T H A M E S V A L L E Y ARCHAEOLOGICAL · Rivendale Homes Ltd, 15 Pirelli Way, Eastleigh, SO50 5GE. Planning permission (F/18/84235) ... establish the character of these deposits

T H A M E S V A L L E Y

S E R V I C E S

ARCHAEOLOGICAL

Middle Iron Age Occupation at Grange Road, Netley, Hampshire

Archaeological Excavation

by Andy Taylor

Site Code: GRN19/36

(SU 4580 0920)

Middle Iron Age occupation at Grange Road,Netley, Hampshire

An Archaeological Excavation for

Rivendale Homes Ltd

by Andy Taylor

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code GRN 19/36

Summary

Site name: Land at Grange Road, Netley, Hampshire

Grid reference: SU 4581 0919

Site activity: Archaeological Excavation

Date and duration of project: 25th June-3rd July 2019

Project Coordinator: Danielle Milbank

Site supervisor: Andy Taylor

Site code: GRN 19/36

Area of site: c.460 sq m

Summary of results: The fieldwork revealed part of a Middle Iron Age occupation site rep-resented by pits and postholes with a radiocarbon date of 404-228 cal BC (UBA41169).Several late post-medieval field boundaries were also revealed.

Location and reference of archive: The archive is presently held at Thames ValleyArchaeological Services, Reading and will be deposited with the Hampshire Cultural Trust indue course.

This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of thecopyright holder. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.

Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 11.09.19Steve Preston 11.09.19

i

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR

Tel. (0118) 926 0552; email [email protected]; website: www.tvas.co.uk

Middle Iron Age Occupation at Grange Road, Netley, Hampshire:An Archaeological Excavation

by Andy Taylor

with contributions by Danielle Milbank, Richard Tabor and David Williams

Report 19/36c

Introduction

This report documents the results of an archaeological recording action carried out on land at Grange Road,

Netley, Hampshire (SU 4581 0919) (Fig. 1). The work was commissioned by Ms Becci Brisland, of

Rivendale Homes Ltd, 15 Pirelli Way, Eastleigh, SO50 5GE.

Planning permission (F/18/84235) has been granted by Eastleigh Borough Council to construct nine

dwellings with associated garages and landscaping on the site. This consent was subject to two conditions (3

and 4) concerning archaeology. This was in accordance with the Department of Communities and Local

Government's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012), and the Borough Council's policies

regarding archaeology. Geophysical survey (Beaverstock 2019) and trial trenching (Ford 2019) established

that part of the site contained archaeological features which would be damaged or destroyed by the

development. As a result of these findings a formal archaeological excavation of this area was required. The

field investigation was carried out to a specification approved by Mr Neil Adam, Senior Archaeologist with

Hampshire County Council, advisers to the Borough on matters relating to archaeology.

The fieldwork was undertaken by the author with assistance from Dan Neal between 25th June and 3rd

July 2019. The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading and will be

deposited with the Hampshire Cultural Trust in due course.

Location, topography and geology

The site is located to the north of the village of Netley, which lies between Weston and Hamble-le-Rice along

the north-eastern shore of Southampton Water (Fig. 1). The site itself is a nearly triangular parcel of land and

is relatively flat, lying at a height of c.25m above Ordnance Datum (aOD) and is currently not being utilized.

The underlying geology is mapped as River Terrace 3 gravel (BGS 1987), which was observed across the

stripped area.

1

Archaeological background

The archaeological potential of the site was highlighted in a desk-based assessment (Russel 2018). This

concluded that, due to its location within an area thought to be part of the monastic grange of Netley Abbey,

it could contain medieval and later remains. The monastery was founded in 1239 but Netley itself is first

mentioned in a charter of AD 955-958, attached to the will of Aelfsige, Bishop of Winchester. While the

assessment records nothing for the development site itself it does list the adjacent Netley Grange as an 18th-

or 19th-century farm. In a geophysical survey across the site itself (Beaverstock 2019), no anomalies of clear

archaeological interest were detected, however there was significant magnetic disturbance which may reflect

buried ferrous metalwork, the dumping of building rubble, drains or services. Such magnetic disturbance

could also mask the presence of buried archaeological features. Recent evaluation trenching confirmed the

presence of deposits on the site which correspond with structures on historic maps and which are of little

archaeological interest. However a number of undated or poorly dated ditches, along with an Iron Age pit

were revealed (Ford 2019). On this basis it was decided that a small area excavation was required (Fig. 2).

