e;2{ o I
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Mason's Quarry Baylham/Great Blakenham ~
e;2{ o I Contents. 1: Background 2: Map/Documentry Search 3: Aerial Photograph Search 4: Field Survey 5: Results From Archaeological Evaluation 6: Recommend at ions For Further Evaluation 7: Conclusion Map 1: Area Surveyed Map 2: Surface Artefact Density Map 3: Burnt Flint Density Map 4: Location Of Shovel Test Holes Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix
1: Aerial Photographs Examined 11: Surface Finds Recovered Ill: Finds From Metal Detector Survey IV: Shovel Test Hole Results
Archaeological Section Field Projects Team
Suffolk County Council Edwin Barritt, County Planning Officer, St. Edmund House, Cm.mty Hall, Ipswich IP4 1LZ. Tel: lps. 230000
MS/1104/91: MASON'S QUARRY, BAYLHAM/GREAT BLAKENHAM, SUFFOLK ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION
1.
Background
In order to assess the affect that the above planning application might have on any archaeological deposits in the area of the proposed quarry expansion at the Mason's Quarry, Great Blakenham, an archaeological evaluation was commissioned by Blue Circle Cement and carried out by the Field Projects Division of Suffolk County Council's Archaeological Section in November, 1992, (see Map 1 for area of study). The area of the proposed quarry expansion is some 22 hectares in size and consists mainly of arable land on the Baylham/Great Blakenham parish boundary directly north and north east of the existing workings. The aims of the evaluation were to locate any possible areas of archaeological interest which might be affected by the proposed quarry extension and to assess whether any other forms of survey or excavation might be necessary. Of the 22 hectares, 0.33 hectare, (1.5% of the total survey area), was wooded, (OS plot no. 5771), while the remainder is arable land. Of the 21.66 hectares of arable land, 21 hectares, (95.45% of the total survey area), was under cultivation at the time of the survey with a crop just coming through in three of the four fields. The other 0.66 of a hectare, (3% of the total survey area) had been left as uncultivated land and was given no more than a cursory inspection for the presence of earthworks. The soil varied from a light to a medium/heavy slightly clayey loam depending on whether the underlying drift geology was of clay or sand. The soil depth, however, was consistent over the whole area, varying only between 0.28 metre and 0.36 metre. (See appendix IV and Map 4). 2.
Map/Documentary Search
An extensive search was carried out at the Suffolk Record Office in order
to locate and examine any map/documentary sources which might contain information relevant to the archaeological assessment of the area under study. The earliest available maps for the area are the Tithe Maps of 1838 for Great Blakenham parish and 1841 for Baylham parish. These maps were examined and the field names checked for any archaeological content. All of the field names noted in the area under study proved to be common agricultural names denoting field shape or use and are likely to be of Post Medieval origin. Two buildings, however, were noted on the Tithe Map for Baylham parish. These were both situated to the south of the small wood, (OS5771), near the centre of the area under study (see Map 2). The building immediately to the south of the wood appears to have been of agricultural use and it is not shown on the first edition Ordnance Survey map of 1889. The second building, which was in the north west corner of Field 1, (OS7378), is noted as 'House and Garden• in the Tithe Apportionment. This house is shown on the Ordnance Survey map of 1928 but had been demolished before the 1978 series of maps was produced. No other material relevant to this assessment was located in a search of the map sources and parish indexes in the Suffolk Record Office.
3.
Aerial Photograph Search
examination of aerial photographs held by Suffolk County Council (see Appendix 1), revealed no features in the area under study which might be of archaeological interest. The aerial photograph library held by the R.C.H.M. (E) was also consulted and it was reported that no oblique photographs are held for the area under study and the vertical photographs mainly appear to have been taken at times of the year when crop and soil marks would not have been visible, if present, (see Appendix 1). Due to the relatively low level of archaeological material collected during the field survey, see section 4, below, it was decided, therefore, not to examine the R.C.H.M.(E) library in any greater detail. No aerial photographs are held for the area under study in the Suffolk c.c. Sites and Monuments Record, (S.M.R.).
