excavations at the royal hotel site

ISBN 0144-1973

REPORTAND

TRANSACTIONS2011

VOLUME XXVII, PART IPublished in 2012 by La Société Guernesiaise,

Guernsey

LA SOCIÉTÉ GUERNESIAISETHE GUERNSEY SOCIETY OF NATURAL SCIENCE

AND LOCAL RESEARCH

REPORT ANDTRANSACTIONS

2011

Vol. XXVII Part I

Copyright: La Société Guernesiaise, 2012

GUERNSEY

Published 2012

Printed by Herald Print

190 2011

Excavations at the Royal Hotel Site, St Peter Port, Guernsey

HEATHER SEBIRE, with contributions from GWENÄELLE HAMON, JEAN-NOËL GUYODO and JOHN RENOUF

CONTENTS

Introduction by Heather SebireThe Excavations by Heather SebireThe Prehistoric Pottery by Gwenaëlle HamonReport on the Lithic Assemblage by Jean-Noël GuyodoGeological Aspects of the Royal Hotel site by John Renouf, Helen Walkingtonand Les JamesSummary and Conclusions by Heather SebireAppendix: Radiocarbon analysis reportReferencesAcknowledgements

INTRODUCTION

An opportunity to examine an area of northern St Peter Port in Guernseyarose in late 1999, as the site of the former Royal Hotel and other properties wassold for re-development (the hotel premises at the front of the area were locatedat OS WV53382 54788 - see Fig 1, location map in colour). Although known asthe former Royal Hotel site the area examined was more extensive than thefootprint of the hotel itself. The area was bounded on the south side by thepresent-day St. Julian’s Avenue, on the west side by Les Canichers, to the northby Bosq Lane and to the east by Glategny Esplanade.

The development of the site presented a rare chance to look at parts of arelatively large area (1.2 hectares) on the outskirts of inner St. Peter Port. In totalc. 200m² were excavated. The site was close to known archaeologicalremains from the Roman period, the Medieval period and the Early Modernperiod. It was expected that material from all those periods might be found,but it was the early prehistoric remains which became the main focus of theexcavation, although these had been very disturbed by later, particularly 20thcentury development. The later phases of the site are presented in summary asthis report focuses on the prehistoric material that was found.

Figure 1. Location map of the Royal Hotel site, St. Peter Port, Guernsey (after Jean-Noël Guyodo)

ROYAL HOTEL SITE

Figure 2. Illustration from the Legge report of 1680, showing the valley on the northside of St. Peter Port and the position of the Royal Hotel site. (By kind permission of

the Royal Court of Guernsey.)

ROYAL HOTEL SITE

Figure 9: Postholes Feature 41 and Feature 38

ROYAL HOTEL SITE

Figure 35: Reconstruction in plan view of the surroundings of the Royal Hotel site asit might have appeared about 5,500 years ago. (Blue: tidal zone; green: coastal plain;light browns with hachures: coastal slopes; RH: Royal Hotel site; red line: approxi-

mate course of the modern Esplanade.

Situation at about 5 500 years BC

St Julian's Avenue valley

Situation at about 5 500 years BC(plan)

HWST

**

RHHHRHRHRRRHHRHRHRRR

La Frégate

c. 250 m

Esplanade road

HHHHHHH

ROYAL HOTEL SITE

2011 EXCAVATIONS AT THE ROYAL HOTEL SITE 191

Topography and Geology

The site lies on a major outcrop of St. Peter Port gabbro, which is part ofGuernsey’s igneous complex. The area rises from just above sea level to theshelf of land below Les Canichers to the east, following the rise of the relativelyrecently constructed St. Julian’s Avenue (1861) which is now the main thorough-fare out of St Peter Port from the harbour and the esplanades. It is situated atthe bottom of one of the two valleys that border the town and in prehistorictimes would have been a hundred metres or so from the waterfront (see below).A seventeenth-century illustration of the town, which was drawn as part of amilitary report shows very clearly the topographical features which are nowpartly obscured by later development. (Fig. 2 colour plate). Over half of the sitewas covered by standing buildings of various periods, some of which are pres-ent on the drawing of 1680 (ibid.) and the Duke of Richmond map of 1787. Theburied archaeological deposits were mostly located between 8.0m and5.5mGD.

There may have been some movement down the steep slope that the sitewas situated on, which may explain the mix of early and later prehistoricmaterial in some layers. (Note the levels are recorded from Guernsey Datum,which was established in 1996 when the States of Guernsey commissioned anew digital map for the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Guernsey Datum is 5.3m aboveChart datum and is equivalent to Ordnance Datum). A full geological report isincluded in the specialist reports.

Archaeological and Historical Background

Several known archaeological sites were located nearby. At the BondedStores close by St. Peter Port Church, during excavations in 1996 Bronze Agepottery and flints were found in scoops/small pits cut into the natural valleyside where the early inhabitants of St. Peter Port had been exploiting thewooded valley, which led to the sea (Sebire et al forthcoming). The area of theRoyal Hotel site had many similar features. An excavation at Les Canichers(south of St. Julian’s Avenue) in 2001 revealed a prehistoric cairn and associatedagricultural evidence (see Summary and Conclusions) some 100 metres or soup the valley side behind the site.

The Royal Hotel site was located a short distance from La Plaiderie Housewhere the foundations of two Roman buildings were excavated in 1983. Dueto increased knowledge of the Roman occupation of Guernsey since that timeit was possible to predict that there would be material from the Roman periodin the area of the Royal Hotel particularly on the Glategny frontage.


Former site of Charlie’s Bar

T1 T2 Machine Trial Trench

South Extension 2

T4

Bosq Lane

N

Royal Hotel Site

Figure 3 Layout of the excavated trenches at the Royal Hotel and other sites mentioned in the text

Standing Buildings

1. The Royal Hotel - Le Grand Bosq, the Town House of the Le Marchantfamily originally stood on the site of the former Royal Hotel. By 1850 theproperty was already a hotel known as ‘Gardner’s Royal’ after the owner. Inabout 1880, a large wing was built on the northern side. Later a furtherextension was made on the southern side. During the last war, the occupyingGerman troops used it as their base and built a railway to St Sampson’s, whichran opposite the hotel. The Royal Hotel finally closed after a fire in 1992, afterwhich time it was demolished and the site sold for re-development.

2. Hilltop, Bosq Lane - This house, which first appeared on a map of 1759(AQ80/1), was probably built between 1732 and 1753 by the Mauger family. Itstood on the corner of Bosq Lane and Les Canichers. This building featured avaulted basement and ceiling and fireplace bearing the coat of arms of theMauger family. The coat of arms was salvaged prior to the demolition of


Hilltop and it was hoped that it would be incorporated within the newbuildings, however to date it remains in the care of Guernsey Museum andArt Gallery.

THE EXCAVATIONS

Area One

The first excavations began in November 1999 in the upper western endof the site. Two trenches were opened in the garden of 16 Les Canichers, theproperty formerly known as King’s Lynn: a 5m square trench in the uppergarden and a similar trench in the lower garden. The deposits consisted mainlyof Victorian garden soil with several rubbish pits cut into them. Naturaldeposits were located approximately 1.5m below the present ground surface at9.39m GD. Finds included the usual range of multi-period ceramics, typical ofthe upper layers of many St Peter Port sites; blue and white transfer-printedwares, glazed earthenwares, porcelain, Normandy stonewares and someresidual medieval gritty wares. Other finds include clay smoking-pipes,modern glass from vessels and windows, coins (mainly 19th century doubles)and many metal objects of iron. The lack of any substantial amount of earlymaterial suggested that this area was not settled until the early modern period,although one sherd of prehistoric pottery was found giving an indication ofwhat was to come in the lower part of the site.