Objectives and methodology

The general objectives of the excavation were to:

excavate and record all archaeological deposits and features within the areas threatened by the proposeddevelopment;produce relative and absolute dating and phasing for deposits recorded on the site;establish the character of these deposits in attempt to define functional areas on the site such asindustrial, domestic, etc.; and toproduce information on the economy and local environment and compare and contrast this with theresults of other excavations in the region.

Specific research objectives were to address the following questions:

What is the date and nature of the Iron Age activity on the site? Does this represent an enclosed orunenclosed occupation site, or are the ditches present part of an organised landscape.Does the Iron Age activity continue into Roman times or is there a hiatus?

Topsoil and subsoil were removed from an area totalling some 460 sq m by a JCB-type machine fitted

with a toothless grading bucket under constant archaeological supervision. All archaeological features were

hand excavated to an agreed sampling fraction dependent on the nature and significance of the feature/

deposit. Bulk soil samples were taken for sieving for environmental remains and to enhance small finds

recovery.

2

Results

The excavation identified a modest amount of archaeological deposits consisting of Iron Age pits and

postholes along with post-medieval boundary ditches (Fig. 3).

Middle Iron Age

Pits

Pit 3 had been identified in the evaluation and had already produced 28 sherds of Iron Age pottery, pieces of

loomweight, a spindle whorl and pieces of Lodsworh greensand quernstone. In addition to these a further 50

pieces of pottery were also recovered from excavation of the other half of the feature. The pit was 1.05m in

diameter and 0.62m deep with a ‘beehive’ profile (Fig. 4), considered typical of Iron Age storage pits, albeit

on a smaller scale. It contained three fills. The basal fill (55) was a dark brown clayey sand with gravel and

some charcoal. The upper fill (53), accounting for most of the pit fill and all of its finds was very similar to

the basal fill. These two deposits were separated by a band of pale brown silty clay (54) which originated

from the east side of the pit but did not fill the whole base of the pit. Within fill 54 was a lens of charcoal

0.01-0.02m thick. A radiocarbon determination on charcoal from this lens returned a date of 404–228 cal BC

(UBA-41169) (Appendix 5).

Pit 5 measured 0.67m in diameter and 0.26m deep with a bowl-shaped profile. Its pale yellow grey

gravelly silt fill (57) produced 11 sherds of Middle-Late Iron Age pottery and 140g of burnt flint (Pl. 1)

Postholes

Four postholes were arranged in a roughly parallelogram layout but are unlikely to represent a structure of

that shape: they might instead form two pairs with separations of c. 2m. Posthole 9 measured 0.53m in

diameter and 0.40m deep. Its light brown grey gravelly silt fill (61) produced 72g of burnt flint and 2

fragments of fired clay.

Posthole 10 measured 0.42m in diameter and 0.28m deep. Its mid grey brown gravelly silt fill (62)

produced 18g of burnt flint.

Posthole 18 was 0.45m in diameter and 0.22m deep. It contained no dating evidence (Pl. 3).

Posthole 19 was 0.36m in diameter and 0.20m deep. It contained no dating evidence (Pl. 4).

3

Ditch 20

Ditch 20 was 0.93m wide and 0.33m deep. It appeared to be aligned approximately NNW–SSE and had a

bowl-shaped profile with a single gravelly fill (72). It contained three sherds of Iron Age pottery and 386g of

burnt flint. The majority of this feature was truncated away by a furrow (or ditch?), tree hole and ditch 100

(Pl. 2).