An
4.
Field Survey
Four different methods were used to complete the survey: fieldwalking, shovel test holes, earthwork survey and metal detector survey, (see Map 1). Fieldwalking The four fields of the survey area were covered completely by the fieldwalking survey, apart from the small area of rough ground in the southern-most field, in order to locate and collect a systematic sample of surface finds. Field 1, (OS plot numbers 7378, 6583, 7572,8070), was walked using a series of 12 metre transects divided into 100 metre stints. Field 2 (OS plot number 4000) was also walked using a series of 12 metre transects divided into 100 metre stints apart from a small area at its northern end where a series of 24 metre transects divided into lOOm stints was used. This change was due to the lack of finds and that the 12 metre transects were taking too long to complete. Field 3 (OS plot numbers 5364 and 4855) and Field 4 (no os plot number) were walked using a series of 24 metre transects divided into 100 metre stints. This meant that 98.5% of the total survey area of 22 hectares ~ was covered by,)the fieldwalking survey. ~
l
n.m\n\
C!_~~"J·
The crop was through in fields 1, 2 and 3 but did not hinder visibil~ty. Field 4 had been sown but no growth was visible above the surface resulting in near perfect fieldwalking conditions. All worked flint and pottery finds were collected, but only a sample of burnt flint, brick and tile was considered necessary. A summary of the fieldwalking finds can be seen below, while more detailed information can be found in appendix II and on Maps 1, 2 and 3, (see especially Map 2 for distribution of surface finds). Field 1 (Fl 7378, 6583, 7572, 8070 The finds collected were:Worked flint
86 7
Unpatinated flakes Patinated flakes
5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pottery
21 2 1 1 1
other fired clay
6 1
others
105 1 1 1
Scrapers Patinated blades Thumbnail scrapers Borers Flake with retouch Barbed and tanged arrowhead Unpatinated blade Knife Spokeshave Tool (unspecified) Post medieval body sherds Post medieval flower pot sherds Medieval body sherd Roman body sherd Prehistoric body sherd Pieces of brick and tile Field drain fragment Burnt flints (sample only) Iron nail lead strip piece of slag
It was notes during the fieldwalking survey that the density of burnt flints was highest on the eastern side of the field, east of gridline 108, while the lowest density seemed to be restricted to the area to the north of the field with the OS plot number 6583, See Map 3. There also seemed to be a higher density of worked flint to the south and south-east side of the field, see Map 2. Field 2 (F2. 4000) The finds collected were:Worked flint
25 3 1 1
Pottery
12 2
1
Post medieval body sherds Post medieval flower pot sherds Post medieval rim sherd Medieval body sherd ? Roman/Medieval body sherd
Other fired clay
9
Pieces of brick and tile
Others
9 1
Burnt flints Piece of lead
1 1
*
Unpatinated flakes Unpatinated blades Thumbnail scraper Scraper *
Found in F2 but exact location unknown.
Field 3 (F3 5364, 4855) The collected were:Worked flint
5 1
Unpatinated flakes Leaf shaped arrowhead
Pottery
5 1
Post medieval body sherds Prehistoric body sherd
other fired clay
1
Piece of brick
others
14
Burnt flints (sample)
Field 4 (F4) The finds collected were:Worked flint
7
Pottery
Unpatinated flakes None
other fired clay
2
Pieces of brick and tile
others
2
Burnt flints
Shovel Test Holes Thirty shovel holes were dug at approximately 100 metre intervals in the cultivated parts of the Survey area. None were dug in the wooded area or the area of rough ground. The aim of the shovel holes was to ascertain the thickness of topsoil and subsoil above the natural. If the soil had been found to be deeper towards the bottom of slopes it may have indicated that hillwash had occurred. This would have moved archaeological artefacts considerable distances from their source and could be masking archaeological deposits. It was found, however, that the soil depth only varied between 0.28 metre and 0.36 metre regardless of slope. This indicates that the~~ fieldwalking finds w~e probably qyite~c~ose....to-t..fle-ior-source,~~J~ moved only by the ploughing process and that no archaeological desposits were being masked by an excess top and subsoil cover. other information recorded from the shovel holes includes the nature of the natural immediately below the surface and any evidence for subsoiling. The location of the shovel holes can be found on Map 4 while the information gathered can be seen in appendix IV. Earthwork Survey The whole site was checked for signsof earthworks. In the small areas of wood and rough ground this was the only survey technique employed. No earthworks were observed anywhere within the survey area.