Area Two

Access was gained to an area behind the building formerly known as‘Charlie’s Bar’, which had been to the rear of the Royal Hotel, and in advanceof building works two areas cleared, by machine, Trench 3 (west) started as2m x 5m and Trench 4 (east) was initially 5m x 8.5m. Eventually these trencheswere joined and subsequently extended to the south and north. A longmachine-dug trench, which does not appear on the detailed plan, was cut to thenorth-east. The extension to the south-east of the original Trench 4 (see Figure3) contained no significant prehistoric features but some Roman and medievalmaterial, so is also not shown on the detailed plans. In this area documentaryevidence suggested that buildings stood in the late medieval and early modernperiods (as seen on Legge and later maps). Ship-building activity took placealong the shoreline at a later date. This was evidenced by excavation, as belowthe demolition layers of the buildings of the Royal Hotel complex there werepits indicating industrial working in the modern period.


Roy

al H

ote

l Gu

ern

sey

N

157

159

150

153

134

130 13

2

140

127

55b

60

32

33

31

56

55

51

30

47b

61

34

25

54

48

44

39

42

38

41

49

40

45

47

63

59

58

178

36

43 71

37

176

168

174

172

170

151

184

180

182

165

118

142

116

161

No

rth

ern

Ext

ensi

on

66

Mo

der

n d

istu

rban

ce

57

6465

70

6769

19/2

2

138

Ori

gin

al T

ren

ch 4

28

62

136

148

144

121

123

125

101

103

119

99

113

111

107

10516

3

146

155

Preh

isto

ric

Feat

ure

s

Geo

log

y Se

ctio

n

Sou

ther

n E

xten

sio

n

No

rth

Eas

t Ex

ten

sio

n

AA

BB

CC

DD

E E

F6

F

F

Figure 4General site plan showing the prehistoric features


Methodology

The site was excavated by local volunteers over a two-year period assistedat one point in 2001 by a group from Southampton University ArchaeologyDepartment as part of a training exercise. During the two year period it wasnot possible to be on the site at all times due to other work and so a certainamount of weathering took place particularly during the wet winter of1999/2000. This resulted in surfaces having to be re-cleaned on severaloccasions before work could commence. Efforts were made to keep moderncontamination from the finds in the prehistoric contexts but due to the natureof the access to the site and the amount of disturbance within and around thetrenches some contamination of deposits did take place.

Prehistoric Features in Area 2

Trench 4

A prehistoric settlement horizon was located; this had been verydisturbed both by Roman and medieval features but also by extensive moderndisturbance. The features cut into the loessic soil were difficult to read depend-ing on the weather conditions. For example, the surfaces became very hardwhen exposed to sun and waterlogged when exposed to rain. However, afterheavy rain the features were often temporarily more visible. There wasparticularly severe disturbance at the north-east end of the trench, includingscars from JCB machining from the 1960s.

The prehistoric features were characterised by ditches, pits, scoops(irregular shallow pits), gullies and post-holes, and gave evidence that settle-ment was present on the site from the early Neolithic period onwards. The siteplan (Figure 4) has been drawn to show the prehistoric features, leaving outmost of the modern disturbance, except where it explains the truncation of somefeatures.

A Note on the layers

In the main, central area of the trench the levels were designated 1-6 in anattempt to distinguish layers within the loess. In the original main Trench 4Layers 1-3 were very disturbed and included modern and post-medievalartefacts in the fill. The deposit designated Layer 4 was located at c. 6.62mGDand was an orangey-brown, fine-grained soil with some pebbles, varying in


places from c. 0.16m-0.40m deep. It contained some disturbed material and wasan interface between the very disturbed layer above (Layer 3) and theprehistoric Layers 5 and 6 beneath. Prehistoric finds were dominant but theceramics included some Roman, medieval and post-medieval wares. Layers 5and 6 were almost certainly the same loessic material but showing differingcharacteristics in different areas of the site. Layer 5 (at c. 6.12mGD) was a paleorange light loessic soil with some pebbles. Many features were cut into thislayer. Finds included prehistoric pottery and flint. Layer 6 was also a pale-orange light loess, but more sticky, with charcoal and some root action apparent.When the original trench was extended in the second phase an attempt wasmade to redefine the layers to give more precise stratigraphy. In the northextension context 116 and in the south extension context 129 were equal toLayers 5/6.

The phasing of the features discovered during the course of the excavationwill be discussed in the Summary and Conclusions. Detailed descriptions of thefeatures are given in the next section.

Feature Descriptions

When as much of the disturbance as possible was removed from the sitea layer of loess was exposed at c. 6.60-6.40mGD that had features cut throughit. Indications that several phases from the early Neolithic to the Chalcolithicwere present on the site came particularly from the ceramic finds.

A small pit-like deposit or posthole (Feature 25), which contained arelatively large sherd of pottery (see Fig.13 no 3), gave the first indication thatthere had been settlement on the site from the Early Neolithic period (seepottery report). The cut of the feature was truncated but encountered at6.25mGD. The fill was pale orange loess with some fine quartz grains. Thelarge potsherd had caused a hollow to form beneath which was filledwith carbonate deposit. There was also charcoal present. This small featuremeasured 0.07m x 0.06m x 0.11m in depth and may have represented theremnant of a post/stakehole just outside the possible structure (see below).

Possible Neolithic Structure 1

(Features 44, 45, 37, 47, 65, 67, 69) An area of compacted fine orange silty soil with evidence of intense

burning (Feature 44) gave the impression of an occupation level although thisdid not survive as a distinct layer but rather a harder texture in the soil (seediscussion p. **). The cut resembled a shallow-sided pit with sloping sides anda flattish base. It survived to a depth of 0.34m, but it was substantially cut by


Royal Hotel GuernseyPossible structure 1

N

Figure 6 Postholes forming possible Neolithic Structure 1

Figure 5 Photograph showingsection through a modern pit Feature72 (not shown on plan) cut throughLayer 4 in the southern extension.


6.12 GD

T4 SOUTH FACING SECTION FEATURE 44

LAYER 4

Modern disturbanceE

EFEATURE 44

st

orange silt with burning

F33

F49

F56

F57

F58F59

F60F51 F55b

F41

F40

F36

F38 F42F48

F107 F109 F113

F115

F121F144

F142F125

F148

F151

F153 F159 F178

F176 F174F172 F170F168

F180

F163

F182 F184

F64

F71

F65

F66

F67 F69 F70

F54

POST / STAKEHOLE PROFILES ALL AT GD 6.12m

Figure 7 Section through Feature 44

Figure 8 Sections through post/stakeholes


modern disturbance (Feature 6) on the east side. Finds included pottery, flint,and charcoal. It is likely that the areas designated Features 37, 45, 47 and 63 arepart of the same feature. The charcoal deposits here, within the fill of Feature44, were so substantial that it was possible to obtain a Carbon 14 date oncharcoal–(see Appendix 1 and discussion p.**). The area lay within the post-holes 58, 59, 36, 43, 168, 174, 170 on the southern side and 54, 48, 41 & 38 onthe northern side with both sets interspersed with smaller post/stakeholesindicating that they may have formed part of a structure. All of these postholeson the northern side were fairly convincing although F38 was shallow, and onthe southern side 170, 174, 43 and 36 were the most convincing (see below).

Postholes

A series of post and stakeholes survived in truncated form and werelocated cut into the layer of loess, which overlay the natural head material atc 6.12mGD. Some were more substantial than others and some very ephemeralin nature. However it was possible to establish some patterns within the groupsdespite the severe modern disturbance.

The first group identified was located in the central area of the originalTrench 4 and associated with Feature 44.

On the northern side a series of postholes ran from west to east.

Feature 42: possible ovoid stakehole with straight sides and a roundedbase, 0.12m in diameter and 0.03m in depth, filled with light to dark brownloamy soil. Located just outside the main line on the northern side. No evidenceof packing. Finds included 4 sherds of prehistoric pottery.

