discovering bow and nymet tracey through the ages pit survey/bow archaeology... · discovering bow...

1

DISCOVERING BOW AND NYMET TRACEY THROUGH THE AGES

By

Penny Cunningham PhD Exploring Archaeology Project

March 2009

On behalf of the Bow Community Archaeology Project

2

Acknowledgements Thanks are due to all the landowners for granting permission to the Bow Community Archaeology Project and the XArch Project to excavate test pits in their back gardens. To all the local volunteers and landowners who not only helped to excavate the test pits, but also provided tea, coffee, biscuits and many other refreshments throughout the weekend. To all the University of Exeter students (in no particular order); Sian Smith, Mandy Kingdom, Matthew Blewett, John Gates, Rod Lane, Hugh Clayden, Victoria Platt, Charlotte Young, Rob Allington, Angus Forshaw, Natasha Sebo and Sophie House who gave up their weekend to help with the survey. To Faye Simpson who helped with the planning and supervision of the test pits. To Caroline Taylor and Peter Green for providing information on the known history and archaeology of the parish of Bow. To Caroline Taylor for organising the event and encouraging local volunteers to participate not only in the excavations but also to give permission to dig up their gardens and for organising the follow up ‘finds’ day’. To Jill Nicks for providing hot drinks and cake to all the volunteers at the end of each day of the survey. Also to Danielle Wootton, who not only volunteered and helped dig one of the test pits in Nymet Tracey, but who also helped with the identification of the finds. To Wendy Howard who identified the animal bones and Lee Bray who identified the burnt clay. To Peter Green for helping, especially with finds cleaning and for keeping us supplied with tea/coffee during the ‘finds day’. To Lynne Walmsley, Peter Green, Geoff Horner and Harry West-Taylor for helping with the post-excavation analysis.

Cover Design: Bow Village, c1900, www.heardfamilyhistory.org.uk/Mid%20Devon.htm

The views and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the projects team and are presented in good faith on the basis of professional judgement and on information currently available.

No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the publisher.

http://www.heardfamilyhistory.org.uk/Mid Devon.htm

3

Contents 1 Summary...............................................................................................................5 2 Site location and description ...............................................................................6 3 Archaeological and historical background ........................................................6 4 Test Pit Survey .....................................................................................................8

4.1 Aims and objectives............................................................................................. 8 4.2 Methodology........................................................................................................ 8 4.3 Collection and processing of finds ...................................................................... 8 4.4. Results: Bow........................................................................................................ 9 4.5 Results: Nymet Tracey ...................................................................................... 10

5. Finds and Discussion..........................................................................................11 5.1 Flint.................................................................................................................... 11 5.2. Pottery ............................................................................................................... 11 5.3 Clay Pipes .......................................................................................................... 12 5.4 Other finds ......................................................................................................... 13

6 Discussion............................................................................................................13 7 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................15 8 Bibliography .......................................................................................................16 List of Tables Table 1: Flint artefacts 12 Table 2: Identified pottery from Bow 13 Table 3: Identified pottery from Nymet Tracey 13 Table 4: Clay Pipe from Bow 13 Table 5: Clay pipes from Nymet Tracey 13 Table 6: Number of pottery sherds from the test pits 14 Table 7: Photo Index: Test Pit survey: Bow 23 Table 8: Photo index: Test Pit Survey, Nymet Tracey 23 Table 9: Finds from TPB08-1 24 Table 10: Finds from TPB08-3 25-26 Table 11: Finds from TPB08-4 26 Table 12: Finds from TPB08-5 26-27 Table 13: Finds from TPB08-6… 27 Table 14: Finds from TPNT08-1 28-29 Table 15: Finds from TPNT08-2 29 Table 16: Finds from TPNT08-3 29-30 Table 17: Finds from TPNT08-4 30 Table 18: Finds from TPNT08-5 31 Table 19: Context index 32

List of Figures Figure 1: Location map of Bow and Nymet Tracey 7 Figure 2: Location of Test Pits in Bow village 18 Figure 3: Location of test pits in Nymet Tracey 19 Figure 4: 1842 Tithe map of Bow parish 20 Figure 5: 1842 Tithe map of Bow parish 20 Figure 6: Bow, OS 1st edition, 12500 21 Figure 7: Nymet Tracey, OS 1st edition, 1:2500 22 Figure 8: TPB08-1: section and plan 33 Figure 9: TPB08-3 section 33

4

Figure 10: TPB08-6: section 34 Figure 11: TPNT08-2: section 34 Figure 12: TPNT08-3: section 35 Figure 13: TPNT08-4: section 35 Figure 14: TPNT08-5 section and plan 36 Figure 15: TPB08-1: North face of section 37 Figure 16: TPNT08-5: Cobble surface 37

5

1 Summary

The Bow Community Archaeology Project and the Exploring Archaeology Project (XArch) (funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and University of Exeter) conducted a test pit survey in the villages of Bow and Nymet Tracey, Devon, November 2008. The main aim of the survey was to determine if we could understand the development of these two villages through material remains. It was hoped that we will be able to determine whether Nymet Tracey was once a more substantial settlement than it is today and whether it was the main settlement of the parish. Unfortunately, the test pit survey was not on a large enough scale to answer these questions; however, the survey has made some contribution to the history of both these villages.

6

2 Site location and description The villages of Nymet Tracey and Bow lie in a lowland area of mid Devon and are located midway between Crediton and Okehampton, in the parish of Bow (Figure 1). The two villages are two miles apart and are joined by a single road and a public footpath. Although Nymet Tracey is the location of the parish church, the settlement is very small, the main larger settlement of the parish, is Bow. The village of Bow has built up around the main road that runs in an east-west direction through the centre of the village, and for this reason can be considered a planned village (Figures 2-5). Only in the 20th century did the village start to develop north and southwards along side roads leading off from the main road. In contrast, Nymet Tracey is slightly more complex; the plan of the village suggests a polyfocal development centred on the church and a road junction where Walson Road (the old road from Bow to Crediton) has a junction with Hilldown Road (Figures 3).

3 Archaeological and historical background The parish of Bow has evidence of a wealth of prehistoric activity including ceremonial features such as, henge monuments and ring ditches, along with evidence of prehistoric settlements and enclosures (Griffiths1985a & b). The name Nymet is derived from the old English ‘nemento’ meaning a sacred place or grove (Griffiths 1985b), this translation has lead to the suggestion that the original church stands on a site linked to ancient pagan ritual/worship (Carbonell 1931). A Roman road, leading directly to the Roman military complex in North Tawton, forms part of the western boundary of the parish and is therefore, located nearer to the village of Nymet Tracey than Bow (Carbonell 1928). The present village of Nymet Tracey is centred on the church of St Bartholomew. The original dedication of the Church was to St. Martin of Tours, renowned for driving out pagans. The earliest part of the church is believed to have been constructed in 1170 with further additions added in the 13th, 14th, 17th and 19th centuries. The manor of Nymet was first mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon charters of 739AD and is also mentioned in the Doomsday Book (Carbonell 1928).

