material
on the northern side of the ditch. This is thought to be due to a hedge
being planted on the apex of the bank supporting the theory that this
feature had previously been utilised as a field boundary.
5.2.4 No dating evidence was recovered from the ditch or bank material.
However, the loose nature of the deposits and its presence on the
1875 Ordnance Survey map indicate a likely modern date for the
boundary feature which seems to have been a precursor to the
existing field boundary (CgMs 2005).
6 FINDS
6.1.1 Finds were recovered from six of the test pits excavated (no finds
were recovered from test pits 21 or 22), comprising a small
assemblage ranging in date from prehistoric to post-medieval. Finds
came from topsoil, colluvial and alluvial layers within test pits. The
condition of the assemblage is poor; ceramic material (pottery, fired
clay, ceramic building material) in particular has suffered high levels of
abrasion, and the worked flints exhibit considerable edge damage.
The whole assemblage is likely to be redeposited.
6.1.2 The assemblage is quantified in detail in Appendix 2.
6.2 Pottery
6.2.1 The pottery provides most of the dating evidence for the site. Material
of later prehistoric, Romano-British, medieval and post-medieval date
was identified. The pottery is in poor condition, with high levels of
abrasion; mean sherd weight is 6.9g.
6.2.2 The later prehistoric material consists of sherds in flint-tempered

fabrics in a varying range of coarseness. There are no diagnostic
pieces, and these sherds are dated solely on fabric grounds, being
considered characteristic of the later prehistoric period, probably Late
Bronze Age or Early Iron Age in date. The prehistoric pottery occurred
in topsoil, colluvial and alluvial layers, with a small concentration in
test pit 19, where 18 of the 25 sherds identified came from colluvium
(191); it may be noted that this test pit also produced a small cluster of
worked flint (see below).
8
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
6.2.3 The Romano-British material consists largely of sherds in grog-

tempered fabrics, with a small number of sandy greywares and
oxidised wares, and two sherds of samian (both from test pit 19).
Again, there are no diagnostic sherds, and the samian sherds provide
the only close dating evidence (later 1st or 2nd century AD). The
Romano-British sherds occurred in topsoil, colluvial and alluvial
layers, with small clusters in test pits 16 (22 sherds), 17 (14 sherds)
and 19 (17 sherds).
9
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
6.2.4 Thirty-three sherds were dated as late medieval. Apart from one sherd
in a fine sandy glazed ware of West Sussex type, all sherds are in
coarseware fabrics, mainly coarsely tempered with quartz and flint.
There is one jar rim (test pit 20). The coarseware fabrics suggest a
date range of 11th to 12th century, although the West Sussex ware
(colluvium in test pit 15) is later, 13th to 14th century. Late medieval
sherds came mainly from topsoil and colluvial layers, although seven
sherds also came from alluvium in test pit 16.
6.2.5 Two sherd are post-medieval – one glazed redware (topsoil in test pit
17), and one stoneware (topsoil in test pit 20).
6.3 Ceramic Building Material (CBM)
6.3.1 Of the 43 pieces of CBM recovered, 27 have been identified as

Roman, with varying degrees of confidence, given the extremely
abraded condition of many pieces. Amongst these are three tegulae
and one imbrex; other pieces are undiagnostic.
6.3.2 The remaining 16 pieces are of late medieval/post-medieval roof (peg)

tile; these were confined to topsoil and colluvial layers.
6.4 Worked and Burnt Flint
6.4.1 The worked flint consists entirely of flakes, mostly patinated, and all
showing signs of edge damage. In the absence of tools or other
utilised pieces, this small group of material can only be broadly dated
as Neolithic/Bronze Age. As noted above, a small cluster (18 out of
the total of 28 pieces) occurred in test pit 19.
6.4.2 Burnt, unworked flint was also encountered. This material type is
intrinsically undatable, although often associated with prehistoric
activity. In this instance the date range is ambiguous as the burnt flint
was associated with pottery and other finds of prehistoric, Roman and
post-Roman date.
10
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
6.5 Other Finds
6.5.1 Other finds comprise very small quantities of animal bone

(sheep/goat, cattle, horse), shell (oyster, cockle and limpet),
metalwork (iron nail and boot heel; copper alloy buckle), fired clay
(undiagnostic), stone (roof slate and sandstone building material), a
clay tobacco pipe stem and a bone button. Metalwork, clay pipe and
roof slate (all from topsoil or colluvium) are post-medieval; other finds
are undatable.
7 ENVIRONMENTAL
7.1.1 Neither individual episodes/ phases of colluviation nor speed of

sedimentation could be defined from the four sediment samples taken
from Test-pits 16 and 19.
8 DISCUSSION
8.1.1 The evaluation has provided information on the depositional sequence

