Chadwell Heath Golf Club, Romford, London Borough of Havering

Transcription

1 Chadwell Heath Golf Club, Romford, London Borough of Havering An Archaeological Evaluation (Phase 1) for Cranfield Golf Academy By Andrew Weale Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code WBL 09 September 2009

2 Summary Site name: Chadwell Heath Golf Club, Romford, London Borough of Havering Grid reference: TQ Site activity: Evaluation Date and duration of project: 10th August to 4th September 2009 Project manager: Steve Ford and Joanna Pine Site supervisor: Andrew Weale Site code: WBL 09 Area of site: 49 ha Summary of results: Trenching revealed mainly only 19th-century and later ditches. One small pit containing Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age pottery appears to be an isolated deposit. A small amount of Roman and medieval pottery was present, but no features of those periods. One ditch may be of 17th-century date. The site is considered to have only very low archaeological potential. Location and reference of archive: The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading and will be deposited at the Museum of London in due course, with accession code WBL09. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford Steve Preston i Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5R Tel. (0118) ; Fax (0118) ; tvas@tvas.co.uk; website :

3 Chadwell Heath Golf Course, Romford, London Borough of Havering An Archaeological Evaluation (Phase 1) By Andrew Weale Report 07/155b Introduction This report documents the results of an archaeological field evaluation carried out at Chadwell Heath Golf Course, Romford, London Borough of Havering (TQ ) (Fig. 1). The work was commissioned by Mr Bruce Weller of Weller Design Limited, Bishopmead House, West Street Farnham, Surrey GU9 on behalf of Cranfield Golf Academy, 142 Station Road, orth Chingford, London E4 6A. Planning permission (app. no. P ) has been granted by the London Borough of Havering to develop the site as a golf course. The consent includes a condition relating to archaeology. The results of a field evaluation are required in order to provide sufficient information on the archaeological potential of the site so as to mitigate the effects of development. A further phase of fieldwork may be required if significant archaeological deposits are revealed which cannot be preserved in situ by design. This is in accordance with the Department of the Environment s Planning Policy Guidance, Archaeology and Planning (PPG ), the London Borough of Havering s policies on archaeology (EV14) and the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham s policies on archaeology (DE36, DE37, DE39 and DE40). The field investigation was carried out to a specification approved by Mr David Divers, of Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service (English Heritage), advising the London Borough of Havering. The fieldwork was undertaken by Andrew Weale, Heather Hopkins, Kyle Beaverstock and Aidan Colyer between 10th August and 4th September 2009 and the site code is WBL09. The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading and will be deposited at the Museum of London in due course. A desk-based assessment of the site was compiled for the site (Preston 2007). In summary the site lies in an area of considerable archaeological interest with a wide range of sites and finds in the vicinity including on the site itself. Within the site is a circular cropmark, possibly representing Bronze Age round barrow or more likely a windmill. Towards the centre is a rectangular cropmark possibly an enclosure of unknown date and to the north west is a trackway of post-medieval or earlier date. Several known finds are marginal to the site such as a medieval boundary stone and an early post-medieval farm (Crown Farm) but which could indicate the presence of contemporary deposits extending onto the site. 1

4 A geophysical survey by magnetometer was conducted across the site. A large percentage of the proposed development (over 40ha) was initially scanned. Provision was then made for a detailed survey of 20% of the total site area (10.8ha), surveyed in transects spaced at 1m intervals. The results suggest the presence of a number of linear anomalies within the detailed survey area (Austrums and Cook 2008) Location, topography and geology The site is located primarily within the London Borough of Havering but part of the site lies within the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. The site currently is open farmland and derelict allotment gardens with the built up areas of Chadwell Heath to the west and Romford to the east. The site lies on a gentle south-east facing slope and falls from 30m above Ordnance Datum in the north-west corner to below 20m in the south-east. The site is bounded to the north by the A12, to the east by farmland and farm buildings, to the south by the London Road (A118) and to the west by housing, a school and Whale Bone Lane (A1112). The site lies across three geological units with Boyn Hill gravel in the west, London Clay across the centre and brickearth to the southeast (BGS 1976). Within the trenches a small amount of gravel and gravel with clay was observed however the majority of trenches showed brickearth as the underlying geology. London Clay was not observed in any trench. Archaeological background The archaeological potential of the site has been highlighted in a desk-based assessment (Preston 2007). In summary the site lies in an area of considerable archaeological interest with a range of sites and finds in the vicinity. umerous Palaeolithic stone tools were recorded during 19th century gravel extraction. Cropmarks seen on aerial photographs of a large enclosure and a small circular enclosure to the north of the site at Warren Farm were shown on excavation to be an Iron Age enclosed settlement with Roman ditches thought to be field boundaries. Further cropmarks are present at Crown Farm to the east of the site and on the site itself. The small enclosure at Warren Farm on excavation was a Medieval windmill site. To the south-west of the site stands the Havering Stone, a boundary marker stone for the Forest of Essex. Within the site there appears to be a circular cropmark which may be a windmill or Bronze Age barrow together with a rectangular cropmark of a possible enclosure of unknown date and a trackway of post-medieval date or earlier. 2

