Bronze Age and Middle Iron Age Occupation

Transcription

1 Bronze Age and Middle Iron Age Occupation by Sean Wallis and Steve Ford Thames Valley Archaeological Services Occasional Paper 5

2 BRONZE AGE AND MIDDLE IRON AGE OCCUPATION AND ROMAN FIELDS AT LIDSEY LANDFILL, WOODGATE, WEST SUSSEX by Sean Wallis and Steve Ford

3 Published 2014 by Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd De Beauvoir Road, Reading, Berkshire, England RG1 5NR Copyright Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd. All rights reserved ISBN Cover Design and Typesetting by Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd. Printed by TVAS Press, Reading Produced by Steve Preston Front cover: General view of site Back cover: View of excavated ditch slot of MIA enclosure B

4 BRONZE AGE AND MIDDLE IRON AGE OCCUPATION AND ROMAN FIELDS AT LIDSEY LANDFILL, WOODGATE, WEST SUSSEX by Sean Wallis and Steve Ford Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Occasional Paper 5

5 Lidsey West Sussex iv Wallis and Ford Contents List of Figures... ii List of Plates...ii List of Tables...ii Summary... 1 Introduction... 1 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY...1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND...2 The Excavation... 2 Middle Bronze Age... 3 HOLLOW 720/ Middle-Late Bronze Age...8 CLUSTER 1 (FIG. 8)...9 Roundhouse OTHER FEATURES...10 Middle Iron Age RING GULLY FIELD BOUNDARIES...11 ENCLOSURE A...12 ENCLOSURE B...14 ENCLOSURE C...15 ENCLOSURE D...16 STRAY POTTERY FINDS...17 Roman PHASING...18 TRACKWAYS...20 ENCLOSURE E...20 OTHER FEATURES...20 THE FINDS Bronze Age to Early Iron Age pottery by Frances Raymond MIDDLE BRONZE AGE...22 Fabric...22 Surface Treatment and Firing...22 Form and Decoration...22 Deposition...23 MIDDLE TO LATE BRONZE AGE...23 Fabric...23 Deposition...23 LATE BRONZE AGE...23 Fabric...23 Surface Treatment and Firing...24 Form and Decoration...24 LATE BRONZE AGE TO EARLY IRON AGE Fabrics...25 Surface Treatment and Firing...26 Form and Decoration...26 Deposition...26 DISCUSSION... 26

6 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 Middle Iron Age and Roman pottery by Malcolm Lyne FABRICS...28 Middle Iron Age...28 Late Iron Age...28 Roman Coarse Wares...28 Roman Finewares...28?EARLY SAXON...28 MEDIEVAL...28 THE ASSEMBLAGES...29 Middle Iron Age...29 LATE IRON AGE ROMAN...29 MEDIEVAL...30 DISCUSSION Struck Flint by Steve Ford SCRAPERS...30 POLISHED FLINT AXE OTHER STONE Charred plant remains by Rosalind McKenna...31 Radiocarbon dating...31 CONCLUSIONS NEOLITHIC/ EARLIER BRONZE AGE...32 MIDDLE BRONZE AGE...32 LATER BRONZE AGE...32 MIDDLE IRON AGE...33 ROMAN...35 SAXON, MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL APPENDIX 1: Earlier Prehistoric Pottery APPENDIX 2: Iron Age and Roman Pottery APPENDIX 3: Environmental remains REFERENCES List of Figures Figure 1: Site location at Lidsey, and West Sussex... vii Figure 2: Detail of site and evaluation trenches Figure 3: Site (West) showing all excavated features Figure 4: Site (East) showing all excavated features Figure 5: Site (West) showing distribution of pottery Figure 6: Site (East) showing distribution of pottery Figure 7: MBA sections Figure 8: LBA roundhouse plan Figure 9: LBA roundhouse sections Figure 10: MIA enclosure A sections Figure 11: MIA enclosure B sections Figure 12: MIA enclosure C sections Figure 13: MIA enclosure D Figure 14: MIA enclosure D sections Figure 15: Roman trackways 1 and 2- sections Figure 16: Roman trackways 3 and 4 and fields sections v

7 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford Figure 17: Roman Enclosure E sections Figure 18: Bronze Age Pottery Figure 19: M-LBA phase plan Figure 20: MIA phase plan Figure 21: Roman phase plan List of Plates Plate 1: General site view Plate 2: General site view Plate 3: Pit 900 Plate 4: Pit 514 Plate 5: Pond 818 Plate 6: Ditch Plate 7: Ditch Plate 8: MIA pot base in ditch Plate 9: Ditch Plate 10: Ditch List of Tables Table 1: MBA Pits and post holes Table 2: LBA Pits and post holes Table 3: MIA Assemblage 3 Table 4: Summary of Struck Flint Table 5: Radiocarbon dating results vi

8 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 vii

9 SITE Haslemere Midhurst Arun Horsham Crawley Eastergate N Adur Chichester South Downs Brighton Hayling Island A29ey Bognor Regis Worthing Westergate 5m 10m Lidsey Landfill (area 1, 2 and 3) Lidsey A29 Old canal Colworth 5m Babsham Farm Elmbridge 5m Shripney Aldingbourne Rife North Bersted SU km Figure 1. Site location at Lidsey, and West Sussex.

10 BRONZE AGE AND MIDDLE IRON AGE OCCUPATION AND ROMAN FIELDS AT LIDSEY LANDFILL, WOODGATE, WEST SUSSEX Introduction This report documents the results of an archaeological excavation carried out by Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd (TVAS) at Lidsey Landfill, Woodgate, West Sussex (SU ) (Fig. 1). The work was commissioned by Mr Patrick Johnston on behalf of Lidsey Landfill Limited, Vine Court, Chalkpit Lane, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1AJ. Planning permission (AL/118/04) to extend the current landfill site northwards has been gained from West Sussex County Council on appeal (APP/P3800/A/05/ ), subject to a condition (10) relating to archaeology. As a consequence of the possibility of archaeological deposits on the site which may be destroyed by extraction, field evaluation had been requested to inform the planning process in accordance with principles detailed in the Department of the Environment s Planning Policy Guidance, Archaeology and Planning (PPG16, 1990), and the County Council s policies on archaeology. Based on the results of the evaluation, full excavation of that part of the by Sean Wallis and Steve Ford With contributions by Malcolm Lyne, Rosalind McKenna and Frances Raymond Summary predominantly prehistoric occupation with the Middle Bronze Age through to Middle Iron Age being the principal periods rep- site due for imminent extraction was subsequently required. The evaluation and excavation were carried out to specifications approved by Mr John Mills, Archaeologist with West Sussex County Council. The fieldwork was undertaken by Rebecca Batley, Natasha Bennett, Daniel Bray, Simon Cass, James Earley, Ceri Falys, James McNicoll, Danielle Milbank, Jennifer Lowe, Richard Oram, David Platt, Jennifer Ryder, Iiya Santos and Andy Weale. The evaluation took place between September and October 2005 and the excavation episodically between April 2007 and June The Bronze Age pottery was illustrated by Roy Entwistle, other illustrations are by the authors. The site code is LWS05/94. The archive is currently held by Thames Valley Archaeological Services, De Beauvoir Road, Reading, RG1 5NR and will deposited with Chichester Museum in due course. with accession number CHCDM: TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY The site is located on the West Sussex coastal plain, just to the west of the village of Woodgate. The Plate 1. General site view during stripping.

11 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford N m 9.16m 10.10m m 7.40m m 8.83m 9.70m 6.48m BM 9.69m 6.62m SU m Figure 2. Detail of excavated area and evaluation trenches. nearest large towns are Chichester, about 8km to the west, and the coastal resort of Bognor Regis, which is approximately 5km south of Woodgate (Fig. 1). The site is located on relatively level ground with a gentle slope down from 10m above Ordnance Datum towards the Aldingbourne Rife to the west, to approximately 5m AOD. According to the British Geological Survey (BGS 1972), the underlying geology is brickearth, and this was observed in the majority of trenches and the excavation area (Pls 1 and 2). However, in the west of the site, close to the Rife, it appeared that the brickearth had been eroded in places, and the natural geology beneath the subsoil varied from sand to clayey gravel. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND The Sussex coastal plain is generally considered rich in archaeological deposits of many periods (Manley 2008; Rudling 2002; 2003). The rich archaeological potential for the closer environs of the site had been 2 further demonstrated with extensive prehistoric settlement and landscape features of prehistoric and Roman date revealed by evaluation and subsequent fieldwork at a site a few kilometres to the south at North Bersted (Taylor et al. 2013). For the site itself, evaluation revealed a wide range of finds and deposits considered to represent Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman occupation and landscape (Wallis 2005). The site also lies in a general area of interest for finds and deposits of lower Palaeolithic date, though on this site the relevant geological strata were formed below sea level during the Palaeolithic and thus at a period when the area was not occupied (Collcutt 2007). The Excavation The entire development area covered around 18.7ha but the excavation described below examined only the first three phases of extraction on the western portion of the site, an area of 7.85ha (Fig. 2). The areas were

12 stripped using 360 type machines fitted with toothless grading buckets under constant archaeological supervision (Pls 1 and 2). For the purposes of this report, the extraction phases are amalgamated as a single site, with plans divided simply for convenience into western (Fig. 3) and eastern (Fig. 4) areas. All features were excavated by hand. Postholes and pits were excavated to a minimum of 50% and linear features (other than obviously modern features) to a minimum of 10% of their length with all intersections with other features investigated. As is often the case on brickearth sites, especially when most features have silted up naturally rather than being deliberately backfilled, even quite major features could be difficult to detect on the surface (e.g., Pls 3 and 9) although often perfectly clear once excavated. Around 530 individual slots were dug though many of these were multiple investigations of the same linear feature. Linear features excavated in more than one section are referred to by group numbers for convenience; group numbers are also applied to structures formed of more than one feature. All group numbers are and above; numbers below 100 are features investigated in the evaluation. The individual features are detailed in Appendix 1. The excavation results are described across the entire site, by phase below. The following abbreviations are used: MBA: middle Bronze Age LBA: late Bronze Age EIA: early Iron Age MIA: middle Iron Age LIA: late Iron Age TVAS Occasional Paper 5 Middle Bronze Age The Middle Bronze Age, as opposed to the more general Middle/Late Bronze Age, is represented by a cluster of five pits (738 40, 743, 746), two (undated) postholes (737, 803) and a short length of gully (10007), all quite clustered towards the north-centre of the excavation area (Figs 3 and 7). A pre-iron Age but otherwise undated pit (716) may be related. No definitive MBA pottery was recorded from elsewhere on the site except for 226 sherds being recovered from the base of one large pit (900), which appears to have been reused in the Late Bronze Age. The pits were shallow and bowl-shaped, typically m across and m deep, with one or two being larger (up to 2.85m in diameter) (Table 1). None of these pits contained any charred plant remains nor other ecofacts. Gully was 19m long and was 0.72m wide and 0.5m deep. Its southern terminal (744) was notable in containing 230 sherds of pottery. It contained a little unidentifiable charcoal. Apart from the two postholes, there was no evidence of any structural remains. Pit 900, further south and east (Figs 4 and 7, Pl. 3) does not fit the above pattern being substantially larger and deeper. The basal fill (1170) contained 226 MBA pottery sherds overlain by a sterile layer (1169). However, the next layer (1168) contained 235 LBA sherds. The remaining upper layers were sterile: a little unidentified charcoal was recovered from layer HOLLOW 720/817 This feature does not appear to be a cut but is a spread or dump deposit, perhaps a midden. It was up to 15m long and 5m across but only up to 0.12m deep. It contained two pottery sherds, one each of MBA Plate 2. General site view during excavation. 3

13 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford Figure 3. Site (West) showing all excavated features. 4

14 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 5 Figure 4. Site (East) showing all excavated features.