Metal Detector Survey The metal detector Survey was carried out along the same transect lines as the fieldwalking. The finds from the survey are listed in appendix III. Over Field 1 every other transect was subject to metal detector search while on Fields 2, 3 and 4 this was extended to every third transect. This partly explains the large number of metal finds from Field 1. However it should be noted that Fields 3 and 4 produced very few metal finds at all. The search was aimed at locating non-ferrous objects only. Overall the metal detector survey recovered 73 metal objects of which 61 were made of copper alloy and 12 of lead. Only three of the lead finds were identifiable objects, namely 2 weights and a musket ball, the remainder,were waste fragments. Of the 73 objects recovered, only two are of real archaeological interest. These were a worn, copper alloy blade fragment of Bronze Age date from Field 2, Transect 7, (See Map 2), and a copper alloy buckle fragment of Late Medieval date from Field 3, Transect 4. 5.
Results from Archaeological Evaluation
The area of the proposed quarry extension which has been evaluated for it's archaeological content and which forms the subject of this report contained no know archaeological sites prior to the start of this survey. The map/ documentary search and aerial photographic search also revealed no areas of particular interest, (see sections 2 and 3 above). As noted in section 4 above, an extensive field survey was carried out over the study area using fieldwalking, earthwork survey, metal detector search and shovel test holes. This survey was carried out during a period of good surface visibility and it is believed that the field survey results in section 4 and appendixes II, III and IV, accurately reflect the archaeological potential of the survey area. The small areas that were available for earthwork survey also had good visibility. Overall the study area shows a general scatter of pre-historic, RomanoBritish and Medieval flint and ceramic finds which is consistent with a low level of activity over a long period (see Map 2). The Gipping Valley as a whole, in which the study area lies, has a rich and extensive archaeological record and it is not surprising, therefore, that areas such as this which appear to be peripheral to the main settlement zones in the valley bottom should contain a low density scatter of finds. The most significant group of finds from the survey area is undoubtedly the moderate scatter of flint finds from Field ~. Apart from a very low level of Mesolithic period flint blades, (two blades), the field yielded a flint flake scatter of 11-0 per hectare and a flint tool density of 2 per hectare. The eastern end of this field also had a moderately dense scatter of heavily burnt flints which may be of prehistoric origin, (see Map 3). The remaining fields contained artefact density scatters which are very low and which are consistent with agricultural manuring activity. The Bronze Age copper alloy blade fragment in Field 2 appears to be an isolated find. Similarly the metal detector survey revealed very little evidence for Medieval or earlier activity in the study area. The relatively large number of Post Medieval finds is, again, consistent with general agricultural activity in the area.
6.
Recommendations for Further Evaluation
From section 5 above it can be seen that the archaeological content of the study area, based on the extensive field survey that has been carried out, is consistent with general agricultural and other off-site activities in the past. It should also be noted that the shovel test survey did not reveal any great depths of top or subsoil in the study area which might mask archaeological deposits. It is therefore recommended that there is no need for further archaeological evaluation work in the area of the proposed quarry extension which forms the subject of this report. 7.