5 Objectives and methodology The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the presence/absence, extent, condition, character, quality and date of any archaeological deposits within the area of development. The result of this field work would provide the detailed information necessary to design a scheme to mitigate the effects of development. The study comprised geophysical survey and field evaluation by means of trial trenching. The specific aims of the project are: to determine if archaeological relevant levels have survived on this site; to determine if archaeological deposits of any period are present; to determine if archaeological deposits of medieval or early post-medieval date are present representing elements of a deserted medieval settlement at Crown Farm; to determine the date and nature of the circular and rectilinear cropmarks; and to provide information to assist in the formation of a mitigation strategy. Geophysical survey The geophysical survey comprised the use of a magnetometer and consisted of two components. A large percentage of the proposed development site (over 40ha) was initially scanned. Provision was then made for a detailed survey of 20% of the total site area (10.8ha), surveyed in transects spaced at 1m intervals. The survey was carried out in ovember 2008, and the results suggest the presence of a number of linear anomalies within the detailed survey area (Austrums and Cook 2008). The results of the geophysical survey were used to determine the location of a number of machine trenches, to target the linear anomalies (Fig. 2). Provision was made to trench the whole site at a sample fraction of 2% of the proposed development area. This was to test the efficacy of the geophysical results and examine any geophysical anomalies as well as the specific locations noted above in the research aims. It was proposed to excavate 195 trenches, of which 42 were positioned in areas highlighted by the geophysical survey. The trenches were to be 25m long and 1.8m wide. Topsoil and other overburden were removed by a tracked machine under archaeological supervision. A toothless ditching bucket was used to expose archaeologically sensitive levels. Topsoil and subsoil were stored separately. All features were cleaned using appropriate hand tools and planned. Sufficient of the features hand excavated to satisfy the aims of the project. Spoil heaps were monitored for the retrieval of artefacts. 3

6 Results Of the proposed 195 trenches 172 were excavated as close as possible to the positions intended (Fig. 3). Two trenches (64 and 65) were excavated and recorded by trench record form and photography only as they lay outside the application area due to a late boundary change. Twenty three trenches could not be excavated due to the likely presence on site of slow worms, a protected species. Within the former allotment gardens the positions of 10 trenches (154 9, 163 7) had to be moved due to the presence on site of mature trees and large spoilheaps. Three additional trenches (173 5) were excavated to examine the projected course of a linear feature and the western end of trench 90 was expanded to investigate the area surrounding a Bronze Age pit. The additional trenches and changes to lay out were carried out with consolation with Mr Divers of English Heritage. The trenches varied in length from 21m to 33m and were between 0.34m and 0.70m deep. All were 1.8m wide. A metal detector was used to enhance the recovery of metallic finds. All features were examined by hand but where it could be shown that they were modern (land drains and allotment features) were recorded on the trench record sheet and no further work was undertaken on these features. A complete list of trenches giving lengths, breadths, depths and a description of sections and geology is given in Appendix 1. A list of all excavated/recorded features forms Appendix 2. Only trenches containing possible or certain archaeological features are described below. All trenches typically showed stratigraphy of m of friable grey topsoil, above c. 0.15m of mid reddish brown silty subsoil above brickearth natural geology. The occasional variations from this are noted in Appendix 1. In Trenches 1, 2 and 7 10, the natural observed was clay with gravel patches, and there were gravelly patches within the brickearth in Trenches 106, , 129. Field 1 Trench 1 (Figs 4 and 8) Trench 1 was aligned SW E, 27m long and a maximum depth of 0.50m. Beneath the subsoil and cut through the natural gravel was ditch 4 aligned W SE, 0.95m wide and 0.53m deep. Ditch 4 had three fills: the latest was a light grey clayey silt (54) containing bone and ceramic building material. Beneath this was a grey brown clayey silt (55) with no finds. Beneath 55 was a dark grey clayey silt (56). Trench 2 (Figs 4 and 8) Trench 2 was aligned SE W, 26.8m long and a maximum of 0.38m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural gravel were gullies 1 and 2 and pit 3. Gully 1 was aligned E SW, 0.48m wide and 0.23m deep. Gully 1 was filled with a grey clayey silt (51) that contained clay tobacco pipe, oyster shell, modern glass and brick. 4

7 Gully 2 lay approximately at right angles to gully 1 and ran into it; however, no relationship between the gullies could be established. Gully 2 was linear in plan 0.33m wide and 0.22m deep and filled with (52) grey clayey silt that contained no artefacts. Pit or tree bole 3 was 1.06m long, 0.4m wide, 0.1m deep and extended under the western section. The sides and base of pit 3 were irregular and it was filled with grey clayey silt with no artefacts (53). Trench 3 (Figs 4 and 8) Trench 3 was aligned WW ESE, 26.1m long and a maximum of 0.5m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth were pits 5 and 8. Pit 8 was 5.83m long, 1.8m wide and 0.6m deep and cut pit 5. It was filled with mottled red/yellow grey sandy clay (64) that contained no artefacts. It may have been a quarry. Pit 5 was 4.58m long, 1.8m wide and 0.20m deep. Pit 5 had five fills, the topmost of which was (61) red/yellow clayey sand that contained Tarmac. Beneath 61 was 60 grey sandy clay that contained no artefacts. Beneath 60 was 59, grey mottled with red/yellow sandy clay, that contained tiny fragments of burnt bone. Beneath 59 was 58 grey sandy clay that contained frequent chalk inclusions and modern metal finds. Beneath 58 was 57 a mottled reddish brown sandy clay that contained no artefacts. Trench 4 (Figs 4 and 8) Trench 4 was aligned SW E, was 26.1m long and a maximum of 0.6m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth was post hole 9. This was 0.2m in diameter and 0.11m deep and filled with red/yellow/ brown sandy clay (65) that contained no artefacts. Trench 6 (Figs 4 and 8) Trench 6 was aligned west east and was 27m long and a maximum of 0.5m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth was ditch 10, aligned north - south, 1.8m long, 0.96m wide and 0.15m deep. Ditch 10 was filled with yellow/grey clay (66) that contained no artefacts. Trench 7 (Figs 4 and 8) Trench 7 was aligned SE W, 25.1m long and 0.45m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural sandy clay and gravel were pits 11 and 12 and ditch 13. Pit or tree bole 11 was 0.4m in diameter and 0.13m deep; the sides and base were irregular. It was filled with grey sandy clay (67) that contained no artefacts. Pit 11 cut quarry pit or ditch 12, which was 10.2m long, 1.58m wide and very shallow were excavated, although this may only be its edge. Pit 12 was filled with mottled red/yellow/grey sandy clay (68 and 69) that contained no artefacts. It may be a continuation of modern pit 8 in Trench 3. Ditch 13 was aligned SW E, 1.8m long 0.8m wide and 0.28m deep and filled with yellow/grey clayey sand (70) that contained no artefacts. 5