Feature 38: small circular post/stakehole, 0.08m in diameter x 0.06m indepth with straight sides and rounded base, filled with a dark brown gritty soil.Find of 1 sherd of prehistoric pottery.

Feature 41: substantial oval posthole filled with fine dark-brown loamysoil with almost vertical sides and stone packing at the bottom and side, 0.26min diameter x 0.21m depth. Finds of 1 sherd of pottery and 1 flint flake (Fig. 23No 7). (N.B. A very small sherd of non-prehistoric pottery with a hard fabricwas found in F41 but considered small enough to have worked its way downfrom the disturbance above).

Feature 48: sub-circular post-hole filled with medium brown gritty soilwith pebbles, with vertical sides and a slightly rounded bottom, 0.17m indiameter x 0.09m in depth. No finds.

Feature 54: elongated circular post-hole, vertical sides and a rounded basewith some evidence of a post-pipe slot, fill of light brown gritty soil, 0.16m by


0.28m and depth 0.14m. Find of 1 sherd of prehistoric pottery.

On the southern side running from west to east three further postholeswere revealed when the trench was extended to the south.

Feature 170: roughly semi-circular elongated posthole with fill of mid-brown sandy silt, which included a darker patch within it, sloped more steeplyon southern side, 0.26m x 0.12m x 0.07m. No finds.

Feature 172: small roughly semi-circular possible post-hole, fill of mid-brown sandy silt, had a sheer side to the south-east but sloped more gently onthe other sides, 0.11m x 0.09m x 0.04m in depth. No finds.

Feature 174: ovoid post-hole, filled with mid-brown sandy silt, orientatedroughly north/south, sloped more gently to the north, 0.22m x 0.10m x 0.08m.No finds.

Other postholes on the southern side of Feature 44, as follows.

Feature 168: sub-circular posthole filled with mid-brown sandy silt, steepside to the south but a gentler slope to the north, 0.19m x 0.13m by 0.09m indepth. No finds.

Feature 71: post-hole filled with mid-brown sandy silt, 0.17m in diameterby 0.21m in depth. No finds.

Feature 176: a semi-circular post/stakehole, filled with mid-brown sandysilt, 0.18m x 0.10m x 0.07m, sloping sides. Located slightly further to the southof F71.

Feature 43: substantial ovoid feature, filled with dark brown soil includingmuch charcoal, 0.32m x 0.28m x 0.40m deep. Finds included 8 sherds ofprehistoric pottery and a flint flake.

Feature 36: circular post-hole with straight sides and a rounded base, fillof dark brown gritty soil, 0.36m x 0.16m, depth of 0.16m. Almost bisected by amodern pit (Feature 8). Finds of a flint flake and charcoal.

Feature 58: small post/stake hole, quite ephemeral, fill of dark brown siltysoil, 0.10m and 0.09m in depth. No finds.

Feature 59: small oval post-hole, 0.16m by 0.08m, fill of medium browngritty soil and small stones, but no packing. Finds of 1 sherd of prehistoricpottery.

Interior post/stakeholes

The main postholes were interspersed with smaller post and stakeholes,as follows.

Feature 151: oval-shaped hole with rounded base, filled with dark soil,


located on the east side of a ditch (Feature 138), c 0.18m x 0.08m. No finds.

Feature 40: oval-shaped posthole filled with dark brown loamy soil, steep-sided with a flat base, 0.18m in diameter and 0.08m depth. Find of one verysmall fragment of prehistoric pot.

Feature 49: oval stakehole, fill of fine brown loamy soil, with steep sidesand a flat base 0.18m x 0.06m in depth. Finds of small sherds of prehistoricpottery, and flint.

Feature 67: circular post-hole, fill of fine brown loamy soil, 0.21m indiameter and 0.13m in depth. No finds.

Feature 69: small pit or posthole, close to F67, fill of fine brown loamy soil,0.08m in diameter and 0.06m in depth to the north east of Feature 44. Finds of1 sherd of prehistoric pottery.

Feature 70: circular post-hole, fill of fine brown loamy soil, 0.21m by 0.13m in depth. No finds.

Feature 57: round post-hole filled with dark silty soil, 0.18m x 0.12m x0.06m in depth. No finds.

Summary of post/stakeholes in this area

Northern side of F44

Feature No Length (m) Width (m) Depth (m)42 0.12m 0.12m 0.03m38 0.08m 0.08m 0.06m41 0.26m 0.26m 0.15m48 0.17m 0.17m 0.09m54 0.16m 0.28m 0.14m

Internalpost/stakeholes151 0.21m 0.18m 0.08m49 0.18m 0.18m 0.06m 40 0.18m 0.18m 0.08m67 0.21m 0.21m 0.19m69 0.08m 0.08m 0.0670 0.21m 0.21m 0.13m64 0.08m 0.08m 0.04m65 0.03m 0.03m 0.06m57 0.18xm 0.12m 0.06m


Other features associated with the possible structure

Gullies, small pits and charcoal spreads, as follows.

Feature 39: small shallow gully 0.58m x 0.04m x 0.08m deep. Fill of darkbrown gritty soil. Located in what appeared to be the outside of the possiblestructure (F44 and associated features) running north-west to south-east. Nofinds.

Feature 63: larger shallow pit or scoop/small pit with fill of dark brownclayey soil and much charcoal, which ran across the internal area, 1.73m x c0.72m and 0.09m in depth. Finds of 2 flint flakes. Cut into F63 were two smallstakeholes F64 & F 65.

Feature 64: small circular stake hole with fill of dark brown clayey soil,0.08m in diameter and 0.04m in depth. No finds.

Feature 65: small stakehole, fill of dark brown clayey soil, 0.03m indiameter x 0.06m. No finds.

Feature 34: narrow shallow linear feature, fill included substantial amountsof charcoal, ran c1.16m across the trench, 0.18m wide and 0.15m in depth in thecentral southern area of the trench, running north-east to south-west. No findsbut substantial flecks of charcoal.

Feature 61: shallow dark-stained soil spread at the northern end of F34,0.45m x 0.12m in depth, ran parallel to the possible structure and may haverepresented all that remained of an area of burning which showed up againstthe lighter background of the loessic soil.

Feature 37: shallow gully or scoop/small pit, fill of dark brown silty soiland charcoal, some of which could still be identified as burnt wood. Traced for0.72m, 0.42m in width and 0.18m in depth. Cut by the southern edge of amodern pit (Feature 6) running into the south baulk of Trench 4. This was very

Southern side of F44

Feature No Length (m) Width (m) Depth (m)170 0.26m 0.12m 0.07m172 0.22m 0.09m 0.04m174 0.22m 0.10m 0.08m168 0.19m 0.13m 0.09m71 0.17m 0.17m 0.21m176 0.18m 0.10m 0.07m43 0.32m 0.28m 0.04m36 0.36m 0.36m 0.16m58 0.10m 0.10m 0.09m59 0.16m 0.16m 0.08m


likely part of Feature 44 bisected by the modern pit F6.

Feature 45: charcoal spread, fill of dark brown soil and substantial amounts ofcharcoal, shallow sloping sides, traced for c. 0.86m x 0.33m and 0.23m in depth.This may represent one area of hearth within the possible structure.

Feature 47: kidney-shaped charcoal spread, fill of dark-stained soil, 0.38m x0.18m and 0.16m in depth with sloping sides and a flat base. Cut into Feature63. No finds.

Two other features lay to the north east of the structure. Feature 66: post/stakehole, fill of dark brown clayey soil, 0.06m in

diameter by 0.07m in depth. On the eastern side of the later ditch to the northof the possible structure (Feature 44). No finds.

Feature 47b: small pit/posthole, fill was a dark brown clayey soil, 0.41mx 0.19m and was 0.15m in depth. No finds.

Borrow/Extraction pit?

To the south-east of the possible structure 1 a large pit-like scoop/smallpit (Feature 136) had several features cut into it. These features may representanother borrow (or extraction) pit for procuring loess to fire into daub for theconstruction of walls for the nearby buildings (see Summary and Conclusions).