Post-Medieval

Three ditches and a gully (all post-medieval) were also encountered. The three ditches (100-102) related to

each other. Ditches 100 and 102 appeared to form a corner junction though ditch 100 was cut by 102. Ditch

101 was an earlier development as it was also cut by 102. It was on a different line to ditch 100 but seemed

still to be aligned on the corner junction.

Ditches

Ditch 100This ditch was aligned approximately NW-SE. It had four slots (2, 17, 21, 22) dug across it which revealed it

to be between 1.30m and 1.70m wide and between 0.30m and 0.58m deep with a bowl-shaped profile. It

produced modern glass as dating evidence, and burnt flint.

Ditch 101This ditch was aligned approximately N-S. Seven slots (1, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 15) dug across it revealed it to be

1.20m and 1.70m wide and between 0.31m and 0.49m deep with a shallow V-shaped profile. It produced

three residual sherds of Iron Age pottery as well as burnt flint and slate.

Ditch 102This ditch was aligned NE-SW and had three slots (7, 11, 16) dug across it and revealed it to be 2m wide,

and between 0.44m and 0.55m deep with a bowl-shaped profile. It produced fragments of slate as dating

evidence.

Gully 13

Gully 13 was of fairly modern date and cross-cut ditch 101. |It was 0.65m wide and 0.22m deep with a bowl-

shaped profile. It contained metal and glass finds.

4

Finds

Pottery by Richard Tabor

A total of 95 sherds of pottery, weighing 527g, from the evaluation and excavation phases were recorded

according to vessel part, weight and fabric (Appendix 2). Most are likely to date from the middle to late Iron

Age. The sherds were allocated to fabric groups based on the material, size and sorting of the principal

inclusions. Vessel forms were grouped also by characteristic profiles, where reconstruction was possible, or

by rim or other diagnostic features, including surface treatments, in accordance with guidelines for the

recording and analysis of prehistoric pottery (PCRG 2010).

All the fabrics were sandy, mainly silty, several in addition including grog and one dominated by it.

One of the sandy grog group, GS3, had rare, presumably incidental inclusions, of fine flint, and one fabric

included flint which had been added deliberately. Most of the fabrics are entirely consistent with what would

be expected of pottery circulating in Hampshire during the later Iron Age. However, a vesicular grog fabric,

G1 might be significantly earlier.

Undated: grog

G1 (medium) Moderately soft, grey slightly micaceous, vesicular fabric with buff orange to grey surfacesincluding moderate to common fine (<1mm), fine/medium (<2mm) and medium (<3mm) sub-roundedand sub-angular grog, common very fine (<0.2mm) to fine (0.5mm) sub-rounded quartz and rare ironoxides. Thickness range: 7mm.

Middle to late Iron Age: sand and mixtures

S1 (medium) Moderately hard, grey slightly micaceous, silty sand fabric with buff pink to grey surfaces.Thickness range: 9-14mm.

S2 (medium) Moderately hard, grey slightly micaceous, fabric with buff pink to brown grey surfacesincluding abundant fine (<0.2mm) quartz/sand and sparse iron oxides (<1mm). Thickness range: 4-8mm.

S3 (medium) Moderately hard, brownish grey slightly micaceous, fabric with reddish brown exterior andgrey interior surfaces including abundant fine (<0.5mm) sub-rounded quartz/sand and sparse iron oxides(<1mm). Thickness range: 6mm. Burnished exterior.

GS1 (medium) Moderately soft, grey, slightly micaceous, vesicular silty sand fabric with buff pink surfaceswith mainly sub-angular fine (<1mm) to medium (<2mm) voids and including sparse fine to medium sub-rounded and sub-angular grog (<2mm). Thickness range: 10mm. The voids appear to be on the surfacesand edges rather than in the body of the pot and may indicate inclusions which have fallen rather thanleached out.

GS2 (medium) Moderately hard, grey sparsely micaceous, silty sand fabric including sparse fine sub-roundedand sub-angular grog (<1mm). Thickness range: 5-14+mm. Refractory.