within the site and characterised a linear earthwork still visible on the
Site.
8.1.2 The depositional sequence in the south of the site was consistent
throughout the test-pits with alluvial clay sealed by a build up of
colluvial hill wash (Figure 3). Variations in the depth of these deposits
are relative to their topographic locations. Generally deeper alluvium
occurred within the test-pits towards the base of the hill in the east
and south and deeper colluvium further upslope in the north and
westernmost test-pits.
8.1.3 The colluvial formation may be linked to farming or tree clearance of

the lower slopes at the edge of the floodplain. Most probably as a
result of late medieval and post-medieval ploughing of the lower
slopes of the downs to the west of the Site. A high concentration of
archaeological features, as indicated by the geophysical survey,
upslope to the north may account for the presence of redeposited
artefacts within the colluvium.
8.1.4 The extant earthwork, situated to the south of the Site, which was also
investigated during the fieldwork, appears to be a relatively recent
historical boundary. Cartographic evidence indicates a boundary in a
similar location on the 1875 Ordnance Survey map of the area (CgMs
2005). However, this boundary may represent a historic division
11
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
between the ‘dryland’ upper part of the site and the ‘wetland’ lower
part of the site.
12
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
9 CONCLUSION
9.1.1 The results of the Geotechnical test pit data from the southern area of
the Site were found to be broadly accurate however, in the mid region
of the site an overlying colluvial deposit was identified which had not
previously been interpreted as such. The presence of alluvial deposits
was confirmed towards the base of the slope.
9.1.2 The evaluation demonstrated an apparent absence of dryland

archaeological features in the locations of the test pits within the
southern area of the Site, both above and below the colluvium
supplementing the results of the geophysical survey.
9.1.3 Artefacts dating from the prehistoric to the post-medieval periods were
recorded from all but two of the test pits, these finds are likely to be
redeposited within the colluvium as the result of hill wash and within
the alluvium as a result of fluvial or marine deposition.
10 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archaeology South East, 2007, Fluxgate Gradiometer Survey of Land at

Pococks Field, Kings Drive, Eastbourne, East Sussex, unpublished client
report.
CgMs Consulting, 2005 (revised 2007), Land at Pococks Field, Kings Drive,
Eastbourne Park, Eastbourne, East Sussex, Archaeological Desk-based
Assessment, unpublished client report
Wessex Archaeology, 2007, Land at Pococks Field, Kings Drive,

Eastbourne Park, Eastbourne, East Sussex, Written Scheme of
Investigation, unpublished document
13
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
11 APPENDIX 1: TEST PIT SUMMARIES
TEST PIT: 15 NGR: 560251 100456

Dimensions (m): 2 x 2 Ground Level: 5.15m aOD
Context Description Depth (m)
No.
150 Topsoil. Mid – dark grey brown silty clay loam 0 – 0.2
with rare sub-rounded flint pebbles <0.01m in
size. Pottery recovered.
151 Colluvium. Light – mid grey brown silty clay 0.2 – 1
with rare inclusions of sub-rounded and sub-
angular flint pebbles 0.002 – 0.005m in size.
Very rare marine shell, animal bone, pottery
and flint also present.
152 Alluvium. Mid brown with greenish tint marl 1 – 1.25
clay. Contains inclusions of occasional small
sub-angular fragments of chalk.
153 Natural. Light grey and white chalk with clay >1.25
inclusions.
TEST PIT: 16 NGR: 560280 100463

No.
160 Topsoil. Mid – dark grey brown silty clay loam. 0 – 0.2
Includes very rare sub angular and sub-
rounded flint pebbles <0.01m in size. CBM,
pottery and burnt flint present in very rare
quantities.
161 Colluvium. Light – mid grey brown silty clay 0.2 – 1
with rare sub-rounded and sub-angular flint
pebbles <0.015m in size. Rare chalk flecks and
very rare charcoal flecking also present.
Pottery CBM, marine shell, burnt and worked
flint present in very rare quantities.
162 Alluvium. Light greenish grey brown cohesive 1 – 1.25
clay silt. Inclusions of occasional chalk flecks
and sub-rounded and sub-angular flint cobbles
<0.015m in size. Very rare charcoal flecks also
present. Pottery, CBM, burnt and worked flint
and marine shell present in very rare
quantities.
163 Natural. Light greyish white mottled chalk in a >1.25
clay matrix.
14
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
164 As 161. Pottery, bone and CBM recovered. 0.2 - >0.6
TEST PIT: 17 NGR: 560282 100452

No.
170 Topsoil. Dark grey brown silty clay containing 0 – 0.23
sparse amounts of small chalk fragments. CBM
and pottery present in very rare quantities.
171 Colluvium. Light grey brown silty clay loam. 0.23 – 0.72
Contains occasional inclusions of chalk <
0.04m in size. Pottery and CBM present in very
rare quantities.
172 Alluvium. Firm mid bluish grey silty clay. 0.72 – 0.93
Contains sparse fragments of chalk <0.03m in
size. Burnt stone and flint present in very rare
quantities.
173 Alluvium. Compact and cohesive light bluish 0.93 – 1.26
grey clay silt with sparse inclusions of chalk
<0.02m in size.
174 Alluvium. Compact mid bluish grey clay silt with 1.26 – 1.5
occasional chalk inclusions <0.02m in size.
175 Natural. Degraded compact and cohesive >1.5
upper chalk with light grey clay patches.
TEST PIT: 18 NGR: 560262 100449