Feature 136: long sub-oval pit with sloping sides orientated east to westbut wider at the western end, c. 2.02m x 0.60m and 0.29m in depth. Cut by aseries of hollows and scoops/small pits. The fill included a few sherds ofmedieval material, so had suffered surface disturbance.

Feature155/6: scoop/small pit, with sloping sides and an uneven base; fill oflumpy dark brown soil with lighter patches and some charcoal. Finds ofprehistoric pottery and flint, including a flint blade (SF 62).

Feature 178: small sub-circular stakehole filled with mid-brown silt, possiblypart of the primary silting in Feature 136, 0.09m x 0.07m x 0.03m deep. Thesides sloped steeply to the south but more gently to the north. Located at thebottom of deepest hollow in Feature136. Find of 1 sherd of prehistoric pottery.

Feature 182: shallow sub-circular hole, filled with mid-brown silt, gentlysloping sides and rounded base, 0.06m x 0.06m and 0.02m in depth. One of 3similar holes running east to west into Feature 136.

Feature 180: sub-circular hole fill of mid-brown silt, 0.18m x 0.12m and0.04m in depth, lying just to the east of the pit Feature136. No finds.

Feature 184: very small circular hole fill of mid-brown silt, 0.06m x0.06mx 0.02m in depth, sloping sides and a rounded bottom. It had a similar fill toF180 and F184. No finds.


72

129 129164

L4

L3 Edge of trench

Concrete raft

Disturbance

6.81 GD

EAST FACING SECTION OF SOUTH EXTENSION

Modern

F F

5.92 GD

19 22

T4 NORTH FACING SECTION FEATURE 19/22

LAYER 3

DD

orange-brown siltbrown silt

Figure 10 Section showing Layer 129

Figure 11 Section through Features 19/22


Southern extension

In the southern extension to Trench 4 there was also substantialdisturbance by large pits cut in the 19th century and also more recent buildingworks associated with the many extensions and refurbishments at the RoyalHotel. However it was possible to define some prehistoric features here also.These were characterised by a series of amorphous scoops or small pits andothers, which resembled postholes and which again were cut into the layer ofloess that was the typical cover over the site. No distinct occupation surface wasapparent.

Feature 129 was a layer of orangey-yellow sandy silt with dark mottling,possibly the result of root action. It was sealed by Layer 4, and was theequivalent to Layer 5/6 in the original trench. It was cut by the scoops/smallpits described below. Finds included a small amount of prehistoric pottery andflint.

Scoops/small pits

Feature 99: amorphous scoop/small pit filled with grey-brown silt andoccasional small stones up to 0.03m in diameter. The cut had sloping sides andmeasured a maximum of 0.20m to 0.30m x 0.05m in depth. Find of 1 sherd ofprehistoric pottery.

Feature 101: sub-circular post-hole filled with grey brown silt, andoccasional small stones up to 0.03m long, with sloping sides, except to thesouth where they were steep-sided, 0.23m in diameter and 0.11m in depth.Finds included a few scraps of prehistoric pottery. It gave the impression of aposthole although there was no packing visible.

Feature 103: amorphous scoop/small pit, 0.30m wide and 0.05m deep withsloping sides except on the south side where they were steep-sided with fill ofgrey brown silt, with occasional small stones up to 0.03m long. No finds.

Feature 105: amorphous scoop/small pit, 0.36m x 0.18m to a maximumdepth of 0.09m with fill of grey-brown silt and occasional small stones up to0.03m long. The sides sloped, with the north-east section being much deeperthan the rest. Finds included 29 fragments of flint

Feature 111: small long narrow amorphous scoop/small pit filled withgrey-brown silt with occasional small stones. The cut measured 0.38m x 0.12m,depth 0.10m. No finds.

Feature 119: amorphous in shape and made up of a series of scoop/smallpit-like hollows and filled with grey-brown silt with occasional small stones


and degraded red pot. Maximum width of 0.40m and maximum depth 0.13m.No finds.

Post/stake holes

In an area to the south of the possible structure (Feature 44), in the north-west part of the south extension, lay another cluster of possible post or stake-holes alongside the amorphous scoops/small pits, some of which were filledwith charcoal.

Feature 148: small sub-triangular post-hole fill of dark sandy silt, 0.16m x0.12m x 0.06m in depth with sloping sides and an uneven base; located at thesouth-west corner of a large modern pit (Feature 76 - not shown on plans). Nofinds.

Feature 144: a sub-circular post-hole filled with dark soil, 0.32m x 0.24mmaximum to 0.14m deep with sloping sides which were steeper on the westside and more gradual on the east. A metre or so to the south-west of Feature144. No finds.

Feature 165: shallow circular scoop/small pit, fill of mid-brown sandy siltwhose sides sloped particularly on the east side, 0.26m x 0.16m x 0.1m. Findsof a few very small sherds of prehistoric pottery.

Feature 107: small sub-circular possible stake hole, 0.18m x 0.12m to amaximum depth of 0.08m, fill of grey-brown silt and occasional small stones.No finds

Feature 109 (cut 108): (& see F163 below) semi-circular possible post-holewith sides sloped to the east and south, truncated by the western baulk. Fill ofgrey-brown silt, with occasional small stones, 0.23m x 0.10m, to a maximumdepth of 0.08m. No finds.

Feature 113: very small semi-circular scoop/small pit, 0.09m x 0.05m to amaximum depth of 0.03m, fill of grey-brown silt and occasional small stones.Finds of 1 small sherd of prehistoric pottery.

Feature 121: oval posthole, more sheer-sided to the north-west and gentlysloped on the south-east side, 0.18m x 0.16m, with a maximum depth of 0.09m.Fill of grey- brown silt with occasional small stones, and flecks of degraded redprehistoric pottery.

Feature 125: small sub-circular hole, truncated by a pit (Feature 99). Fillof grey-brown silt with occasional small stones, and degraded red pottery,c. 0.46m in length and 0.1m maximum depth with a steep slope on the southside, and gentle slope on the north.


Feature 163 (cut 164): sub-oval cut with sloping sides joined at base, fillof dark loessic soil, located at the extreme edge of the south extension andincorporated Feature 109. It was also truncated by the baulk and measured0.04m x 0.26m x 0.12m in depth. No finds.

Summary of post/stakeholes in southern extension

148 0.16m 0.12m 0.06m144 0.32m 0.24m 0.14m107 0.18m 0.12m 0.08m109 0.23m 0.10m 0.08m113 0.09m 0.05m 0.03m121 0.18m 0.16m 0.09m163 0.04m 0.26m 0.12m

Possible Neolithic structure 2

Within the south extension it is possible that the amorphous scoops/smallpits are also associated with a structure. Feature 55 may represent the northerncorner of a structure, which lines up with posthole Feature 119 as the north-eastcorner and taking in Feature 51, it is possible to see a pattern which may indicatea further building (Fig 29). The pit, Feature 30, may have been a ‘borrow’ or ex-traction pit (French puit d’extraction) for building material for this structure, asthe hollows around it also suggest. Alternatively these features could be partof possible structure 1.

Feature 30: large pit, located in what was the original trench 4, 1.63m at itswidest by 1.02m and a depth of 0.25m, with a series of stakeholes or hollowsassociated with it. Fill of soft, dark loamy soil with flecks of charcoal. Thehollows/stakeholes on the north side appeared to be set at an angle of some 45˚into the ground. Finds included Beaker and other pottery including 1 sherdof possible Roman, which may have been associated with the clearing on thedisturbed upper part of this feature.

It was at first considered to be indicating some form of transient shelteror hut possibly from the Mesolithic period as two fine flint points had beenfound in the clearing in this area along with two bone points. However, it ismore likely that the Mesolithic material is residual, disturbed by later activity.Rodent activity was considered, as this would explain the mix of material found,but the stakeholes were fairly convincing. The feature was found at the south-west of Trench 4 was encountered at GD6.19m. The area to the south of F30was very disturbed with a series of modern pits.