15 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford N R R Sx M R Cal BC Cal BC C Pottery Middle Bronze Age Middle/Late Bronze Age Late Bronze Age Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Early Iron Age Middle Iron Age Late Iron Age Roman (RT= Tile) Early Saxon Medieval (MT=Tile) B R7 R Cal BC SU RT Cal BC R Cal BC R Cal BC R A R T m M Fig. 6 Figure 5. Site (West) showing distribution of pottery. 6

16 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 Figure 6. Site (east) showing distribution of pottery. 7

17 Lidsey West Sussex and LBA/EIA date and was cut by MIA enclosure ditch It is included in this section due to its proximity to the other MBA deposits, the later pottery sherd being presumed intrusive. Table 1: MBA pits and postholes Wallis and Ford Middle-Late Bronze Age Cut Fill Diameter (m) Depth (m) Comment / Burnt flint Burnt flint MBA sherds MBA sherds; burnt flint; cuts MBA sherds; burnt flint; cut by MBA sherds MBA sherds; 2 flint flakes 803? Burnt flint MBA sherds (235 LBA) This period is represented at several locations across the site but with large (100m) gaps between them. To what extent some of the seemingly isolated features dated by small numbers of sherds are actually of later W E W E W E W E 6.74m aod E E N MBA pottery S 6.81m 0 1m Figure 7. Sections of MBA features. 8

18 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 N Roman Figure 8. Plan of LBA roundhouse. 2 date is not always clear. There appears to be a range of settlement types present. CLUSTER 1 (FIG. 8) The most significant cluster is that of an unenclosed group of pits and postholes to the south of the site including a probable roundhouse (10063). This cluster includes pottery belonging to the M/LBA or LBA/ EIA. Roundhouse Roundhouse comprised five postholes (607 11) on a near perfect circular arc with a diameter of 7.3m, of which only the north-eastern half seems to have survived. The postholes were spaced at m apart m Pottery Middle/Late Bronze Age Late Bronze Age Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age and were individually m across and m deep. (Table 2 and Figs 8 and 9). Postholes 607 and 611 contained three sherds of M/LBA and LBA pottery. Posthole 634 may relate to the wall line of the roundhouse, but is off-line from the circle formed by the others. Posthole 606 lies within. Posthole 615, to the south-east, tentatively may have formed part of a porch though only represented by this one posthole. Surrounding the roundhouse were a number of pits and postholes, variously containing M/LBA, LBA or LBA/EIA pottery, burnt flint and an occasional struck flint.. Sieving for charred plant remains revealed only a very little charcoal. Of these Pit 514 is notable for its size, being 2.8m across, 0.8m deep 9

19 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford S N S N S N S N S N S N SE NW S N W E 6.50m Figure 9. Sections of LBA features. 0 1m and producing 397 sherds of pottery along with two stone fragments. The function of such a pit is unclear as its relatively shallow depth (Pl. 4) does not suggest a water-hole unless the water table was very high in the Bronze Age. OTHER FEATURES Pit 900 lies in isolation toward the east centre of the site and originated in the MBA (Table 2; Fig. 7). but with the upper levels being used to deposit LBA pottery (layer 1168). The latter layer also contained a little charcoal. It is unclear if the pit had been recut for this purpose; if so the recut mirrored the original form precisely, on balance it seems more likely the pit simply remained open over a long period. The pit was cut by undated gully A small number of other pits/ postholes are located to the north-west of the site in relative isolation and whose significance is unclear. A natural hollow or pond (818) (Pl. 5) contained a single sherd of LBA/EIA pottery which may date it, but could be redeposited. Middle Iron Age The Middle Iron Age is well represented on the site, unusually in the form of three ditched rectangular enclosures along with a field system. Other cut features were relatively few and there was a marked lack of the more typical features of the time such as post-built roundhouses, 4-post structures, or large storage pits, and only one probable ring-gully house. The three enclosures whilst not physically related are, nevertheless in a similar N-S orientation and grouped together in the western portion of the site; it is assumed these were broadly contemporary. There is some stratigraphic evidence, supported by radiocarbon dating, that there was a preliminary phase of activity on the site certainly pre-dating enclosures A and C and by inference B also. These initial features comprised a number of field boundaries and a ringgully structure. RING GULLY This ring gully formed a good circle with a diameter of 10m and was about 50% complete (Fig. 3). The gully was m wide and m deep with a clear terminal to the east (329) but petered out to

20 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 Plate 3: MBA/LBA pit 900, looking west,; scales 2m, 1m. Plate 4: LBA pit 514; looking north-east; scales, 2m, 1m. Table 2: M-LBA pits and postholes Cut Fill Diameter (m) Depth (m) Comment 14 65, / / LBA sherds M/LBA sherd / / LBA sherds ? / LBA sherd; charcoal / /0/ /0/ / ( ) LBA sherds; charcoal (226 MBA sherds) the west surviving, only as a stain. It had a single fill throughout. Five sherds of MIA pottery were recovered, all from segment 329. Linear boundary appears to be aligned on terminal 329. There were no internal features but the area of the ring gully was traversed by a Roman ditch which may have removed several features. Wood charcoal from terminal segment 329 (452) of the gully returned a radiocarbon date of cal BC (UBA 25009). This date is significantly earlier than the dates obtained for enclosure B to the north and those for enclosure C immediately to the south though with some potential overlap with one date from slot 308. FIELD BOUNDARIES Ditches 10002, 10006, , , 10036, , 10044, 10058, , 10082, and The environs of the three enclosures and areas further to the east also contained a number of small ditches/gullies forming additional enclosed areas, which are best considered as fields or paddocks with a sub rectangular form, or in places apparently marking trackways (10082 and 10083; and 10006). These ditches contained little or no artefactual dating evidence but with an orientation in part respected by Enclosure A and with stratigraphic relationships with Iron Age and Roman ditches to provide relative sequences. The ditches are small and irregular in width typically 0.5 1m wide and just m deep (Pl. 11

21 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford 6). Some are mostly straight, whereas others bend and most are to some extent sinuous. They often have what appear to be deliberate gaps (eg 7m between and 10040), and ditch was clearly segmented. Tentatively there is some evidence of development of the fields sequence with for example ditch cut or cut by and similarly cut or cut by Ditch (the same ditch as 10028) was clearly crosscut by the northern element (10024) of enclosure C (this was less clear for the southern element 10026). The northern element of Enclosure A (10057) also cut the end of ditch and seems to have been sited at this terminal to provide an enclosure with two halves. The northern terminal of may be located relative to that of (520) which is 7m away and lies at right angles. Ditch bends to the north to join long ditch which then forms an elongated enclosed area 5m wide but 28m long. Ditch 1002 continues beyond this area, heading out of the excavated area some 150m to the west, although it was shallowing and maybe petering out to the west. The area between ditches in the east and 10039/10040 in the centre of the site was open to the north, partly open to the south but defined on east and west, and part of the south side (if enclosure A fills in the north-west side up to ditch 10002), giving a space of some 100m by 180m, with a narrow trackway defined by minor gullies and providing an entrance from the east. Minor gullies 10076, and may have served a stock funnelling role close along this eastern side of the area so defined, close to this entrance. ENCLOSURE A This enclosure was the largest of the three in the western half of the site (Fig. 3). It was nearly square in plan, 58m x 55m across, defined by a single ditch (10057) m across and m deep. Enclosure A lay on broadly the same E W alignment as ditch to its north, and even has a slight inflexion at the same location as does ditch The ditch was wider and deeper on the eastern side and typically had three fills in that zone contrasting with a single fill to the west (Fig. 11). The enclosure had a single simple entrance gap midway along the southern side which was 10.7m wide. However, the entrance was subsequently complicated by the presence of a large pit (711/702), that narrowed the gap to 7m. It seems unlikely that pit 711/702 was a gate post, though ditch also turned at its southern end possibly to respect it. The enclosure was subdivided into approximately equal halves east- west by ditch even though ditch pre-dates the enclosure. This ditch was typically m wide and m deep. It was cut by enclosure ditch at the north end, where it was already terminating. To the south the enclosure entrance was centred on which was dog-legged in plan at this location before again terminating beneath pit 711/702. Further to the south the line of (displaced to match the in-turned southern Plate 5: Pond 818 looking north-west; scales 2m, 0.5m 12

22 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 N S 6.48m aod N S E W Charcoal 718 E W W E 457 Figure 10. Sections of MIA enclosure A features. S terminal) continued as and further south again as and (probably) The position of ditch does not allow any obvious access to the eastern portion of the enclosure although by the m N 6.28m time of construction of the latter it was silted up and presumably marked by a bank and or hedgeline. There were few cut features within the enclosure, none of which are dated to the Iron Age (seven 13

23 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford undated pits or postholes but with a further three of LBA date). The enclosure ditch and entranceway pit contained 194 MIA sherds, most of which were recovered from the entrance way. Sieving for charred plant remains revealed a very little charcoal. Ditch and its continuations contained no finds. Roman ditch cut across both ditches and of Enclosure A, and (though less conclusively established) the ditches of Enclosure C ENCLOSURE B This enclosure was also nearly square in plan, 24m x23m across and defined by a single ditch (10013), m across and m deep (Pl. 7). The enclosure had a single simple gap entrance midway along the eastern side which was 4.2m wide. The enclosure ditch typically had 3 or 4 fills (Fig. 12). The original shape, however, also incorporated a D-shaped component on the south side defined by ditch This annex was 15m x 8m across with the ditch up to 1.4m wide and 0.4m deep. This annex was subsequently cut off by ditch If the whole of ditch was dug as one event, then the original configuration of this enclosure had a very wide (10m) gap between the terminals of and on the south east corner. Once had been dug, there were no gaps for an entrance to the annex, and the latter contained no other deposits. A radiocarbon date of Cal BC (UBA 25008; with a small but not negligible chance of being earlier in the 4th century cal BC) on a sample of wood charcoal was recorded for segment 310 (282) for the main enclosure ditch (Pl. 7). Within the interior there were three segments of gully. Gully may (with 417) form a discontinuous sub-circular feature. This feature contained 25 sherds of MIA pottery and gully or pit 417 contained 3 sherds of M/LBA pottery. Gully might instead be paired with Gully to subdivide Enclosure B. Gully was L-shaped in plan and contained N S W E Charcoal N S W E N SW NE S S N 6.91m aod 0 1m Figure 11. Sections of MIA Enclosure B features. 14

24 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 N S N S SW NE NE SW Burnt Flint 203 SE NW XX.XXm W 284 E NE 6.47m a OD SW m Figure 12. Secitions of MIA enclosure C features. 21 sherds of MIA pottery. There were no other features within the enclosure. Two radiocarbon dates were obtained on samples of wood charcoal from these internal features. Gully (slot 414, fill 558) returned a date of cal BC (UBA 25011) and gully (403, 491) a date of cal BC (UBA 25010; with a smaller chance of being slightly earlier). No charred plant remains other than charcoal were recovered from the environmental samples ENCLOSURE C This was the southernmost of the three western enclosures. It was sub-rectangular in plan and seems to have been constructed from a series of additions to rectilinear field boundaries (10027, 10028, 10021, 10022). Ditch 10023/4 was aligned E-W. Towards the east, ditch butted 10023/4 more or less at right angles to form the northern and eastern sides of the enclosure. To the west ditch made a right angled bend to the south to form the western side of the enclosure. The latter terminated to the south where it was partially butted and overlapped by ditch to form the south-west and southern parts of the enclosure. The ditches were typically m wide and 0.5m deep and typically had 2 4 fills (Fig. 13). A radiocarbon date of cal BC (UBA 25008) on a sample of wood charcoal was recorded for the main enclosure ditch (slot 308, fill 378). There were a small number of features within the interior, mostly three curvilinear gullies ( ). Gullies and possibly formed a subenclosure in the SW corner. Gully was 14.8m long and almost joined ditch to the south but for a small break of less than.0.5m before continuing as 202. It is possible that 202 pre-dated (Pl. 8). To the north-west, its terminal (206) could have formed an original entrance with 210 which was 5.5m wide before was dug. Gully returned a radiocarbon date from wood charcoal of

25 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford 849 N R CalBC cal BC (UBA 25006). Gully may have formed an earlier and smaller version of this sub-enclosure, which would have effectively been open on its north side. Gully was only 5.2m long curving slightly with a projected diameter of 8.5m. Therefore it could possibly be the remains of a ring gully house. There were just two internal postholes (204, 211). 16 R Pottery Middle/Late Bronze Age Late Bronze Age Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Middle Iron Age Roman (RT= Tile) Figure 13. MIA enclosure D. 0 Roman 10m ENCLOSURE D To the south-east (Figs 4 and 14) a group of curvilinear gullies represent a second focus of occupation. The main gully (10089) was about 13m across and formed the north-western half of a projected oval area. It was m wide and m deep with one or two fills (Fig. 15) which contained some 16 pottery sherds of MBA or LBA date, 15 of LBA/EIA date, and 13