8 Trench 9 (Figs 4 and 8) Trench 9 was aligned WW ESE 25.2m long and a maximum of 0.50m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural sandy clay with gravels were post holes 14 and 15 and gully 16. Post hole 14 was 0.4m in diameter and 0.2m deep. Post hole 14 was filled with (71) grey silty clay that contained no artefacts. Post hole 15 was 0.2m in diameter and 0.05m deep. It was filled with grey sandy clay (72) that contained no artefacts. Gully 16 was aligned roughly EE - WSW, the entire length of the trench (25.2m long) between 0.4 and 0.6m wide and 0.22m deep. It was filled with red/yellow sandy clay (73) with gravel which contained no artefacts. Two sections were excavated though gully 16 (16 and 17). Trench 10 (Figs 4 and 9) Trench 10 was aligned SW E, 28.5m long and a maximum of 0.40m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth and gravels was gully 18. Gully 18 was aligned east - west 2.4m long within the trench, 0.3m wide and 0.1m deep. Gully 18 was filled with grey/yellow red clayey sand (75) which contained no artefacts. Trench 12 (Figs 5 and 9) Trench 12 was aligned W SE, was 26.6m long and 0.50m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth was ditch 19, aligned roughly west - east, 1.8m long, 0.70m wide and 0.2m deep. It was filled with yellow/grey sandy clay (76) that contained modern glass and metal finds (not retained). Trench 24 (Figs 5 and 9) Trench 24 was aligned W SE, was 27.0m long and a maximum of 0.52m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth was gully 23. Gully 23 was aligned roughly west - east, 6.2m long, 0.3m wide and 0.15m deep. It was filled with white/grey sandy clay (80) that contained no artefacts. Trench 26 (Figs 5 and 9) Trench 26 was aligned SW E and was 26.0m long and a maximum of 0.51m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth were pits 20, 21 and 22. Pit 20 was 0.57m in diameter and 0.06m deep and filled with grey clayey silt that contained no artefacts (77). Pit 21 was 0.56m in diameter and also 0.06m deep. It was filled with grey clayey silt (78) that contained ceramic building material. Pit 22 was 0.60m in diameter and 0.05m deep. It fill (79) of grey clayey silt contained ceramic building material and a single sherd of red earthenware pottery dating from the middle of the 16th century or later. Trench 31 (Figs 5 and 9) Trench 31 was aligned west - east 25.0m long and 0.50m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth, pit 25 was 1.26m in diameter and 0.76m deep with very steep sides, slightly undercut in places, and a concave base. It was filled with mottled grey/red/yellow clayey silt (82) that contained modern ceramic building material and one sherd of medieval pottery. The brick, rather than the pottery, dates this feature. 6

9 Trench 34 (Figs 5 and 9) Trench 34 was aligned EE WSW, 27.8m long and a maximum of 0.43m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth were gully 24, ditch 28, pit 26 and post hole 27. Gully 24 was aligned roughly W SE, 2.3m long, 0.4m wide and 0.2m deep. It was filled with brown/red/yellow sandy clay (81). Ditch 28 was aligned west - east, 2.0m long, 1.2m wide and 0.46m deep. It was filled with brown/grey silty clay (85). Pit 26 was 0.7m in diameter and 0.28m deep, filled with yellow/grey sandy clay (83). Post hole 27 was 0.2m in diameter and 0.28m deep. Post hole 27 was filled with and identical yellow/grey sandy clay (84). o relationship could be established between the pit and the post hole. one of these features contained any artefacts. Trench 41 (Figs 5 and 9) Trench 41 was aligned west - east, was 26.0m long, and a maximum of 0.51m deep. Cut though the subsoil beneath the topsoil and into the natural brickearth was gully 31. Gully 31 was aligned south - north across the trench, 1.3m wide and 0.22m deep and was filled with grey clayey silt (80) that contained no artefacts. Trench 54 (Figs 5 and 9) Trench 54 was aligned SW E, was 26.8m long and 0.41m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth were pit 29 and post hole 30. Pit 29 was irregular, 0.8m in diameter and 0.25m deep and filled with grey clay (86). Pit 29 had been truncated by a modern land drain. Post hole 30 was 0.32m in diameter and 0.12m deep and filled with mottled grey/red/yellow clayey silt (87). either feature in this trench contained artefacts. Trench 57 (Figs 5 and 9) Trench 57 was aligned WSW EE, was 25.7m long and a maximum of 0.48m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth, ditch 32 was aligned roughly south to north, 1.8m long, 1.2m wide and 0.42m deep. Ditch 32 contained four fills. The latest was brown/yellow sandy clay (89) 0.32m thick that contained no artefacts. Beneath 89 was brown/black clayey sand (90) 0.4m thick that contained modern metal and glass. Beneath 90 was yellow/brown sandy clay (92), 0.28m thick that contained no artefacts. Bottom fill 91 was brown/grey sandy clay that contained modern metal and glass. Trench 59 (Figs 5 and 10) Trench 59 was aligned SW E, was 25m long and a maximum of 0.39m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth was ditch 37 which had been recut (38). Ditch 38 was aligned west - east, 1.0m wide and 0.28m deep and had three fills. The top fill was grey clay (150) 0.08m thick that contained no artefacts. Beneath 150 was fill 151 grey/black silty clay 0.28m thick that contained modern metal and glass finds. Beneath ditch 38 was ditch 37 on the same alignment, 2.1m wide and 0.7m deep. Ditch 37 was mainly filled with (98) yellow/grey sandy clay 0.54m thick that contained modern brick. Beneath 98 was a deeper slot filled with a mottled red/ yellow/grey clay (99) 0.2m thick that contained no artefacts. 7