GS3 (medium) Moderately hard, grey sparsely micaceous fabric with buff pink exterior and grey interiorsurfaces including abundant fine (<0.5mm) and rare fine/medium (<1mm) sub-rounded quartz, sparse finesub-rounded and sub-angular grog (<1mm) and rarely fine (<1mm) sub-angular flint. Thickness range:10mm.

SF1 (medium) Moderately hard, grey sandy fabric with buff pink to grey surfaces including sparse fine(<1mm) to coarse (<4mm) burnt sub-angular flint. Thickness range: 7mm.

5

Two upper profiles and a rim from pit 3 were from identifiable forms. A high round-shouldered jar with an

everted, rounded rim over a concave short neck is of Danebury Environs Project (DEP) type JB4.1. A weakly

expanded base with a slightly concave underside is probably from the same jar. A pronounced high shoulder

below which is a marked inward curve has a similar rim and neck but derives from a type BA2.1 bowl. An

incurved, tapering rounded rim is from a PA1.1 type ovoid jar. A reconstructed incurved, outwardly

thickened and flattened rim from pit 5 may be of be of a barrel-form jar type JC1 although the fabric, G1,

would be unusual for the type and an earlier date cannot be excluded (Brown 2000, 86, fig. 3.19).

The BA2.1 bowl sherd is the most narrowly indicative of a date from pit 3, the type deemed to been

current within a span of 470BC to 360BC. This fits well with the PA1 jar although is deemed to have

circulated until the end of the 4th century. (Brown 2000, 88, 90). The JB4 type jar also first appears in the

early middle Iron Age but remained in use until the late middle Iron Age (Brown 2000, 86). A 5th to 4th

century date is most likely. JC1 and JB4 types were concurrent.

Two sherds from pit 3 which refitted to form what appeared to be a shoulder from a substantial jar were

in the same fabric, GS2, as 57 other fragments, some of an indeterminate thickness exceeding 14mm, others

with two surfaces but with thickness as little as 5mm. The material should be treated as fired clay, rather than

pottery, forming at least two objects. Some of the thin-walled material retains a curvature suggestive of the

outer wrap from clay casting moulds. All may be refractory.

Stone by David F Williams

Worked stone was recovered from two features during the evaluation. The majority consisted of twelve

broken pieces of a rotary quernstone from pit 3, with a number of them showing a flat, worn, grinding

surface. The quern is made from a hard, compact, dark greenish-grey greensand. Cherty swirls and small

scattered worm holes can be seen in the fabric of the stone, suggesting that this is a product of the Lodsworth

quarry site in west Sussex (Peacock 1987). Lodsworth querns were widely distributed during the Iron Age

and Roman periods and finds are particularly common in Hampshire, perhaps making use of the local river

systems (cf. Peacock 1987, 78-80 and fig. 7; Shaffrey and Roe 2011, 321).

Fired Clay by Danielle Milbank

A modest quantity (3 pieces weighing 88g) of fired clay was recovered in the course of the excavation, which

comprised small fragments and no complete fired clay objects. Typically, the fabric was a fine clay with

6

sparse sandy inclusions and an orange red colour, with a cereal grain impression on one piece. The fragments

(two from posthole 9, (61), and one from ditch slot 20, (72)) have no diagnostic characteristics and may

represent daub walling or fragmentary fired clay objects. The more interesting pieces came from the

evaluation, as follows:

Loomweight

A total of 26 fragments of fired clay (228g) were recovered from pit 3 (all from top fill 53). The larger pieces

appeared to be shaped and it is likely they are all fragments from a loomweight rather than daub, though no

perforations were observed. This would be a typical artefact matching the middle Iron Age date of the

pottery.

Spindlewhorl

A fired clay spindlewhorl was recovered, also from pit 3 (53). It was 45mm in diameter and 25mm deep with

a central perforation 8mm across. It weighed 24g. It had a truncated cone profile. This would be entirely

consistent with the middle to late Iron Age date of the pit.