26 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 Figure 14. MIA enclosure D sections. Plate 6: Ditch (228) looking south; scales 0.5m, 0.1m Plate 7: Ditch (310) looking north; scales 0.5m, 0.1m of MIA date, all from the terminal. A small volume of charred plant remains recovered included a few cereals, weed and grass seeds and charcoal of oak, ash and willow/poplar. The terminal 26 (fill 33) of returned a radiocarbon date on wood charcoal of cal BC (UBA 25005) alongside its MIA pottery. A second narrower curvilinear gully (10086) was partly concentric with on the eastern side but may extend intermittently further to the south (21). It was c. 0.35m wide and c. 0.27m deep with a single fill. It contained 14 sherds of LBA/EIA pottery but is considered to be related to Other features are conspicuous by their paucity with just an undated pit (918), posthole (849) and a short length of gully or elongated pit (905) which contained a sherd of LBA/EIA pottery. Minor gullies and could belong to this enclosure (although appeared to cut across 10089); neither is well dated, with just a single sherd of MIA pottery from STRAY POTTERY FINDS Small amounts of Iron Age pottery are to be found across the whole of the excavation area beyond the core zone of Iron Age enclosures. These were usually recovered as residual finds in Roman ditches. One explanation for this distribution could be the presence of areas of manuring. Roman Roman use of the site comprises a significant proportion of the excavated deposits present yet the vast majority of these are linear features considered to be field boundaries. They share the same basic orientation as the Middle Iron Age boundaries but also wholly disregard the latter, suggesting no knowledge of their prior existence, the general layout probably being indicated by the topography and the Aldingbourne Rife. The chronology of the Roman phase suggests that the fields were mostly constructed and in use in early Roman times (1st-2nd centuries AD) with the 17

27 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford presence of some LIA pottery suggesting that the use may have commenced very early in the Roman period but not necessarily before. There appears to be little subsequent development and there are only two instances of 3rd-century activity with 9 and 60 sherds respectively recovered from ditches (316) (Pl. 9) and (1047). There is no definitive 4th century pottery from the site. Whilst the fields, now defined by well established hedges, could have continued in use in unaltered form for several centuries, and the paucity of late Roman pottery could be simply due to a change of manuring practice or relate to a change from arable to pasture, but at face value, the area seems to have been abandoned perhaps as early as the middle of the 3rd century. Certainly the field layout did not obviously develop in the later Roman period. PHASING The majority of the field boundaries appear to have been laid out at more or less the same time. Some six, possibly seven, rectangular fields seem to be present on a broad north- south axis. The blocks of fields are surrounded by double-ditched boundaries wide enough to be trackways. There are three phases of development present based on stratigraphic considerations (Fig. 21). The earliest seems to be formed by ditches and which predate trackways T1 and T3. Other than that they are both aligned north-south and lie on the lines of the later trackways, their wider significance is unclear: they may simply be the first marking out of lines that were later better established. The bulk of the ditches then form the rectilinear field system which appears to be all of one piece. The last development on the field system is the digging of ditch (which is recut as 10091) across trackway T3 at the northern end. Its southern end is confused in the centre of the site but it could form a junction with a projection of ditch 10069, the latter butting against in the east and cross cutting and to form a new larger field. 18 Figure 15. Sections of Roman trackways 1 and 2.

28 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 Figure 16. Sections of Roman trackways 3 and 4, and field ditches. 19

29 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford Figure 17. Roman enclosure E sections. TRACKWAYS Four trackways (T1-4) are present, marking the boundaries of and channelling traffic (presumably livestock) around, two large fields. Trackway T1 at the eastern edge of the area excavated was aligned north-south and defined by ditches and (Figs 4, 16 and 21). It was m wide. The trackway continued beyond the baulk to the south but opened out to the north, where T2 lead off to the west. It is possible that continued further north, but it was visible only as a faint stain beyond slot The two ditches were typically m wide and m deep. A small part of (1019, 1022) may indicate some localized recutting, just possibly a shorter original being extended further north. Ditch appears to have replaced an earlier short length of ditch (10090). It is possible that there was an entrance gap between slots 1032 and 1048 in easternmost ditch but this was not clear, as 1048 petered out. A perpendicular ditch (35) at a corresponding location in one of the evaluation trenches potentially supports the idea of an entrance here, but this was beyond the current phase of extraction. Trackway T2 was aligned east-west, from the north end of T1, defined by ditches and (Figs 4, 16 and 21). It was only 3.5m wide and petered out to the west before approaching T3. The two ditches were typically m wide and m deep. The eastern end seems to have joined T1 initially but in a subsequent redefinition the gap at this eastern end of the track had an inturned terminal (1016) narrowing T2 at this point to just 1.5m, perhaps to allow only one animal to pass at a time, but also opening an entrance into the space to the south. Trackway T3 was aligned north-south defined by ditches 10019/10052 and (Figs 4, 17 and 21) parallelling T1. It was 7m wide. The trackway was only clearly present at the northern end for c. 60m. In the central area, there is ambiguity in the plan, which was also confused by the presence of a later ditch. However, the trackway seems to continue to the south and beyond the edge of excavation as ditches and The two ditches were typically m 20 wide and m deep. Later ditch 10061/10091 cross cuts and thus puts this trackway out of use n the northern section. Between them, trackways 1, 2 and 3 define three sides of a large area some m wide and at least 200m long, continuing to the south, and which was subdivided by ditches/gullies 10051, 10073, 10080, 10081, 10084, into four unequal parts. A small silver coin, the only one from the site, probably a denarius of Antoninus Pius (AD ), was found in the fill of ditch (cut 21) in the evaluation. Trackway T4 led off the northern part of T3 heading west-south-west. It was defined by two ditches (10003 and 10005) for about the first 60m, with terminating but carrying on the full (160m) width of the site and further west. It was only m wide. The two ditches were typically m wide and m deep (Fig 17). This trackway cut across earlier ditch 10002, but essentially followed the same line as the latter. Trackways 3 and 4 defined two sides of an area which was probably of much the same dimensions as that to the east; its subdivisions were also unequal, defined by ditches (integrated with 10019) and (Pl. 10) (which joined 10052), and gullies and (probably) ENCLOSURE E A small right-angled ditch (618/9) together with trackway ditch formed a small enclosure c. 17m across, which continued beyond the baulk to the south (Figs 4 and 18). The ditch contained Bronze Age and Early Iron Age pottery as well as a LIA sherd. Within was an undated posthole (621) and a Roman pit (620). The alignment of this ditch on the Roman trackway suggests it belongs to this landscape layout. OTHER FEATURES Just three other Roman features were recorded, all pits (238, 620 and probably 337) well dispersed across the site. Pit 337 did not contain any dating evidence but cut Roman ditch Pit 238 was 1.15m across and 0.18m deep. It contained a single sherd of early Roman pottery and a very small amount of charcoal. Pit 620 was 1.3m by 0.77m across and 0.55m deep. It

30 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 Plate 8: MIA pot base in ditch (215) looking south-east; scale 0.1m Plate 9: Ditch (228) looking east; scales 1m, 0.5m Plate 10: Ditch (228) looking south; scales 0.5m,

31 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford contained five sherds of LIA and five sherds of early Roman pottery and a very small amount of charcoal. Saxon and Medieval Just a single feature (532) was found which contained 10 sherds of 13th/14th century pottery, from the same vessel, along with 11 fragments of fired clay. The pit, in the south-central part of the site (Fig. 3) was 1.2m by 0.85m across but only 0.05m deep. There was a suggestion of in-situ burning and this feature may have been a hearth rather than a pit. No other Medieval finds or deposits were recorded. A single small, abraded sherd of probable Early Saxon pottery was recovered from Roman ditch (slot 1100). THE FINDS Bronze Age to Early Iron Age pottery by Frances Raymond The earlier prehistoric pottery assemblage is composed of 2213 sherds (13.863kg.) of Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age pottery (Appendix 1; Table A1.1). Thirty-five features produced single period groups, but only 11 of Middle and Late Bronze Age date incorporated more than 30 sherds or weighed more than 150g. These larger deposits include a vessel with Middle Bronze Age affinities and an Early Plain Ware jar from two distinct horizons in Pit 900; and a Developed Plain Ware assemblage from Pit 514 likely to date from a phase close to the transition with the Decorated Wares of the Earliest Iron Age. The character of the ceramics suggests that the focus of activity shifted elsewhere during the currency of Decorated Wares, but may have continued at a low and/or intermittent level into the Early Iron Age. Twenty-two percent of the assemblage by count (13% by weight) is derived from features of a later phase and is demonstrably residual (482 sherds, 1771g.). A high proportion of the sherds are in fragmented condition (c. 80% are <5cm across) with just two reconstructable vessels and stylistic evidence is otherwise limited mainly to upper profiles. The pottery has been recorded by context following the guidelines of the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group (PCRG 1997). Details of fabric, form, decoration, surface treatment and colour, wall thickness, fragmentation and condition are available in the archive. Each of the wares is identified by a unique alpha-numeric code based on the initial letters of its non-plastic inclusions. The sherds were sorted into fabric groups with the aid of a binocular microscope at X20 magnification, while the descriptions were prepared using this and a higher magnification of 22 X40. The pottery is catalogued in full in archive, and summary tables are presented In Appendix 1 (Tables A1.1 to A1.7). MIDDLE BRONZE AGE Fabric Seven fabrics tempered with evenly distributed common to abundant burnt flint were used for the Middle Bronze Age pottery (Table A1.2). The majority of sherds are in medium to coarse wares with inclusions that would have been available locally. A distinction between sand free clay and clay with predominantly silt-sized sand suggests the exploitation of two sources. The fabrics made from silty clay are generally harder fired than those without sand, but there is no clear indication that the clays were being selected for their technological properties as both types are tempered in a similar manner and the evidence of vessel form is limited. Surface Treatment and Firing The better preserved sherds have smoothed or partly smoothed surfaces and are similarly treated regardless of the grade of the fabric. Most of the pottery is soft and friable (81% by count; 75% by weight) with harder fired fragments being confined to two of the medium grade fabrics with silt sized sand (FS/3 and FS/5). The majority of sherds have oxidized exteriors (92%), ranging from red through reddish brown and reddish yellow to brown. Some of these additionally have unoxidized patches, while the remaining 8% of the sherds have dark grey to very dark grey surfaces. Form and Decoration Evidence of profile is confined to two vessels from two pits (Fig. 10: P1, from pit 740; and P2, pit 900), the more complete of which is ovoid to bucketshaped (P2). Both have applied horizontal cordons, one embellished with a fingertip row (P1), and rimtop decoration. In one case this comprises a fingernail row (P1) and in the other deep diagonal impressions (P2). The ovoid vessel additionally has a row of closely spaced pre-firing perforations around its upper walls (P2). The stratigraphic relationship between this vessel and an Early Plain Ware jar from the upper horizon of the same pit (Fig 10: P3) suggests that it is likely to have been produced at the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Small simple, rounded or flattened rim fragments from four additional vessels from two adjacent pits (743 and 746) and nearby gully (terminal 744) include three with upright rims and one with a closed mouth indicative of an ovoid form (not illustrated). A wall fragment in a medium grade ware (FS/5) from pit 746 has an applied round lug and is from the same