10 Trench 60 (Figs5 and 10; Pl 1 and 3) Trench 60 was aligned SSE W, 29m long and 0.44m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth was ditch 39, aligned roughly west - east, 1.44m wide and 0.66m deep (Pl. 3). It had a sequence of four fills. The uppermost was yellow/grey silty clay (176), 0.18m thick that contained no artefacts. Beneath 176 was grey/yellow sandy clay (177), that contained no artefacts. This lay above yellow/grey clayey silt (178), that contained metal, glass and plastic finds. Beneath 178, fill 179 was a yellow/grey silty clay, that contained no artefacts. Trench 61 (Figs 5 and 9) Trench 61 was aligned south - north 25m long and a maximum of 0.42m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth, ditch 36 was aligned west - east, 1.2m wide and 0.47m deep. It was mainly filled with blue/grey clayey silt (96), 0.32m thick, that contained modern brick/tile fragments. Beneath 96 was yellow/grey silty clay (97), 0.15m thick that contained no artefacts. Trench 68 (Figs 5 and 10) Trench 68 was aligned south - north, 24.4m long and a maximum of 0.35m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth was ditch 40 that appeared to be recut as 41 (Pl. 4). Ditch 41 was aligned west - east, 1.4m wide and 0.40m deep. Top fill 154 was a yellow/grey sandy clay, 0.25m thick that contained no artefacts. Beneath 154 was 155, grey/black silt, 0.05m thick that contained ash, cinder and plastic finds. Beneath 155 was grey silty clay (156), 0.35m thick that contained no artefacts. Ditch 41 (re)cut ditch 40 which was more substantial, 2m wide and 0.8m deep. Its two fills were yellow grey sandy clay (152), 0.5m thick and brown/grey sandy clay (153), 0.35m thick: both contained no artefacts. Trench 72 (Figs 5 and 9) Trench 72 was aligned roughly west-east, was 26.50m long and a maximum of 0.51m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth were post holes 34 and 35. Post hole 34 was 0.18m in diameter and 0.08m deep, while post hole 35 was 0.25m in diameter and 0.12m deep. either grey silty clay fill contained artefacts. Trench 73 (Figs 5 and 11; Pl. 2) Trench 73 was aligned south - north 24.4m long and a maximum of 0.42m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth was a twice-recut ditch (45, 46, 47). Ditch 47 was aligned roughly west - east, 1.15m wide and 0.36m deep. Ditch 47 (the last recut) was filled with grey/black clayey silt (163), 0.25m thick containing modern glass and ceramic building material. Ditch 45 was broader but shallow, 2.0m wide and 0.26m deep. It was filled with red/yellow/grey clayey silt (161), 0.26m thick containing two sherds of 16th-century or later pottery, glass and brick/tile. The original ditch (46) was 0.70m wide and 0.25m deep and filled with (162) grey clayey silt, 0.25m thick that contained 19th/20th century glass and brick/tile. 8

11 Trench 75 (Figs 6 and 10) Trench 75 was aligned WSW EE, 24.70m long and a maximum of 0.43m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth were gully 43 and ditch 44. Gully 43 was aligned E SW, however the south west extend of the gully was present as a slight stain in the natural brickearth and a relationship with ditch 44 could not be established, it was 0.8m wide and a maximum of 0.25m deep. Gully 43 was filled with grey sandy clay (158) which contained no artefacts. Ditch 44 was aligned west - east, curving out of the trench to the south, 1.3m wide and 0.5m deep. Ditch 44 was mostly filled with (160) grey sandy clay, 0.5m thick that contained no artefacts, over which lay a shallow yellow sandy clay (159), with no artefacts. Trench 87 (Figs 6 and 9) Trench 87 was aligned south - north 28.0m long and a maximum of 0.39m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth was oval pit 33. Pit 33 was 0.54m long, 0.32m wide and 0.07m deep. It was filled with grey silty clay (93) that contained clinker and machine-made brick/tile. Trenches 5, 8,11, 13-23, 25, 27-30, 32, 33, 35-40, 42-53, 55, 56, 58, 62-67, 69, 70, 74, and 88 These trenches were aligned in the positions shown in Fig. 3 and were between 23.6m and 30m long, 1.8m wide and between 0.34m and 0.63m deep. o archaeological features, not even possible examples were present within these trenches although many contained modern field drains. Field 2 Trench 90 (Figs 6 and 11) Trench 90 was aligned west - east, 27.5m long, and a maximum of 0.40m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth were pit 48 and plough mark 49. Pit 48 (Pl. 5) was 0.5m in diameter and 0.1m deep and filled with yellow/grey silty clay (164) that contained 23 sherds of Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age pottery. The western end of trench 90 was enlarged, centred on pit 48, but no further features except for a plough mark were revealed. The plough mark (49) was linear in plan and contained 24 sherds of Roman pottery that may have come from another feature or have been pulled down from the surrounding top- or sub-soils. Trench 99 (Figs 6 and 11) Trench 99 was aligned SE W, was 25.6m long and a maximum of 0.50m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth was channel 110, which was irregular in plan with irregular sides and base, 3.04m wide and 0.30m deep. Its fill of yellow/red/brown clayey silt (175) that contained brick/tile and two sherds of 19th-century pottery. This channel may be part of a stream that has been diverted into the ditch to the south of Trench 99 forming the boundary between fields 1 and 2. 9