Charred plant remains

Eight bulk soil samples were taken from the site in addition to a hand selected sample of charcoal (Appendix

1). Sub-samples of 16L from all eight samples were floated and sieved using a 0.25mm mesh and air dried.

The samples produced no charred plant remains and mostly just a few flecks of charcoal, with the exception

of pit 3 which had a modest quantity of charcoal, but too small for identification.

Radiocarbon dating

One sample of unidentified wood charcoal from pit 3 was submitted to the Chrono Lab at Queen’s

University, Belfast, for AMS radiocarbon dating. Details of methodology are in the archive; in summary the

lab considered the results reliable. The results are detailed in Appendix 5, where the probability is expressed

as relative area under the curve at 2 sigma (95% confidence). The results were calibrated with CALIB rev 7

(used in conjunction with Stuiver and Reimer 1993, with data from IntCal 13.14c (Reimer et al 2013).

7

Conclusion

The excavation identified a number of archaeological deposits to add to those previously identified in the

evaluation stage of the project .

The more significant findings relate to Iron Age activity, which appears to be the first record of a site of

this period in the vicinity. The radiocarbon date produced allows this to be accurately assigned to the Middle

Iron Age, and between c. 400 and 200 BC. The county Historic Environment Record has many entries for

the environs of Netley and includes a number of archaeological investigations, but few of these relate to the

Iron Age or prehistory in general. Most entries relate to various components of medieval Netley Abbey and

despite the site’s name here (Grange Farm), the fieldwork revealed nothing to suggest any link with the

Abbey. North west of the site a collection of Neolithic finds have been recorded in a watching brief with a

second location revealing Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman pottery. A few Iron Age sherds are reports from

a location to the east of the site.

While no Iron Age settlement structures (such as post-built roundhouses or ring gully roundhouses)

were identified, the presence of postholes and at least two pits, with domestic waste including pottery, quern

fragments and a spindle whorl indicate the presence of an occupation site. Whether this is a small, short-lived

occupation site, or the excavated deposits lie on the periphery of a substantial site, cannot yet be determined.

The ‘beehive’ form of pit 3 is commonly associated with grain storage, although this example is much

smaller than those at, for example, Danebury which typically have capacities of 2–4 cubic metres (Cunliffe

and Poole 1991, 153–163). Surprisingly no charred plant remains relating to cereal production were

recovered.

In the wider area of south east Hampshire and the clayey or sandy soils of the Hampshire basin, Iron

Age settlement is poorly understood compared to the chalkland settlement to the north or on the Sussex

coastal plain. Recent discoveries of Middle Iron Age occupation at Hatch Farm, Eastleigh (Taylor 2017)

also supported by a radiocarbon chronology, and recent discoveries on the lie of the Stubbington Bypass,

Fareham (Manisse in prep) have started to put sites such as Grange Road in a local context.

The remaining features on the site were all dated to late post-medieval times and represent some

enclosure or field boundaries that were remodelled on at least one occasion.

8

References

BGS, 1987, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000, Sheet 315, Solid and Drift Edition, KeyworthBeaverstock, K, 2019, ‘Land at Grange Road, Netley, Hampshire: A Geophysical Survey (Magnetic)’,

Thames Valley Archaeological Services unpubl rep 19/36, ReadingBrown, L, 2000, ‘The later prehistoric pottery’, in B Cunliffe, The Danebury Environs Programme. The

prehistory of a Wessex landscape. Volume 1: Introduction. Oxford, 79-124Cunliffe, B and Poole, C, 1991, Danebury, An Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire, Vol 4, the excavations 1979–

1988: the site, CBA Res Rep 73a, LondonFord, S, 2019, ‘Land at Grange Road, Netley, Hampshire: An archaeological evaluation, Thames Valley

Archaeological Services unpubl rep 19/36, Reading Manisse, P, in prep, Excavation of Iron Age and Roman settlement on the line of the Stubbington Bypass,

Fareham, Hampshire, Thames Valley Archaeological Services project 19/61, Reading NPPF, 2018, National Planning Policy Framework, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local