32 vessel as an upright, flattened rim suggesting that it may have been part of an ovoid jar (Ellison 1978, Type 3). The feature also produced a fragment of a slightly curving cordon in the same fabric (FS/5) that might be part of a horseshoe (not illustrated); and a wall sherd from a vessel in a fine fabric (FS/6) with an applied and perforated oval lug (not illustrated). Decoration was otherwise limited to three coarseware vessels (F/2) from the southern terminal (744) of short gully 10007, with applied horizontal cordons: one plain, one with a fingertip row and the third embellished with deep diagonal impressions. Deposition All of the in situ Middle Bronze Age ceramic deposits are composed of more than 150g of pottery (Table A1.3) and are dominated by small sherds (at least 97% of <5cm). The ceramics from pits , 743 and 900 are fresh, while the assemblages from pit 746 and gully are fresh to lightly abraded. The pit groups either incorporate fragments from single or from two or three vessels, while the southern gully terminal assemblage is derived from five vessels including the three with contrasting cordons (Table A1.3). The largest vessel portions from pit 900 and gully are represented respectively by 100% of the base and lower walls and small sherds from the rim and girth cordon (Fig. 10: P2); and by three sherds which refit to form the complete base and lower walls of a vessel with a charred internal residue (20cm diameter and maximum height of 10cm, not illustrated). The vessel from pit 900 is notable for being deposited below an Early Plain Ware jar (Fig. 10, P3). MIDDLE TO LATE BRONZE AGE The Middle to Late Bronze Age assemblage is composed predominantly of wall fragments (204 sherds, 548g) with a few small rim sherds (1 3cm across) providing little evidence of vessel profile and none that allows for a more refined phasing. The dating relies on the fabrics which are of a type introduced during the Middle Bronze Age that continued in production into the Late Bronze Age. Fabric The assemblage is made from nine fabrics tempered with evenly distributed burnt flint (Table A1.4). This is common to abundant in seven of the wares including: two with Middle Bronze Age origins (F/1 and FS/5); three that were used for both Middle and Late Bronze Age forms (F/3, F/4 and FS/3); and two known to have been in production during the Late Bronze Age (FS/9 and FS/11). Three percent of the sherds are in fabrics with lower frequencies of burnt flint of a kind which are more prominent in Late Bronze Age assemblages, but were also used for occasional Middle TVAS Occasional Paper 5 Bronze Age vessels (FS/2 and FS/8). One of these along with another medium grade ware and two fine fabrics are also represented amongst the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age pottery from the site (F/3, F/4, FS/8 and FS/11). Deposition Nine of the features produced one or two fragments of Middle to Late Bronze Age pottery, which in one case was from posthole 607, forming part of a roundhouse (10063) that also yielded similarly low numbers of Late Bronze Age sherds from another posthole (611). The pottery from pit 534, postholes 535, 536 and 540, and Roundhouse is moderately to heavily abraded and is fresh to lightly abraded from the other three (pit 646 and gullies and 10066). It is uncertain whether any of this material is in situ. Most of the Middle to Late Bronze Age sherds are from Middle Iron Age and Roman features (195 sherds, 523g). The size of this group reflects the presence of multiple fragments from a single coil built vessel from MIA gully (175 sherds, 461g from cut 515). Although the majority of sherds are small (<3cm across), all are in similarly fresh condition suggesting their derivation from an earlier deposit in the vicinity of cut 515, most probably a feature associated with the nearby Middle Bronze Age pit cluster (pits , 743 and 746). LATE BRONZE AGE Fabric The Late Bronze Age pottery is made from 15 flint tempered fabrics with evenly distributed inclusions, five of which were also used for Middle Bronze Age vessels (F/2, F/3, F/4, FS/3 and FS/6). These and five other similar wares with common to abundant burnt flint account for 33% of the Late Bronze Age assemblage (340 sherds, 2329g). The rest of the sherds are in hard fabrics with moderate to common flint tempering made from clay with abundant silt sized sand (Table A2.5). Silty clays of this type were selected for 90% of the Developed Plain Ware by count and 86% by weight (357 sherds, 2802g), and by this ceramic phase 79% of sherds were tempered with moderate to common frequencies of burnt flint (315 sherds, 2264g). Four Late Bronze Age fabrics have inclusions other than flint and sand. One of the medium grade wares incorporates sparse red and black iron ore (FfeS/1; < mm), one of the coarse fabrics has a moderate amount of clay pellets (clf/1; < mm) and two other coarse wares have sparse or rare grog (FGS/1 and FS/2; up to 4mm). The fabric of the Early Plain Ware vessel from Pit 900 (Fig. 23

33 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford 10, P3) is notable for having a lower density of flint tempering in its upper walls (moderate to common ) than towards its base (very common). Surface Treatment and Firing Evidence of surface treatment survives on 63% of the Late Bronze Age sherds (664 sherds, 5849g), the majority of which have smoothed or partly smoothed and wiped exteriors (623 sherds, 5265g). Ninety-eight percent of these are in medium grade to very coarse fabrics (612 sherds, 5230g. and most, apart from one internally burnished wall fragment, have similarly treated or untreated interiors. A small proportion of the sherds with smoothed or partly smoothed surfaces are vertically finger smeared (5%, 32 sherds, 893g), including a convex jar from a deposit of Developed Plain Ware (Fig. 10: P4). The exteriors of bases from at least seven vessels (51 sherds, weighing 849g), one of which is an Early Plain Ware jar (Fig. 10: P3), have applied very common to abundant burnt flint, which in each case is considerably finer than the vessel tempering. Contrasts in the surface treatment of this Early Plain Ware jar appear to emphasize the differences in the fabric of the upper and lower walls. Both surfaces of the upper walls have been carefully smoothed so that most inclusions are covered by a thin slip, while the more densely tempered lower walls are only partly smoothed with all burnt flint fragments visible or standing out from the exterior. Most of the Late Bronze Age pottery is relatively hard (93%, 943 sherds, 5540g) and as is typical of clamp firing is of variable colour. Some 24% of the sherds with exteriors suitable for colour assessment (152 sherds, 2058g) are oxidized to various shades of pink, red, reddish yellow, reddish grey, reddish brown, greyish brown and brown. Approximately 63% exhibit these hues alongside unoxidized patches (406 sherds, 2412g), while the rest are black to grey (13%, 84 sherds, 1137g.). Form and Decoration Evidence of vessel form is relatively limited only allowing for the more precise phasing of two of the larger in situ ceramic deposits. The earliest vessel from the upper fill of pit 900 is a bucket-shaped jar of a type that emerged in Early Plain Ware assemblages during the 12th or 11th centuries cal. BC (Fig. 10: P3; Best and Woodward 2011, , Jar Type 1). The Developed Plain Ware assemblage from pit 514 includes a convex jar (Fig. 10: P4), two cups (one illustrated, Fig. 10: P5), two shouldered jars (one illustrated, Fig. 10: P8) and small rim fragments from four other vessels (three illustrated, Fig. 10: P6 7 and P9). The few bases are simple, some have a short foot and one is slightly splayed. A single fingertip 24 impression on the interior of a small base fragment is likely to have been decorative (not illustrated). Decoration is otherwise restricted to fingertip rows on the upper walls (Fig. 10: P7 and P9) or on the shoulders of two jars (Fig. 10: P8). The application of finger-tipping in these zones, the angular profile of the illustrated shoulder and the restricted character of the decoration would suggest that the assemblage is likely to date to a phase around the transition to the Decorated Wares of the Earliest Iron Age between 850 and 800/750 cal. BC (Needham 2007). Just 4% of the Late Bronze Age pottery from other deposits on the site comprises featured sherds (13 sherds, 153g). All are generic Plain Ware types with an extended currency with the only identifiable forms being a cup from pit 533 (Fig. 10: P10) and a convex jar from pit 730 (Fig. 10: P11). Deposition There are only four Late Bronze Age ceramic deposits composed of more than 150g of pottery, which together account for 92% of the Late Bronze Age assemblage (Table A1.6). The earliest of these, stratified above a Middle Bronze Age vessel (Fig. 10: P2) in the upper part of pit 900, is composed of fresh fragments from an Early Plain Ware bucket-shaped jar including 43% of the base and 19% of the rim (Fig. 10: P3). Two of the pit groups (pits 14 and 537) comprise a mixture of fresh and lightly to moderately abraded wall and base sherds from two or three vessels providing no evidence of form. The largest assemblage from pit 514 is of contrasting character in that it incorporates the remains of a notably higher number of vessels. Context 669 produced most of the sherds including all of the illustrated examples (393 sherds, 3140g; Fig. 10: P4 9), while there were only four wall and base fragments from context 668. Approximately 80% of the sherds are small (1 5cm across) with the others ranging up to a maximum of 9cm across, while the assemblage incorporates a mixture of fresh to lightly abraded (68%) and moderately (31%) to heavily (1%) abraded sherds. The condition suggests that the pottery was exposed to varying levels of weathering and/or trampling prior to its final deposition. Some 12% of the sherds are featured (47 sherds, 978g) with fragments from <5% to 40% of bases and <5% (Fig. 10: P6, P7 and P9), 10 15% (P5) or 23% (P4) of rims. Six per cent of the rest of the Late Bronze Age pottery (57 sherds, 383g) is from small single period deposits, including six of under 10g, three of 20g or less (pits 533 and 733 and Roundhouse 10063, posthole 611) and three of between 85g and 148g (pits 730, 732 and 812). Fresh fragments are derived from just two of the smaller contexts (pits 533 and

34 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 Figure 18. Prehistoric pottery (see text for details). 647), but are present in all three of the larger groups. Ten deposits produced sherds from single vessels, while two yielded fragments from two or three vessels (pit 732 and Roundhouse 10063, posthole 611). None of this material can be phased within the Late Bronze Age and it is uncertain which (if any) of the smaller groups were in situ. The rest of the pottery is from Middle Iron Age, Roman and Medieval features (24 sherds, 49g.). LATE BRONZE AGE TO EARLY IRON AGE The Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age assemblage is composed predominantly of wall fragments and is almost exclusively derived from Middle Iron Age to Roman deposits. The few diagnostic types indicate activity during the Earliest and Early Iron Age, while 0 100mm the fabrics had an extended currency with production continuing into both phases from the Late Bronze Age. Fabrics Five of the thirteen fabrics accounting for 63% of the sherds (159 sherds, 411g.) were used for Late Bronze Age pottery (F/3, F/4, FS/4, FS/8 and FS/11) (Table A1.7). One of the fine wares is represented in the Developed Plain Ware assemblage from pit 514 (FS/4), while one of the medium grade wares was used for a transitional or Earliest Iron Age vessel with a round shoulder decorated with a fingertip row (FS/8; not illustrated). Seven of the remaining eight fabrics are similar to those of the Late Bronze Age, being tempered with common to abundant (F/5, FS/12 and 25

35 Lidsey West Sussex FS/13) or sparse to common flint (F/6, FG/1, FS/7 and FSV/1). One also has moderate densities of grog tempering (0.2 to 2mm; FG/1) and is similar to Late Bronze Age ware FGS/1; the other has sparse linear voids typical of organic inclusions (FSV/1). The assemblage additionally incorporates a single sherd in an apparently un-tempered silty clay with sparse voids that may have been shell (SV/1). Surface Treatment and Firing Approximately 50% of the sherds with surviving surfaces have burnished exteriors (50 sherds, 377g). These are in hard fine (FS/11 and FS/12; 27 sherds, 238g) and medium grade fabrics (F/5, F/6 and FS/8; 23 sherds, 139g) and include a group mostly in fine wares with burnished interiors that are likely to be derived from bowls (16 sherds, 139g). Seventyfour percent of the burnished sherds have black to dark grey exteriors (37 sherds, 305g) with the rest in various oxidized hues ranging from reddish grey through reddish brown to brown. The other half of the better preserved sherds, again in fine and medium grade fabrics, have smoothed or partly smoothed exteriors (51 sherds, 664g). Here there is a contrasting preference for various oxidized external colours varying from (96%, 49 sherds, 645g) red through yellowish red, reddish grey and reddish brown to brown. Form and Decoration The single period assemblages include the rounded shoulder from a jar decorated with a fingertip row of transitional or Earliest Iron Age date (not illustrated); and a rim from a vessel with an upright neck of Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age origin (Fig. 10: P14; from posthole 13). The predominantly sandy fabric (FS/7) might indicate production during or after the latter part of the Bronze Age, but this is by no means certain. There are only a few featured sherds with chronologically diagnostic attributes amongst the residual pottery, none of which are decorated. The largest of the rim fragments is from a round shouldered jar or bowl of a type represented in Decorated Ware assemblages of the 8th to 7th centuries cal. BC (Fig. 10: P12). It is made from one of the densely flint tempered, medium grade fabrics and has a burnished, dark grey exterior. A small heavily abraded rim fragment may be from a globular jar or bipartite bowl characteristic of transitional or Earliest Iron Age ceramic groups (Fig. 10: P15), while a low pedestal base in a fine flint tempered ware with a black burnished exterior is typical of the Early Iron Age (Fig. 10: P13). 26 Wallis and Ford Deposition Six features (postholes 13 and 634, ditch 104 in the unexcavated area, pit 643, spread 720 and pond 818) each produced single sherds of Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age pottery, but it is uncertain whether any are in situ. The rest of the assemblage is derived from later features of Middle Iron Age to Roman date. DISCUSSION The attributes displayed by the fragmented Middle Bronze Age pottery from pits , 743 and 746 and gully are consistent with the Sussex Deverel-Rimbury repertoire. The group from pit 746 appears to include at least one Type 3 lugged ovoid jar, which is one of the more common regional forms, and it is possible that the perforated lug is derived from a vessel of Type 4 or 5 (after Ellison 1978). These and the decorated vessel from pit 740 (Fig. 10: P1) are characteristic of the class of medium-sized Everyday Wares (Ellison 1980, 38), while various other attributes such as the densely flint tempered fabrics and the applied plain and decorated girth cordons are common to assemblages from Sussex (Seager Thomas 2008) and beyond. The vessel from pit 900 (Fig. 10: P2) also falls within the broad category of Everyday Wares, but does not conform to the established type series (Ellison 1978). Individual traits are clearly derived from a Middle Bronze Age tradition: the profile is consistent with various Deverel-Rimbury ovoid and bucket-shaped forms, while the combination of a decorated rim and a row of pre-firing perforations on the upper walls is echoed locally on two bucket urns from North Bersted (Raymond 2013, fig. 10: 11 and 12). Another Middle Bronze Age vessel of uncertain form with a plain rim from the coastal plain at Westhampnett is similarly perforated (Every and Mepham 2006, fig ). Cordons and perforations are also minority attributes in Early Plain Ware groups from elsewhere in southern England, where they can occur on barrelshaped or ovoid jars (Best and Woodward 2011, 226). Although there is no evidence of the precise phasing of the vessel from pit 900, it is striking that it should have been placed in the same feature as an Early Plain Ware jar (Fig. 10: P3), a relationship which might indicate that it is a late Middle Bronze Age or transitional form. The sterile horizon separating the two vessels may denote a time interval, but it is equally possible that the vessels could have been placed in the pit within a short span or even during the same event. It is notable that the only Late Bronze Age single vessel deposit on the site should be stratified above a similarly composed assemblage, a coincidence that at the very least would suggest a sufficiently short time