Post/stakeholes associated with Feature 30, possible Structure 2

Feature 28: small ovoid-shaped post-hole, sides sloped to the south-west,with level base, fill of dark brown soil flecked with charcoal, 0.13m x 0.19m andsurvived to a depth of 0.15m. Find of 1 sherd of prehistoric pottery.

Feature 51:post-hole with sloping sides orientated to the south-west, 0.22mx 0.20m x 0.06m in depth, located at the south-eastern side of the scoop/smallpit (F30). Finds of 1 prehistoric pottery sherd and 1 flint flake.

Feature 55: oval pit with sloping sides, 0.28m x 0.17m x 0.14m in depth,with stone at the bottom, 0.05m x 0.07m, fill of light brown, sandy soil. finds ofseveral flint flakes.

Another group of post and stakeholes lay to the north west of the ditch19/22/138 and to the north of the extensive line of disturbance in the form ofJCB tracks that ran across the site.

Feature 55b: A scoop/small pit, fill of light-brown sandy soil with a largestone at the bottom (0.05m x 0.07m), shallow-sided cut with a flat base, 0.47m x0.22m x 0.14m in depth. It was orientated north-east to south-west. No finds.

Feature 56: oval post-hole, 0.14m in diameter and 0.13m in depth, fill oflight-brown gritty soil. No finds.

Feature 60: circular post-hole, fill of light-brown soil, 0.18m in diameterand 0.20m in depth. Finds of 3 sherds of prehistoric pottery.

Feature 62: an area of stakeholes, near Feature 60, c. 0.40m in diameter,truncated and cut by modern disturbance. Finds of 3 sherds of prehistoricpottery.

Feature 33: post-hole or scoop/small pit, located alongside ditch Feature19, 0.20m in diameter and 0.08m deep. Finds of 4 sherds of prehistoric pottery.

Feature 31: a small gully truncated by modern disturbance also in this area,0.28m x 0.12m and c. 0.15m in depth. Finds of Chalcolithic prehistoric potteryand flint.

Summary of post/stakeholes associated with possible structure 2

55b 0.28m 0.28m 0.14m56 0.28m 0.14m 0.13m60 0.18m 0.18m 0.20m62 0.40m 0.40m 0.17m33 0.20m 0.20m 0.08m


Northern Extension

In the Northern Extension to the site in an area to the east a furtherprehistoric horizon was located at 7.07m GD. The prehistoric features in thisarea lay under a layer of loessic soil designated (146) equivalent to Layer 4.There had been slightly less deep disturbance by modern features in this area.Two layers were found which had groups of features cut into them. A dark soilhorizon (Feature 116) was sealed by Layer 4, and cut by a group of prehistoricfeatures including post-holes and scoops/small pits, (Features 130, 132, 134, 140,142, 150, 153, 157, 159, and 161). Finds in Feature 116 included 29 sherds of pre-historic pottery and 30 flints.

Feature 150: possible post-hole, sides sloped gently on the east side butsteep-sided on the west, fill of dark sandy silt, 0.18m x 0.14m and maximumdepth of 0.11m. No finds.

Feature 153: sub-oval scoop/small pit filled with dark sandy silt, taperedat the west end and orientated east to west. Sides sloped steeply on the westand were shallower on the east side, 0.30m x 0.12m x 0.08m deep. No finds.

Feature 130: small sub-circular scoop/small pit, fill of mid-brown soil,0.20m x 0.12m and 0.03m in depth. No finds. Feature 130 was part of a seriesof similar features,which ran along the division between Features 116 and 118.

Feature 132: large oval scoop/small pit, 0.31m x 0.12m and 0.15m in depth,fill of grey-brown silty sand with sloping sides and a deeper part to the northof the base, also on the edge between Features 116 and 118. Finds of 1 sherd ofprehistoric pot.

Feature 134: amorphous scoop/small pit. Fill of dark soil, c 0.38m x 0.12mby 0.06m in depth. Finds of prehistoric pottery and flint.

Feature 140: possible sub-oval stakehole with sloping sides, 0.19m by0.11m and 0.03m in depth. Finds included 1 sherd of prehistoric pottery.

Feature 142: post/stakehole filled with dark soil with a stone at the base,0.18 m x 0.12 m maximum depth 0.06m. Finds of 1 sherd of prehistoric pottery.

Feature 157: long oval scoop/small pit with sloping sides and fill of darksandy silt orientated north/south, 0.24m x 0.13m x 0.05m in depth. Findsincluded 1 sherd of prehistoric pottery near to F142.

Feature 159: small sub-circular hole with sloping sides, fill of dark brownsoil, orientated north-east to south-west, 0.13m x 0.1m and 0.05m in depth. Nofinds.

Feature 161: very small circular stake hole with sloping sides, 09m x 0.09mx 0.03m in depth, fill of dark soil (on the southern edge of this area) No finds.


Feature 118was a layer of orangey-brown sandy silt cut by F116 and F127.Finds included very small sherds of prehistoric pottery and charcoal.

Feature 127: sub-circular post-hole with sides sloping gently to the south-west and steeply to the east, fill of light grey-brown silty sand, 0.26m in widthx 0.18m and 0.09m in depth. No finds.

Feature 169: sub-circular hole, fill of mid-brown sandy silt. with a verysteep edge to south but sloping more gently to the north, 0.19m x 0.13m x 0.09min depth. It was undercut on the south side. One of a small group of holes onthe east side of the ditch (19/22/138).

It is possible that these features also formed part of a structure withFeature 140 forming a corner on the north-western side and lining up withfeatures 130, 132, 134, and 160 and turning north from there to Feature 150 (seediscussion).

North-east extension

A further extension was made in the north-east of the original trench inadvance of the builders moving on to the site in late 2001. This area was alsovery disturbed by modern and post-medieval features and Roman depositswere also found at the end of the excavation. However the loess layer intowhich the prehistoric features were cut was located in this area. Some featureswere defined (these are not shown on the detailed plan). A layer (236) oforange-brown loess with occasional small stones was uncovered at GD5.81m(equivalent to Layer 5/6 in the main trench). The finds of prehistoric potteryincluded Jersey bowl. A small post or stake hole (Feature 237) was filled withdark brown sandy silt and small stones. There were no finds. A small sectionof possible linear ditch (Feature 243) was filled with mid-brown soil. There wereconsiderable finds including pottery and flint but the excavation had to finishbefore this feature could be properly defined.

Two further layers were located in this area. Feature 248 was a layer oforangey-brown soil. Finds included prehistoric pottery and flint. Feature 249was a layer of light brown orangey soil with dark flecks. Finds includedprehistoric pottery, flint, and charcoal.

Ditch Feature

A small ditch (Feature 19/22) was located in the original Trench 4 runningin a south easterly to north-westerly direction across the site (see Fig 4). It wasan elongated U shape in section and was filled with light orangey-brown loessic


Wal

l fill

139

Wal

l fill

Foun

datio

n co

ncre

te

Void

Con

cret

e ra

ft

82

L4L3

129

Wal

l

L3 L4

146

6.55

GD

06

53

21m

4

T4

SO

UTH

EX

TEN

SIO

N

NO

RTH

FA

CIN

G S

ECTI

ON

NO

RTH

FA

CIN

G S

ECTI

ON

OF

DIT

CH

139

SOU

TH F

AC

ING

SEC

TIO

N O

F D

ITC

H 1

39

139

77 138

139

6.00

GD

6.22

GD

AA

CC

BB

Figure 12Section through ditch 138/9


soil. It measured 0.49m at the widest point and was 0.44m deep. It was tracedfor 1.5m in the original Trench 4. The finds included over 200 sherds ofprehistoric pottery (including Jersey bowl), flint and charcoal. The deposit hada second cut (Feature 22) visible at the southern end, which measured 0.40m inwidth and 0.61m in depth (see Figure 11). Finds here were similar although notso great in quantity and included pottery (Jersey bowl) and flint.