12 Trench 108 (Figs 6 and 11) Trench 108 was aligned SW E, was 27.4m long, and 0.37m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth, gully 101 was aligned roughly west - east, 0.82m wide and 0.16m deep. It was filled with red/yellow silt (101) that contained no artefacts. Trenches 116, 120, 125 and 133 (Figs 6, 7 and 11) A ditch corresponding to a geophysical anomaly could be traced across Trenches 116, 120 and 125, and carried on out of the geophysical survey area and into Trench 133. Two sections were dug though the ditch in Trenches 120 and 133 with the sections in Trenches 116 and 125 recorded in plan only. In all cases, the ditch had been recut as a field drain, the latter filled with ash, clinker, Tarmac and a large-bore ceramic pipe. Ditch 103 (Trench 116) was aligned roughly west - east, and 1.0m wide and filled with two grey yellow clayey silt deposits (190 and 191). In Trench 120, ditch 105 (Pl. 6) was 0.85m wide and 0.52m deep. It was filled with red/brown silty clay (173) 0.16m deep, above grey/brown silty clay (174). In Trench 125, this ditch (107) was 1.0m wide with a grey/yellow clay silt fill. In Trench 133, as ditch 109, it was more substantial, 1.28m wide and here filled with yellow/brown sandy clay (170) 0.45m deep and grey/brown sandy clay 0.35m thick clay (171). o finds were recovered from any of the ditch fills excavated and there were no other features in any of these trenches. Trench 131 (Figs 7 and 11) Trench 131 was aligned SW E, was 23.0m long and a maximum of 0.4m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth was tree bole 100, which was roughly circular in plan, 0.5m in diameter with irregular sides and base. It had been cut by a modern drain and was filled with red/yellow/grey silty clay (166) Trench 138 (Figs 7 and 11) Trench 138 was aligned W SE, 28.6m long and a maximum of 0.45m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural gravelly brickearth, ditch 111 was aligned roughly north - south, 2.40m long, 1.38m wide and 0.38m deep. Ditch 111 was filled with brown red/yellow silty clay (180) 0.21m thick, that contained brick/tile, above brown/red/yellow silty clay (181), 0.13m thick, which overlay yellow/grey clayey silt (182) 0.03m. The two lower fills contained no artefacts. Trench 146 (Figs 6 and 12) Trench 146 was aligned SW E and was 29.5m long and a maximum of 0.5m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth was ditch 113. Ditch 113 was aligned roughly south - north, 0.82m wide and 0.64m deep. Its yellow/grey sandy silt fill (186) contained ceramic building material and clinker. Trench 151 (Figs 6 and 12) Trench 151 was aligned SSW E, 33.0m long and a maximum of 0.47m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural geology which here was a mix of brickearth, gravel, clay and sand, was ditch 114. Ditch [114] was aligned rough west - east, 3.3m wide 0.62m deep. It had three fills. The latest (187), was blue/black clayey 10

13 silt 0.17m thick that contained modern glass. Beneath 187 was brown red/yellow clayey silt (188) 0.42m thick. The basal fill, 189 was yellow/grey clayey silt 0.18m thick. The two lower fills contained no artefacts. Trench 175 (Figs 7 and 11) Trench 175 was an additional trench placed to the north of Trench 138 to investigate the course of ditch 111. Trench 175 was aligned west - east and a maximum of 0.41m deep. Beneath the subsoil and cut into the natural brickearth was ditch 112. Similar to ditch 111, ditch 112 was 1.3m wide and 0.45m deep with three fills. The top fill 183 was brown/red/yellow silty clay 0.20m thick, and contained ceramic building material. Beneath 183 was 184 brown red/yellow silty clay 0.17m thick that contained no artefacts. Beneath 184 was 185, yellow/grey clayey silt 0.03m thick that contained no artefacts. Trenches 89, 91 8, , , , 121 4, , 132, 134 7, ,147 50, 173 and 174 These trenches were aligned in the positions shown in Fig. 3 and were between 23.2m and 30.2m long, 1.8m wide and between 0.36m and 0.65m deep. o archaeological features were present within these trenches Field 3 (Allotments) Trenches These trenches were aligned in the positions shown in Fig. 3 and were between 23.m and 39m long, 1.8m wide and between 0.25m and 0.5m deep. o archaeological features were present within these trenches Field 4 (Driving range) Trenches These trenches were aligned in the positions shown in Fig. 3 and were between 21.7m and 34.5m long, 1.8m wide and 0.45m deep. Trench 168 had no subsoil. o archaeological features were present within these trenches Finds Pottery by Paul Blinkhorn The pottery assemblage comprised 53 sherds with a total weight of 297g. It comprised largely prehistoric, Roman, medieval and later material, with the Roman and earlier pottery each largely represented by one fragmented vessel. 11

14 Prehistoric The Bronze Age assemblage comprised 23 sherds with a total weight of 126g. All but one sherd came from a single vessel. All the pottery of this type was hand-built, and densely tempered with crushed angular white flint up to 3mm. A few fragments of the rim were present. It had a fairly sharply angled everted profile, and a fingertipped bead, and there was also finger-tipping present on the outside of the vessel, directly on the neck carination. It appears most likely to be of late Bronze Age/early Iron Age date. Roman The Roman assemblage comprised 24 sherds with a total weight of 149g. It consisted mainly of a single, squat, wheel-thrown jar in a shelly fabric, along with a single small sherd of fine greyware. A date of the late 1st to 2nd century AD seems the most likely. Medieval and Later The medieval and later material was related to the coding system used by Cunningham (1985) F21: Orange Sandy ware, 13th 16th century. 1 sherd, 4g. F40: Red Earthenware, late 15th 18th century. 3 sherds, 15g. 19th: Miscellaneous 19th/20th century wares. 2 sherds, 3g. The pottery occurrence by number and weight of sherds per context by fabric type is shown in Appendix 3. All the post-roman pottery was abraded to a greater or lesser degree, and seems likely to be the product of manuring rather than occupation. The large sherds of Roman and earlier material do hint at activity at the site in that period, although it may be of a somewhat limited nature. Other finds All the other finds from the site were unequivocally 19th century or later (clinker, machined brick, metal and plastic items). These will be discarded in line with museum guidelines. Conclusion The two stages of evaluation have revealed a modest number of features across the site. The prior geophysical survey, and with hindsight, perhaps the aerial photographic evidence, only revealed a small number of anomalies considered at that time to reflect modern agriculture and field boundaries. The trenching phase of evaluation here revealed that of the features present, very few are of archaeological interest. Most of the features are in themselves undated but likely to be of no great antiquity. Just one feature has been dated to the prehistoric period. A very few pottery finds of Roman and Medieval date indicate some activity on the site but no cut 12