36 lapse to allow for the identification of the feature and the recollection of the character and significance of the earlier deposit. The Plain Ware jar (Fig. 10: P3) is of a type not previously recognized in Sussex but with a widespread distribution outside the county, encompassing the Cotswolds, the Upper and Middle Thames Valley, Wessex and the South-West (Best and Woodward 2011, table 2, Type 1). These bucket-shaped or straight-sided vessels are prominent in a newly defined Early Plain Ware stage associated with largely pre- 10th century dates including those from Eynsham Abbey in Oxfordshire ( cal. BC), Tinney s Lane in Dorset ( cal. BC) and Kemerton in Worcestershire ( cal. BC) (Best and Woodward 2011, ). The continued local production of densely flint tempered wares into the Late Bronze Age is characteristic of Sussex Plain Ware including assemblages from other sites in the vicinity on the coastal plain at Climping, Lavant (Seager Thomas 2008, 41), Rustington, Knapp Farm (Hamilton 1997, 79 80) and North Bersted (Raymond 2013). As appears to have been the case at Lidsey, these remained predominant amongst the c. 9th century fabrics from Ford (58%, Hamilton 2004, 25 6, tables 6-9, Fabrics 1-3 and 9-10) and the later c. 9th 8th century Developed Plain Ware assemblage from Yapton (Hamilton 1987, 56 8, 62, Fabrics 1 and 2) and formed a small but notable component of a c. 8th 7th century Decorated Ware deposit at North Bersted (Raymond 2013). The wares with lower frequencies of flint tempering are also prominent in many of the Sussex post-deverel- Rimbury assemblages (Seager Thomas 2008, 41), comprising significant minority groups amongst the Plain Ware from Knapp Farm (12%, Hamilton 1997, 80 and table 1, Fabric 3), the c. 9th century fabrics from Ford (21%, Hamilton 2004, 26 and tables 6-9, Fabrics 4-7) and the later group from Yapton (10%, Hamilton 1987, 58 and table 1, Fabrics 3 and 4) and being prominent in the North Bersted Decorated Ware deposit (70% with common flint; 20% with moderate flint, Raymond 2013). The addition of grog to flint tempered pottery has similar local parallels amongst the Plain Ware from Knapp Farm (Hamilton 1997, 80, Fabric F3), the Plain Ware and Developed Plain Ware from Ford (Hamilton 2004, 25 6, Fabrics 2, 3b, 4 and 10), the Developed Plain Ware from Yapton (Hamilton 1987, 58, Fabrics 1 and 4) and the generic Late Bronze Age to Earliest Iron Age pottery from North Bersted (Raymond 2013, FGS/9). The Developed Plain Ware assemblage from pit 514 displays characteristics that point to a date close to the transition between the Late Bronze Age and TVAS Occasional Paper 5 Earliest Iron Age spanning a short phase between c. 850 and 800/750 cal. BC (after Needham 2007). Some of the represented types are long-lived forms that lack chronological sensitivity. Convex jars (Fig. 10: P4) emerged at the end of the Middle Bronze Age in Sussex and were still being produced into the 7th century BC, as at Chanctonbury Ring (Hamilton 2001, 96 8). Cups are a minority component of Late Bronze Age and Earliest Iron Age assemblages from southern England and are relatively scarce in Sussex (Hamilton 2001, 99). The profiles of the two cups from pit 514 (Fig. 10: P5) and the third example from pit 533 (P10) contrast with the everted rimmed and high necked forms from Seaside Field, Selsey (Seager Thomas 2001, figs 5.41; 6.48; 9.23) and Chanctonbury Ring (Hamilton 2001, fig ), while the fabrics and partly smoothed surfaces of the illustrated examples are notably coarse (FS/3 and FS/8). The positioning of the fingertip rows on the upper walls of two vessels (Fig. 10: P7 and P9) and the shoulder of a jar (Fig. 10: P8) is characteristic of the Earliest Iron Age in southern England (Needham 2007). On the Sussex coastal plain jars with finger-tipped shoulders occur in the Developed Plain Ware groups of possible 9th 8th century date from Yapton (Hamilton 1987, fig. 4.6) and West Beach, Selsey (Seager Thomas 2001, 22 and fig. 3) and amongst the later Decorated Ware assemblage of the 8th 7th century BC from East Beach, Selsey (Seager Tomas 2001, 38 and fig. 12). The restrained character of the decoration and the absence of the more complex geometric motifs and sandy fabrics would suggest that the pottery was deposited in pit 514 at an early stage in the development of the Decorated Ware repertoire, being broadly contemporary with Yapton and likely to be earlier than West Beach, Selsey. The few diagnostic sherds from other contexts which indicate activity during the Earliest and Early Iron Age include a round shouldered jar paralleled by Decorated Ware vessels from Stoke Clump (Fig. 10: P12; Cunliffe 1966, fig. 1.33) and a low pedestal or foot-ring base (Fig. 10: P13). As with the similar bases from Ford this is likely to date to the 5th century BC and lends further support to the evidence of the continued production of fine flint tempered wares into the Early Iron Age (FS/12; Hamilton 2004, 26 and 37). The scarcity of the fine sandy fabrics which are characteristic of Sussex Decorated Ware and the emphasis on medium grade and coarse flint tempering in the potentially later pottery (Table A1.7) suggests that the principal phase of earlier activity on the site ceased before Decorated Wares were fully established, possibly by the mid-eighth century BC. 27

37 Lidsey West Sussex Middle Iron Age and Roman pottery by Malcolm Lyne The excavation yielded 920 sherds (7311g) of Middle and Late Iron Age, Roman and Medieval pottery from 113 contexts: a further 77 sherds (164g) were retrieved from environmental samples (a catalogue forms Appendix 2). Most of the assemblages are very small. Nearly two thirds of the pottery by sherd count is of Middle Iron Age date, including almost all of the material from the sieved samples. Medieval fragments are limited to 10 cooking-pot sherds probably all one vessel, from a single feature. A tiny amount of tile was also present (3 fragments, 69g). All of the assemblages were quantified by numbers of sherds and their weights per fabric. These fabrics were classified using a x8 magnification lens and five numbered series of fabric codings drawn up with the prefixes MIA, LIA, C, F and M for Middle Iron Age, Late Iron Age, Coarse Roman, Fine Roman and Medieval respectively. These codings are the same as those drawn up for similar fabrics present at the North Bersted site, only a short distance away (Lyne 2103). None of the assemblages is large enough for quantification by Estimated Vessel Equivalents (EVEs) (Orton 1975). FABRICS Middle Iron Age MIA1A. Handmade polished black fabric with profuse <2.00mm calcined flint filler. MIA1B. Handmade rough version with sparse illsorted 0.10<2.00mm calcined flint filler. MIA2A. Handmade polished black fabric with profuse <1.00mm calcined flint filler. MIA2B. Rough-surfaced version with protruding 1.00<2.00mm calcined flint filler. MIA3A. Handmade polished black fabric with silt and profuse <1.00mm calcined flint filler. MIA3B. Handmade rough fabric with silt and sparseto-moderate <1.00mm calcined flint filler. MIA3C. Handmade polished fabric with similar filler MIA8. Handmade soapy fabric with soft ferrous inclusions, fired brown to black MIA9. Handmade silty black fabric with grog and sparse <2.00mm calcined flint filler. Slipped and smoothed. MIA11. Handmade smooth black fabric with profuse silt and <2.00mm alluvial grit. Late Iron Age LIA2B. Grog and silt tempered Belgic fabric. LIA2C. Grog tempered Belgic fabric. 28 Wallis and Ford LIA4C. Handmade polished black fabric with profuse 0.20<0.50mm subangular and angular white and colourless quartz sand filler. LIA5A. Handmade black fabric with profuse <0.30mm multi-coloured quartz and sparse ill-sorted calcined flint filler. LIA6A. Handmade dark-grey fabric fired rough black with profuse <0.50mm multi-coloured quartz sand filler. LIA6B. Handmade black fabric with profuse <0.10mm quartz sand filler. LIA7A. Handmade red fabric with profuse <0.50mm multi-coloured quartz sand filler, fired black with occasional calcareous inclusions. LIA10. Handmade lumpy black?briquetage fabric fired red externally with grog and very sparse <2.00mm shell and flint. LIA12. Rough oxidized fabric with moderate ill-sorted mm black ironstone and profuse ill-sorted mm calcined flint and <0.30mm quartz-sand filler. Roman Coarse Wares C1C. Rough grey wheel-turned Arun Valley greyware with profuse <0.30mm multicoloured quartz filler and minute black ferrous inclusions. C2A. Wheel-turned red fabric fired black with profuse <0.20mm multicoloured quartz sand filler. C3B. Handmade Rowlands Castle greyware. C3D. Wheel-turned Rowlands Castle greyware. C5. Rough fabric with profuse <0.20mm multi-coloured and iron-stained quartz sand and <2.00mm black to brown?shale inclusions. C6. Very fine sanded pink fabric fired cream with profuse <0.50mm rose quartz and black ironstone filler. C8. BB1 C10B. Alice Holt/Farnham greyware C11. New Forest greyware. C17. Miscellaneous greywares C18. Miscellaneous oxidized wares Roman Finewares F1A. South Gaulish Samian. F1B. Martres de Veyre Samian F1C. Lezoux Samian. F5. Silty orange fabric with occasional <1.00mm pink quartz.?a Chapel Street, Chichester kilns product. F6. Sandfree pale grey fabric fired yellow-pink to pink with sparse soft <2.00mm ferrous inclusions. F11. Silty micaceous greyware F12. North Kent Fineware. F15A. New Forest Purple Colour-coat fabric.?early SAXON ES1. Very-fine sanded brown-black fabric. MEDIEVAL M1. Patchy grey/brown/black fabric with profuse <0.50mm. multi-coloured quartz sand filler.