In the southern extension of the site the ditch was traced further anddesignated Feature 139 (cut 138) (width 1.20m-1.50m, depth 0.20m-0.45m)giving a total length of 8.50m across the site (see Figure 4). It was oriented north-west to south-east. The sides varied in steepness again suggesting some re-cut-ting may have occurred. The base was irregular and the sides were also in someareas. It was cut by a post-medieval pit (Feature 77 - not shown on plan). Itwas filled with mid-brown silt with frequent large stones, particularly near thesurface. Finds included pottery, flint, and some metal fragments. There ap-peared to be a slight rise to the ditch towards the southeast.

A small V-shaped gully (Feature 31), which measured 0.22m wide, by0.12m in depth was traced for 0.35m between disturbed features and ranperpendicular to ditch F19/22. The fill was a fine brown soil with flecks of clayand charcoal. Finds included prehistoric pottery, flint and charcoal.

THE PREHISTORIC POTTERYby GWENAËLLE HAMON

A total of 2395 sherds of Neolithic ceramics were found in the variouslayers and features excavated in trench 4 (see Figure 17). The majority of thesherds (1423 pieces, or 59 % of the total), measured less than 2 cm² and havetherefore not been studied. This is also the case for sherds of pottery excavatedfrom modern structures such as Features 8, 18, 21, 24, 27, 29, 35, 50, 74, 76, 137,220, 221 and 241, the last two of which produced decorated or characteristicelements (Fig 14, 1-4 and 5).

Some layers and features however produced a significant quantity ofsherds from the two main prehistoric settlement periods on the site, theChalcolithic and the early Neolithic.

Layers 1-4

Although Layers 1-3 are considered to be later than prehistoric, and Layer4 much disturbed, this is where the majority of the ceramics were found. Layers1 and 2 respectively produced 8 and 109 sherds, Layers 3 and 4, 344 and 635sherds respectively. Very small sherds (i.e. surface less than 2 cm²) are


Figure 13 : Early Neolithic ceramics from the Royal Hotel, St Peter Port, Guernseyn° 1, 6, 8, 10, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 : layer 3 ; n° 2, 4, 5 : layer 5 ; n° 3 : feature 25 ; n° 7 : feature 38

n° 9, 11, 15, 16 : layer 4 ; n° 12 : feature 44 ; n° 13, 14 : feature 146 ; n° 18 : feature 47 ; n° 20 : feature 45

0

12

3

4 5 6

7

14 1516 17 18

20 21 22 23 24

19

8 9 10 11 12 13

0 5 cm

numerous. Chalcolithic production is predominant (860 sherds, i.e. 88 % ofthe total), but early Neolithic elements were also excavated (112 sherds, i.e.12 % of the total). Distinct ceramic groups were quite easily identified due tothe technological difference between the two, the first from the beginning of theNeolithic, the other from the end of the period. Two main fabrics have beenidentified. They share a common matrix, which is homogeneous and dense.The granulometry of opaque quartz components is what causes the distinction.In one case they are thin to very thin, and in the other case very thin tomedium-sized, with coarse elements. Some dark phenocrystals (probablytourmaline) were detected. Sedimentary clay, quite probably local (from theunderlying silts) may have been used. In some rare cases ceramics containthin to medium-sized bone elements.

Early Neolithic production

It was not possible to reconstruct any complete profiles. The ceramicsrange from 4 to 12 mm thick, but containers are generally close to 12 mm. Edgesare straight, with simple lips (rounded or levelled). Colour variation rangesfrom beige to light brown. Surfaces, where well preserved, are polished.


7

1213 14 15 16 17

18 19

222320 21 24 25 26

27 28

38373635

343332313029

39 40 41

1

8

2 3 4 5 6

9 10 11

0 5 cm

Figure 14 : Chalcolithic ceramics from the Royal Hotel, St Peter Port, Guernseyn° 1-4 : feature 221 ; n° 5 : feature 241 ; n° 6 : feature 21 ; n° 7-10 : layer 2 ; n° 12-41 : layer 3

0


1

2 3 4 5

6

8109

11 1312 147

24

35

292827262322

16 17 18 19 20

21

39

34333231

15

47464544

36

43

37

40

30

38 41

25

5049

42

0 5 cm

Figure 15 : Chalcolithic ceramics from the Royal Hotel, St Peter Port, Guernseyn° 1-50 : layer 4

2


F30

12

2

6

7 8 9 10

13 14

1615

18

17

19

20

21 22

23

24

25 26

27 2928

3 4

11

5

1

0 5 cm

Figure 16 : Chalcolithic ceramics from the Royal Hotel, St Peter Port, Guernseyn° 1 : feature 146 ; n° 2-4 : Feature . n° 5-10 : feature 236 ; n° 11-12 : feature 249 ; n° 13-29 : features 19/22/139

0


Handles and/or suspension elements are rarely intact, but the presenceof ribboned handles (Fig. 13, nos 17, 19, 21-22), sometimes with a mediandepression (Fig. 13, nos 15-16), should be emphasized. Decoration includesplastic buttons and ribbons (Fig. 13, nos 6, 8-9), and also oval impressions,organized into a horizontal (Fig. 13, no 10) and single line, or into double curvedlines (Fig. 13, no 11). Large perforations were made on thick walled pots (Fig.13, nos 23-24), but it was not possible to determine whether they were madebefore or after firing the pot.

Late Neolithic production

Some straight or concave rims with rounded, underlined and thin lips areorientated towards the outside (Fig. 14, nos 12-20; Fig. 15, nos 3-5; 7-9), or, morerarely, towards the inside (Fig. 14, no 21; Fig. 15, nos 10-14). Some might belongto thin walled vessels, with neck diameter estimated to 105mm and 110 mm (Fig15, nos 1-2). Rims are seldom convex, with rounded, flat or thin lips (Fig. 14,22-24).

Carinated pots are present, both very thin to thick walled (Fig. 14, nos27-29, Fig. 15, nos 31-37). Flat bottom bases with variable angulation wereobserved (Fig. 14, nos 7, 25-26). Bodies and bases offer relatively the samethickness. The diameter of one with a very thick base was estimated to 100 mm.

In Layer 2, two sherds show characteristic decoration composed ofchannels and ribs (Fig 14, nos 9-10). The thin ribs here were formed by tracingchannels and not by applying ribbons. Rare applied ribs however can be seen(Fig. 14, no 36). In Layer 3, twenty sherds have decoration of channels and ribs(12 are figured) and in Layer 4 at least thirty sherds show this same type ofdecoration (Fig. 15, nos 15-30, nos 33-44). They are decorated, carinated orconvex pots; the thickness of these sherds can be between 4mm and 11mm butmore often are between 5mm and 7mm. The thickest elements are concavenecks (Fig. 15, nos 15-19). However, there is a concordance between the widthand the thickness of the cordon and the thickness of the sherds. If mostlyhorizontal, the channels are sometimes wavy (Fig. 14, no 38). It is difficult toknow whether the necks of carinated bowls were made by adding sheets or coilsbut coil assemblages are observed for almost all sherds that show typicalrectilinear and parallel breaks ending in oblique or in ‘gutter’ (indented). Thosedecorations can be associated with impressed decoration, like small and circular(Fig. 14, 39) or large (4-7mm) oval impressions (Fig. 14, nos 37, 38; Fig. 15, nos45-49). A concave lip has a band of chevrons and zigzag under its rounded andunderlined lip (Fig. 14, no 40). One sherd was impressed by the extremity of afinger and nail impressions (Fig. 14, no 41) and another one has a lip impressed


and a short oblique line incised under the lip (Fig. 15, no 49).

Rare broken elements for suspension or of handles were included in thisgroup but were too degraded to be illustrated.