Conclusion
An effective field survey has been carried out on the area of the proposed extension to Mason's Quarry, Great Blakenham/Baylham parishes, Suffolk. In addition a map/documentary and aerial photographic search has also been carried out. The results of this work are noted in section 6 above. In summary they indicate that while the study area does contain a low level scatter of archaeological finds it does not appear to have any significant archaeological sites within the limits of the study area as indicated on Map 1.
S Boulter & J Newman, December 1992 Field Projects Division Archaeological Section Planning Dept Suffolk c.c.
1~tft~ .
1
JV
TM 1051
SUFFOLK. 105 SIOO
7)00
6·6S
·91
GIPPING R D
.A.DMIN CO
107
Ill
112
pooo :j 15·15 ~
Map 1
Location of transect lines,stints and extent of area surveyed.
-----...----------..-··------- ··-·
.._
.~
- ----: .-:;.. -.-.. • ·6..
.
'--
Biwuil Cara'rOtt f
~::::....
4-T----,.-------c--+---·· -- -·· ···0278 2·92
00
...... :! ....
:·
~:
.... .:.-- .:------------·-·- -----------------..:....: ~
----------~-------'------; .
..
..:•:·
::
-
........ ..
..:!
~
y
~
y
y
y
~
y
y
y
y
~
~
~
~
y
I
~'&/ik er~~
\ -ne B:
:C ~cfc.b
i
\
z. ~~ ,
c :
'~
h~~-({azed ea-~Oie_ Ct&-•~
b1 ·
P.
f.M- ~ \ ~c\t·
, p~. \.W;~
J ~(r fa~ L C..
c.
1 bJ ' ~~~~I ,'(c\ / SI)&\· q
I
-tn·ic k
cJ 0~r-
\7fl8&. ~\-. bm,.ov\ a\c?.u S.w-u\o(j ptb. c&z.ec\ 1&\ (cli~E'~~te
P- N\.£ ct. ·
i
0J(tt .
~~lr -bf rt---w-ei>ccvc.>-f
\2.-C.
?
'l -
Mason's Quarry Baylham/Great Blakenham ~
e;2{ o I Contents. 1: Background 2: Map/Documentry Search 3: Aerial Photograph Search 4: Field Survey 5: Results From Archaeological Evaluation 6: Recommend at ions For Further Evaluation 7: Conclusion Map 1: Area Surveyed Map 2: Surface Artefact Density Map 3: Burnt Flint Density Map 4: Location Of Shovel Test Holes Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix
1: Aerial Photographs Examined 11: Surface Finds Recovered Ill: Finds From Metal Detector Survey IV: Shovel Test Hole Results
Archaeological Section Field Projects Team
Suffolk County Council Edwin Barritt, County Planning Officer, St. Edmund House, Cm.mty Hall, Ipswich IP4 1LZ. Tel: lps. 230000
MS/1104/91: MASON'S QUARRY, BAYLHAM/GREAT BLAKENHAM, SUFFOLK ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION
1.
Background
In order to assess the affect that the above planning application might have on any archaeological deposits in the area of the proposed quarry expansion at the Mason's Quarry, Great Blakenham, an archaeological evaluation was commissioned by Blue Circle Cement and carried out by the Field Projects Division of Suffolk County Council's Archaeological Section in November, 1992, (see Map 1 for area of study). The area of the proposed quarry expansion is some 22 hectares in size and consists mainly of arable land on the Baylham/Great Blakenham parish boundary directly north and north east of the existing workings. The aims of the evaluation were to locate any possible areas of archaeological interest which might be affected by the proposed quarry extension and to assess whether any other forms of survey or excavation might be necessary. Of the 22 hectares, 0.33 hectare, (1.5% of the total survey area), was wooded, (OS plot no. 5771), while the remainder is arable land. Of the 21.66 hectares of arable land, 21 hectares, (95.45% of the total survey area), was under cultivation at the time of the survey with a crop just coming through in three of the four fields. The other 0.66 of a hectare, (3% of the total survey area) had been left as uncultivated land and was given no more than a cursory inspection for the presence of earthworks. The soil varied from a light to a medium/heavy slightly clayey loam depending on whether the underlying drift geology was of clay or sand. The soil depth, however, was consistent over the whole area, varying only between 0.28 metre and 0.36 metre. (See appendix IV and Map 4). 2.