Government, LondonPCRG, 2010, The Study of Prehistoric Pottery: General policies and guidelines for analysis and publication, Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group, occasional papers 1 & 2, 3rd edition Peacock, D P S, 1987, ‘Iron Age and Roman quern production at Lodsworth, West Sussex’, Antiq J 67, 61–85Reimer, P J, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, J W, Blackwell, P G, Bronk Ramsey, C, Buck, C E, Cheng, H,

Edwards, R L, Friedrich, M, Grootes, P M, Guilderson, T P, Haflidason, H, Hajdas, I, Hatté, C, Heaton, TJ, Hogg, A G, Hughen, K A, Kaiser, K F, Kromer, B, Manning, S W, Niu, M, Reimer, R W, Richards, DA, Scott, E M, Southon, J R, Turney, C S M and van der Plicht, J, 2013, ‘IntCal13 and MARINE13radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50000 years cal BP’, Radiocarbon, 55(4), 1869–87

Russel, A D, 2018, ‘Archaeological Heritage Statement for land at Netley Grange, Hampshire’, SouthamptonArchaeology Unit unpubl rep 1341, Southampton

Shaffrey, R and Roe, F, 2011, ‘The Widening use of Lodsworth Stone: Neolithic to Romano-British QuernDistribution’, in D F Williams and D P S Peacock (eds), Bread for the People: the archaeology of millsand milling, Oxford

Stuiver, M and Reimer, P J, 1993, ‘Extended 14C data base and revised Calib 3.014c age calibrationprogram’, Radiocarbon, 35, 215–30

Taylor, A, 2017, Middle Iron Age Enclosure at Hatch Farm, West End, Eastleigh, Hampshire, AnArchaeological Excavation, draft publication report, Thames Valley Archaeological Services project16/130, Reading

9

APPENDIX 1: Catalogue of Excavated Features

Cut Fill Type Group Sample Charcoal Date Comment1 50-1 Ditch 101 Late/Post-medieval Slate2 52 ditch 100 Late/Post-medieval By association3 53-5 Pit 1,9 XX MIA 404–228 cal BC4 56 Ditch 101 Late/Post-medieval By association5 57 Pit 2 - MIA Pottery6 58 Ditch 101 Late/Post-medieval Slate7 59 Ditch 102 Late/Post-medieval Slate8 60 Ditch 101 8 - Late/Post-medieval Meta, slate9 61 Posthole 3 X MIA? Fired clay

10 62 Posthole 4 - MIA?11 63 Ditch 102 Late/Post-medieval By association12 64 Ditch 101 Late/Post-medieval By association13 65 Ditch Late/Post-medieval Cuts 101; Glass, metal14 66 Ditch 101 Late/Post-medieval Slate15 67 Ditch 101 Late/Post-medieval By association16 68 Ditch 102 Late/Post-medieval By association17 69 Ditch 100 Late/Post-medieval glass18 70 Posthole 5 - MIA?19 71 Posthole 6 - MIA?20 72 Ditch 7 - MIA Pottery21 73 Ditch 100 Late/Post-medieval Glass22 74 Ditch 100 Late/Post-medieval Bottle glass

Charcoal: X: present; XX some;

10

APPENDIX 2: Catalogue of Pottery by fabric (weight in g)

G1 SF1 S1 S2 S3 GS1 GS2 GS3 Totalcut deposit no wt no wt no wt no wt no wt no wt no wt1 50 - - - - - - - - - - 2 4 - - - - 2 43 53 - - 1 10 12 155 5 15 1 9 - - 59 282 - - 78 4714 56 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 6 1 65 57 10 39 - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 11 4020 72 - - 3 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 6

10 39 4 16 12 155 5 15 2 10 2 4 59 282 1 6 95 527

11

APPENDIX 3: Catalogue of Worked Stone

Cut Deposit Type no Wt (g)1 50 Ditch 2 263 53 Pit 12 4000

12

APPENDIX 4: Catalogue of Fired Clay

Cut Deposit Type No Wt (g) Comment3 53 Pit 2 253 53 Pit 26 228 spindle whorl; loomweight9 61 Posthole 2 28