No.
180 Topsoil. Mid brown silty clay with sparse 0 – 0.22
inclusions of very small sub-angular pebbles.
Pottery and worked flint recovered.
181 Colluvium. Light grey brown silty clay with 0.22 – 1.3
sparse very small sub-angular flints and sparse
very small chalk flecks and rare sub-rounded
flints. Potery and worked flint recovered.
182 Alluvium. Compact light grey silty clay with very 1.3 – 1.52
high clay content. Inclusions of common very
small chalk flecks 0.001 – 0.005m in size.
Pottery and animal bone recovered.
183 Natural, very light grey compacted chalk and >1.52
clay, with iron veining.
TEST PIT: 19 NGR: 560260 100439

Dimensions (m): 2 x 2 Ground Level: 4.55m OD
No.
15
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
190 Topsoil. Mid – dark grey brown silty clay loam 0 – 0.2
with very rare sub-rounded and sub-angular
flint pebbles. Pottery, CBM and burnt flint
recovered.
191 Colluvium. Light – mid greyish brown silty clay 0.2 – 1
with rare – sparse sub-rounded and sub-
angular flint pebbles <0.007m in size, rare
chalk flecking and very rare charcoal flecks.
192 Alluvium. Light greenish grey brown sticky clay 1 – 1.4
silt. Occasional chalk flecks and flints <0.01m,
rare sub-angular and sub-rounded flints
<0.03m. Very rare charcoal flecking.
193 Friable greyish white mottled clay with >1.4
manganese streaking. Very rare snail shell and
rare worked flint present.
TEST PIT: 20 NGR: 560260 100430

No.
200 Topsoil. Mid – dark grey brown silty clay loam. 0 – 0.2
Pottery recovered.
201 Colluvium. Light grey – brown compact silty 0.2 – 0.8
clay with sparse very small sub-angular flints
and rare sub-rounded flints <0.1 – 0.05m.
Pottery and bone recovered.
202 Alluvium. Light grey compact and cohesive silty 0.8 – 1.2
clay with inclusions of small chalk fragments
and flints 0.01 – 0.005m in size. Pottery
recovered.
203 Natural. Very light grey to white friable chalk. >1.2
TEST PIT: 21 NGR: 560321 100436

Dimensions (m): 2 x 1.8 Ground Level: 3.6m aOD
No.
210 Topsoil. Mid – dark grey brown silty clay. 0 – 0.2
211 Colluvium. Light – mid greyish brown compact 0.2 – 0.75
silty clay with occasional sub-rounded and sub-
angular chalk fragments.
212 Alluvium. Light greenish grey compact and 0.75 – >1.4
cohesive clay with iron staining. Very rare
pieces of burnt flint present.
TEST PIT: 22 NGR: 560308 100395

Dimensions (m): 2.4 x 1.8 Ground Level: 4.28m OD
16
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
No.
220 Topsoil. Mid brown silty clay. 0 – 0.26
221 Colluvium. Mid grey very compacted and 0.26 – 1.05
cohesive silty clay with small sub-angular flint
inclusions.
222 Alluvium. Greyish brown silty clay. 1.05 – >1.3
17
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
CgMs Consulting
12 APPENDIX 2: FINDS QUANTIFICATION TABLE
Table 1: All finds by context (number / weight in grammes)
Prehist. Post-
TP Pottery RB
Context Animal Bone Burnt Flint CBM Worked Flint RB Pottery Pottery Shell Metal Other finds
15 150 3/12
15 151 3/12 14/153 2/57 1/2 5/28 4/54
16 160 1/1 1/55 3/49 1/4 2/27
16 162 3/140 3/74 5/294 2/36 2/9 15/100 7/39 4/79 1 fired clay
16 164 11/246 7/283 5/42
1/15
17 170 3/82 4/49 1 Fe 1 worked bone; 2 slate; 1 clay pipe
17 171 10/205 3/163 5/310 2/16 1/6 12/123 7/30 5/49 1 fired clay
17 172 1/8 2/30
18 180 1/3 2/86 1/5 1/2
18 181 2/118 4/131 2/24 7/66 2/9 2/22 1 stone
18 182 1/4 1/3
19 190 7/116 2/100 8/121 2/7 1/4
19 191 7/26 5/73 6/186 9/142 18/103 15/79 4/23 2/12 1 Cu
19 192 1/77 1/8
20 200 1/3 3/100 1/6 1/11 1 Fe
20 201 2/15 4/121 2/203 2/12 4/38
20 202 1/13
25/149 35/207 2 Fe;
TOTAL 39/652 44/1035 43/1791 28/412 63/488 18/220 1 Cu
CBM = ceramic building material; Cu = copper alloy; Fe = iron
18
WA doc. ref. 68030.01
101000
The Site
100000
559000
560000
561000
562000
563000
TP1
TP2
TP13
TP3
The Site
TP4
TP12 TP5
TP6
TP10
TP16
TP9 TP15
TP18 TP17
TP19 TP14
WA Test-pit
TP21
Previous geotechnical pits TP20
ASE Geophysical survey: Discrete positive anomaly TP11
ASE Geophysical survey: Negative linear anomaly TP7
TP22
ASE Geophysical survey: Positive linear anomaly TP8
0 100m
Reproduced from the 1998 Ordnance Survey 1:25 000 Explorer ® map with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office
© Crown copyright, Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire. SP4 6EB. Licence Number: 100028190.
Geophysics data supplied by CgMs Consulting from ASE September 2007
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.
Date: 02/01/08 Revision Number: 0
Wessex Scale: 1:25 000 & 1:2000 @ A4 Illustrator: LJC