Map/Documentary Search
An extensive search was carried out at the Suffolk Record Office in order
to locate and examine any map/documentary sources which might contain information relevant to the archaeological assessment of the area under study. The earliest available maps for the area are the Tithe Maps of 1838 for Great Blakenham parish and 1841 for Baylham parish. These maps were examined and the field names checked for any archaeological content. All of the field names noted in the area under study proved to be common agricultural names denoting field shape or use and are likely to be of Post Medieval origin. Two buildings, however, were noted on the Tithe Map for Baylham parish. These were both situated to the south of the small wood, (OS5771), near the centre of the area under study (see Map 2). The building immediately to the south of the wood appears to have been of agricultural use and it is not shown on the first edition Ordnance Survey map of 1889. The second building, which was in the north west corner of Field 1, (OS7378), is noted as 'House and Garden• in the Tithe Apportionment. This house is shown on the Ordnance Survey map of 1928 but had been demolished before the 1978 series of maps was produced. No other material relevant to this assessment was located in a search of the map sources and parish indexes in the Suffolk Record Office.
3.
Aerial Photograph Search
examination of aerial photographs held by Suffolk County Council (see Appendix 1), revealed no features in the area under study which might be of archaeological interest. The aerial photograph library held by the R.C.H.M. (E) was also consulted and it was reported that no oblique photographs are held for the area under study and the vertical photographs mainly appear to have been taken at times of the year when crop and soil marks would not have been visible, if present, (see Appendix 1). Due to the relatively low level of archaeological material collected during the field survey, see section 4, below, it was decided, therefore, not to examine the R.C.H.M.(E) library in any greater detail. No aerial photographs are held for the area under study in the Suffolk c.c. Sites and Monuments Record, (S.M.R.).
An
4.
Field Survey
Four different methods were used to complete the survey: fieldwalking, shovel test holes, earthwork survey and metal detector survey, (see Map 1). Fieldwalking The four fields of the survey area were covered completely by the fieldwalking survey, apart from the small area of rough ground in the southern-most field, in order to locate and collect a systematic sample of surface finds. Field 1, (OS plot numbers 7378, 6583, 7572,8070), was walked using a series of 12 metre transects divided into 100 metre stints. Field 2 (OS plot number 4000) was also walked using a series of 12 metre transects divided into 100 metre stints apart from a small area at its northern end where a series of 24 metre transects divided into lOOm stints was used. This change was due to the lack of finds and that the 12 metre transects were taking too long to complete. Field 3 (OS plot numbers 5364 and 4855) and Field 4 (no os plot number) were walked using a series of 24 metre transects divided into 100 metre stints. This meant that 98.5% of the total survey area of 22 hectares ~ was covered by,)the fieldwalking survey. ~
l
n.m\n\
C!_~~"J·
The crop was through in fields 1, 2 and 3 but did not hinder visibil~ty. Field 4 had been sown but no growth was visible above the surface resulting in near perfect fieldwalking conditions. All worked flint and pottery finds were collected, but only a sample of burnt flint, brick and tile was considered necessary. A summary of the fieldwalking finds can be seen below, while more detailed information can be found in appendix II and on Maps 1, 2 and 3, (see especially Map 2 for distribution of surface finds). Field 1 (Fl 7378, 6583, 7572, 8070 The finds collected were:Worked flint
86 7
Unpatinated flakes Patinated flakes
5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pottery
21 2 1 1 1
other fired clay
6 1
others
105 1 1 1
Scrapers Patinated blades Thumbnail scrapers Borers Flake with retouch Barbed and tanged arrowhead Unpatinated blade Knife Spokeshave Tool (unspecified) Post medieval body sherds Post medieval flower pot sherds Medieval body sherd Roman body sherd Prehistoric body sherd Pieces of brick and tile Field drain fragment Burnt flints (sample only) Iron nail lead strip piece of slag
It was notes during the fieldwalking survey that the density of burnt flints was highest on the eastern side of the field, east of gridline 108, while the lowest density seemed to be restricted to the area to the north of the field with the OS plot number 6583, See Map 3. There also seemed to be a higher density of worked flint to the south and south-east side of the field, see Map 2. Field 2 (F2. 4000) The finds collected were:Worked flint
25 3 1 1
Pottery
12 2
1
Post medieval body sherds Post medieval flower pot sherds Post medieval rim sherd Medieval body sherd ? Roman/Medieval body sherd
Other fired clay
9
Pieces of brick and tile
Others
9 1
Burnt flints Piece of lead
1 1
*
Unpatinated flakes Unpatinated blades Thumbnail scraper Scraper *
Found in F2 but exact location unknown.