20 72 Ditch 1 60

13

APPENDIX 5: Radiocarbon dating (all given at 2-sigma, most probable dates highlighted)

Lab ID Context Material Radiocarbon Age (BP) F14C Calibrated Age (BC) ProbabilityUBA-41169 Pit 3 (53) Charcoal 2286 + 33 0.7523 + 0.0031 404-352

297-228221-211

64.833.20.2

14

SU45000 46000

45 46 47

45 46 47

89

1011

89

1011

www.memory-map.com OS 1:25k HD Great Britain 2016. Copyright © 2016 Crown Copyright; OS, Licence Number 100034184

Land at Grange Road, Netley,Hampshire, 2019

Archaeological ExcavationFigure 1. Location of site within Hampshire.

GRN 19/36c

08000

09000

10000

Reproduced under licence from Ordnance Survey Explorer Digital mapping at 1:12500Crown Copyright reserved

SITE

SITE

Basingstoke

Andover

SOUTHAMPTON

New Forest

PORTSMOUTHGosport

Farnborough

Ringwood

Winchester

3

42

511-12

15-1720

7

18

13-14

22

21

1918

910

6

GRN 19/36c

Figure 2. Location of excavation area in relation to evaluation trenches.

Land at Grange Road, Netley, Hampshire, 2019

Archaeological Excavation

0 50m

N

Junior School

GRANGE ROAD

Netley Abbey

SU45750 4585045800

09250

09150

09200

2

34

1

Car Park

Netley Grange

rubble

modern

Excavation area

GRN 19/36c

Figure 3. Plan of all excavated features

Land at Grange Road, Netley, Hampshire, 2019

Archaeological Excavation

0 10m

N

SU45800

09200

2

3

3

4

1

2

8

22

215

19

18

9

10

6

20

7

12 11

15

1617

1314

furrow or ditch

100

101

102

roots

404-228 cal BC

GRN 19/36c

Figure 4. Sections.

Land at Grange Road, Netley, Hampshire, 2019

Archaeological Excavation

0 1m

61

9

EW 23.65m

NESW

57

5

62

10

W E 23.62m

70

18

W E

19

71

23.45m 23.51mW E

6 21

13

14

65

W SE NWE

66

58

W E NE SW

73

55

5354

3

NE SW23.44m

7

59

SENW

20

72Furrow

(or ditch)

NE

11

12

63 64

Middle Iron Age

Post-Medieval ditches

101 100102

Plate 2. Ditch 20 and furrow, looking north west, Scales: 0.5m and 0.3m.

Plate 3. Posthole 18, looking north, Scales: 0.5m and 0.1m.

Land at Grange Road, Netley,Hampshire, 2019

Archaeological ExcavationPlates 1 - 4.

GRN 19/36c

Plate 1. Pit 5, looking north-east, Scales: 0.5m and 0.1m.

Plate 4. Posthole 19, looking north, Scales: 0.5m and 0.1m.

TIME CHART

Calendar Years

Modern AD 1901

Victorian AD 1837

Post Medieval AD 1500

Medieval AD 1066

Saxon AD 410

Roman AD 43 AD 0 BCIron Age 750 BC

Bronze Age: Late 1300 BC

Bronze Age: Middle 1700 BC

Bronze Age: Early 2100 BC

Neolithic: Late 3300 BC

Neolithic: Early 4300 BC

Mesolithic: Late 6000 BC

Mesolithic: Early 10000 BC

Palaeolithic: Upper 30000 BC

Palaeolithic: Middle 70000 BC

Palaeolithic: Lower 2,000,000 BC

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd,47-49 De Beauvoir Road,

Reading RG1 5NR

Tel: 0118 9260552Email: [email protected]: www.tvas.co.uk

Offices in:Brighton, Taunton, Stoke-on-Trent and Ennis (Ireland)