MUSEUM OF LONDON ARCHAEOLOGY MONOGRAPH 68 MOLA The evolution and exploitation of the Avon flood plain at Bath and the development of the southern suburb Excavations at SouthGate, Bath, 2006–9 Bruno Barber with Craig Halsey, Marek Lewcun and Christopher Phillpotts
21
Embed
The evolution and exploitation of the Avon flood plain at Bath and the development of the southern suburb: excavations at SouthGate, Bath, 2006-9
The SouthGate site lies between the River Avon and the southern defences of Roman and later Bath. This volume describes the evolution of the local Avon flood plain from the Pleistocene to the 20th century. Highlights include a large Early and Late Mesolithic lithic assemblage, Anglo-Saxon extramural activity, the Norman and later development of the Southgate suburb, and an artificial watercourse which eventually became an open sewer known as the Bum Ditch. Later periods give glimpses of a low-status area that provided goods, food and services to the more familiar wealthy Georgian city, the ‘Baedeker’ air raids and the Beatles.
To purchase a copy of this book visit the MOLA website (http://ow.ly/M0lYD)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
M U S E U M O F L O N D O N A R C H A E O L O G Y M O N O G R A P H 6 8
MOLA
The evolution and exploitation of
the Avon flood plain at Bath and the
development of the southern suburbExcavations at SouthGate, Bath, 2006–9
Bruno Barber with Craig Halsey, Marek Lewcun and Christopher Phillpotts
The evolution and exploitation of theAvon flood plain at Bath and thedevelopment of the southern suburb
Excavations at SouthGate, Bath, 2006–9
MOLA Monograph Series
For more information about these titles and other MOLA publications visit thepublications page at www.mola.org.uk
1 Excavations at the priory and hospital of St Mary Spital, London
2 The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection: a handbook
3 The Cross Bones burial ground, Redcross Way, Southwark, London: archaeologicalexcavations (1991–8) for the London Underground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project
4 The eastern cemetery of Roman London: excavations 1983–90
5 The Holocene evolution of the London Thames: archaeological excavations (1991–8) forthe London Underground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project
6 The Limehouse porcelain manufactory: excavations at 108 –116 Narrow Street, London,1990
7 Roman defences and medieval industry: excavations at Baltic House, City of London
8 London bridge: 2000 years of a river crossing
9 Roman and medieval townhouses on the London waterfront: excavations at Governor’sHouse, City of London
10 The London Charterhouse
11 Medieval ‘Westminster’ floor tiles
12 Settlement in Roman Southwark: archaeological excavations (1991–8) for the LondonUnderground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project
13 Aspects of medieval and later Southwark: archaeological excavations (1991 –8) for theLondon Underground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project
14 The prehistory and topography of Southwark and Lambeth
15 Middle Saxon London: excavations at the Royal Opera House 1989–99
16 Urban development in north-west Roman Southwark: excavations 1974–90
17 Industry in north-west Roman Southwark: excavations 1984–8
18 The Cistercian abbey of St Mary Stratford Langthorne, Essex: archaeologicalexcavations for the London Underground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project
19 Material culture in London in an age of transition: Tudor and Stuart period finds c 1450–c 1700 from excavations at riverside sites in Southwark
20 Excavations at the priory of the Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem,Clerkenwell, London
21 Roman and medieval Cripplegate, City of London: archaeological excavations 1992–8
22 The royal palace, abbey and town of Westminster on Thorney Island: archaeologicalexcavations (1991–8) for the London Underground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project
23 A prestigious Roman building complex on the Southwark waterfront: excavations atWinchester Palace, London, 1983–90
24 Holy Trinity Priory, Aldgate, City of London: an archaeological reconstruction andhistory
25 Roman pottery production in the Walbrook valley: excavations at 20–28 Moorgate,City of London, 1998–2000