Archaeology Path: Y:\PROJECTS\68030\Drawing Office\Report Figure\EVAL\08_01_02\68030eval.dwg
Site and Test-pit location plan Figure 1

Test-pit 15 Test-pit 22
S N
5.11m OD
150
E W
151 4.24m OD
220
152
221
222
East facing section of Test pit-15

East facing section of Test-pit 22
Topsoil Colluvium Alluvium
Test-pit 16
S N
Bank
4.14m OD
Ditch
160
161 164
162
East facing section of Test-pit 16

0 1 2m

Wessex Scale: 1:50 @ A3 Illustrator: LJC
Archaeology
Path: Y:\PROJECTS\68030\Drawing Office\Report Figure\EVAL\08_01_02\68030eval.dwg
Representative sections and corresponding plates Figure 2

ROAD
ESS
7.5
13.11
7.5
ACC
13.65
12.00
Top of Bank
Bollard MH
12.43 HW
Asphalt Path
WV RS
KIN
13.79 12.26
G
G'S
R
Top of RS
MH Bank G Bollard CLEA
12.83 12.71
RS 12.09
DR
LP
12.00
KEEP 12.50
12.39
Kb
Grass
IVE
Path
MRF1.0m
Kb
G
LP
G 13.98 Grass Grass
Asphalt
Kb
.00
MH Grass
es
14
Lin
RS
00
Line
14
13.
llow
G 14 12.60
ow
.00
Ye
.00 Canopy of Fir
e
14.00
Yell
Approx. HT=8m
ubl
RS
ble
Do
LP
Bollard 14.04
Setts
Kb
14.10
Dou
Asphalt Path
14.25 MH
13.50
Bollard LP
G 13.83
les 12.71
Cobb
MH Grass
.00RS Asphalt Path
MH 14 SA
12.00
50
Grass 14.00 7
12.
12.92 LP
12.71 11.46
G Cobbles
WV 0.9 11.50
LP SA PWF 0
G LP 13.33 PWF0.9m (Collapsed) 10.5
13.67 6 SA
RS MH Canopy of mixed 11.42
14.16 species trees 7.75
Height upto approx.
RS Kb 8m .9m 5.5
RS NP 12.00
West edge of Site South-east edge of Site
Bank
14.33 G RS Tree count of approx
68 PWF0 6 11.38 Grass
G 13.64 13.52 5 Grass
13.00
14.24 12.15
MH LP/RS 13.5 SA 5.5
Botto
13.60 12.76 12.12
m
0
G RS G 6 9.50
13.89 Double Yellow 13.50 12.51 LP
Grass Lines MH 7.64
MH PWF0.9m
Grit Grass 2.5
13.50
14.26 RS Bollard Catseye
LP
Canopy of mixed species trees MH
LP 13.85 13.71 Catseye MH
G MH MH G 13.46 Height upto approx. 6m
Tarmac Grass
14.21 Cobbles Tree count of approx 9
MH RS Catseye Catseye LP
G
MRF1
LP Catseye Crash 7.60
Collapsed
14.31 Catseye CBF
2.3 13.79
.1m
2.3 BIRCH RS
Catseye Catseye CRO barrie 2.7m
14.34 Catseye r
NP 14.32 13.85
SS LEV
G LP RS
14.25 Catseye ELS 12.93 5.5
7.65
PWF0.9m
G Catseye 9.79
h
9.50
Double Yellow Lines
13.00
WAY
Catseye
10.0
RS G
t Pat
G Catseye
09.50
14.26 G
0
SL
hal
LP/RS
8.509.0 10.50
G Wall
8.0
Grass 13.50 13.31 Catseye
Asp
MH 4.5
50
13.31
00
Grass
11.00
RS Catseye 13.56
12.
12. Top of Bank
13.00 11.
NP Top of MH Catseye MH 50
Catseye G IC 13.49 Bank G Cabinet 11.82
bles SA SA 12.02
LP FH 12.50 Catseye RS Cabinet 11.82
Catseye Cob 12.55 12.46
14.41 11.99
Sub
0 14.
RS LP
Way
G Canopy of mixed species trees
Catseye
14.5
13.50
SA
00
Kb 14.03 G
12.50
Catseye Kb 11.73 12.00 11.83 Height upto approx. 6m
Bollard Catseye
AY
Kb
MH Antenna
14.63
W
G TMH 12.02 SA
Tree count of approx 47
Catseye 13.53 SA MH 12.00
G Grass SA 11.58 nk
RS 11.52 RS
LS
DRIVE 11.50 Catseye Ba
RODMILL 14.19 11.34 12.02 of
15.00
MH Kb PW p
VE
Kb
Catseye F1.0 To nk
Bottom m Ba
LE
9.00