Field 3 (F3 5364, 4855) The collected were:Worked flint
5 1
Unpatinated flakes Leaf shaped arrowhead
Pottery
5 1
Post medieval body sherds Prehistoric body sherd
other fired clay
1
Piece of brick
others
14
Burnt flints (sample)
Field 4 (F4) The finds collected were:Worked flint
7
Pottery
Unpatinated flakes None
other fired clay
2
Pieces of brick and tile
others
2
Burnt flints
Shovel Test Holes Thirty shovel holes were dug at approximately 100 metre intervals in the cultivated parts of the Survey area. None were dug in the wooded area or the area of rough ground. The aim of the shovel holes was to ascertain the thickness of topsoil and subsoil above the natural. If the soil had been found to be deeper towards the bottom of slopes it may have indicated that hillwash had occurred. This would have moved archaeological artefacts considerable distances from their source and could be masking archaeological deposits. It was found, however, that the soil depth only varied between 0.28 metre and 0.36 metre regardless of slope. This indicates that the~~ fieldwalking finds w~e probably qyite~c~ose....to-t..fle-ior-source,~~J~ moved only by the ploughing process and that no archaeological desposits were being masked by an excess top and subsoil cover. other information recorded from the shovel holes includes the nature of the natural immediately below the surface and any evidence for subsoiling. The location of the shovel holes can be found on Map 4 while the information gathered can be seen in appendix IV. Earthwork Survey The whole site was checked for signsof earthworks. In the small areas of wood and rough ground this was the only survey technique employed. No earthworks were observed anywhere within the survey area.
Metal Detector Survey The metal detector Survey was carried out along the same transect lines as the fieldwalking. The finds from the survey are listed in appendix III. Over Field 1 every other transect was subject to metal detector search while on Fields 2, 3 and 4 this was extended to every third transect. This partly explains the large number of metal finds from Field 1. However it should be noted that Fields 3 and 4 produced very few metal finds at all. The search was aimed at locating non-ferrous objects only. Overall the metal detector survey recovered 73 metal objects of which 61 were made of copper alloy and 12 of lead. Only three of the lead finds were identifiable objects, namely 2 weights and a musket ball, the remainder,were waste fragments. Of the 73 objects recovered, only two are of real archaeological interest. These were a worn, copper alloy blade fragment of Bronze Age date from Field 2, Transect 7, (See Map 2), and a copper alloy buckle fragment of Late Medieval date from Field 3, Transect 4. 5.