15 feature was confirmed as belong to these periods. Pottery and other finds of Post-Medieval and Modern date provided the dating for the majority of the features recorded. Pit 48 in Trench 90 contained Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age pottery and is the only deposit of archaeological interest. The area around this feature was extended but without revealing additional contemporary deposits and no similar deposits were revealed in adjacent trenches. It is possible that the deposit represents an isolated event. Several ditches, some of which are likely to have been examined in more than one trench as well as having been recorded by geophysical survey, coincide with boundaries shown on the Enclosure map of 1832 and on later maps (ditches 31, 32, 36 41, 45 7, 103 5, 107, 109, ). It is likely that these (where not dated later from the artefacts they contain) date from the early 19th century also. One ditch segment coincides with a boundary shown on the later Second Edition Ordnance Survey map (114). A slightly earlier ditch (4) seems to coincide with the current Borough boundary which was also the historic boundary of the Manor of Marks as shown on the map of It may date from this period also. o evidence of any sort was found for a barrow ditch or windmill suggested from the aerial photographs. In conclusion, despite the size of the site, the archaeological potential can be considered as being very low. References Austrums, R and Cook, J, 2008, Chadwell Heath, Romford, geophysical survey report, Stratascan, Upton upon Severn BDLDP, 1998, Barking and Dagenham Local Development Plan, adopted June 1996 BGS, 1976, British Geological Survey, 1:50000, Sheet 257, Drift Edition, Keyworth Cunningham, C M, 1985, A Typology for Post-Roman Pottery in Essex, in C M Cunningham and P J Drury, Post medieval sites and their pottery: Moulsham Street, Chelmsford CBA Res Rep 54, London, 1 16 HBC, 1993, Havering Unitary Development Plan, Havering Borough Council, adopted 1993 PPG16, 1990, Archaeology and Planning, Dept of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance 16, HMSO Preston, S, 2007, Chadwell Heath Golf Club, Romford, London Borough of Havering, an archaeological deskbased assessment, Thames Valley Archaeological Services rep 07/155, Reading 13

16 APPEDIX 1: Trench details 0m at south or west end Trench Length (m) Breadth (m) Depth (m) Comment m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ sandy clay with gravel patches natural geology. Ditch 4 [Plates 1 and 3] m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ sandy clay with gravel patches natural geology. Pit 3, gullies 1 and m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology. Pits 5, 6, 7 and m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.5m-0.6m+ brickearth natural geology. Post hole m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ sandy brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology.?ditch m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ sandy clay with gravel patches natural. Ditches 12, 13, tree bole m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ sandy clay natural with gravel patches m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ sandy clay natural with gravel patches. Ditch 16=17, post holes 14, m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ sandy clay natural with gravel patches m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology with gravel patches m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology. Ditch m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology. Field drains m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology. Field drains m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology. Postholes 20, 21, m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology. Pit m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology. Gully 24, pits 26, 27, ditch m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology. Gully m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology 14

17 Trench Length (m) Breadth (m) Depth (m) Comment m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.55m-0.63m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology. Pit 29 posthole m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.38m+ brickearth natural geology. Modern ditch m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.4m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m of subsoil; 0.29m brickearth natural geology. Ditches 37 and m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.38m+ brickearth natural geology. Ditch m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.38m brickearth natural geology. Ditch m topsoil; 0.1m-0.3m subsoil; 0.3+ Brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.34m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.38m+ brickearth natural geology. Unexcavated m topsoil; m of subsoil; 0.34m+ brickearth natural geology. Unexcavated m topsoil; m of subsoil; 0.31m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.38m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.3m+ brickearth natural geology. Ditches 40, 41. [Plate 4] m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology. Field drain m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.30m+ brickearth natural geology. Field drain m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.41m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.45m+ brickearth natural geology. Postholes 34, m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology. Ditch and recuts 45, 46, 47 [Plate 2] m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.34m+ brickearth natural geology. Gully 43, ditch m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.28m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.28m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.32m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.34m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.40m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.39m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.41m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.32m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology. Post hole m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.37m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.42m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology. Plough scar 49, pit 48. [Plate 5] m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.37m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.32m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.40m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.37m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.5m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.45m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.45m+ brickearth natural geology. Channel m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.4m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.34m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.37m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.37m+ brickearth natural geology 15

18 Trench Length (m) Breadth (m) Depth (m) Comment m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth and gravel natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.40m+ sandy brick earth natural m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.3m+ brickearth natural geology. Gully m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.3m+ Brickearth and gravel natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth and gravel natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.30m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; m gravel layer; 0.45m+ Brickearth and gravel natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.32m+ brickearth with gravel, natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.37m+ brickearth and gravel natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ Brickearth and gravel natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth and gravel natural geology. Ditch 103, drain m topsoil; m subsoil; m gravel layer; 0.46m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.37m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.38m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.37m+ brickearth natural geology. Ditch 105, drain 104. [Plate 6] m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.30m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.27m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.4m+ brickearth natural geology. Ditch 107, drain m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.5m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.4m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.4m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.38m+ brickearth and gravel natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.3m+ brickearth natural geology. Tree bole m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.43m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.37m+ brickearth natural geology. Ditch 109, drain m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.4m+ brickearth natural geology with clay and gravel to the south m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.46m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.37m+ brickearth natural geology. Ditch m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.3m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.46m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.3m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.4m+ brickearth natural geology. Ditch m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.32m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.38m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.32m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.38m+ brickearth natural geology. Ditch m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.28m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.37m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.30m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.3m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.32m+ brickearth natural geology 16