26 Prehistoric landscape to Roman villa: excavations at Beddington, Surrey, 1981–7
27 Saxon, medieval and post-medieval settlement at Sol Central, Marefair, Northampton:archaeological excavations 1998–2002
28 John Baker’s late 17th-century glasshouse at Vauxhall
29 The medieval postern gate by the Tower of London
30 Roman and later development east of the forum and Cornhill: excavations at Lloyd’sRegister, 71 Fenchurch Street, City of London
31 Winchester Palace: excavations at the Southwark residence of the bishops of Winchester
32 Development on Roman London’s western hill: excavations at Paternoster Square, Cityof London
33 Within these walls: Roman and medieval defences north of Newgate at the MerrillLynch Financial Centre, City of London
34 The Augustinian priory of St Mary Merton, Surrey: excavations 1976–90
35 London’s Roman amphitheatre: excavations at the Guildhall
36 The London Guildhall: an archaeological history of a neighbourhood from earlymedieval to modern times
37 Roman London and the Walbrook stream crossing: excavations at 1 Poultry andvicinity, City of London
38 The development of early medieval and later Poultry and Cheapside: excavations at 1 Poultry and vicinity, City of London
39 Burial at the site of the parish church of St Benet Sherehog before and after the GreatFire: excavations at 1 Poultry, City of London
40 London’s delftware industry: the tin-glazed pottery industries of Southwark and Lambeth
41 Early and Middle Saxon rural settlement in the London region
42 Roman Southwark settlement and economy: excavations in Southwark 1973–91
43 The Black Death cemetery, East Smithfield, London
44 The Cistercian abbey of St Mary Graces, East Smithfield, London
45 The Royal Navy victualling yard, East Smithfield, London
46 St Marylebone church and burial ground in the 18th to 19th centuries: excavations at St Marylebone school, 1992 and 2004–6
47 Great houses, moats and mills on the south bank of the Thames: medieval and TudorSouthwark and Rotherhithe
48 The Rose and the Globe – playhouses of Shakespeare’s Bankside, Southwark:excavations 1988–91
49 A dated type series of London medieval pottery: Part 5, Shelly-sandy ware and thegreyware industries
50 The Cluniac priory and abbey of St Saviour Bermondsey, Surrey: excavations 1984–95
51 Three Ways Wharf, Uxbridge: a Lateglacial and Early Holocene hunter-gatherer site inthe Colne valley
52 The impact of the railways in the East End 1830–2010: historical archaeology from theLondon Overground East London line
53 Holywell Priory and the development of Shoreditch up to 1600: archaeology from theLondon Overground East London line
54 Archaeological landscapes of east London: six multi-period sites excavated in advance ofgravel quarrying in the London Borough of Havering
55 Mapping past landscapes in the lower Lea valley: a geoarchaeological study of theQuaternary sequence
56 Disease in London, 1st–19th centuries: an illustrated guide to diagnosis
57 The Augustinian nunnery of St Mary Clerkenwell, London: excavations 1974–96
58 The northern cemetery of Roman London: excavations at Spitalfields Market, LondonE1, 1991–2007
59 The medieval priory and hospital of St Mary Spital and the Bishopsgate suburb:excavations at Spitalfields Market, London E1, 1991–2007
60 A bioarchaeological study of medieval burials on the site of St Mary Spital: excavationsat Spitalfields Market, London E1, 1991–2007
61 The Spitalfields suburb 1539–c 1880: excavations at Spitalfields Market, London E1,1991–2007
62 Doctors, dissection and resurrection men: excavations in the 19th-century burial groundof the London Hospital, 2006
63 Lundenwic: excavations in Middle Saxon London, 1987–2000
64 ‘He being dead yet speaketh’: excavations at three post-medieval burial grounds inTower Hamlets, east London, 2004–10
65 Roman fortifications and urban development on the eastern hill: excavations atPlantation Place, City of London, 1997–2003
66 Medieval to early post-medieval tenements and Middle Eastern imports: excavations atPlantation Place, City of London, 1997–2003
67 Romano-British round houses to medieval parish: excavations at 10 Gresham Street,City of London, 1999–2002
68 The evolution and exploitation of the Avon flood plain at Bath and the development ofthe southern suburb: excavations at SouthGate, Bath, 2006–9
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the copyright owner.