Results from Archaeological Evaluation
The area of the proposed quarry extension which has been evaluated for it's archaeological content and which forms the subject of this report contained no know archaeological sites prior to the start of this survey. The map/ documentary search and aerial photographic search also revealed no areas of particular interest, (see sections 2 and 3 above). As noted in section 4 above, an extensive field survey was carried out over the study area using fieldwalking, earthwork survey, metal detector search and shovel test holes. This survey was carried out during a period of good surface visibility and it is believed that the field survey results in section 4 and appendixes II, III and IV, accurately reflect the archaeological potential of the survey area. The small areas that were available for earthwork survey also had good visibility. Overall the study area shows a general scatter of pre-historic, RomanoBritish and Medieval flint and ceramic finds which is consistent with a low level of activity over a long period (see Map 2). The Gipping Valley as a whole, in which the study area lies, has a rich and extensive archaeological record and it is not surprising, therefore, that areas such as this which appear to be peripheral to the main settlement zones in the valley bottom should contain a low density scatter of finds. The most significant group of finds from the survey area is undoubtedly the moderate scatter of flint finds from Field ~. Apart from a very low level of Mesolithic period flint blades, (two blades), the field yielded a flint flake scatter of 11-0 per hectare and a flint tool density of 2 per hectare. The eastern end of this field also had a moderately dense scatter of heavily burnt flints which may be of prehistoric origin, (see Map 3). The remaining fields contained artefact density scatters which are very low and which are consistent with agricultural manuring activity. The Bronze Age copper alloy blade fragment in Field 2 appears to be an isolated find. Similarly the metal detector survey revealed very little evidence for Medieval or earlier activity in the study area. The relatively large number of Post Medieval finds is, again, consistent with general agricultural activity in the area.
6.
Recommendations for Further Evaluation
From section 5 above it can be seen that the archaeological content of the study area, based on the extensive field survey that has been carried out, is consistent with general agricultural and other off-site activities in the past. It should also be noted that the shovel test survey did not reveal any great depths of top or subsoil in the study area which might mask archaeological deposits. It is therefore recommended that there is no need for further archaeological evaluation work in the area of the proposed quarry extension which forms the subject of this report. 7.
Conclusion
An effective field survey has been carried out on the area of the proposed extension to Mason's Quarry, Great Blakenham/Baylham parishes, Suffolk. In addition a map/documentary and aerial photographic search has also been carried out. The results of this work are noted in section 6 above. In summary they indicate that while the study area does contain a low level scatter of archaeological finds it does not appear to have any significant archaeological sites within the limits of the study area as indicated on Map 1.
S Boulter & J Newman, December 1992 Field Projects Division Archaeological Section Planning Dept Suffolk c.c.
1~tft~ .
1
JV
TM 1051
SUFFOLK. 105 SIOO
7)00
6·6S
·91
GIPPING R D
.A.DMIN CO
107
Ill
112
pooo :j 15·15 ~
Map 1
Location of transect lines,stints and extent of area surveyed.
-----...----------..-··------- ··-·
.._
.~
- ----: .-:;.. -.-.. • ·6..
.
'--
Biwuil Cara'rOtt f
~::::....
4-T----,.-------c--+---·· -- -·· ···0278 2·92
00
...... :! ....
:·
~:
.... .:.-- .:------------·-·- -----------------..:....: ~
----------~-------'------; .
..
..:•:·
::
-
........ ..
..:!
~
y
~
y
y
y
~
y
y
y
y
~
~
~
~
y
I
~'&/ik er~~
\ -ne B:
:C ~cfc.b
i
\
z. ~~ ,
c :
'~
h~~-({azed ea-~Oie_ Ct&-•~
b1 ·
P.
f.M- ~ \ ~c\t·
, p~. \.W;~
J ~(r fa~ L C..
c.
1 bJ ' ~~~~I ,'(c\ / SI)&\· q
I
-tn·ic k
cJ 0~r-
\7fl8&. ~\-. bm,.ov\ a\c?.u S.w-u\o(j ptb. c&z.ec\ 1&\ (cli~E'~~te
P- N\.£ ct. ·
i
0J(tt .
~~lr -bf rt---w-ei>ccvc.>-f
\2.-C.
?
'l -