The remains of ‘Tracey Castle’ at Hilldown farm, located two miles to the south of Nymet Tracey, supports the theory that the church was built as a private chapel, away from the main settlement. In addition, it was not unusual in the 11th and 12th centuries for churches to be built by wealthy landowners. However, as it was built two miles from the castle, in this case, this theory becomes questionable. Furthermore, the earthwork remains of the castle are not typical of a medieval castle; instead, they are more likely to be the remains of a medieval moated site or the result of post-medieval landscaping (Higham and Rouillard 1989). Although there is little obvious evidence, in the form of earthworks, building remains or obvious changes in layout of a larger village at Nymet Tracey, there is a possibility that it is a ‘shrunken’ medieval village and once the main settlement of the parish. Folk traditions, or tales, suggest that Nymet Tracey had over 80 houses until a fire destroyed the majority of them

7

in the late nineteenth century; however, there is little evidence to substantiate this claim (Carbonell 1928).

The village of Bow also dates back to the 11th century and was located along a major medieval route way to Cornwall. In the mid 13th century, when Henry de Tracey was granted the right to hold a weekly market and a yearly fair; he chose to hold it in Bow rather than Nymet Tracey. As industry developed in the parish, particularly tanning, so did the road and the village. The tanning industry grew up in Halse and resulted in a new road being built from Appledore to Bow which had the effect of isolating Nymet Tracey. The road through Bow also acted as the main thoroughfare from Exeter to Launceston and was used by the woollen industry as a major transportation route (Carbonell 1928). Later in the 18th century, the main route between London and Plymouth/Falmouth passed through Bow and regular coach journeys were made between Bow and Exeter. Bow developed a thriving and growing community from the 18th century, with 677 inhabitants in 1800 to 994 in 1850, but fell to 660 in 1900 perhaps due to the loss of the tanning industry. In 1844, there were 5 inns, 6 shoemakers, 4 blacksmiths in Bow servicing its inhabitants and travellers. There is no evidence that Nymet Tracey was anything more than a small farming community (Carbonell 1928). During the 19th century, with such a thriving community, we would expect to see a church in Bow. Instead, in the 18th century, a number of non-conformist groups were established. In 1911, a special licence was granted for a church room in Bow which lead to the relocation of the rectory from Nymet Tracey to Bow. However, the church room could not be used for funerals, marriages or baptisms, so the church at Nymet Tracey was still needed (Carbonell 1928). As we can see, the development of Bow over Nymet Tracey as the main settlement of the parish has many explanations including, its location along a major route way, location of a weekly market and a fire destroying most of the houses in Nymet Tracey. In addition, access to water has been sited as another reason. The river Yeo runs to the west of Bow which provided power for the mills at Natson and Zeal, whereas Nymet Tracey had only a well/spring until the mid 19th century when a reservoir was constructed (Carbonell 1928). However, none of these explanations help us to understand whether Nymet Tracey was a more substantial settlement than it is today and whether it was ever the main settlement of the parish. To continue with the research and to collect as much archaeological data as possible from the back gardens of houses in Nymet Tracey and Bow, a test pit survey was undertaken. Little is know of the development of the two villages during the historic period and also why Bow has grown to be the main settlement of the parish and not the more centrally located, and site of the parish church, Nymet Tracey. It was hoped that by conducting the test pit survey in both villages, we would be able to compare and contrast their developments and begin to answer these questions.

8

4 Test Pit Survey

4.1 Aims and objectives

1. To conduct a systematic test pit survey in the back gardens of houses in both Nymet Tracey and Bow.

2. To increase community involvement and heritage awareness in Bow and Nymet Tracey.

3. To highlight the benefits of test pit surveys in answering archaeological questions in both

currently occupied rural settlements (CORS) and a possible ‘shrunken’ medieval village.

4. To further the understanding of the historic development of Bow and Nymet Tracey through the results of the test pit survey.

4.2 Methodology

The location of the test pits was determined by the willingness of the landowners to take part in the project; thus, the test pit survey fits within a stratified random sampling strategy. Six, 1m x 1m, square pits were located in Bow and 5 in Nymet Tracey (Figures 6 & 7). The location of all pits was recorded in relation to the nearest house. The pits were excavated using trowels in 0.10m spits to a depth no deeper than 0.45m and all the excavated soil was sieved. Each pit was allocated its own unique number Each team was given a booklet which contained all the information they needed to record the test pits. Recordings of all archaeological features were made, with each context being allocated a unique number. All cuts are presented within [ ] brackets, and fills/deposits within ( ) brackets. All plans and sections were drawn to a scale of 1:20 and 1:10 respectively in the booklet, and included standard information including site details, date, north arrow and scale. All plans and sections were scanned and digitised. Post-excavation photographs were taken using a digital camera and were assigned a number using a continuous numbering system.

4.3 Collection and processing of finds All finds were collected and placed in labelled bags with reference to the spit/context in which they were extracted along with the test pit reference number. Finds were cleaned, identified and recorded and returned to the landowner. Finds identification was undertaken by Danielle Wootton and Wendy Howard.

9

4.4. Results: Bow

4.4.1. TPB08-1: The NE corner of this test pit was located 29m north of the house (Dukefield) and 10 m west from the eastern hedge boundary in the back garden. The pit was dug to a depth of 0.30m and contained two contexts (101), (102) and cut [103]. Context (101) reached the full depth of the pit and was cut by [103] that contained fill (102). Cut [103] is a linear feature that is orientated N-S; the full depth of this feature is unknown as it was not fully excavated. It is likely that cut [103] represents the location of an old pipe (Figures 8 and 15).

4.4.2. TPB08-2: This pit was located 2.65m north and 2.49m from the western

boundary of Hildons House. On request from the landowners, the test pit was situated in a cobbled floor. However, after excavating to a depth of 0.50m through cobbled floor construction material with no finds, the test pit was closed. A second pit was opened to the north-east of TPB08-2 (see TPB08-7).

4.4.3. TPB08-3: Located 2.82m east and 20m (north) from the NW corner of

Dartmoor View. The pit contained three context (301), (302), and (303) and was dug to a depth of 0.25m. Context (301) contained no finds and had a rougher texture than contexts (302) and (303). Both (302) and (303) contained a number of finds including pottery, flint, bone, glass and metal (Figure 9).

4.4.4. TPB08-4: Located in the back garden of a modern house. The NW corner of

the test pit was 13.15m from the NW corner of the house. The test pit was excavated to a depth of 0.25m and contained only one context (401). A small number of finds were found including pottery, glass, metal and wood.