38 THE ASSEMBLAGES Middle Iron Age Assemblage 1. From Enclosure Ditch Of the 135 sherds (800g) of pottery from this feature, 119 come from a plain saucepan-pot in polished black Fabric MIA2A. Ext. rim diameter 160mm. c BC in context 700 (874). The other 16 sherds comprise five more saucepan-pot sherds in fabric MIA2A, two in fabric MIA1B, one in fabric MIA2B and eight from a plain saucepan-pot in black Fabric MIA. Ext. rim diameter 160mm. c BC. Context 723 (966). Assemblage 2. From Enclosure Ditch complex 10013, and The 29 sherds (363g) of Middle Iron Age pottery from these features comprise 14 in fabric MIA1A, six in MIA1B, one in MIA2A, two in MIA8 and six from a globular jar in black fabric MIA2A. Ext. rim diameter 160mm. c BC. Context 412 (556) in ditch Assemblage 3. From the enclosure complex ditches 10024, 10025, 10029, 10030, 10031, 10059, The 219 sherds (1930g) of pottery from these features were quantified by numbers of sherds and their weights per fabric. There is an overwhelming predominance of jar sherds in calcined-flint tempered fabrics MIA1A and MIA2A (91.8% by sherd count), including 146 sherds from two vessels: a bead-rim jar in carbon-soaked black fabric MIA2A. Ext. rim diameter 200mm. c BC. Similar to an example from ditch F120 in the excavation at North Bersted (Morris 1978, fig. 20: 148). The North Bersted example came from a slightly higher level in the ditch fill than a c. 50BC AD50 dated copper alloy La Tene III fibula (Morris 1978, fig. 23: 222), suggesting a date towards the end of the Middle Iron Age ceramic tradition in West Sussex. The sherds here derived from ditch 10030, contexts 206 (260) and 207(261); and another example in black fabric MIA1A with polished exterior. c BC from ditch 10059, context 224 (284). TABLE 3: Summary of Middle Iron Age fabrics Fabric No. sherds % Wt (g) % MIA1A MIA2A MIA2B MIA3A MIA3C MIA TVAS Occasional Paper 5 Other vessels include the following: Bead-rim saucepan-pot in carbon-soaked fabric MIA2A with both internal and external polish. Ext. rim diameter 220mm. Paralleled in the midden at Norton, where dated to the earlier part of the Middle Iron Age (Seager Thomas 2006, fig.17, 16B). c BC. Ditch 10024, context 262. Curviform jar with out-turned bead rim, in grey fabric MIA3A polished externally and internally. Paralleled at North Bersted in ditch F1, Layer 1 (Morris 1978, fig.16: 50). The fills of that ditch were well stratified, with the vessel coming from the uppermost fill in an assemblage of mixed Middle and Late Iron Age sherds (Morris 1978, 337). c BC? Ditch 10024, context 278. Two saucepan-pot fragments in soapy fabric MIA8 from context 291 in Ditch may be indicative of connections with the people of East Sussex or the Weald, where the use of such fabric for making pottery was widespread during the Middle and Late Iron Ages. LATE IRON AGE Assemblage 4. From Ditch This ditch was cut by Roman ditch and yielded 36 fresh fragments (304g) of pottery, most of which came from two pots in fill 1452: A small handmade bag-shaped jar with weak everted rim in black carbon-soaked Fabric C5 variant with buff-grey patches. Ext. rim diameter 90mm. Paralleled at North Bersted in ditch dated c. AD1 40 (Lyne forthcoming, fig. 3: 35). A bead-rim jar in handmade red fabric LIA7A fired black. Ext. rim diameter 160mm. LIA c. AD50. The pottery also includes six laminating fragments from an everted rim jar in coarse fabric LIA6A (c. AD30 60) and eight from jars in Rowlands Castle greyware fabric C3D (c. AD50 300). The indications are that this ditch was open during the Late Iron Age and continued to receive rubbish until c. AD60. There are only 20 other Late Iron Age sherds from the entire excavation and these are all abraded and residual in their contexts. It seems clear that the main focus of Late Iron Age occupation lay outside the area excavated. ROMAN Assemblage 5. From Trackway 1 ditches and at the eastern end of the site. These two contemporary features yielded 116 sherds (586g) of pottery between them. These fragments are almost entirely of Roman date and include sherds from an amphora probably of Peacock s Class 55 (c. AD ), a dish of Fishbourne Type 203 in Rowlands 29

39 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford Castle greyware fabric C3D (c. AD70 150), a ringneck flagon in Wiggonholt cream fabric C6 (c. AD ), a footring fragment from a Central Gaulish samian Dr.37 bowl (c. AD ) and 70 fresh sherds from two vessels: The top of flask of Monaghan s (1987) Class 1B1 in grey North Kent Fineware fabric F12. Ext. rim diameter 80mm. c. AD Ditch context Much of cavetto-rim jar in New Forest greyware fabric C11 with thin white slip on rim. Ext. rim diameter 160mm. c. AD Ditch 10067, context MEDIEVAL Assemblage 6. From pit 532. The 10 fresh sherds (210g) of pottery from this feature constitute the only medieval assemblage from the site and come from a large lid-seated vessel in sandy grey fabric M1 fired rough cream. Ext. rim diameter 300mm. This may be part of a large storage vessel or cistern, with the fingerimpressed strapping on the shoulder suggesting that it may have been a product of the Binsted kilns (Barton 1979, 177 8). c. AD DISCUSSION The bulk of the post-bronze Age pottery from this site is of Middle Iron Age date and, as with the pottery of this period from the nearby North Bersted site, gives no clues as to the social status of the inhabitants of what appears to have been small farmsteads. There are no ceramic indications of the presence of a Late Iron Age aristocracy during the mid-1st century BC as were found at North Bersted in the form of the pots in the warrior burial (Lyne 2013). The quantities of Late Iron Age and Roman pottery are very small: the assemblages tell us nothing of the social status of the people responsible for them as they are derived from a series of field-boundary and trackway ditches away from the main foci of occupation during these periods. What this material does tell us is that the field system was cultivated from the Late Iron Age through into later Roman times. Struck Flint by Steve Ford Considering the extent of these excavations, the flint collection recovered was very small, comprising just 175 pieces. This total also includes those for the evaluation trenches and features that lie within this area. Table 4 summarizes the composition of the collection which is fully catalogued in archive. Most of the struck flint is made on good quality, largely flaw-free flint, which is widely available on the site. Most of the pieces are in a fresh condition 30 with little post-depositional damage. A variety of flint colours are present with fairly typical blacks, greys and browns and the variable presence of cherty inclusions observed. Some pieces are iron stained. Just two pieces have been burnt and one flake is rolled. Few unstratified flints were recovered. Only one item (the polished axe) is more closely datable on typological attributes and most items are of Neolithic, or more likely Bronze Age date. Narrow flakes comprise a small proportion of the collection (c. 4%) but few, if any appear to be a deliberate product of blade production (as opposed to fortuitous production) and a Mesolithic or earlier Neolithic component to the collection seems unlikely. Most individual contexts rarely produced more than a couple of flints. The largest groups came from the three Middle Iron Age enclosure complexes. Enclosure complex C produced 18 flints, complex B produced 13 flints and complex A produced 20 flints with one internal pit producing 3 flints. Middle Iron Age ring gully enclosure (10089) produced 6 flints. SCRAPERS Three scrapers were recovered, two of which were unremarkable end scrapers made on broad flakes. However, one piece from ditch (slot 505) was made on a large natural flake but was retouched for its entire edge but only on the dorsal surface. A large amount of cortex remained. It had a subrectangular plan and superficially resembles an axe or adze. POLISHED FLINT AXE A broken polished flint axe was recovered from a soil spread (720). It was at least 60mm wide, 116mm long and 19mm thick with an oval cross section. The axe was made from a flint with cherty inclusions but is now iron stained. The polishing process had imperfectly removed the flake scars. The blade end was missing. One flake had subsequently been removed from the broken end with several smaller removals. These are possibly preliminary attempts to re-sharpen the blade Broken Blades and narrow 3 Spalls 14 Cores 1 Core fragments, bashed lumps 3 Scrapers 3 1 Total 175

40 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 or use the piece as a core. None of these appear to have been successful. The polished axe is likely to date from the Neolithic or Early Bronze Age periods, but not later (Ford et al. 1984). OTHER STONE Two fragments of stone were recorded that were not available immediately on the site. Both came from LBA/EIA pit 514.These comprised a fragment of quartzite (75g) from layer 669, and a fragment (265g) of water worn cobble of slightly micaceous mudstone from layer 668. Neither appears worked. Charred plant remains by Rosalind McKenna Fifty-three bulk soil samples of 8-40L were taken from a range of deposits across the site. The samples were floated and sieved using a 0.25mm mesh then air dried. Details of processing methodology and identification keys used are in the archive. The preservation of the charred remains was poor, with the very few identified charred plant remains presented in Appendix 3: Table A3.1 and charcoal in Table A3.2. Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Stace (1997) for the charred seeds and Schweingruber (1978) for charcoal. Indeterminate cereal grains were recorded in just two samples. A number of charred weed seeds and grasses were also recorded. Due to such small numbers of remains, other than to state their presence in the samples, nothing of further interpretable value can be gained. Charcoal fragments were present in all 53 samples but the majority of the fragments were too small to identify. Identifiable remains were present in small numbers in 13 samples (Table A3.2). The total range of charcoal taxa comprises oak (Quercus), willow/poplar (Salix/Populus), ash (Fraxinus) and hazel (Corylus). Oak dominated all of the samples from the middle and late Bronze Age features. The features dating to the middle Iron Age were both dominated by willow/poplar and one also contained oak and a little hazel charcoal. This may indicate that during this period these species were more readily available. The features dating to the Roman period mostly produced oak charcoal with some willow/poplar. Radiocarbon dating Seven charcoal samples were submitted to the radiocarbon dating laboratory at the Queen s University, Belfast. Details of methodology are in the archive; in summary all the results are considered reliable. The results are presented in Table 5. All calibrated dates are presented at 2-sigma and not end rounded (it will be noted that the standard practice of rounding out to the nearest decade would in several cases provide single longer ranges rather than multiple possibilities as presented below: there seems little practical difference in any case). The most probable date range is highlighted. The calibrated ages were calculated using Intcal09.14c (Reimer et al. 2009). TABLE 5: Radiocarbon dating results Sample Context Material Radiocarbon Age Calibrated date BC Probability UBA charcoal BP % UBA charcoal BP % % % UBA charcoal BP % % UBA charcoal BP % % UBA charcoal BP % % UBA charcoal BP % % UBA charcoal BP % % 31

41 Lidsey West Sussex CONCLUSIONS The excavations described above have examined another large, contiguous parcel of land lying on the archaeologically and agriculturally rich farmland forming the Sussex coastal plain. The contiguous extent of the fieldwork has again allowed an investigation of not only occupation foci but also their immediate landscape setting. It joins a small group of other sites in this region where extensive settlement and landscapes have been examined. NEOLITHIC/ EARLIER BRONZE AGE The earliest activity on the site is not obviously represented by any cut features but is indicated by the presence of a collection of struck flints. Some of these flints could be contemporary with the Bronze Age and even Iron Age activity on the site but others are clearly pre-mba and reflect an early phase of landuse. The struck flint is recorded widely across the site but with no contexts producing large numbers so as to suggest the former presence of dense clusters representing occupation now only surviving in topsoil or subsoil contexts (and thus liable to be removed en masse during the mechanical site stripping) (Healy 1987). These finds are considered to reflect casual loss or discard or dispersal during manuring but nevertheless there is sufficient flintwork to indicate a moderate level of activity. MIDDLE BRONZE AGE The earliest deposits present represent a single Middle Bronze Age (MBA) occupation site. This occupation takes the form of a small unenclosed cluster of pits/ postholes without any obvious structural layout and with no obvious house nor infrastructure features such as four-post buildings. There is no evidence for organized field systems. Apart from an outlying pit that may have functioned as a waterhole, the distribution of MBA pottery is restricted to the area of the feature cluster. It is considered that such ephemeral evidence, with restricted extent, is evidence of a relatively shortlived occupation site. This ephemeral evidence for occupation is repeated elsewhere on the coastal plain, as at North Bersted where a more extensive spread of MBA features is present, but with a conspicuous lack of houses. It represents another component of MBA settlement to contrast with the more durable sites with well defined post-built roundhouses typical of the chalklands (Hamilton 2003). Recent discoveries on the Wealden claylands also provide a contrast. At Burgess Hill (Wallis 2013) a ring gully complex returned dates of and cal BC (KIA ). At Hassocks (Mullin et al. 2010) an unenclosed MBA post-built roundhouse and pit group associated 32 Wallis and Ford with a field system has been found along with another possible post-built roundhouse which produced a C14 date of cal BC (SUERC 20209). Whilst only a negative observation, it may be noteworthy that despite the extensive stripping at Lidsey, no urned cremation burials (or cremation burials of any kind) were found, which was an aspect observed at nearby North Bersted, and although there most of the cremated bone deposits were undated, those that could be dated were mainly of the MBA. On this site therefore, the MBA occupation forms a discrete location with no spatial overlap with later Bronze Age deposits and there is no obvious continuity of site use into the subsequent period. LATER BRONZE AGE The later Bronze Age, that is features of M/LBA, LBA proper and possibly into the LBA/EIA is represented by more deposits, a wider spread across the site and a post-built roundhouse. The principal feature appears to represent another unclosed occupation site with a roundhouse, various pits and postholes and a possible waterhole, but no field systems. The moderate volume of features again suggests a short-lived site. The wider spread of artefacts (pottery) may indicate greater emphasis on manuring of surrounding (undefined) fields compared to the MBA even though there is no charred plant evidence to indicate arable farming. Several unenclosed LBA sites are now recorded in this region of the coastal plan. At Chichester Road, Selsey, an unenclosed settlement comprised a scatter of pits and postholes, yet no obvious structures (Hammond 2005). It was however, engaged in arable farming with a pit containing burnt barley which returned radiocarbon dates of cal BC and cal BC (KIA ). A pair of large ditches may be part of a larger area of land division. At Yapton the site mostly comprised an unenclosed cluster of pits (Rudling 1987). Further afield though, at Grange Road, Gosport another unenclosed site contained two oval-shaped post-built houses amongst tight clusters of other pits and postholes, with evidence of arable production from the presence of quern stones and charred cereals (Hall and Ford 1994). At Claypit Lane, Westhampnett a more extensive and denser site has been recorded with up to three roundhouses present and a fence-line along with a miscellany of pits and postholes, some containing placed deposits (Chadwick 2006). Three radiocarbon dates were obtained of , and Cal BC (NZA ). At North Bersted, some five dense unenclosed clusters of postholes and pits were recorded which were considered to be of Later Bronze Age date. The features were not well