G of Bank SL Catseye of
Cobbles
S
Grass NP RS 12.56 MH G Canopy of small trees and saplings m
13.98 Catseye TMH tto
14.20
OS
11.40 11.50 50 Height upto approx. 2.5m Bo
Wall G G
k
LP .00LP 13.
CR
MH 1414.02
Kb
Aspalt Path 14.00 PWF
Ban
MH 2.5 11.0 1.0m MH
MH
of
0
00
12.00
MH G MH Catseye 0 Bollard
Grass LP
8.00
9.42
11.5
RS Bank
13.
Top
MH 10.99 Top of
G 13.61 IC Grass RS LP MRF1.1m Catseye
IC Kb
10.50
Bollard G
8.50
8.64 8.21
.0m
13.88
14.00
Grass Catseye MH
PWF1
12.50
Cra Cabinet of Bank LP
.9m
10.0 TMH sh 9.93
Aspalt Path RS LP 10.66 bar Bottom 9.84
8.93 0 rier
Catseye MH
10.50
G
PWF0
13.75 13.60 LP Catseye
NP LP IC
Grass
Kb
Catseye
13.00
13.82 Fence 10.22
6.5 G Catseye LP
Path MH LP
LP G 10.17
13.57 Grass RS halt Grass G Bollard 9.40
13.67 Asp Catseye G
2.00
12.65 Grass
MH G 9.94
G Tarmac LP
LP
Bollard 9.98
TMH 9.86
9.00
10.39
MH
13.49 .00 Fen
10
Grass LP 11 ce MH
LP
13.5
12.87
10.00
0
.00
11.38 G
11.50
Kb G
Double
MH 10 G MH
9.50
.00
Doub
Yellow
MH
G
G 8.5 Grass
Lines
0
Top
RS
le Yellow
Grass LP
of
8.00 G 10.01
G 10.64 G
Lines
RS
Ban
LP Canopy of mixed species trees
k
13.43 10.06 Height upto approx. 14m 0
Canopy of small trees and saplings
PRF1.0m
Bollard RS Tree count of approx 81
2.0
WV Height upto approx. 3.5m
10.73 10.12 0.50
1.50
13.33 PW
MF SA
Seat
13.50
0.8 10.06
7.50
Canopy height=3
1.00
RS LP IL .12 DIA 1.50
G 10.06 10.13
2.00
PRF
1.3
Post
1.00
9m
Asp
1.3 2.5 MH F0. PRF1.2
G PW Gate 2.00
PRF
0
1.50
MH SA
halt
G 10.15 2.00
10.19 RS
G
2.0
IC 10.03
Path
KIG 2.5 0
SA 2.5 Dead 3.5m
10.11
10.39 1.75
10
.00
Grass 2.5
LP 10.21 RS
IC Fen 10.97 10.13
ce
Fence
LP
Bottom
13.19
7.00
Fen
Tarmac ce
G
of Bank
MH
Kb
G
Heig
G
MH LP
l
Bric ht=0
12.99
13.0
10.42
00
DK
2.50
k Wal .75m
13.00 LP LP
13.
12.97 11.00
11.00
10.5
13.0
0
Elm
11.00
RS 0 Height=13m G G
RP Kb
12.99 13.00
12.95
12.90 8.5
0
TP1
Kb
0
8.00
12.86 MH
Gras
s
8.0
KING
7.00
RS
7.50
8.0 8.50 Dense Brambles
12.80 12.80 7.5 0
0
0
1.3
6.5
50
G
'S DR
8.50
12.
PRF
0
Kb MH 0
12.65 9.5
IVE
3.0
50
LP LP
7.50
RS MH
11.
10.58
RS 10.86
6.50
12.73 Crash barrier 2.50
12.65 MH
0
9.00
TMH
5.0
10.49
2.00
0
12.5
9
TP1
2.5
12.50
12.00
12.00 6.0 0
0
5.5
3.5
Dou
Gras
s
ble
4.00
6.00
Kb
Yell
Dou
IC 4.50
ow
ble
2.0
12.5
0
Line
Yell
s
Fen Fence
1.50
ow
Kb
MH ce
PASTURE FIELD
Fen
Line
Fenc
s
ce
e
12.3
12.26
1.00
1
Canopy of mixed species trees
Bottom of Height upto approx. 9m
G Mixed species hedge Bank
5.00
Height=2.5m
2.00
Tree count of approx 36
5.50
G IC Mkr
TP2 WM PRF 1.3
Gras
PWF1.0m
s
12.27 3.37
Elm 12
12.12 Height=14m
12.2
2.00
0
.00
Fence
LP Fence
12.23
3.00
PRF 1.3
5.00
TMH
11.88
CN 2.21
Elm
0 Height=14m TP13
12.00
12.0
TMH
11.78
The Site 11.76
PASTURE FIELD
2.00
DIG
CN 2.33 IL 0.6 DIA
3.50
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGS
2.5 DIG
Heig
2.50
0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGS
DIG
l
Bric ht=1
G
3.00
IC
k Wal .1m
11.50
G DIG