4.4.5. TPB08-5: This test pit was located at the southern end of the vegetable

garden situated at the back of The Gables. The SW corner of the test pit was located 12m (north) and 2.57m (east) of the boundary between the vegetable garden and the northern boundary of Smith’s Cottage (located to the east of The Gables). This test pit also only had one context (501) that contained a variety of finds including, pottery, bone, glass, metal and building material.

4.4.6. TPB08-6: This test pit was located in a walled garden to the north of Reeves

House. The NE corner of the test pit was 15.86m from the north wall and 7.05m from the western wall of the walled garden. The pit was dug to a depth of 0.30m and had two contexts (601) and (602); both have been interpreted as top soil (Figure 10).

4.4.7. TPB08-7: This second pit at Hildons, was located 6.23m north of the garden

wall and 11.90m from the western boundary (NE of TPB08-2). The pit was dug to a depth of 0.25m and contained only one context (701). A number of finds including bone, glass and metal were found. However, the landowners kept the finds; consequently, they are not included in any further analysis.

10

4.5 Results: Nymet Tracey

4.5.1. TPNT08-1: This test pit was located in the walled garden of Glebe House. The NE corner of the pit was 4.5 m from the north wall and 4.05m from the eastern wall of the walled garden. Three meters north of the test pit were the remains of a wall protruding, for approximately a metre, from the north wall of the walled garden. The test pit was placed in line with this wall. The test pit had only one context (101) that contained a number of finds including, pottery, bone, glass, metal, building material and burnt clay. The pit was dug to a depth of 0.35m and no evidence of a wall was found.

4.5.2. TPNT08-2: This test pit was located in scrub vegetation between the walled

garden and the private road that leads to Glebe House from Walson Road. The test pit contained three contexts (201), (202) and (203) with (203) being more compacted, harder than (201) and (202). The texture of (203) is suggestive of a surface. All three contexts had a few finds largely consisting of pottery (Figure 11).

4.5.3. TPNT08-3: This test pit was located in the back garden of St Martins between

the churchyard boundary (on the eastern side) and the cesspit to the west. The NW corner of the test pit was 18m from the SW corner of the house. The pit was dug to a depth of 0.30m and contained two contexts (301), (302), and cut [303]. Although there appears to be a clear demarcation between (301) and (302), the latter may simply be an area of recently disturbed earth rather than a clearly defined feature. Cut [303] was not identified in plan only in section along the SE-NW face of the test pit (Figure 12).

4.5.4. TPNT08-4: This test pit was located in a small field to the south of Tracey

View and NE of Tracey Farm. The SW corner of the test pit was 26m from the gate post in the SE corner of the field and 9m from the field’s western boundary. The ground was waterlogged especially at the southern end of the test pit. This field has evidence of recent fires and is often used for grazing. The pit had two contexts (401) and (402) with the latter being slightly drier than the former. Cut [403] has vertical sides, but with a very irregular base. This feature was only seen in section and therefore, could just represent an area of recent disturbance. Both (401) and (402) contained a number of finds including pottery, glass and metal (Figure 13).

4.5.5. TPNT08-5: The SW corner of the test was located 8m (north) from the NW

corner of the house and 3m from the western boundary in the back garden of a modern conversion. As part of the development of the property, the garden had been raised and landscaped. This pit was dug to a depth of 0.45m and contained three contexts (501), (502) and (503), and cut [504]. Although there were three contexts, there were no finds. However, context (503) is a cobbled surface that spreads for approximately 0.60m into the NW side of the test pit. Cut [504] (orientated N-S) is irregular in plan and represents the interface between the cobbled surface (503) and context (502) (Figures 14 and 16).

11

5. Finds and Discussion Although the test pits did not reach a depth greater than 0.45m, a large number of finds were found including, animal bones, metal objects, clay pipe fragments and pottery sherds (Tables 9-18). The majority of the finds appear to be modern; this report only discusses the flint, post-medieval pottery, clay pipes and burnt clay (Tables 1-5).

5.1 Flint (Table 1) Two of the test pits in Bow produced three worked flints (2 from TPB08-1 & 1 from TPB08-3). Both of these test pits were located at the eastern end of the village and away from any of the more recent developments. Most of the prehistoric activity so far identified in Bow has been in the western and central areas of the parish. These three pieces of flint are the first to be found in the eastern part of the village and parish. All three flint artefacts have cortex attached and evidence of retouch, but they also look quite crude. As with most pieces of flint, they have been dated to the prehistoric period .

5.2. Pottery (Tables 2 & 3) The majority of the pottery is ‘modern’, no medieval or earlier pottery was identified. However, there was a range of distinctive pottery types dating from the post medieval period (17th – 18th century) including, North Devon ware and Bristol/Staffordshire ware along with some imported wares. There are four pottery sherds representing imported wares from France (saintonge ware), Spain (olive jar) and the Rhineland (westerwald). The latter was found in test pit TPB08-6 and the former two were found in (TPB08-3). Saintonge ware was made in the south of France and began to be imported into Britain in the early 13th century. The single sherd in this collection has an internal mottled green glaze and is dated to the 18th century (Wootton pers comm.). The Spanish olive jar sherd has a light grey glaze with cobalt blue strips. The two sherds of westerwald have a mixture of impressed and incised decoration with patches of cobalt blue glaze. These two pieces of stoneware are conjoining pieces that perhaps came from a jug and date to the 17th or 18th century. All these pottery types were identified in excavations from Exeter and have been found in other areas of Devon including Plymouth (Allen 1984). The presence of north Devon ware and Bristol/Staffordshire wares also indicate post-medieval pottery in the two villages. The Bristol/Staffordshire wares in Bow correspond with the increasing finds of similar pottery in Exeter during the later 17th and 18th centuries when more locally produced pottery went into decline. Documentary data from Exeter indicates that the city started trading with Bristol and Liverpool during the 18th century and this is also reflected in the increase of Bristol/Staffordshire ware into the city (Allen 1984). During the 18th century, the north Devon potteries, at Bideford and Barnstaple, were at their most productive; supplying pottery to the majority of the local markets (Grant 1983; Allen et al 2005). The north Devon ware found in the test pit survey consist of several different types including one piece of gravel-free ware and one piece of sgraffito. However, the majority of the sherds come from plain (glazed and unglazed) domestic wares. The possible piece of sgraffito ware, found in pit TPNT08-4, is interesting as the production of sgraffito ware in north Devon began to decline in the 18th century. Sgraffito ware represents a