excavation trenches and watching brief areas . . . . . 4Fig 5 View of typical open-area excavation, showing the
impact of pile caps from the 1970s development . . . 5Fig 6 View showing cramped conditions in the CSO/sewer
trench along Southgate Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Fig 7 Graphical conventions used in this report . . . . . . 8Fig 8 Pleistocene river terraces and geology: a – as
mapped by the British Geological Survey (1965); b – schematic diagram showing the subdivision of the Avon Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Fig 9 Plan showing the location of excavation areas,geoarchaeological trenches and borehole data . . . . 15
Fig 10 Schematic section through: a – the northern part of geotrench 2; b – the central part of geotrench 3; c – the southern part of geotrench 2 . . . . . . . . 16
Fig 11 Surface plot of the Lias Clay, also showing scour features cut into the bedrock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Fig 12 Detailed view of load and flame structures beneathweakly horizontally bedded gravels (Gh), associated with architectural element GB (L2) . . . . . . . . . . 18
Fig 13 Detailed view of channelised terrace gravels (L3) in the west-facing section of geotrench 3 . . . . . . . 20
Fig 14 General view showing the full channel complex of L4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Fig 15 Surface plot of Late Pleistocene deposits . . . . . . . 21Fig 16 Detailed view of distal part of primary Lateglacial
channel (L4) in west-facing section of geotrench 2 . . 22Fig 17 Detailed view of proximal part of primary
Fig 18 Surface plot of pre-L5 deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Fig 19 Detailed view of secondary Lateglacial channel (L5) . 26Fig 20 Detailed view of tertiary Lateglacial channel (L6) . . 27Fig 21 North–south transect across the site illustrating the
complete set of lithofacies associations (L1–L11) . . . 28Fig 22 Schematic plan showing the development of channel
features and major landforms across the site: a – terrace gravels (L1–L3) and primary Lateglacialchannel (L4); b – secondary and tertiary Lateglacialchannels (L5–L6); c – Holocene channel (L10) . . . . 28
Fig 23 Surface plot of the Early Holocene . . . . . . . . . . 33Fig 24 Surface plot of pre-Holocene deposits . . . . . . . . 35
Fig 25 Contour plot showing the density of the lithic scatter by number of artefacts per square metre . . . 38
Fig 26 Contour plot showing the density of the lithic scatter by weight average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Fig 27 Typical single-platform bladelet cores, blades and bladelets from the lithic scatter . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Fig 28 Leaf-shaped arrowhead <F19> . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Fig 29 The site in relation to Roman Bath . . . . . . . . . . 41Fig 30 Possible Roman features and Roman find-spots
(period 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Fig 31 Penannular brooch <S1> and strip bracelet <S3> . . 44Fig 32 Glass gaming counters <S7>–<S22> . . . . . . . . . . 45Fig 33 Conjectural plan of period 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Fig 34 Reconstructed profile across the burghal ditch (S1) . . 46Fig 35 The site in relation to medieval Bath . . . . . . . . . 48Fig 36 Plan of principal Late Saxon to early post-Conquest
Areas 7–10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Fig 40 Silver halfpenny <C13> of Edward the Elder . . . . 55Fig 41 View of the grain dryer/oven (S6) . . . . . . . . . . 55Fig 42 Detail of the grain dryer/oven (S6) . . . . . . . . . . 56Fig 43 Bath fabric B jars <P2>–<P4> . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Fig 44 Ceramic moulds <S26>–<S28> . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Fig 45 Oolitic limestone vessel <S29> . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Fig 46 Plan of principal post-Conquest to c 1135
archaeological features (period 5, phase 2) . . . . . . 59Fig 47 View of the south (external) face of the city wall
(S12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Fig 48 View of the north (internal) face of the city wall . . 61Fig 49 View of part of the causeway (S4) across the
silted-up burghal ditch (S1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Fig 50 Detailed plan showing activity in Open Areas