DIG
11.47 LP
11.41
10
2.00 TP2
0
WV
11.49
4.0
Ash
2.00
IRF
Height=14m
1.3
11.22 1.64
Grass 11.01
11.00
Hawthorn
Height=8m
11.00 2.64
IC
KIG
KIG MH
11.00
IC
SETT Beech
ac
Hawthorn
10.00
Gras
3.63 Height=16m 4.00
Elder Beech
Tarm s
Height=6m Fence 4.01 Height=7m Height=12m
1.50
Elder
PWF1.1 3.34 2.69
4.38 SETT Beech
4.00
0
3.84 Height=6m Height=16m
Grass Ash Elder Elder 2.77 Beech, Height=17m
0
4.27
4.50
0
Elder 3.77 3.03
Height=8m Height=22m Height=6m SETT Height=8m
Hawthorn Hawthorn 2.75 Beech, Height=17m
5.0
4.53
4.0 4.5
Elder Elder 4.46 3.90 4.44 Height=9m
Height=9m
6.50
Height=6m
Tarm
4.84 Height=6m Ash
Kb
3.77
Dou
ac
10.59 4.37
7.00
PWF1.1 4.88 4.70 Height=8m
ble
10. SETT Ash
50 Hawthorn 4.48
9.50
5.63
Dou
Height=6m Height=8m Ash
Yell
Height=8m
6.00
5.14
ble
5.39
ow
Kb
5.50
5.64 Hawthorn Elder
LP
Yell
Ash H=5m
Line
Height=14m Height=6m
ow
WV 10.49 Fence Ash Elder 5.17
10.50
10.30 Height=10m 5.80
10.57
Dry Ditch
2.50
Ash Height=14m
Line
IC 6.09 Elder
s
Gate PWF1.3 Ash Height=17m 6.26
Height=16m 6.44 Concrete Height=7m
10.38 Hawthorn 6.46
9.00
8.50
Height=10m 2.37
7.50 6.85 2.04
0
Hawthorn Hawthorn Beech
Top of Bank
Height=6m Ash
8.0
Height=8m 3.76 Height=10m
2.00
Height=7m
8.04
SHED
7.45
3.72
3.77
Elder (cluster)
3.09 Ash
2.41
TP13
8.06 Height=8m
Elder Average height=8m
Top of Bank
Height=6m 3.77
4.00
3.56
Fence Elder
Beech IRF1.3 Height=10m
Elder
10.00
10.05 7.76
Hawthorn 3.44
Height=12m Hawthorn
9.99 Height=6m
G Hawthorn
Height=6m
3.57
SETT
TP6 SETT
3.03 3.42
2.91
Ash
Height=8m
SETT SETT
LP
Fen
0
SETT SETT 2.03
ce
2.91 2.97
2.5
9.68 3.25 2.34
Beech Elder
Height=16m 2.60 Height=10m
9.78 Ash
Kb
SETT Height=14m
7.48 2.67
9.50
Kb
3.50
7.55
3.00
Elder (cluster)
Average height=12m 2.83
7.77 Ash
8.39 8.08 Height=20m
7.48
7.37
Elder
Height=8m
Negative linear earthwork
Heig
8.39
Elder (cluster) 3.57
l
Bric ht=1
Height=21m
k Wal m
Average height=12m
Elder Beech
7.55 Height=6m 2.32
1.50
4.25
Top of Bank
Top
Dry Ditch
8.47
Elder
of Bank
8.73 4.60 Height=6m
Beech
Hawthorn 4.99 Height=16m
Elm (cluster) Height=8m
3.00
9.01 Average height=16m Elder (cluster) 3.24 Elder
Average height=12m Height=12m
Beech
7.42 7.68 2.79 Elder
2.50
Height=18m
7.55 7.19 Height=8m 2.63 2.19
7.80 7.79
3.50
3.80 1.94
Hawthorn Elder (cluster) 3.54 3.06 3.05
7.75 Height=6m Average height=8m
8.33 Hawthorn (cluster)
5.92
Elm (cluster) 7.74 Average height=12m
6.13
4.00
Average height=12m 7.80 3.71
G 7.67 Hawthorn
8.34 Concrete Height=6m
Beech
Height=14m Beech
KIG 8.83
9.06 Height=12m
2.00
4.50
IC 3.62 3.19
9.00
2.22
9.00
MH 8.28
7.84
Elder (cluster)
Hawthorn
Height=8m
TP16 Elder (cluster)
Average height=6m
PASTURE FIELD
7.07 Elder
Kb
Average height=10m Beech
LP 5.92 3.64 3.02
9.05 Gate 7.72
PASTURE FIELD
0
8.76
Kb
3.5
Grass
DK
Elder
Tar
Height=8m
Concr
mac
6.12
ete
Elder
Elder
Bank Top
Height=6m
Height=6m 3.01
TP16
0
3.78
Beech Elder (cluster)