12

more sophisticated method of pottery production and decoration than other forms of north Devon ware. Examples of sgraffito ware have been found in Exeter; with one of the nicest examples coming from a rich merchant’s house leading to the suggestion that sgraffito ware was most likely purchased by wealthier members of society (Grant 1983). The presence of sgraffito ware does begin to decline in Exeter from 18th century at a time when there is an increase in decorated Bristol/Staffordshire ware (Allen 1984). The numbers of identifiable pottery sherds are very small, consequently, we can only speculate on the significance of the different types of pottery found in both Bow and Nymet Tracey. It is interesting that we have a single piece of sgraffito ware in Nymet Tracey and 5 pieces of Bristol/Staffordshire ware in Bow. Does this indicate a decline in Nymet Tracey around the end of the 17th century? However, the single piece of sgraffito ware is very abraded with little of the glaze remaining. The high level of abrasion suggests that this piece has been transported through manuring or ploughing and it is interesting that it was found in a field that is currently used for grazing, but on the tithe map, it is recorded as a garden. It is not surprising that the majority of post-medieval pottery came from North Devon considering the location of Bow within easy reach of both Exeter and Okehampton. North Devon pottery was regularly sold in Devon until the 18th century (Grant 1983). The distribution of sites with north Devon ware, indicate that in Bow, north Devon ware was the main source of domestic pottery; as it was for a number of the towns located to the west of Exeter (Grant 1983). Unlike Exeter, and other towns to the east, no south Somerset ware was identified in any of the test pits. The imported wares may also indicate that there was trade with Exeter, perhaps indirectly through Credition or even Okehampton. Furthermore, Okehampton was also on a trade link between north Devon and Plymouth were imported and local wares would have also passed through. The lack of south Somerset ware in Bow is surprising considering that Bow was located on the main thoroughfare between Exeter and Cornwall. Two of the explanations of the large numbers of south Somerset ware in Exeter were the good condition of the roads between Exeter and London and a south Somerset pottery production site located in Honiton. However, does this mean that the roads further to the west of Exeter were not in such good condition or is it due to the transportation of south Somerset ware, by water, to Plymouth (and other parts of south Devon) and Cornwall (Allen 1984) and therefore, there was no need to transport pottery, by road, further west than Exeter.

5.3 Clay Pipes Unsurprisingly, at both Bow and Nymet Tracey there was a small number of clay pipe fragments probably dating from 17th century onwards, although pipe smoking began in the preceding century. The majority of the pieces are stems which are very difficult to date; however, one piece has an identification mark that indicates that it was made in Salisbury c.1750. Test Pit Flint tool Weight Quantity TPB08-1 Poss. Scraper 5.6g 1 TPB08-1 Poss. scraper 3.9g 1 TPB08-3 Notched flint 20.4g 1 Table 1: Flint artefacts

13

Test Pit Pottery Type Weight Quantity Date TPB08-1 Bristol/Staffs Ware 6.4g 4 Post medieval

North Devon Ware 25.1g 2 Post-medieval TPB08-3 North Devon Gravel free

Ware (quartz inclusions)

4.4g 1 Post-medieval

Saintonge 1.9g 1 Post Medieval Spanish Olive jar 2.6g 1 Post Medieval North Devon slipware 2.0g 1 Post-medieval

TPB08-4

North Devon ware 10.6g 3 Post-medieval

TPB08-5

Bristol/Staffordshire Ware 2.7g 1 Post-medieval

North Devon 17.0g 7 Post-medieval Probable North Devon 29.2 3 Post-medieval

TPB08-6 Westerwald 11.1g 2 17th -18th century Bristol/Staffordshire Ware 13.6g 2 Post-medieval North Devon ware 3.4g 1 Post-medieval

Table 2: Identified pottery from Bow

Test Pit Pottery Type Weight Quantity Date TPNT08-4 North Devon – sgraffito 3.1g 1 c. 1700

Table 3: Identified pottery from Nymet Tracey

Test Pit Quantity Stem/bowl Date TPB08-1 1 1 stem Post-medieval TPB09-3 5 4 stems, 1 bowl Post-medieval TPB08-4 1 Stem Post-medieval TPB08-5 10 9 stems, 1 bowl Post-medieval TPB08-6 7 4 stems, 1 bowl Post-medieval

Table 4: Clay Pipe from Bow

Test Pit Quantity Stem/bowl Date

TPNT08-1 1 Stem (burnt) Post-medieval TPNT08-2 2 2 stems Post-medieval TPNT08-4

5 2 stems and bowl Bowl dated to c.1750

Salisbury Table 5: Clay pipes from Nymet Tracey

5.4 Other finds A number of pieces of vitrified clay were found in test pit TPNT08-1, indicative of a hearth/furnace lining where temperatures reached over 900°C, possibly associated with smithing (Bray pers comm.).

6 Discussion There are a number of factors that need to be clarified before we can identify whether the results from the test pit are able to shed some light on the development of the two villages including, the test pit methodology, location of test pits in, and between, the two villages and quantification methods. The test pit methodology meant that most test pits were dug only to a depth of 0.30m, with the deepest pit being 0.45m, which suggests that we probably did not reach a depth deep enough to find artefacts older than the post-medieval period. The two test pits in Bow that contained prehistoric worked flint came from gardens that were located at the edge of the village away from

14

recent development. It is likely that these flints became incorporated in the top soil due to the construction of buildings and past land use. The test pits were also situated in slightly different locations between the two villages. In Bow, five of the test pits were situated along the main high street in pre 18th century properties with a further two pits at the eastern end of the village in younger properties. One test pit in each village was located in later 20th century properties and both had the least number of finds. Three of the other pits in Nymet Tracey were located away from a property, leaving only one in the garden (TPNT08-3) of a pre 18th century property. Therefore, there is some disparity in the location of the pits that maybe a contributing factor to the difference in the number and type of finds found within, and between, the two settlements. For example, the greatest quantity of finds came from the three pits located along the main thoroughfare of Bow. However, test pit TPNT08-1, located within the walled garden of Glebe House, produced the largest number of animal bones and is the only test pit to give any indication of non-domestic activity. As we appear to have only post-medieval pottery, methods used to compare quantities of pottery from different periods are not relevant. We can compare numbers of pottery sherds between Bow and Nymet Tracey and between individual pits in each village. As there are a number of unknown factors such as, preservation, movement and deposition, that would affect the quantity and quality of pottery sherds (and other artefacts) found, we should bear in mind that any analyses of finds from test pits are fundamentally flawed (Lewis 2006). Test Pit Number of Pottery sherds Test Pit Number of Pottery sherds TPB08-1 34 TPNT08-1 75 TPB09-3 107 TPNT08-2 19 TPB08-4 5 TPNT08-3 56 TPB08-5 79 TPNT08-4 32 TPB08-6 52 TPNT08-5 - Total 277 Total 182 Table 6: Number of pottery sherds from the test pits However, in Lewis’ (2006) analysis of post-medieval pottery from several test pits surveys in Cambridgeshire, counts with more than 9 sherds were thought to indicate clear evidence of occupation in the vicinity of the test pit. From the current survey, only two pits had less than 10 sherds (TPB08-4 and TPNT08-5) (Table 6). Both of the tests pits were located in the back gardens of recently constructed properties. Therefore, it is not surprising that both test pits had such a small assemblage of pottery and other artefacts. Nevertheless, TPNT08-5 may be on the site of a redeveloped property, but a cobbled surface was located during the survey, but no finds. On the tithe map the location of this new garden is recorded as an orchard, but on the later 1888 1st edition map there is a slight extension to the building and track-way orientated diagonally SW-NE across the garden, suggesting that we have possibly located this pathway. Interestingly, test pit TPNT08-4 is not located near any properties that are pre 19th century, but there were over 39 pottery sherds with one piece identified as 17th century sgraffito ware from north Devon. However, as this single piece is highly abraded it probably originated from elsewhere and was deposited due to ploughing or manuring. As most medieval village/town were home to various industrial activities, it is not that unusual to find evidence of smithing (Schofield and Vince 1994), but it is interesting that the only evidence of