watercourse (S8) in the main excavation trenches,highlighting period 5, phase 3 activity . . . . . . . . 71
Fig 57 Detailed plan showing the remains of Building 2 and its relationship with the pond (S10) and watercourse (S8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Fig 58 View of the west wall of sluice structure (B2) under excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Fig 59 Plan of principal archaeological features c 1250/70–99 (period 5, phase 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Fig 60 View of collapsed section of masonry <A1>,
FIGURES
xii
showing decorative tooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Fig 61 Stone spindle whorl <S25> and iron key <S32> . . . . 76Fig 62 View showing one of the larger exposures of the
surface of Road 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Fig 63 Bath fabric A pitchers <P6>–<P7> . . . . . . . . . . . 78Fig 64 View of the kerb (S22) on the western side of
Fig 70 View showing work in progress on the frontage of Building 5, the possible pavement (S19) and the robbed water conduit (S18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Fig 71 Detailed plans of part of the Southgate Street frontage (Buildings 6–10) to show the two stages of development during period 5, phase 4 . . . . . . . . 83
Fig 72 View of the south end of Building 9 under excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Fig 73 View of the drain within Building 9 . . . . . . . . . 84Fig 74 Detailed plan showing activity in Open Areas 16–17 . 85Fig 75 Decorated medieval pottery <P8>–<P10> from
Open Area 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Fig 76 Schematic south-facing sections across the
watercourse (S8) in the main excavation trenches,highlighting period 5, phase 4 activity . . . . . . . . 87
Fig 78 View of the medieval bridge from the east by Bernard Lens in 1718, showing the gate and the projecting chapel of St Lawrence . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Fig 79 Plan of principal archaeological features c 1300–1479 (period 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Fig 80 Copper-alloy spoon or scale balance <S33> . . . . . . 95Fig 81 Detailed plan of Open Area 18 in period 6 . . . . . . 95Fig 82 Plan of principal archaeological features c 1480–
1599 (period 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Fig 83 Detailed plan of Open Area 17 in period 7 . . . . . 101Fig 84 Copper-alloy buckles <S34>–<S35> and dress pin
<S36>, plain glass cylindrical beaker <G5> . . . . . 101Fig 85 View of stone-lined privy Structure 24 . . . . . . . 101Fig 86 Wanstrow ware pipkin <P15> . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Fig 87 Detailed plan of Open Area 18 in period 7 . . . . . 102Fig 88 Schematic south-facing sections across the
watercourse (S8) in the main excavation trenches,highlighting period 7 activity . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Fig 89 Bacon roaster <P16> and medallion from chafing dish <P17>, from Structure 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Fig 116 View showing the investigation of ditch (S38) during the watching brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Fig 117 Lead musket ball <S48> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134Fig 118 Plan showing a distinct phase of early 18th-century
activity identified towards the north of the site (OA23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Fig 119 Key Bridge or Old Bridge c 1755 by Thomas Robins the elder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
xiii
Fig 120 Detail from Wood’s map of 1735 . . . . . . . . . . 138Fig 121 Detail from Harcourt Masters’ map of 1795 . . . . 138Fig 122 Plan of prinicipal archaeological features c 1726–99
(period 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140Fig 123 Detailed plan of the north-west part of the site in
period 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142Fig 124 Detailed plan of the south-west part of the site in
period 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143Fig 125 Pottery <P26>–<P30> from Open Area 25 . . . . . 145Fig 126 Glass from period 9: beaker or jar <G14>, goblet