19 Trench Length (m) Breadth (m) Depth (m) Comment m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.25m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.32m+ clayey sand natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ clayey sand natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ gravel natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.30m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; 0.25m+ natural gravel geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.35m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.37m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.36m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.37m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.48m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.44m+ brickearth natural geology m topsoil; m subsoil; 0.39m+ brickearth natural geology. Ditch

20 APPEDIX 2: Feature details Trench Cut Fill (s) Type Date Dating evidence , 55, 56 Ditch Modern Glass, brick Gully Post-medieval Clay pipe Gully Pit , 58, 59, 60, 61 Quarry pit Modern Tarmac, modern metal finds Quarry pit Modern Quarry pit Modern same as Quarry pit Modern same as Post hole Ditch Tree bole , 69 Ditch Ditch Post hole Post hole Gully (=17) Gully (=16) Gully Ditch Modern Glass, metal Gully Pit Pit 16th century or later Pottery Pit Pit 19th century /modern Brick (medieval pottery residual) Gully Pit Post hole Ditch Gully 19th century /modern Cartography Pit Post hole , 90, 91, 92 Ditch Modern Metal, glass , 99 Ditch 19th century /modern Cartography , 151 Ditch recut Modern Metal, glass, brick/tile , 177, 178, 179 Ditch Modern Metal, glass, plastic , 97 Ditch Modern Machine made brick , 153 Ditch Modern as , 155, 156 Ditch recut Modern Plastic etc Post hole Post hole Modern Ditch recut 16th century or later Pottery, glass Ditch Modern Glass, cbm Ditch recut Modern Glass, cbm Gully , 160 Ditch Post hole 19th century /modern Clinker, machine made brick Pit Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Pottery Plough mark? Roman pottery most likely intrusive Channel 19th century /modern Pottery, cartography Gully Land drain Modern Ditch Post-medieval/modern Land drain Modern , 174 ditch Post-medieval/modern Land drain Modern Ditch Post-medieval/modern Tree bole , 169 Land drain Modern , 171 Ditch , 181, 182 Ditch Post-medieval Brick, cartography Ditch Post-medieval/modern Brick/tile, clinker , 189 Ditch Modern Modern glass , 184, 185 Ditch Post-medieval Brick, cartography 18

21 APPEDIX 3: Pottery catalogue LBA/EIA Roman Shell Roman Grey Medieval F21 Post Medieval Redware 19thC Trench Cut Deposit o Wt o Wt o Wt o Wt o Wt o Wt Total

22 Appendix 4: OASiS Form 20

23 OASIS FORM - Print view OASIS DATA COLLECTIO FORM: England List of Projects Search Projects ew project Change your details HER coverage Change country Log out Printable version OASIS ID: thamesva Project details Project name Short description of the project Chadwell Heath Golf Club Trenching revealed mainly 19th-century and later ditches. One small pit containing Late Bronze Age/early Iron Age pottery seems to be an isolated deposit. A small amount of Roan and medieval pottery was found but no features of those dates. Project dates Start: End: Previous/future work Any associated project reference codes Any associated project reference codes Any associated project reference codes Type of project Site status Current Land use o / Yes WBL09 - Sitecode CHR07/155 - Contracting Unit o. WBL09 - Museum accession ID Field evaluation one Cultivated Land 4 - Character Undetermined 1 of 4 12/10/09 12:36

24 OASIS FORM - Print view Monument type Significant Finds Methods & techniques PIT Late Bronze Age CERAMICS Late Bronze Age 'Sample Trenches','Targeted Trenches' Development type Golf course Prompt Position in the planning process Direction from Local Planning Authority - PPG16 After full determination (eg. As a condition) Project location Country Site location Study area Site coordinates Height OD / Depth England GREATER LODO HAVERIG ROMFORD Chadwell Heath Golf Club Hectares TQ E Point Min: 20.00m Max: 30.00m Project creators ame of Organisation Project brief originator Project design originator Project director/manager Project director/manager Project supervisor Type of sponsor/funding body ame of sponsor/funding Thames Valley Archaeological Services English Heritage/Department of Environment Steve Ford Steve Ford Jo Pine Andrew Weale Developer Cranfield Golf Academy 2 of 4 12/10/09 12:36

25 OASIS FORM - Print view body Project archives Physical Archive recipient Physical Contents Physical Archive notes Digital Archive Exists? Paper Archive recipient Paper Contents Paper Media available Paper Archive notes WBL09 'Ceramics' temporarily with TVAS in Reading pending deposition o WBL09 'Ceramics','Stratigraphic','Survey' 'Context sheet','correspondence','drawing','manuscript','matrices','microfilm','miscellaneous Material','Photograph','Plan','Report','Section','Survey ' temporarily with TVAS in Reading pending deposition Project bibliography 1 Publication type Title Grey literature (unpublished document/manuscript) Chadwell Heath Golf Club, Romford, London Borough of Havering; an archaeological evaluation (phase 1) Author(s)/Editor(s) Weale, A Other bibliographic details 07/155b Date 2009 Issuer or publisher Thames Valley Archaeological Services Place of issue or publication Description Reading A4 comb-bound client report 3 of 4 12/10/09 12:36