15

industry that we have been able to identify comes from Nymet Tracey and in the walled garden of the site of the old vicarage.

7 Conclusion Overall, we can only give a speculative interpretation of the data from the test pit surveys in Bow and Nymet Tracey. Apart from the prehistoric artefacts, the finds give us some interesting data for the early post-medieval period. The majority of finds are located within Bow and in particular at the western end of the high street which is also the oldest part of the village. We can see from the pottery that it was mainly domestic pottery that was produced in North Devon. The inclusion of imported pottery from France, Germany and Spain and the Bristol/Staffordshire pottery suggest that trade from Exeter passed through Bow or that these pottery types were sold at more local markets in Bow, Crediton and/or Okehampton. The lack of south Somerset indicates that the people of Bow favoured the pottery produced in north Devon. It is difficult to assess whether we have a clear pattern of difference between the two villages in the material culture due to the location of the pits, however, Nymet Tracey has produced some interesting finds. Perhaps the burnt clay in the walled garden of Glebe House represents industrial activity in the Nymet Tracey before the construction of the walled garden. Or the original garden was constructed for other purposes and enclosed an area where industrial activities took place. However, such industrial activity had stopped by the early 19th century. Although, it is difficult to interpret one sherd of sgraffito ware found in Nymet Tracey as being particularly significant, we have to remember that none were found in Bow, and that it does represent pottery from the early 17th century whereas the pottery from Bow dates from both the 17th and 18th century. The question we have to ask is whether these two pieces of evidence suggest that there was a greater level of occupation in Nymet Tracey in the 17th century than in the 18th. In Bow, the majority of the finds are from TPB08-3 located at the eastern end of the village and identified on the 1st edition OS map as ‘Townsend Cottages’ now called ‘Dartmoor View’. Along with TPB08-1, this test pits produced prehistoric flint as well as post-medieval pottery; it is likely that the finds located in TPB08-1 also originated from Townsend Cottages. The data from the two villages also demonstrates the difficultly of conducting a limited test pit survey in both village types (currently occupied rural settlement and shrunken medieval village) and then comparing the results. Although the finds from Bow are of a greater number, the finds from Nymet Tracey, including the cobbled surface and evidence of industrial activity, were unexpected.

16

8 Bibliography Allen, J.P. 1984 Medieval and post-medieval finds from Exeter 1971 – 1980. Exeter City Council and The University of Exeter: Exeter. Allen, J.P., Horner, B. and Langmam, G. 2005 Seventeenth and eighteenth century pottery waste from the Stella Maris convent school site, Bideford. Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 63: 167-203. Aston. M. 1985 Interpreting the landscape. Routledge. Carbonell. B, M, H, 1928 Notes of the history of the parishes of Nymet Tracey alias Bow, with Broad Nymet, Devonshire Association. Report and. Transaction. 60: 299-311. Carbonell. B, M, H, 1931 Nymet Tracey area (Nympton), Devonshire Association. Report and Transaction. 63: 297-299. Grant, A. 1983 North Devon Pottery: the seventh century. University of Exeter: Exeter. Griffith, F.M. 1985a A nemeton in Devon? Antiquity 59 (226): 121-123. Griffith, F.M. 1985b Some newly discovered ritual monuments in mid Devon. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51: 310-315. Lewis, C. 2007 New avenues for the investigation of currently occupied medieval rural settlement: Preliminary observation from the higher education field academy. Medieval Archaeology 51, pp 133-163. Oswald, A. 1975 Clay pipes for the archaeologist. B.A.R. 14: Oxford. Schofield, J. and Vince, A. 1994 Medieval Towns. Leicester University Press: Leicester.

17

Figure 1: Location map of Bow and Nymet Tracey in Devon

18

Fig

ure

2: L

ocatio

n of

Test

Pits

in Bo

w vil

lage

19

Figure 3: Location of test pits in Nymet Tracey

20

Figure 4: 1842 Tithe map of Bow parish showing the village of Bow

Figure 5: 1842 Tithe map of Bow parish showing the village of Nymet Tracey

21

Figure 6: Bow, OS 1st edition, 12500, showing the location of Townsend Cottages (Country Series 1st Edition 1886 ©Crown Copyright and Landmark Information Group Limited (2009). All rights reserved (1886) Scale 1:2500)

22

Figure 7: Nymet Tracey, OS 1st edition, 1:2500, showing the location of Rectory and Rectory Cottages (Country Series 1st Edition 1886 ©Crown Copyright and Landmark Information Group Limited (2009). All rights reserved (1886) Scale 1:2500)

23

Photo no. Plan/section Site sub-division Description Date Initials1 Plan TPB08-1 Plan of spit 3-facing north 08/11/2008 PC 2 Plan TPB08-1 Plan of spit 3-facing north 08/11/2008 PC 3 Section TPB08-1 Plan of spit 3-facing north 08/11/2008 PC 4 Plan TPB08-4 Plan of spit 3-facing north 08/11/2008 PC 5 Plan TPB08-4 Plan of spit 3-facing north 08/11/2008 PC 6 Plan TPB08-6 Plan of spit 3-facing north 08/11/2008 PC 7 Plan TPB08-6 Plan of spit 3-facing north 08/11/2008 PC 8 Section TPB08-6 Section-facing south 08/11/2008 PC 9 Section TPB08-6 Section-facing south 08/11/2008 PC - - - DELETED - -

11 Plan TPB08-7 Plan of spit 2/3 (depth 25cm)-facing north 08/11/2008 PC 12 Plan TPB08-7 Plan of spit 2/3 (depth 25cm)-facing north 08/11/2008 PC 13 Plan TPB08-7 Plan of spit 2/3 (depth 25cm)-facing north 08/11/2008 PC 14 Section TPB08-7 Section-facing north 08/11/2008 PC 15 Section TPB08-7 Section-facing north 08/11/2008 PC