stem <G34>, shallow goblet bowl <G36>, onion bottle <G85>, case bottle <G98> and onion bottle with applied seal <G79> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Fig 127 View of the eastern cellar of Building 27 . . . . . . 148Fig 128 Wanstrow ware shallow bowl <P31> . . . . . . . . 149Fig 129 Wooden book cover <S70> from the artificial
Wanstrow ware candlestick <P33> . . . . . . . . . . 151Fig 131 Glass from period 9: goblets <G29> and <G47>,
flask <G57>, onion bottle <G86>, bottles with applied seals <G80>,<G89>, <G92>, mallet bottle base <G88> and possible imported bottle <G100> . 152
Fig 132 Schematic south-facing sections across the watercourse (S8) and culvert (S51) in the main excavation trenches, highlighting period 9 structures and deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Fig 133 View of the Bum Ditch culvert (S51), showing the contrast between the alluvial soils of Open Area 32 and the infilled Bum Ditch (S8) . . . . . . 153
Fig 134 English porcelain saucer <P34> . . . . . . . . . . . 154Fig 135 Domestic items from a cesspit (S59): copper-alloy
button <S53>, pins <S55>, pipeclay wig curler <S56> and copper-alloy finger ring <S65> . . . . . 155
Fig 136 View of Building 39 under excavation . . . . . . . 155Fig 137 Pipeclay wig curlers <S37>–<S39> . . . . . . . . . 156Fig 138 Tin-glazed ware ointment pots <P35>–<P37> . . . 157Fig 139 Wanstrow ware or Avon-sourced red ware bowl
<P38> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157Fig 140 Detail from Cotterell’s survey of 1852 . . . . . . . 158Fig 141 Plan of principal archaeological features c 1800–99
Fig 151 The interior of St James’s Hall, c 1870 . . . . . . . 166Fig 152 Copper-alloy works token <C63> . . . . . . . . . . 167Fig 153 Stoneware blackleading bottles <P48>–<P52>
and bung jar <P53> from Open Area 40 . . . . . . 167Fig 154 Detail of the Bath bomb impacts map of 1942 . . . 168Fig 155 View showing bomb damage between Stanley
Road and Newark Street in April 1942 . . . . . . . 169Fig 156 Plan of principal archaeological features and find-
spots c 1900+ (period 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170Fig 157 Glass from period 11: imported machine-made wine
Fig 177 Charts showing the distribution of blades by size . 209Fig 178 Microliths, arrowheads and burins . . . . . . . . . 210Fig 179 Other tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Fig 180 Child’s gravestone <A2> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214Fig 181 Fragments of high-relief sculptural frieze <A6> . . 214Fig 182 Part of post-medieval water feature <A9> with
child’s bare feet and concealed lead pipe . . . . . . . 215Fig 183 Stone building material <A12>–<A16> . . . . . . . 216Fig 184 Roman tile and brick <T1>–<T3> . . . . . . . . . 222Fig 185 Floor-tile designs of the Nash Hill <T4>–<T6>
other building material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215Table 18 Lithofacies classification used in this report . . . . 219Table 19 Architectural elements classification used in
this report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219Table 20 Lithofacies associations defined in this report . . 220Table 21 Summary of ceramic building material fabric
medieval pottery <P1>–<P66> . . . . . . . . . . 233Table 23 Common medieval pottery fabrics from Bath . . 234Table 24 Post-medieval pottery by source of supply
and statistical counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237Table 25 Post-medieval red earthenwares by period . . . . 238Table 26 Somerset wares by period and statistical counts . 238Table 27 Wanstrow wares by period and statistical counts . 239Table 28 General quantification of the categories of glass
in the three main periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240Table 29 Classification of the 16th- to 17th-century glass
beaker forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241Table 30 Types of 16th- to 17th-century wine glass . . . . 243Table 31 Quantification of the different bottle forms in
periods 8, 9 and 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247Table 32 Distribution of the site coins and tokens . . . . . 256Table 33 Distribution of the hoard coins . . . . . . . . . . 257Table 34 Summary of slag types and processes . . . . . . . 263Table 35 Statistical details for smithing hearth bottoms . . 263Table 36 List of wood samples identified to species by
microscope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264Table 37 Total recovery of faunal remains as species and