42 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 N Middle Bronze Age Middle/Late Bronze Age Late Bronze Age Figure 19. M-LBA Phase plan. dated (containing no material sufficiently well stratified or suitable for radiocarbon dating) and were artefact poor. Structural evidence was limited to a few fourpost and two-post structures (Taylor et al. 2014). MIDDLE IRON AGE There is little to suggest an early Iron Age component on the site with no pottery assigned to this period except for a few sherds assigned to the LBA/EIA transition and with little chance of the few LBA deposits having an extended chronology to cover the gap up to the Middle Iron Age. There appears to be an hiatus in the use and development of the site. The Middle Iron Age, on the other hand, reflects a major investment in infrastructure. A two-fold sequence of development can be discerned based on stratigraphy and backed up by radiocarbon dating. The first phase, from the late 6th/ late 4th centuries BC is represented by a ring gully, presumably representing a house site, which is linked to a field system. These fields or small paddocks are defined by discontinuous single sinuous gullies not all well aligned nor regular in plan and occupying an area 0 100m of some 3-4ha. Iron Age fields are not common, at least before the very end of the period; Yates (1999, 158) writing about the Thames Valley could not suggest any examples, yet subsequent fieldwork has now begun to record them. At Cippenham, Slough (Taylor 2012) ephemeral, irregular boundaries also incorporating a ring gully house have been recorded and at Eysey Manor, Wiltshire (Pine 2011a and b) an Iron Age 'landscape' includes house sites, small enclosures and areas including fields, again of slightly irregular layout, defined by sinuous and discontinuous boundaries. Further field boundaries associated with Middle Iron Age settlement are recorded further afield in the upper Thames Valley, as at Mount Farm, Berinsfield (Lambrick and Robinson 2009, 86). The second phase of activity is dominated by the construction of three rectilinear enclosures all of which seem to be on the same alignment. The five radiocarbon dates from two of these enclosures place them broadly in the 4th 2nd centuries BC. The largest enclosure (A), unfortunately without a C14 date, contained few internal features, none of which were dated to the Iron Age. The enclosure was, 33

43 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford N B A C D Middle Iron Age b Middle Iron Age a 0 100m Figure 20. MIA Phase plan. however, closely linked to the earlier field system and incorporated part of the boundaries into it. Relatively few pottery finds were recovered and it is considered that this feature functioned to corral stock. The other two smaller enclosures (B, C) contained a number of internal features though none formed readily interpretable house sites or other structures. Nevertheless it is thought that these represent occupied sites. These enclosures partly overlie elements of the field system but other field elements could continue in use. Elsewhere another smaller enclosure/ring gully complex is present to the south-east of the site, perhaps loosely associated with field boundary features. A single radiocarbon date places the structure within the 4th 3rd century BC, contemporary with the rectilinear enclosures. There was no obvious evidence for the presence of a roundhouse within, nor, again any infrastructure features such as fourposters, storage pits, fences, nor adjoining pens, as found on pen and house sites in the Upper Thames region (cf Lambrick et al. 2009, 109). Evidence of the subsistence economy was poor with no preservation 34 of bone with which to study the faunal component of the economy and a very poor assemblage of charred plant remains. Nor were there any indirect indicators of cereal production/use such as querns. These enclosures can be contrasted with the Iron Age enclosures excavated at North Bersted and Oving. At Oving the site comprised a discrete enclosure of the Middle Iron Age with a radiocarbon date of cal BC (HAR4252). It was of similar dimensions to enclosures B and C here, contained a round house, a wealth of artefacts and was clearly occupied (Bedwin and Holgate 1985), perhaps more intensively so or for a longer period than at Lidsey. At North Bersted, two Middle Iron Age enclosure complexes were present on either side of a small stream, with a chronology defined by five radiocarbon dates. One of these (H1), in its first incarnation was similar in form to those at Lidsey, but was relatively artefact-rich with evidence of a roundhouse. However, it was enhanced with additional paddocks and developed through the Late Iron Age. The other complex (B) was much larger with a number of substantial internal sub-divisions and with some occupied areas. It also continued into the Late Iron Age (Taylor et al. 2014).

44 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 N T1 T4 T3 (10091) T Phase A Enclosure E Phase B Phase C Figure 21. Roman Phase plan m ROMAN The Middle Iron Age enclosures and fields have certainly gone out of use by Early Roman times which saw a re-arrangement of the landscape using larger, more rectilinear fields with trackways. The large fields are more regular in plan than before, but their internal subdivisions remain less so. There is no direct sign of occupation but the distribution of the rather meagre pottery assemblage possibly suggests the south and eastern side of the site was closer to the occupied area than the north and west: the almost total absence of ceramic building material also suggests the site is well away from any substantial building. Some Late Iron Age pottery is present within the field ditches and a few boundaries produced exclusively pottery of this date. However, most LIA pottery occurs alongside early Roman material and more likely reflects the tail end of its general use at a time when Roman forms are becoming the norm. Its presence though does suggest some use of the site very early in Roman times. There are no occupation areas associated with these field boundaries. Features other than ditches were few, and these were often isolated where their significance must remain unclear. The fields show some enhancement and modification over time but the 1st century layout is substantially the same up to the 3rd century when the fields seem to have gone out of use. The observation that the fields may have been abandoned (or at least not developed further) before the end of the Roman period is a pattern recorded elsewhere, especially for the nearby settlement complexes recorded at North Bersted (Taylor et al. 2014) and adds to the corpus of evidence for significant change at this time. SAXON, MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL Little can be said about later phases on the site, represented by just a single sherd of Saxon pottery and a single medieval pit. The final activity is that of postmedieval and modern field boundaries. 35

45 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford APPENDIX 1: Earlier Prehistoric Pottery Table A1.1: Quantities of prehistoric pottery Date No. % No. Wt. (g.) % Wt. MBA MBA to LBA LBA LBA to EIA Indeterminate TOTALS Table A1.2: The character and relative frequencies of Middle Bronze Age fabrics Fabric No. % No. Wt. (g.) % Wt. F/3 Very common to abundant FS/6 Very common Unclear (< mm.) Total F/1 Abundant F/4 Common to very common FS/3 Common to very common Abundant (< mm.) FS/5 Very common Unclear (< mm.) Total F/2 Very common Table A1.3: Single period Middle Bronze Age ceramic deposits Group Cut Dep. Med. Flint EVE Illus. Total No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt P P

46 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 Table A1.4: The character and relative frequencies of Middle to Late Bronze Age fabrics Fabric No. % No. Wt. (g.) % Wt. FS/9 Common Abundant (<0.125 mm.) F/3 Very common to abundant FS/11 Common Abundant (<0.25 mm) Total F/1 Abundant F/4 Common to very common FS/3 Common to very common Abundant (< mm.) FS/5 Very common Unclear (< mm.) FS/8 Moderate Abundant (< mm.) Total FS/2 Moderate to common Abundant Table A1.5: The character and relative frequencies of Late Bronze Age fabrics Fabric No. % No. Wt. (g.) % Wt. FS/9 Common Abundant (<0.125 mm.) F/3 Very common to abundant FS/4 Moderate Abundant (< mm.) FS/6 Very common Unclear (< mm.) FS/11 Common Abundant (<0.25 mm) Indet Total F/4 Common to very common FfeS/1 Common Moderate (<0.25 mm.) FS/3 Common to very common Abundant (< mm.) FS/8 Moderate Abundant (< mm.) Total clf/1 Common F/2 Very common FGS/1 Moderate Abundant (< mm.) FS/2 Moderate to common Abundant (< mm.) FS/10 Abundant Unclear (< mm.) Total FS/1 Moderate to common Abundant (< mm.)

47 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford Table A1.6: Single period Late Bronze Age ceramic deposits in excess of 150g. Cut Dep. EVE Illus. Total No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt P4-P P Table A1.7: The character and relative frequencies of Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age fabrics Fabric No. % No. Wt. (g.) % Wt. Very Fine (predominantly sandy <0.0625) SV/1 - Abundant (< mm.) F/3 Very common to abundant FG/1 Moderate FS/4 Moderate Abundant (< mm.) FS/11 Common Abundant (<0.25 mm.) FS/12 Very common Unclear (<0.0625mm.) Total F/4 Common to very common F/5 Very common to abundant F/6 Moderate to common FS/7 Sparse Abundant (< mm.) FS/8 Moderate Abundant (< mm.) FS/13 Common Abundant (< mm.) Total FSV/1 Moderate Unclear (<0.0625mm.)

48 TVAS Occasional Paper 5 APPENDIX 2: Iron Age and Roman Pottery 50 Topsoil C10B Jar AD Fresh 7 58 MIA2B C1C F1A Closed Closed BC AD AD Abraded Abraded C5 Jar AD MIA1B C6 Jar BC Abraded LIA6B 50BC AD Gully C3D ox C1C C3D gr MIA2A MIA2B MIA2A C3D Necked jar Ev rim jar Jar AD AD AD BC M.I.A. L.I.A BC AD Fresh Fresh Abraded Bead rim jar Abraded Jar C3D Jara AD Very Abraded C3D Reeded rim etc AD Fishbourne 209 C8 1 3 F11 Flagon AD Fishbourne 311 F15A Type 27 beaker c/ad Fresh 93 C3D Closed AD MIA2B BC 1 5 C1C F2 Ev rim jar etc Beaker AD AD Fresh Abraded Crumbly misfired C3D Lid L.I.A. AD LIA7A Jar basal 50BC AD Abraded soft LIA12 Jar basal AD C 1C C 3 AD AD Abraded Abraded LIA7A C1C C3D C18 Closed Closed Dish 50BC AD50 AD30 60 AD AD Abraded Abraded crumbly Abraded Refired or misfired MIA1A Jar BC Fresh 1 pot MIA1A Saucepan pot BC 1 13 Fresh MIA2A Bead-rim jar BC Fresh 1 jar MIA2A?same pot as BC Fresh MIA1A MIA2A Jar Saucepan pot BC BC Fresh Fresh MIA3C Saucepan pot BC 5 41 Fresh C3D Jar AD Abraded MIA2A Jar BC 1 18 Fresh MIA2B Jar base BC MIA3B BC 1 5 Abraded MIA2A MIA2B Jar Jar BC BC Fresh 1 jar Fresh 1 jar MIA1A MIA3C Jars Jars BC BC Fresh Fresh MIA3A Bead-rim jar BC 2 57 Abraded MIA3C BC 1 17 Fresh MIA1A Bead-rim jar BC Fresh. Nearly all of pot MIA BC 2 6 Slightly abraded C1C ox Closed AD Abraded MIA2B Basal sherds BC MIA1A Saucepan pot BC 7 38 Fresh 1 pot MIA2A BC 1 2 Chip MIA2A Saucepan pot BC 2 6 Fresh C1C C10B Jar basal Jar basal AD AD Fresh MIA2B Bead rim jar BC 1 31 Slightly abraded MIA BC 5 11 Chips F5?Flagon AD One pot F1B Dr.18/31 AD Abraded MIA2A Jar BC 1 10 Fresh MIA1A Jar BC Fresh 39