Table 7: Photo Index: Test Pit survey Bow

Photo No. Plan/Section

Site sub-division Description Date Initials

1 Section TPNT08-4 Section-facing west 09/11/2008 SS 2 Section TPNT08-4 Section-facing west 09/11/2008 SS 3 Plan TPNT08-4 Base of spit 3-facing north 09/11/2008 SS 4 Plan TPNT08-4 Base of spit 3-facing north 09/11/2008 SS 5 Section TPNT08-4 Section-facing west 09/11/2008 SS 6 Plan TPNT08-3 Base of spit 3-facing south 09/11/2008 PC 7 Section TPNT08-3 Base of spit 3-facing south 09/11/2008 PC 8 Plan & Section TPNT08-2 Base of spit 3-facing north 09/11/2008 PC 9 Plan TPNT08-5 Base of spit 3/4-facing north 09/11/2008 PC 10 Plan TPNT08-5 Base of spit 3/4-facing north 09/11/2008 PC 11 Plan TPNT08-1 Base of spit 3-facing north 09/11/2008 PC 12 Plan TPNT08-1 Base of spit 3-facing north 09/11/2008 PC

Table 8: Photo index: Test Pit Survey, Nymet Tracey

24

Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight

TPB08-1 1 Glass 3 Clear glass fragments 3.3gTPB08-1 1 Metal 4 Nails 19.1gTPB08-1 1 Pottery 3 Modern glazed pottery fragments 8.0gTPB08-1 1 Miscellaneous 1 Fragment 29.5gTPB08-1 1 Chalk 1 Piece 3.0gTPB08-1 1 Slate 2 Pieces 37.7gTPB08-1 1 Plaster/mortar 1 Building material? 8.5gTPB08-1 2 Flint 1 Prehistoric? Poss. Scraper 5.5 gTPB08-1 2 Clay 1 Clay Pipe 3.0 gTPB08-1 2 Stone 1 Prehistoric? Possible Scraper 7.0 gTPB08-1 2 Tile 1 Tile piece? 25.2gTPB08-1 2 Pottery 6 Glazed pottery fragments 28.4gTPB08-1 2 Pottery 3 Modern Modern glazed pottery fragments 2.8gTPB08-1 2 Slate 9 Pieces 37.5gTPB08-1 2 Glass 5 Clear glass fragments 22.6gTPB08-1 2 Metal 4 Nails and miscellaneous fragment 85.9gTPB08-1 2 Flint 1 Flint 6.1gTPB08-1 2 Miscellaneous 2 Fragments 4.6gTPB08-1 2 Plaster/mortar 12 Building material? 60.9gTPB08-1 3 Pottery 4 Bristol/Staffs Ware 6.5 gTPB08-1 3 Pottery 2 North Devon Ware 26.6 gTPB08-1 3 Flint 1 Prehistoric Flint scaper 5.3 gTPB08-1 3 Pottery 5 Glazed pottery fragments 17.6gTPB08-1 3 Pottery 10 Modern glazed pottery fragments 18.0gTPB08-1 3 Glass 1 Clear glass fragments 3.8gTPB08-1 3 Slate 2 Pieces 23.9gTPB08-1 3 Pottery 2 Non-glazed pottery fragments 3.3gTPB08-1 3 Miscellaneous 3 Miscellaneous fragments 3.0g

Table 9: Finds from TPB08-1

25

Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight TPB08-3 Turf Pottery 1 Glazed pottery fragment 3.0gTPB08-3 Turf Pottery 2 Non-glazed pottery fragments 17.8gTPB08-3 Turf Tile 1 Tile piece? 34.4gTPB08-3 Turf Pottery 1 Modern glazed pottery fragments 4.5gTPB08-3 1 Miscellaneous 2 Fragments 3.3gTPB08-3 1 Pottery 6 Glazed pottery fragments 12.1gTPB08-3 1 Bone 1 Fragment 1.1gTPB08-3 1 Slate 2 Fragments 1.5gTPB08-3 1 Pottery 22 Non-glazed pottery fragments 54.7gTPB08-3 1 Glass 14 Clear glass fragments 49.2gTPB08-3 1 Pottery 30 Modern glazed pottery fragments 29.1gTPB08-3 1 Tile 3 Tile pieces? 41.5gTPB08-3 1 Metal 8 Nails and miscellaneous fragments 35.5gTPB08-3 1 Clay 2 Clay Pipe 3.9 gTPB08-3 1 Pottery 1 North Devon Slipware 3.6 gTPB08-3 1 Flint 3 Prehistoric? Flint 3.3 gTPB08-3 2 Pottery 1 13-18th C Saintage ? probably 18th Century 3.4 gTPB08-3 2 Clay 2 Clay pipe 6.0 gTPB08-3 2 Flint 1 Prehistoric Worked Flint 21.8 gTPB08-3 2 Pottery 1 N. Devon - Gravel-Free Ware with Quartz inclusions 5.9 gTPB08-3 2 Pottery 1 Post-med Spanish Olive Jar P-med 4.1 gTPB08-3 2 Plaster/mortar 1 Fragment 1.1gTPB08-3 2 Pottery 9 Non-glazed pottery fragments 28.0gTPB08-3 2 Pottery 16 Modern glazed pottery fragments 20.6gTPB08-3 2 Chalk 1 Fragment 1.0gTPB08-3 2 Bone 1 Bone fragment 0.7gTPB08-3 2 Glass 6 9.0gTPB08-3 2 Metal 1 Miscellaneous fragments 6.6gTPB08-3 2 Pottery 1 Glazed drain pipe piece 51.4gTPB08-3 2 Pottery 8 Glazed pottery fragments 14.4gTPB08-3 3 Clay 1 Clay Pipe 5.9 gTPB08-3 3 Glass 1 Clear glass fragments 9.1gTPB08-3 3 Pottery 3 Modern glazed pottery fragments 2.1gTPB08-3 3 Miscellaneous 2 Fragments 1.0g

26

Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight TPB08-3 3 Bone 2 Bone fragment 4.8gTPB08-3 3 Pottery 2 Non-glazed pottery fragments 4.1gTPB08-3 3 Pottery 3 Glazed pottery fragments 6.8g


Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight TPB08-4 2 Metal 1 Miscellaneous fragments 29.7gTPB08-4 2 Pottery 2 Non-glazed pottery fragments 1.4gTPB08-4 2 Glass 2 Clear glass fragments 2.9gTPB08-4 2 Wood 2 One piece plus one fragment 42.5gTPB08-4 2 Plaster/mortar 5 Building material? 25.1gTPB08-4 3 Pottery 3 Probably North Devon Ware 12.0 g


Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight TPB08-5 1 Miscellaneous 3 Miscellaneous fragments 2.9gTPB08-5 1 Plaster/mortar 1 Building material? 11.5gTPB08-5 1 Pottery 3 Glazed pottery fragments 10.3gTPB08-5 1 Pottery 11 Non-glazed pottery fragments 16.5gTPB08-5 1 Bone 4 Two teeth/two bone fragments 14.5gTPB08-5 1 Glass 19 Clear glass fragments 57.1gTPB08-5 1 Slate 4 Fragments 4.9gTPB08-5 1 Pottery 31 Modern glazed fragments 31.0gTPB08-5 1 Metal 7 Miscellaneous fragments 68.8gTPB08-5 1 Pottery 4 North Devon Ware 17.0 gTPB08-5 1 Pottery 2 North Devon Ware 18.4 gTPB08-5 1 Clay 6 Clay Pipes 13.4 gTPB08-5 1 Pottery 1 Bristol/Staffs Ware 4.2 gTPB08-5 2 Clay 4 Clay Pipes 9.3 gTPB08-5 2 Pottery 3 Probably North Devon Ware 33.9 gTPB08-5 2 Pottery 5 Glazed pottery fragments 13.1g

27

Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight TPB08-5 2 Slate 1 Fragments 4.5gTPB08-5 2 Bone 2 Bone fragments 6.4gTPB08-5 2 Glass 1 Opaque glass 4.1gTPB08-5 2 Glass 9 Clear glass fragments 16.9gTPB08-5 2 Pottery 15 Modern glazed fragments 10.2gTPB08-5 2 Brick 2 Fragments 90.6gTPB08-5 2 Metal 3 Miscellaneous fragments 32.5g


Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight TPB08-6 4 Pottery 2 Bristol/Staffs Ware (poss.) 13.5 gTPB08-6 1 to 3 Bone 601 1 Red Deer, Upper left molar, Cervus 8.1 gTPB08-6 1 to 3 Pottery 601 2 Westerwald 12.6 gTPB08-6 1 to 3 Clay 601 5 Clay Pipes 8.9 gTPB08-6 1 to 3 Bone 601 1 R Scapula Bos ( Chopped ) 15.9 gTPB08-6 4 Miscellaneous 602 4 Miscellaneous fragments 3.6gTPB08-6 4 Pottery 602 2 Non-glazed pottery 5.5gTPB08-6 4 Pottery 602 1 Glazed pottery 1.3gTPB08-6 4 Chalk 602 2 Chalk fragments 0.7gTPB08-6 4 Pottery 602 4 Modern glazed pottery 7.6gTPB08-6 4 Glass 602 3 Clear glass fragments 8.2gTPB08-6 4 Plaster/mortar 602 7 Fragments of building material? 35.7gTPB08-6 4 Pottery 602 1 Possible North Devon 3.5gTPB08-6 4 Clay 602 2 Clay pipe 8.5gTPB08-6 Miscellaneous 601 2 Fragments 4.3gTPB08-6 Chalk 601 3 Fragments 8.5gTPB08-6 Pottery 601 6 Glazed pottery fragments 30.1gTPB08-6 Pottery 601 11 Non glazed pottery 159.3gTPB08-6 Glass 601 3 Opaque 35.1gTPB08-6 Glass 601 16 Clear glass fragments 64.7gTPB08-6 Wood 601 1 Charred fragment 3.9gTPB08-6 Plaster/mortar 601 18 Miscellaneous fragments - building materials? 187.3gTPB08-6 Bone 601 3 Fragments 2.8g

28

Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight TPB08-6 Pottery 601 23 Modern glazed pottery 106.0gTPB08-6 Slate 601 8 Fragments 81.7gTPB08-6 Metal 601 12 Hinge, nails, piping, lead 286.0g


Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight TPNT08-1 Bone 101 2 R. Femur-Sus-Gnawed 34.4 gTPNT08-1 Clay 101 1 Clay Pipe 2.6 gTPNT08-1 Bone 101 1 L Femur-Ovis Chop mark at Distal end gnawed 86.8 gTPNT08-1 Bone 101 1 Metacarpus 19.8 gTPNT08-1 Bone 101 1 3rd Phalanx, Equus 12.2 gTPNT08-1 1 Bone 101 1 Tibia L. Cervus - Rodent Carnivore - gnawed 13.5 gTPNT08-1 Bone 101 1 Metatarsus Bos? Juv. Gnawed. 24.1 gTPNT08-1 Bone 101 1 Metatarsus (R )Bos Cut chop marks - gnawed 119.6 gTPNT08-1 Clay 101 7 Burnt clay possible smelting, furnace lining 333.1gTPNT08-1 Brick 101 1 Piece of brick 137.8gTPNT08-1 Pottery 101 7 Modern glazed pottery 61.8gTPNT08-1 Glass 101 5 Clear glass fragments 152.2gTPNT08-1 Bone 101 1 Bone fragment 7.2gTPNT08-1 Pottery 101 3 Non glazed pottery 8.5gTPNT08-1 Metal 101 2 Nail and miscellaneous fragment 139.1gTPNT08-1 Tile 101 5 Tile fragments 149.0gTPNT08-1 Miscellaneous 101 2 Fragments 30.8gTPNT08-1 Pottery 101 21 Non glazed pottery 109.4gTPNT08-1 Slate 101 1 Slate Fragment 3.9gTPNT08-1 Pottery 101 3 Glazed pottery fragments 13.7gTPNT08-1 Chalk 101 2 Chalk fragments 6.8gTPNT08-1 Plaster/mortar 101 1 Fragment 8.8gTPNT08-1 Bone 101 12 Bone fragments 32.8gTPNT08-1 Pottery 101 37 Modern glazed pottery 149.9gTPNT08-1 Glass 101 13 Clear glass fragments 71.9gTPNT08-1 Metal 101 8 Miscellaneous fragments 83.9gTPNT08-1 Clay 101 3 Burnt clay possible smelting, furnace lining 26.0g

29

Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight TPNT08-1 Pottery 101 3 Modern glazed pottery 7.4gTPNT08-1 Pottery 101 1 Non glazed pottery 3.4gTPNT08-1 Bone 101 5 Bone fragments 39.9g