fragment counts by period . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266Table 38 Faunal composition by period . . . . . . . . . . . 267Table 39 Mineral content of the Hot Bath (or Hetling)
CD CATALOGUECD Cat 1 Complete catalogue of selected glass items
CD FIGURESCD Fig 1 Land-use diagramCD Fig 2 Detailed view of scour feature infilled with gravel
lag depositsCD Fig 3 Detailed view showing sampling location OSL19CD Fig 4 View of the west-facing section of geotrench 3CD Fig 5 Detailed view of terrace gravelsCD Fig 6 Detailed view of proximal channel fills of primary
Lateglacial channel (L4)CD Fig 7 View of a geoarchaeologist recording fills of
primary Lateglacial channel (L4)CD Fig 8 Detailed view of fills of primary Lateglacial
channel (L4)CD Fig 9 Detailed view of secondary Lateglacial channel
(L5)CD Fig 10 Detailed view of northern part of secondary
Lateglacial channel (L5)CD Fig 11 Detailed view of horizontally bedded sands and
silts infilling secondary Lateglacial channel (L5)CD Fig 12 Detailed view of secondary Lateglacial channel (L5)CD Fig 13 Scan of subsample M623A, showing the boundary
between poorly sorted sands and gravels of unit 4and sandy loam of unit 3
CD Fig 14 Photomicrograph of subsample M623B, showingwell-sorted sands of unit 5
CD Fig 15 Scan of part of monolith {624}CD Fig 16 Scan of subsample M624A, showing irregular and
discontinuous junction between alluvium (unit 1),fragmented buried topsoil (unit 2up, Ah1) and underlying lower topsoil (unit 2, Ah2)
CD Fig 17 View of soil horizon and overlying alluvium,with sketch showing sample locations
CD Fig 18 Photomicrograph of subsample M458A (unit 41.2)showing patchy, burrowed, once humic soil,charcoal and a gravel-sized clast of ferruginised
humic soil clast: a – under plane polarised light; b – under oblique incident light
CD Fig 19 Photomicrograph of subsample M458B (unit 41.2)showing biologically worked sands and coarseinclusions of burned ?peat or other relict organicmatter: a – under plane polarised light; b – underoblique incident light
CD Fig 20 Detailed view showing a section through quarryfills in the south-west part of the Ham (OA13)
CD Fig 21 Plot showing the distribution of lithic artefacts byquadrant
CD Fig 22 Distribution of Early Mesolithic core typesCD Fig 23 Distribution of Late Mesolithic core typesCD Fig 24 Distribution of Early Mesolithic microlithsCD Fig 25 Distribution of Late Mesolithic microlithsCD Fig 26 Distribution of all scrapers
CD TABLESCD Table 1 Lithic assemblage raw dataCD Table 2 Quantification details for the iron slag and related
debrisCD Table 3 Plant remains from period 5, phases 1 and 2CD Table 4 Plant remains from period 5, phases 3–4, and
period 6CD Table 5 Plant remains from periods 7–9CD Table 6 Mandibular dental eruption and wearCD Table 7 Summary of ante- and post-mortem modificationCD Table 8 Molluscs from the Lateglacial channel (L4) and
alluvium in post-medieval quarry (OA19)CD Table 9 Molluscs from the period 4, phase 2 fills of the
?burghal ditch (S1)CD Table 10 Molluscs from the period 5, phase 3 fills of the
artificial watercourse (S8)CD Table 11 Sediment log from the borehole through the
lower fills of the ?burghal ditch (S1)CD Table 12 Details of subsamples examined for insect remainsCD Table 13 Ecological groups used in analysisCD Table 14 Host plants of phytophagous beetles and bugsCD Table 15 List of invertebrates present in the samples
analysed in detailCD Table 16 Invertebrate remains recorded by scanning from
bulk sample flotsCD Table 17 Main statistics of the beetle and bug assemblagesCD Table 18 Proportions of terrestrial beetles and bugs
within the assemblagesCD Table 19 Dr, De and age data of submitted samples
CD-ROM
xvi
This volume presents the results of excavations on the site ofthe Bath SouthGate shopping centre, carried out in the courseof redevelopment from 2006 to 2009 on behalf of SouthGateLimited Partnership and Multi Development UK. Theconstruction of a new shopping centre afforded MOLA theopportunity to investigate a 3.55ha site located between thenorth bank of the River Avon and the southern defences ofRoman and later Bath. This report is intended to provide a newlandscape history for the area from the remote past to the lastmajor redevelopment of the 1970s.