Layers 5 and 6

Layer 5: Of the sherds excavated from Layer 5, twentynine have a surfacearea of less than 2 cm² and six are considered to belong to an early Neolithicproduction. They are light brown and the fabric shows very thin to thickelements of different minerals. Some thin and concave sherds have beenidentified (Fig. 13, no 1). Two pieces of ribbon decoration are included in thisset (Fig. 13, no 4-5). The other brown and red/brown non-characteristic sherdsare attributed to a Chalcolithic production.

Layer 6: In Layer 6, 100 sherds were found, 68 measuring less than 2 cm².The sherds are quite well preserved. Fifteen sherds belong to an early Neolithicproduction and can be divided into two different technological groups. Thefirst includes thirteen sherds, with average size 4 cm². They have light brownsurfaces, and the fabric includes very thin to very thick mineral elements. Onesherd has external and internal light brown surfaces, with a dark grey core.The fabric seems to belong to the first group. This sherd shows a broken plasticdecoration, which was 10 mm in diameter and 1.5mm on thickness. It was toodamaged to illustrate.

Possible structure number 1

A few of the contexts associated with the possible structure (Features 44,45, 37, 47, 65, 67, & 69) produced sherds of pottery. Feature 44 produced 35sherds of pottery, only six of which have an average size larger than 2 cms(4 cm²). The average thickness is 7 mm. Five of the sherds are light brown,including very thin and thin opaque and rare large and very large mineralelements. Two characteristic elements show this technology, a rectilinear andstraight rim with a thin lip and a bodysherd, with very deep punctiformimpressions (Fig. 13, no 12). This group is attributed to the early Neolithicperiod.

Two other sherds of the same size relate to Chalcolithic production. Theyinclude very thin to middling-thin mineral elements but are different colours,firstly red, but brown/red surfaces and a dark grey core for the second one.Feature 38 revealed a sherd with two applied buttons (Fig. 13, no 7). Thecharacteristic beige colour and very thin to thin inclusions is indicative of an


early Neolithic attribution. Nearby from Feature 25, a large early Neolithicsherd with a decoration technologically similar to the impressed sherd fromFeature 44 was found (Fig.13, no 3). It is decorated by horizontal or obliqueribbons, starting from a damaged handle or suspension element. Strips ofcircular impressions also converge toward the edge.

Associated postholes

Eight small sherds were extracted from Feature 43. One of them includesa fabric with very thin to middle quartz, feldspar and muscovite elements andcould relate to an early Neolithic production.

Interior post/stakeholes

In Feature 69 a small sherd (33mm x 24mm x 8mm) was found withnumerous very thin to thin mineral elements in the fabric, with brown redsurfaces and a dark grey core. It could be attributed to an early Neolithicproduction. No ceramics were found in the gullies, small pits or charcoalspreads associated with the possible structure 1.

Southern extension

Seven sherds were found in Feature 129, equivalent to level 5/6. Onlythree have a surface larger than 2 cm². The colours of the surfaces arebrown/red or red. They could be associated with an early Neolithicproduction.

Scoops, small pits

A single sherd was found in Feature 99. Its surfaces are red/brown andthe core is dark grey. The very thin to middling thin mineral inclusions couldcome from a pink granite or a calcinated piece of granite, and could belongto an early Neolithic production. Five tiny sherds of prehistoric pottery andfive pieces of daub were found in Feature 119.

Post/stake holes

Four tiny sherds were found in Feature 165, and only one in Feature 113.


Possible structure number 2

The pit Feature 30 contained thirty-six sherds of pottery, twenty-six ofthem presenting a surface less than 2 cm². One sherd 7 mm thick, brown incolour and showing a very compact fabric, could belong to an early Neolithicproduction. The other sherds belong to Chalcolithic production as describedabove. Two characteristic elements were excavated. The first one is a thin rim(4 mm), concave and canted towards the exterior and with light brown surfacesand dark brown core, including very thin to thin and occasionally thick andvery thick mineral elements. A very characteristic decoration exists on aconcave rim, orientated toward the outside, (Fig.16, no 1). It is formed by agroup of very short, thin, diagonal lines under the lip, surrounding a group ofthree horizontal lines. It lies above a final band formed by two horizontallines inside which were drawn parallel and oblique short lines. Except for theone under the lip, the lines were drawn with the extremity of the valve of aCerastoderma (i.e. cockle) shell (Salanova, 1992). The other rims have a roundedlip (Fig. 16, nos 2-3). No 2 has a dark grey fabric including very thin to verythick opaque mineral elements.

Post/stakeholes associated with Feature 30/structure 2

Feature 28, fully integrated in Feature 30 revealed a sherd of 6mm thick-ness with a straight rim with a flat lip that presents a feuilletée (thin layered)fabric with very thin to middling mineral elements. The sherd found in Feature51 is too small to be dated.

Group of 5 postholes

Feature 62 produced 3 sherds of pottery, two of them less than 2 cm², andone light red, 12 mm thick, with very thin to very thick mineral elementsbelonging to a Chalcolithic production. It could be the same for a thin sherd of4 mm thickness, which had small mineral inclusions, red on the surfaces andwith a brown core, from Feature 33. A second sherd, less than 2 cm² in surfacearea, was also found.

South-east of Feature 30

Fifteen sherds were found in Feature 156, which formed part of the pitFeature 136 in which 47 sherds were discovered. In that group, only eleven (ofsixty two) measure more than 2 cm². Of those, seven (four in F156 and the rest


in F137) could belong to an early Neolithic production, and three to theChalcolithic. The average surface area is 7 cm². A slightly carinated sherd canbe identified.

Northern extensions

The levels 116 and 146 provided respectively twenty-nine (17 less than 2cm²) and forty-five (33 less than 2 cm²) sherds of pottery. The average surfacearea is 5 cm² for Layer 146 and 9 cm² for Layer 116.

In Layer 146 a sherd decorated by a series of vertical and parallel shortincisions was found (Fig. 13, no 13). The tool used to create the incision has notbeen identified, but it could be a spatula rather than the finger. This sherd hasa cream external surface, light brown internal surface and core and had a thick-ness of 8mm. A piece of handle has a truncated perforation made from left toright (Fig. 13, no 14). Four other sherds of 6mm and 7 mm thickness have lightbrown surfaces and a dark brown core with numerous very thin and thin andoccasional middle and thick mineral elements. These characteristics indicatean early Neolithic production.

Three others from 5 to 7 mm thickness show red surfaces and a darkbrown core with very thin to very thick mineral elements, and another of 5 mmthickness has red/brown external surface and dark brown internal surface with-out any core and very thin to middling thin elements. These sherds could beattributed to the Chalcolithic period. A very concave rim with a rounded andunderlined rim is to be noted (Fig. 16 no 1).

In Feature 116, four sherds were found with dark brown internal surfaceand core similar to some early Neolithic sherds from level 146. In this group asherd was observed with a straight rim with thin lip. Seven other sherds arelight red to red, with very thin to very thick mineral elements, and quite thickwalls, from 7 to 9 mm. This group, including a straight rim with a flat lip froma pot with neck diameter estimated at 155 mm (Fig. 16, no 11), a rounded lipand a small piece of a triangular ribbon (not illustrated), could belong to aChalcolithic production.

In Feature 134, eight sherds of pottery were found. The largest of themcan be attributed to an early Neolithic production. Only a small sherd comesfrom Feature 132. Similarly a sherd of five mm thickness was found in Feature140 and a very small sherd in Features 133, 142 (attributed to the Late Neolithic)and also in Feature 157. Five other non-characteristic, very small sherds wereexcavated in Feature 118.