Table 14: Finds from TPNT08-1

Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight TPNT08-2 1 Miscellaneous 1 Piece of building material? 44.0 gTPNT08-2 1 Brick 3 Pieces of brick? 17.8 gTPNT08-2 1 Glass 1 Clear glass fragment 0.6 gTPNT08-2 2 Glass 2 Clear glass fragments 1.1gTPNT08-2 2 Metal 1 Miscellaneous fragment 18.1gTPNT08-2 2 Pottery 3 Glazed pottery 16.1gTPNT08-2 2 Miscellaneous 3 Miscellaneous fragments 55.5gTPNT08-2 2 Brick 20 Brick fragments 305.6gTPNT08-2 3 Pottery 5 Non-glazed pottery 22.8 gTPNT08-2 3 Pottery 10 Modern glazed pottery 31.4 gTPNT08-2 3 Pottery 1 Glazed pottery 4.2 gTPNT08-2 3 Plaster 1 Plaster fragment 1.6 gTPNT08-2 3 Glass 2 Clear glass fragments 0.7 gTPNT08-2 3 Clay 2 Clay pipe 8.5 g


Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight TPNT08-3 1 Bone 1 L. Scapula Ovis ( Sheep ) 5.3.gTPNT08-3 1 Bone 1 Rib 1.7 gTPNT08-3 1 Bone 3 Bone fragments 3.5 gTPNT08-3 1 Pottery 13 Modern glazed pottery + (1 piece of tile) 83.3 gTPNT08-3 1 Slate 1 Slate fragment 12.5 gTPNT08-3 1 Miscellaneous 1 Fragment of building material? 6.2 gTPNT08-3 1 Metal 1 Corroded key? 9.5 gTPNT08-3 1 Glass 13 Clear glass fragments 56.4 gTPNT08-3 1 Pottery 17 Non-glazed pottery 210.6 g

30

Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight TPNT08-3 2 Slate 4 Slate fragments 79.0 gTPNT08-3 2 Metal 2 Nails 23.6 gTPNT08-3 2 Pottery 6 Modern glazed pottery + (1 piece of tile) 68.1 gTPNT08-3 2 Glass 4 Clear glass fragments 7.0 gTPNT08-3 2 Pottery 6 Non-glazed pottery 72.6 gTPNT08-3 2 Pottery 2 Glazed pottery 6.5 gTPNT08-3 2 Plaster/concrete 5 Hardcore/plaster 51.4 gTPNT08-3 2 Miscellaneous 5 Slate/stone nail; fragments of plaster? 4.1 gTPNT08-3 3 Bone 1 Rib-chopped ? BOS 14.2 gTPNT08-3 3 Pottery 2 Non-glazed pottery 31.0 gTPNT08-3 3 Pottery 7 Modern glazed pottery 52.9 gTPNT08-3 3 Metal 9 Nails, metal rods, wire, gun cartridge 219.0 gTPNT08-3 3 Marble/Quartz 1 Glazed fragment 20.6 gTPNT08-3 3 Glass 14 Clear glass fragments 111.3 gTPNT08-3 3 Slate 6 Slate fragments 68.5 gTPNT08-3 3 Plaster/concrete 2 Hardcore/concrete/plaster 62.5 gTPNT08-3 3 Bone 1 Bone fragment 0.2 gTPNT08-3 3 Pottery 3 Glazed pottery 185.6 gTPNT08-3 3 Bone 2 Bird Humerus 6.4 g


Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight TPNT08-4 Clay 402 2 C. 1750 Clay Pipe "R" + Glove Salisbury. 5.7 gTPNT08-4 Pottery 402 1 Poss. Sgraffto N. Devon 4.6 gTPNT08-4 Pottery 402 9 Glazed pottery 58.6 gTPNT08-4 Pottery 402 20 Non-glazed pottery 46.7 gTPNT08-4 Metal 402 2 Nail and miscellaneous fragment 31.1 gTPNT08-4 Glass 402 9 Clear glass fragments 19.8 gTPNT08-4 1 Clay 401 1 Clay Pipe 3.1 gTPNT08-4 1 Miscellaneous 401 1 Miscellaneous fragment 0.2 gTPNT08-4 1 Pottery 401 2 Glazed pottery 5.7 gTPNT08-4 1 Glass 401 4 Clear glass fragments 6.1 g


31

Test Pit Spit Material Context Quantity Period Description Weight TPNT08-5 2 Metal 1 Nail 8.6gTPNT08-5 2 Tile 4 Fragments 68.9gTPNT08-5 2 Concrete 7 Pieces of building rubble? 417.2g


32

Test Pit Code Spit(s)

Context No. Depth(cm) Description Interpretation

TPNT08-1 1,2,3 101 35 Reddish brown, small pebbles, charcoal Test pit had only one context. No section or planning. No other contexts or features TPNT08-2 1 201 10 Reddish brown, silty, soft, gritty Topsoil TPNT08-2 2 202 10 Red, softer, more gravel than #201 TPNT08-2 3 203 10 Red, hard, clay, charcoal, compact Surface

TPNT08-3 1,2 301 20 Dark brown, loose, Silt (90%) Clay (10%), fine silty, slightly gritty Topsoil

TPNT08-3 2,3 302 11

Rich brown, orangey, slightly sticky, loose, silty, gravelley, Silt (70%) Clay (30%) Disturbed Earth

TPNT08-3 1,2 303 20 Cuts into context #301 and contains fill #302 Not picked up in plan, possibly in just another area of disturbed earth

TPNT08-4 1 401 10

Very dark, red, brown, silty-clay,soft. Heavy red/brown clay, no inclusions, rolls into sausage and bends into 'U' Above (402)

TPNT08-4 2 402 20

Orange/brown, silty-clay, crumbly, small stones and gravel (10%) and charcoal (2%). Crumbles in fingers, doesn't roll into 'U' Below (401), cut by (401), fill of (403)

TPNT08-4 1,2 403 10 Irregular feature that cuts #402 and filled in by #401

TPNT08-5 1 501 10

Orange/brown, sandy clay, iron rich, sticky, charcoal fleck up to 20mm. Small irregular shaped orange features, possibly building sand, pebbles Topsoil-no finds

TPNT08-5 2,3,4 502 45

Orange/red/brown, sticky, clayey, sandy, small bits of charcoal, lots of small pebbles up to 1cm No finds

TPNT08-5 3 503 45

Orange/brown, sticky, sandy, clayey, gritty, hard, silty with small flecks of charcoal/stone. Plan is in spit 3, no finds, cobbled surface

Base of test pit has a cobbled surface, orientated in south to north direction with irregular edge on its eastern side. The whole surface was not revealed due to the restricted size of the test pit

Table 19: Context index

33

Figure 8: TPB08-1: section and plan

Figure 9: TPB08-3 section

34

Figure 10: TPB08-6: section

Figure 11: TPNT08-2: section

35



36

Figure 14: TPNT08-5: section and plan

37

Figure 15: TPB08-1, North face of section showing the location of a possible gully

Figure 16: TPNT08-5, Cobble surface

discovering bow and nymet tracey through the ages pit survey/bow archaeology... · discovering bow...

Documents