49 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford MIA3B BC LIA10?Briquetage 50BC AD Abraded MIA1B Jar base BC 1 48 Very abraded C3D ox C3D gr Necked jar Jar AD AD Fresh MIA BC MIA2A Jar BC 1 25 Abraded MIA2A Bead-rim jar BC 6 74 Fresh 1 pot MIA1A MIA1B BC BC Fresh Fresh MIA2A Saucepan pot BC 1 43 Fresh C3D ox C3D gr Jars Jar AD70 150/200 AD Fresh MIA1A Saucepan pot BC 7 57 Fresh MIA8 Saucepan pot BC CIC Closed form AD Abraded LIA4C Jar BC 1 8 Sl abraded M1 Cooking-pot AD Fresh 1 pot C1C Necked jar AD MIA8 Jar BC 7 77 Fresh MIA8 Saucepan pot BC Fresh 1 pot C3D C3D Jar Necked jar AD AD Fresh Fresh C2A Jar AD Abraded LIA7A 50BC AD LIA2B LIA4C C3 C18 Closed Closed Jar Necked jar 25BC AD50 50BC AD50 AD AD Abraded Abraded Abraded Very abraded C1C Closed AD Slightly abraded C18?? Medieval F1A Dish AD C3D ox C3D gr Ev rim jar AD AD Abraded Abraded MIA2A Saucepan pot BC Most of 1 pot MIA1B BC 1 19 Abraded MIA2A Saucepan pot BC pot MIA BC MIA1B BC 1 27 Fresh MIA2A MIA2B Saucepan pot Saucepan pot BC BC Fresh Slightly abraded MIA3A Saucepan pot BC 8 58 One pot F6?Flagon AD Burnt LIA5A Jar 90 50BC 1 6 Abraded LIA4C Open form 50BC AD LIA4C Jar base 50BC AD Abraded C3? C Abraded pellet Abraded C1C AD Abraded C3D Jar AD Abraded MIA3C BC 1 1 Tiny chip C2A Jar AD Slightly abraded surface C3D Jar AD Fresh C1C Jar basal AD Abraded C Abraded C1C Ev rim jar AD Fresh 1 jar C3D C17 AD Abraded Abraded C Abraded LIA2C 25BC AD Very abraded LIA2C Necked jar 25BC AD Abraded C3D Jar AD Fresh F12 IB1 flask AD Fresh 1 pot C3B Jar AD Abraded 40

50 TVAS Occasional Paper MIA BC 3 5 Fresh C5 Jar AD Abraded C3D C18 Fishbourne 203 dish?peacock 55 amphora AD AD Fresh C6 Ring-neck flagon AD One pot MIA2B BC 1 8 Very abraded LIA2B Jar 25BC AD C11 Ev. rim jar AD Fresh 1 pot ES 1 Jar AD Abraded C18 Beaker or flagon LIA7A C3D C5 Bead-rim jar Jars Small jar 50BC AD50 AD AD Fresh 1 jar Fresh 1 jar LIA6A/C1A Ev rim jar AD One pot F1C Dr 37 basal sherd AD C3D Jar AD Abraded 41

51 Lidsey West Sussex APPENDIX 3: Environmental remains Wallis and Ford Table A3.1: Plant Macrofossils Sample 4 6 Volume (L) Feature Fill Group Feature Type Gully Gully Phase MIA MIA LATIN BINOMIAL COMMON NAME Stellaria media (L.) Vill. - 1 Common chickweed BRASSICACEAE - 1 Cabbage family POACEAE - 1 Grass Family Indeterminate Cereal 2 4 Indeterminate Cereal Table A3.2: Charcoal Sample Volume (L) Feature Fill Group Feature Type Gully Pit Pit Pit Pit Gully Gully Gully Gully Phase M-LBA LBA LBA LBA LBA MIA MIA MIA MIA No. frags Max. size(mm) Latin Vernacular Corylus avellana Hazel Salix / Populus Willow /Poplar Fraxinus excelsior Ash Quercus Oak Indeterminate Indeterminate Sample Volume (L) Feature Fill Group Feature Type Ditch Gully Ditch Post hole Pit Pit Phase Roman Roman Roman No. frags Max. size (mm) Latin Vernacular Corylus avellana Hazel Salix / Populus Willow / Poplar Fraxinus excelsior Ash Quercus Oak Indeterminate Indeterminate

52 REFERENCES Barton, K J, 1979, Medieval Sussex Pottery, Chichester Bedwin, O and Holgate, R, 1985, Excavations at Copse Farm, Oving, West Sussex, Proc Prehist Soc 51, Best, J and Woodward, A, 2011, Late Bronze Age pottery production: evidence from a 12th-11th century cal BC settlement at Tinney s Lane, Sherborne, Dorset, Proc Prehist Soc 78, BGS, 1996, British Geological Survey, 1:50000, Sheet 317/332, Solid and Drift Edition, Keyworth Chadwick, A M, 2006, Bronze Age burials and settlement and Anglo-Saxon settlement at Claypit Lane, Westhampnett, West Sussex, Sussex Archaeol Collect 144, 7 50 Collcutt, S, 2007, Extension to Lidsey Landfill, Lidsey, Woodgate, West Sussex, Palaeolithic Significance final report, Oxford Archaeological Associates, Oxford Cunliffe, B, 1966, Stoke Clump, Hollingbury and the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age in Sussex, Sussex Archaeol Collect 104, Ellison, A, 1978, The Bronze Age of Sussex, in P L Drewett (ed), Archaeology in Sussex to AD 1500, CBA Res Rep 29, London, 30 7 Ellison, A, 1980, The Bronze Age, Sussex Archaeol Collect 118, Every, R and Mepham, L, 2006, Pottery, in A M Chadwick, Bronze Age burials and settlement and an Anglo-Saxon settlement at Claypit Lane, Westhampnett, West Sussex, Sussex Archaeol Collect 144, Ford, S, Bradley, R J, Hawkes, J and Fisher, P, 1984, Flint working in the metal age, Oxford J Archaeol 3, Hall, M and Ford, S, 1994, Archaeological excavations at Grange Road, Gosport, Hampshire, 1992, Proc Hampshire Fld Club Archaeol Soc 50, 5 34 Hamilton, S, 1987, Late Bronze Age pottery, in D Rudling, The Excavation of a Late Bronze Age site at Yapton, West Sussex, 1984, Sussex Archaeol Collect 125, Hamilton, S, 1997, Late Bronze Age pottery traditions in West Sussex: the Knapp Farm assemblage and its regional context, in M Gardiner and S Hamilton, Knapp Farm, Bosham: a significant find of Bronze Age pottery, Sussex Archaeol Collect 135, Hamilton, S, 2001, A review of the early 1st-millennium BC pottery from Chanctonbury Ring: a contribution to the study of Sussex hillforts of the late Bronze Age/ early Iron Age transition, in D Rudling, Chanctonbury Ring revisited: the excavations of , Sussex Archaeol Collect 139, Hamilton, S, 2003, Sussex not Wessex: a regional perspective on southern Britain, c BC, in D Rudling (ed), The Archaeology of Sussex to AD2000, Brighton, Hamilton, S, 2004, Early first millennium pottery of the West Sussex coastal plain, in C Place, Excavations at Ford Airfield, Yapton, West Sussex, 1999, TVAS Occasional Paper 5 Hammond, S and Preston, S, 2005, Bronze Age and Iron Age occupation at Chichester Road, Selsey, West Sussex, Sussex Archaeol Collect 143, Healy, F, 1987, Prediction or prejudice? The relationship between field survey and excavation, in A G Brown and M R Edmonds (eds), Lithic Analysis and later British Prehistory, BAR Brit Ser 162, Oxford, 9 18 Lambrick, G, Robinson, M and Allen, T, 2009, The Thames Through Time: The Archaeology of the Gravel Terraces of the Upper and Middle Thames: The Thames Valley in Later Prehistory: 1500BC AD50, Oxford Archaeol Thames Valley Landscapes Monogr 29, Oxford Lyne, M A B, 2014, Iron Age, Roman and medieval pottery in A Taylor, A Weale and S Ford, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman Landscapes of the coastal plain, and a Late Iron Age warrior burial at North Bersted, Bognor Regis, West Sussex; excavations , TVAS mongr 23, Reading Lyne, M A B, forthcoming, The Prehistoric, Roman and Saxon pottery, in O Gilkes, Excavations at North Bersted Manley, J (ed), 2008, The Archaeology of Fishbourne and Chichester; a framework for its future, Sussex Archaeol Soc, Lewes Monaghan, J, 1987, Upchurch and Thameside Roman pottery: a ceramic typology for northern Kent, first to third centuries AD, BAR Brit Ser 173, Oxford Morris, S, 1978, The Iron Age Pottery, in O Bedwin and M W Pitts, The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement at North Bersted, Bognor Regis, West Sussex , Sussex Archaeol Collect 116, Mullin, D, Biddulph, E and Brown, R, 2010, A Bronze Age settlement, Roman settlement and field system at Hassocks, West Sussex, Sussex Archaeol Collect 148, Needham, S, 2007, 800BC, The Great Divide, in C Haselgrove and R Pope (eds), The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the near Continent, Oxford, Orton, C J, 1975, Quantitative Pottery Studies, Some Progress, Problems and Prospects, Sci and Archaeol 16, 30 5 PCRG, 1997, The Study of Later Prehistoric Pottery: General Policies and Guidelines for Analysis and Publication, Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group Occas Paps 1 and 2 (revised version) Pine, J, 2011a, Eysey Manor, Cricklade, Wiltshire, Phase 3: Post Excavation Assessment, TVAS upubl rep 06/32, Reading Pine, J, 2011b, Eysey Manor, Cricklade, Wiltshire, Phase 4: Post Excavation Assessment, TVAS upubl rep 08/84, Reading PPG16, 1990, Archaeology and Planning, DoE Planning Policy Guidance 16, HMSO Raymond, F, 2014, The Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery, in A Taylor, A Weale and S Ford, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman Landscapes of the coastal plain, and a Late Iron Age warrior burial at North Bersted, Bognor Regis, West Sussex; excavations , TVAS mongr 23, Reading 43

53 Lidsey West Sussex Wallis and Ford Reimer, P J, Baillie, M G L, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, J W, Blackwell, P G, Bronk Ramsey, C, Buck, C E, Burr, G S, Edwards, R L, Friedrich, M, Grootes, P M, Guilderson, T P, Hajdas, I, Heaton, T J, Hogg, A G, Hughen, K A, Kaiser, K F, Kromer, B, McCormac, F G, Manning, S W, Reimer, R W, Richards, D A, Southon, J R, Talamo, S, Turney, C S M, van der Plicht, J and Weyhenmeyer, C E, 2009, IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0 50,000 years cal BP, Radiocarbon, 51(4), Rudling, D, 1987, The excavation of a late Bronze Age site at Yapton, West Sussex, 1984, Sussex Archaeol Collect 125, Rudling, D (ed), 2002, Downland Settlement and Landuse: the archaeology of the Brighton bypass, London Rudling, D (ed), 2003, The Archaeology of Sussex to AD2000, Brighton Seager Thomas, M, 1998, New evidence for a Late Bronze Age occupation of Selsey Bill, Sussex Archaeol Collect 136, 7 22 Seager Thomas, M, 2001, Two early first millennium BC wells at Selsey, West Sussex and their wider significance, 81, Seager Thomas, M, 2006, Understanding Iron Age Norton, Sussex Archaeol Collect 143, Seager Thomas, M, 2008, From potsherds to people: Sussex prehistoric pottery, Sussex Archaeol Collect 146, Stace, C, 1997, New Flora of the British Isles, Cambridge Taylor, A, 2012, An Early Neolithic pit, Bronze Age occupation, Iron Age occupation and fields and Roman landscape features at Cippenham, Slough, Berkshire, in S Preston (ed), Settlement and Landscape Archaeology in the Middle Thames Valley: Slough and Environs, TVAS Monograph 14, Reading, 1 44 Taylor, A, Weale, A and Ford, S, 2014, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman Landscapes of the coastal plain, and a Late Iron Age warrior burial at North Bersted, Bognor Regis, West Sussex; excavations , TVAS mongraph 23, Reading Wallis, S, 2005, Lidsey Landfill, Woodgate, West Sussex, an archaeological evaluation, TVAS unpubl report 05/94, Reading Wallis, S, 2013, Middle/Later Bronze Age Occupation at Manor Road, Burgess Hill, West Sussex: draft publication report, TVAS unpubl rep 10/93c, Reading Yates, D T, 1999, Bronze Age field systems in the Thames Valley, Oxford J Archaeol 18,

54 Bronze Age and Middle Iron Age Occupation and by Sean Wallis and Steve Ford ISBN