3.0
IC TMH 2.90
Elm H=15m Average h=8m
8.70 2.21
Height=18m
2.5
Kb
SETT Elder 3.08 Elder 2.24
TP17
0
6.89 3.36 Height=6m H=6m
3.00
7.24
7.15
3.51 Beech
Height=18m
5
G 7.08 Dry 1.11
Bank Bottom
0
Sycamore Ditc
Height=15m 7.28 h
9.0
9.40 IC 7.43 Elm (cluster) 7.05
Average height=12m
IC
TP6
Ba
RP 6.91
nk
Bank Top
9.07 Elder
Ditch
Bo
6.77 Height=8m 2.00
tto
0
Elder (cluster)
1.39 MULTI20
TP17
m
RP
1.5
Average height=8m Willow 2.64 22
9.15 Height=10m
IC 24 1.92
PWF1.1 2.50 1.89
1.00
6.61
LP
TP21 Fenc
MULTI18
2.64
Willow
H=26m
2.5
9.18
0
1.44 e MULTI3
RP 2.33
3.00
9.19
Sycamore
Height=19m
RP
9.26 Elder
Height=8m F0.
9
TP22 TP21
9.26
Con
CL
3.25 3.08
cret
e
Elder (cluster) Elder Elder
Elm Height=7m Height=8m Beech
Fen Elm Average height=8m 3.67
G Height=19m 5.02 Bank Top Height=16m
ce Height=15m6.05 Hawthorn
6.78 3.04
RP Height=12m
4.0
6.24 5.60 Beech
0
9.25 Elm 3.74
MR 6.82 Height=13m Height=20m Beech
RP 8.50 F1. 5.80 Elder 3.64
9.13 8.0
0
3 Elder (cluster)
Average height=15m
5.46
Height=8m
3.61 of
Ba
nk
Height=17m
3.42
Ditched field boundary
7.50 Hawthorn 3.79 m
RP Height=13m Beech tto
Bank 3.83 Bo
9.15 Botto 3.77 Height=17m
RP Kb 6.98 1.2
9.17 m 3.88
7.64 CPF
5.00
Tarmac Elder (cluster) 4.01
Oak Elm Average height=10m SETT
0
7.62 3.95 Elder
Height=13 6.67 Height=19m Elm Beech 4.45
6.50
RP
7. 0
6.0
9.14 6.91 7.0Elder 3.93 Height=17m
9.14 0
3.98 4.61
Height=10m 5.03 5.02
8.007.500
4.39
IC 6.19 4.75
4.66 SETT
Kb Elder (cluster) Beech
RP 4.79
9.12
LP MH
KIG
7.41 Elm 5.50
5.17 Elder (cluster)
Average height=8m
Average height=10m TP22 4.39
Height=19m 4.42
4.50
ce
Natural Chalk
9.13 Grass Height=14m 4.44 nk Fen
Conc Elm (cluster) 4.72 Ba
Heighrete Wall Average height=15m 4.44 of
t=0.7 Hawthorn (cluster) m
RP
9.05
m
7.43
5.78
6.83 6.72
Elder (cluster)
Average height=10m
4.51 Bo
tto
Present ground surface
Average height=10m
9.0
Elm (cluster)
0
Grass 6.79 5.14 5.76
RP 6.48 Average height=15m 4.52
9.04 4.92 Bank Bottom
4.48 5.76 Hawthorn (cluster)
4.94 Average height=10m
RP 7.09 Elm (cluster) 4.93
7.10 6.80 5.62
9.00
Elm (cluster)
9.01
5.0
Average height=25m 5.27
RP 7.47 6.80 5.32 Average height=25m 0
7.00 6.59 6.19 Hawthorn
9.00 7.20 7.20
0 G IL 0.6 DIA Height=10m
9.0 6.00 5.50
RP Concrete Wall 6.50
8.96 GV Kb Height=0.7m
8.19 6.76 8.08 Hawthorn
7.00 7.50
Grass RP LP MRF1.3 Beech
Elm Fence 7.38
8.31
8.00
Height=14 8.90
RP MH TMH 7.59
8.96 Tarm 8.88
ac LP RP G
8.24 Kb
8.95 8.87 RP RP RP RP
Sycamore 8.83
KING'S DRIVE
RP 8.21 8.22 8.23 RP
Height=20m 8.77 RP 8.24
9.08 8.70 RP Kb MH
IC 8.69 MH
Elm
Height=14m
8.87
Grass Kb
Grass DK
Ash Tarmac Grass
Sycamore Paving
Height=16m Height=12m Fence Tarmac
8.78 Gate
8.43 Beech Gate
Beech 8.37
Height=14m Height=14m 8.41 PILLAR Brick
Wall
8.40 8.31 Height=0.35m
Transect
0
(metres)
0 100 200 300 400
(metres)
Topsoil
Made ground/probable archaeological deposits
Colluvium
Alluvium