Extensive geoarchaeological work has allowed themodelling and dating of the main stages in the evolution of this little-studied part of the Avon flood plain from at least theLate Devensian (23–11.5ka BP) through to the Holocene. Thegeoarchaeological stratigraphic chronological framework hasbeen verified by optically stimulated luminescence dating. The Dimlington stadial to Windermere/Allerød transition wasparticularly well preserved on the site and illustrates a changefrom a gravel-dominated braided river system to a single-threaded channel during a period of climate amelioration.Although the pre-Holocene landforms were not directlyassociated with human activity, they can be related to the widerpattern of climate-driven change that shaped the landscape andset the template for subsequent human occupation.
In the south-eastern corner of the site, Late Devensianterrace deposits were left elevated above the Holocene riverchannel, providing a convenient area of high and dry landwhich formed the focus of Early to Late Mesolithic activity.
A spread of 16,002 lithic artefacts points to task-based activitieson or immediately adjacent to the site, with a typologicallyderived date range of c 9400–<7000 BP. However, soilmicromorphology and other geoarchaeological and distributionanalyses indicate that the recovered scatters and the soils inwhich they occurred were subject to a variety of post-depositional processes. Nonetheless, the findings add to agrowing picture of the exploitation of inland river valleysduring the Mesolithic, both in the area generally and perhaps inthis location in particular, as a result of the special attraction ofthe nearby hot springs.
Little evidence for the use of the flood plain in the laterprehistoric or Roman periods was recovered, but the outerdefences of the Anglo-Saxon burh were investigated andextramural activity of rural and perhaps popular religiouscharacter recorded. Following the Norman Conquest, majorlandscape reorganisation took place, with extensive quarrying,the construction of the earliest southern road out of the city,the laying out of burgage plots and creation of an artificialwatercourse to serve as a mill race and perhaps also as a flooddefence. The deposition of a thick layer of weatheredminerogenic alluvium across the majority of the site was relatedto the increase in suspended sediment carried across the floodplain during overbank flood events. Archaeological evidenceshows that most of this alluviation took place from the 10th and 11th centuries, associated possibly with agriculturalintensification in upland areas as well as with engineeredmodifications to the flow of the river. The occupation of thesouthern suburb is well represented from the mid 13th centuryand its character and development are reconstructed in achronological narrative which gives a picture of a relativelylow-status area that provided goods, food and services to themore familiar wealthy Georgian city and terminates in twodestructive events of the 20th century – the ‘Baedeker’ air raidsof 1942 and the construction of the first Southgate shoppingcentre in the 1970s.
SUMMARY
xvii
MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) are grateful to theSouthGate Limited Partnership and our client MultiDevelopment UK for funding this project, and to theirconsulting engineer Hugh Burbidge. The client’s archaeologicalconsultants were Tom Hassall and Steven Weaver (CgMs).Richard Patten (Arup) acted as the client’s representative duringmost of the fieldwork. The project was overseen on behalf ofthe local authority by Richard Sermon (Bath and North EastSomerset Council (B&NES) Archaeology Officer) and hispredecessor Bob Sydes, while additional archaeological advicewas provided by staff of English Heritage (South-west Region),Vanessa Straker (Regional Science Advisor) and Phil McMahon(Inspector of Ancient Monuments), and Susan Fox (RomanBaths Museum, Bath). Thanks are also due to Aidan Lynch andJohn Reid of Buro4.