26 OASIS FORM - Print view Entered by Steve Preston (tvas@tvas.co.uk) Entered on 12 October 2009 OASIS: Please English Heritage for OASIS help and advice ADS Created by Jo Gilham and Jen Mitcham, Last modified Friday 3 February 2006 Cite only: /d1/export/home/web/oasis/form/print.cfm for this page 4 of 4 12/10/09 12:36

27 SITE SITE TQ Chadwell Heath Golf Course, Whalebone Lane orth, Romford, London Borough of Havering, 2009 Archaeological Evaluation WBL 09 Figure 1. Location of site within Chadwell Heath and Greater London. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 174 at 1: Ordnance Survey Licence

28 Chadwell Heath Golf Course, Whalebone Lane orth, Romford, London Borough of Havering, m 30m DRIVIG RAGE m m Eastern Avenue West TQ KEY linear anomaly- field boundary or agricultural positive linear anomaly negative linear anomaly linear anomaly - land drainage positive area anomaly magnetic debris London Road magnetic interference 46 magnetic variation - geological m Figure 2. Location of trenches in relation to geophysical survey anomalies. WBL 09

29 Chadwell Heath Golf Course, Whalebone Lane orth, Romford, London Borough of Havering, Eastern Avenue West m , , , 102, m DRIVIG RAGE 48, m m , , , ,46, , , TQ , London Road m Figure 3. Location of trenches (red) with features (black). WBL 09

30 Chadwell Heath Golf Course, Whalebone Lane orth, Romford, London Borough of Havering, 2009 Trench 1 4 Trench 2 Trench m 26m 0 10m Figure 4. Detail of trenches. WBL m 1 10m 3 13m 14m 17m Trench 3 Trench 6 land drain tarmac 4m 10m spread 16m m 7m 10 Trench 7 Trench m 5m 10m 14m m 5m 10m 16 Trench 9 cont. Trench m 15m 24m 0m 5m 18

31 Chadwell Heath Golf Course, Whalebone Lane orth, Romford, London Borough of Havering, 2009 Trench 12 Trench 24 Trench m 8m 8m 23 geology change 5m 8m 13m 15m Trench 31 Trench Trench m 22m 25 8m 12m 24 16m 21m 19m 22m Trench 54 Trench 57 Trench 59 Trench m 2m 16m 21m 1m 4m 12m 17m m 7m land drains Trench 61 Trench m 5m Trench m 6m 6m 10m Trench m 9m 0 10m Figure 5. Detail of trenches. WBL 09

32 Chadwell Heath Golf Course, Whalebone Lane orth, Romford, London Borough of Havering, 2009 Trench 75 Trench 87 18m 33 21m 0 10m Figure 6. Detail of trenches. WBL land drains 0m 5m 10m 14m 17m 42 Trench 90 Trench 99 0m 10m m 19m 48 Trench 108 Trench 116 Trench 120 0m 4m m 22m plough scar 101 5m 8m m 15m 104 Trench Trench 146 Trench m 13m 1m 113 8m 2m 7m

33 Chadwell Heath Golf Course, Whalebone Lane orth, Romford, London Borough of Havering, 2009 Trench 131 Trench 133 Trench 138 modern m 9m m 19m 108 1m 7m Trench m 4m 0 10m Figure 7. Detail of trenches. WBL 09

34 Chadwell Heath Golf Course, Whalebone Lane orth, Romford, London Borough of Havering, 2009 SW E 23.07maOD S WSW EE Topsoil 53 disturbed edge (root action) 21.38m 2 1 Subsoil 23.02m S Topsoil Subsoil m S Topsoil Subsoil 20.84m SE W 21.38m E 65 9 W WSW 67 WSW EE EE 22.74m 22.69m 68 Toposil SSE W 22.7m S 23.25m W E 23.25m Subsoil 21.26m W E 23.16m m 16 Figure 8. Sections WBL 09

35 Chadwell Heath Golf Course, Whalebone Lane orth, Romford, London Borough of Havering, 2009 S S SSE W 22.49maOD 21.06m 19.31m W E W E 20.36m 20.36m W 79 E 20.23m W E W E SSW 21.41m WW ESE 19.35m Topsoil W SE 19.47m Subsoil 20.3m SW E 19.43m ESE WW ESE WW 16.32m 16.35m WSW EE 17.46m WW ESE Topsoil 91 Subsoil 18.71m W SSE 17.81m E 93 SW E SSW SW E 18.48m 19.11m 19.14m m Figure 9. Sections WBL 09

36 Chadwell Heath Golf Course, Whalebone Lane orth, Romford, London Borough of Havering, 2009 S 18.18maOD W SSE 16.96m E SSW 39 Topsoil Subsoil 17.9m WW ESE Topsoil 153 Subsoil 18.61m WSW EE land drains Topsoil 42 Subsoil 158 SSE W 18.45m 18.43m m Figure 10. Sections WBL 09

37 Chadwell Heath Golf Course, Whalebone Lane orth, Romford, London Borough of Havering, 2009 SSE W Topsoil Subsoil disturbed fill and subsoil maOD m E SW 19.02m SSW modern E 22.1m 172 S 19.4m S m E 109 W 19.4m WW ESE WW ESE 24.9m 24.7m m Figure 11. Sections WBL 09

38 Chadwell Heath Golf Course, Whalebone Lane orth, Romford, London Borough of Havering, maOD m m Figure 12. Sections WBL 09

39 Plate 1. Trench 60, looking north, scales: 1m and 2m. Plate 2. Trench 73, looking north, scales: 1m and 2m. WBL 09

40 Plate 3. Trench 60, ditch 39, looking east, scales: 1m and 0.5m. Plate 4. Trench 68, ditch 40 recut 41, scales: 1m and 0.5m WBL 09

41 Plate 5. Trench 90, pit 48, looikng north, scales: 05m and 0.1m Plate 6. Trench 120, ditch 105, drain recut 104, looking east south east, scales: 1m and 0.5m. WBL 09