Wessex Scale: 1:2500 plan @ A3 Illustrator: LJC
Digital survey supplied by client
Archaeology
Path: Y:\PROJECTS\68030\Drawing Office\Report Figure\EVAL\08_01_02\68030eval.dwg
Deposit model Figure 3

WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY LIMITED.
Registered Head Office: Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 6EB.
Tel: 01722 326867 Fax: 01722 337562 info@wessexarch.co.uk www.wessexarch.co.uk
London Office: Unit 113, The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7QY.
Tel: 020 7953 7494 Fax: 020 7953 7499 london-info@wessexarch.co.uk www.wessexarch.co.uk
Registered Charity No. 287786. A company with limited liability registered in England No. 1712772.

Pococks Field, Eastbourne

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Pococks Field, Eastbourne

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Wessex Archaeology

Land At Pococks Field, Kings Drive,

Ref: 68030.01 January 2008

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT

Report reference: 68030.01

© Wessex Archaeology Limited 2008, all rights reserved

Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by CgMs Consulting to carry out an

The project was designed to test the archaeological potential of an area of

The results of the evaluation, which supplement the geophysical survey

Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by CgMs Consulting to undertake

The archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Jonathan Milward with

The project was managed on behalf of Wessex Archaeology by Caroline

LAND AT POCOCKS FIELD, KINGS DRIVE,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT

LAND AT POCOCKS FIELD, KINGS DRIVE,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT

1.1 Project Background

1.1.1 Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by CgMs Consulting

1.1.3 It is intended that the Site be redeveloped as residential housing with

1.2 Planning Background and Development Plan Framework

1.2.1 In November 1990, the Department of the Environment issued

1.2.2 In considering any planning application for development, the local

1.2.3 A staged programme of archaeological works consisting of an

1.3 Topography and Geology

2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

2.1.1 A previous desk-based assessment prepared by CgMs Consulting

2.1.2 There are no Scheduled Monuments within the Study Area.

2.1.3 The Site has been subject to a number of archaeological interventions

2.2 Palaeolithic (450,000BC-12,000BC)

2.3 Mesolithic (12,000BC-4000BC)

2.4 Neolithic and Bronze Age (4000BC-600BC)

2.4.1 No evidence of Neolithic activity is recorded in the vicinity of the Site.

2.4.2 Previous archaeological interventions have identified evidence for

2.5 Iron Age and Romano-British (600BC-AD410)

2.5.1 The Iron Age / Romano-British period is most predominantly

2.5.3 Romano-British building material in conjunction with high quality

2.6 Anglo-Saxon and Early Medieval (AD410–1066)

2.6.1 Several Anglo-Saxon cemetery sites are recorded on the higher

cemeteries served settlements at Willington and Eastbourne. Small

2.7 Late-Medieval and Post-Medieval (AD1066–to date)

2.7.1 Archaeological investigations on the low lying area in the extreme

2.7.2 Previous land use on the Site is recorded as pasture by historic

2.8 Recent Investigations

2.8.1 A Geotechnical survey was carried out on the Site by RSK-ENSR

2.8.2 A geophysical survey was carried out on the Site by Archaeology

3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

3.1.1 To determine or confirm the presence/absence and the specific nature

3.1.2 To determine or confirm the character, condition, approximate date or

3.2.1 To determine or confirm the presence/absence and the specific

3.2.2 To confirm the presence/absence of the continuation of field systems,

3.2.4 To confirm the results of the geophysical survey by targeting the

3.2.5 To provide information on which to base future decisions concerning

4.2 Hand-dug test-pits

4.2.1 A total of six hand-dug test-pits (2m x 2m x 1m in depth) were

4.3 Contingency works

4.3.2 It was also agreed to continue excavation of the original test-pits to

5.1 Test pits

5.1.2 Test-Pit 16 was located adjacent to an existing linear earthwork and

5.1.4 Detailed descriptions of the individual test-pit records are contained in

west as a result of post-Roman, late medieval and post-medieval

5.1.7 The presence of small quantities of ceramic building material may

5.2.2 A strip of topsoil was mechanically removed north-south across the

absence of any earlier obscured feature. No evidence of an earlier

6.1.2 The assemblage is quantified in detail in Appendix 2.