We would like to thank Mark Williamson, Phil Ball and JamesGledhill of the main contractor, Sir Robert McAlpine, for theirfriendly and positive attitude to managing the interface betweenthe archaeological and construction programmes. In practicalmatters on site Mark Morgan and Brian Cauwood were alwaysconsiderate and helpful. Construction works at Churchill Housewere managed by Simon Box (HBG Development Ltd/BAM).
The fieldwork was managed on site for MOLA by BrunoBarber. Excavation supervisors were †Richard Bluer, BruceEaton, Marek Lewcun, Nikcola Lyons and Dan Waterfall, all ofwhom have made valuable contributions to the assessment andanalysis process leading to the production of this report. DavidJamieson, Richard Sayer, Gemma Stevenson and Bruce Watsonsupervised aspects of fieldwork only, assisted by DamionChurchill, Miranda Haig and Jenny Lee. Mark Burch, NevilleConstantine, Catherine Drew and Dan Waterfall providedsurvey/geomatics support. Geoarchaeological investigationswere supervised by Craig Halsey, with advice from JaneCorcoran. Environmental and finds sample processing weresupervised on and off site by James Andrews, with overall
management by John Giorgi and Jane Corcoran. Initialquantification of the sieved flint assemblage was conducted byTony Grey. Finds management was by Fiona Seeley, withassistance from †Penny MacConnoran. Peter Rauxlohprocessed data relating to the lithics assemblage and advised onits use within the SouthGate ArcGIS project.
Advice on the local pottery was generously given by Charlesand Nancy Hollinrake on site, and by †Alan Vince and MikePonsford during assessment. We are also grateful to Jon Cotton(formerly of the Museum of London) for discussing aspects ofexcavation methodology, and to Keith Faxon for his initialadvice on the lithics. Ian Tyers advised on the suitability ofsamples for dendrochronological dating.
Such a large, long-running project employed many MOLAfield archaeologists, too numerous to mention individually, butwithout whom our work could not have been completed. Attimes of intense programme pressure additional staff were madeavailable from the following organisations: CotswoldArchaeology, Exeter Archaeology, Gahan and Long Ltd,Network Archaeology, Northamptonshire Archaeology andWessex Archaeology. All worked with good humour inconditions that often left much to be desired.
Marek Lewcun would like to thank Philip Brown for detailsof his collection of pipes from Bath, Reg Jackson for discussingthe Bristol-style pipes in context [1880], Allan Peacey forexamining and advising on some of the overfired pipes and kilnwaste and Roger Price for sharing his most recent work on theBristol pipe-making industry. The authors are grateful to ColinJohnston and the staff of the Bath Record Office, AnnBuchanan (Bath Central Library), Mike Chapman and ElizabethHolland (Survey of Old Bath) and Marta Inskip for theirassistance with the cartographic and documentary sources. Weare also grateful for the help of Stuart Burroughs and TonyMarshall (Museum of Bath at Work), Jim Warren (Bath BlitzMemorial Project) and Roderick Millard (B&NES HistoricEnvironment Record Officer). Don Walker (MOLA) providedinformation on the single human bone from the site.
Damian Goodburn is grateful to Karen Stewart for checkingthe microscopic wood species identifications. Michael Allenthanks Paul Davies for advice and information regarding themollusc assessment, and Richard Preece, Martin Willing and theConchological Society of Great Britain and Ireland for aid inconfirming certain species identifications.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
xviii
To the memory of Richard Bluer and Christopher Phillpotts in appreciation of their contributions to
the Bath SouthGate project and to the work of MOLA and its predecessors
over many years
Bytwixt the bridge and the south gate of Bath I markid fair
medows on eche hand … The cite of Bath is sette booth yn a
fruteful and pleasant botom, which is environid on every side
with greate hilles, out of which cum many springes of pure water
that be conveyid by dyverse ways to serve the cite.
From a description of Bath by the 16th-century antiquary John Leland (Leland, Itinerary 2, 140)