North-east extension

Layers

Layer 236 produced 93 sherds. Thirty-nine sherds had a surface areaof less than 2 cm². The average surface of the 47 sherds attributed to theChalcolithic occupation is 6.41 cm². They have been the object of statisticalanalysis (Figs 18 and 19). Mineral inclusions are rather VTTMTT (very thin,middling-thin to thin) (38%), VTTMT (very thin, thin, to middling-thin) (31%),VTTM (very thin to middling-thin) (24 %). A small number of sherds (7 %)contain an unusual fabric. 66 of the sherds have a thickness between 5 and 8mm(Fig. 18A). Very thin sherds of 4 mm represent however 9 % of the group anda quarter have thick walls, from 9 to 11 mm.

External surfaces are mostly red (54 %), but red/brown and brownsurfaces are often encountered (22 % for each). Light brown orange surfacesare rare (2 %). One sherd is decorated by a triangular ribbon (Fig. 16, no 6). Foursherds are decorated with channels and ribs (Fig. 16, nos 7-10). Decoration ishorizontally organized, except for one sherd, which had horizontal and obliqueribs (Fig. 16 no 8). One flat bottom sherd has a thick base (12 mm), whereas thebeginning of the straight body is thinner (7 mm; Fig. 16, no 5). The diameterwas estimated to 110 mm. Layer 236 produced 7 early Neolithic sherds. Theearly Neolithic elements are light brown in colour and thin to thick walled(5 to 7 mm). The compact fabric contains very thin to thin mineral elements.

The 18 sherds excavated in Layer 243 (for a total of 66 sherds includingvery small sherds) present the same characteristics as the sherds from the Layer236. No characteristic elements are to be pointed out.

The Layers 248 and 249 produced 9 and 18 sherds respectively. Only onein each feature has a surface greater than 2 cm². The most interesting elementsare a large fragment with edge slightly concave and orientated towards theoutside, with flat and thumbed lip and whose neck diameter was estimated to105 mm (Fig. 16 no 12). These sherds are quite ubiquitous and can be dated tothe Chalcolithic period.

Ditch - Features 19/22/138

A total of 403 sherds were taken from different sections of the ditch, inwhich 132 sherds have a surface area greater than 2 cm². They are attributed toChalcolithic production and it has been possible to analyze the group (Fig. 19).


The average surface of the sherds here was 6 cm². Respectively 48 % and38 % of the external surfaces are red and red/brown. Sherds of beige, orangeand brown colouring are less well represented (between 1 to 8 %).

More than three-quarters of the sherds have a thickness of between 5 and8 mm. Almost three quarters (73%) of the sherds have very thin to very thickmineral inclusions included in their fabric. 17% of the fabric contains very thinto thin elements, 8 % are very thin to middling thin elements and 2 % mineralelements invisible to the naked eye.

Three sherds are decorated with channels and ribs. They are of differentthicknesses (5, 7 and 10 mm). Channels are visible on one carinated sherd(Fig. 16, no 23).

Two fragments of rim that could indicate the diameter of the pot havebeen excavated from Feature 19; a thin and very slightly concave sherd and astraight sherd with thin lips belong to a vase of 105 mm opening diameter(Fig. 16, no 13). A thick straight and rectilinear rim with a rounded lip is froma vase of 120 mm opening diameter (Fig. 16, no 14).

A few fragments of other rims should be noted such as a thick convex rimorientated inwards with a flat lip (Fig. 16, no 15). Another rim orientatedtowards the inside shows a flat squarish lip, but is thinner (Fig 4, no 16). Twoconcave rims orientated towards the outside have rounded or thumbed lips(Fig 16, nos 18-19). Figure 16 no 19 shows the coil added to make to rim veryclearly. Small pieces of two thin flat-bottomed bases are present in Feature 19(Fig. 16. no 20-21) and a thick base with (vegetal?) impressed decoration couldbe part of a flat bottomed vessel or a plat à pain (Fig. 16, no 22).

In the small gully Feature 31 perpendicular to this ditch, 4 late Neolithicsherds were found with two post- Neolithic sherds and 2 fragments of daub.

Discussion about survival and elements for comparison

Survival in features and levels

Layers 1 and 2 do not contain significant amounts of prehistoric pottery,but Layers 3 and 4, and especially Layer 4 are where most of sherds attributedto Chalcolithic production were found. Level 5 seems to reveal a gap, as sherdsare more numerous in Layer 6, especially from the early Neolithic.


Context Chalcolithic Early Neolithic < 2 cm! Total

L1 6 2 8

L2 75 39 114

L3 121 15 208 344

L4 242 23 370 635

L5 6 5 29 40

L6 52 16 68 136

F8 1 1

F18 4 3 7

F19 63 6 119 188

F21 4 2 6

F22 3 2 5

F24 6 17 23

F27 24 24

F28 1 1

F29 8 8

F30 9 1 26 36

F31 2 2 4

F33 1 1 2

F35 4 3 7

F38 1 1

F43 1 7 8

F44 2 5 28 35

F50 3 2 5

F51 1 1

F62 1 2 3

F69 1 1

F74 1 9 10

F76 1 1

F98 (fill of 99) 1 1

F114 1 1

F116 13 4 33 50

F129 3 4 7

F133 1 1

F135 (fill of 134) 2 6 8

F137 (fill of 136) 4 3 40 47

F139 64 11 141 216

F141 (fill of 140) 1 1

F143 (fill of 144) 1 1

F146 3 4 17 24

F156 4 11 15

F158 (fill of 157) 1 1

F166 (fill of 165) 4 4

F220 5 1 10 16

F221 30 6 102 138

F236 54 39 93

F243 18 48 66

F248 1 8 9

F249 2 18 20

F258 22 22

Unstratified 13 14 27

860 112 1423 2395

Figure 17 Table of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic pottery by feature


In the northern extension, layers 116 and 146 contained sherds from thetwo periods, which indicates disturbance in this area. However, Feature 134produced only early Neolithic ceramics.

The main early Neolithic sherds were found in the features formingstructure 1. Mostly early Neolithic sherds were found in the features forming,and around structure 1 (around Feature 25, Features 38, 43, 44 and 69). Featuresfrom the southern extension, and especially Features 99 and 129, included earlyNeolithic pottery. Nearby this structure 1, features 136 and 156 included bothearly Neolithic ceramics but a few Chalcolithic sherds also.

Very few features forming the possible structure 2 contained potterysherds. Feature 30 contained a very characteristic Bell Beaker rim.

The group of post-holes located north of Feature 30 included Chalcolithicceramics (Features 33 and 62).

In the north-east extension, other layers (Features 248 and 249) providedonly a few sherds, but they belonged mainly to Chalcolithic production. Thegroup of sherds from the possible ditch Feature 243 was similar. The ditch19/22/138 revealed a large and homogeneous assemblage of Chalcolithicpottery, as well as layer 236. Both were taken into account for statistical analysis.

Chalcolithic occupation

Layers 3 and 4, but particularly 4, are the layers that provided most ofsherds attributed to Chalcolithic production. However as layers 2 and 3 arepost-prehistoric and layer 4 disturbed by later occupations, the statisticalanalysis was carried out for the ceramics from an undisturbed Layer (Feature136) and for those from the fill of the long ditch (19/22/138). These analysesshow homogeneity between those two features, and the rest of the materialcoming from other features and layers, and make it possible to attribute the lateNeolithic group of pottery from the Royal Hotel to a Chalcolithic production.

The main colours of the external surfaces are red and brown/red and themineral inclusions vary from very thin to thick or very thin to middling.However other technological groups were observed whose fabrics includeinvisible (to the naked eye) and very thin mineral elements. A great number ofrims were present, often having a concave shape often orientated towardsoutside, with simple lips, others often rounded and more rarely thumbed, thinor flat. Carinated pots are also quite well represented. The bottoms are flat andsimple with no addition of fabric around the base.


The most characteristic elements of this group are certainly the sherdswith the ‘ribs and channelled’ decoration. The technique employed to makethe ribs is close to excision, as the ribs are formed by the drawing of horizontalchannels. These pots are Jersey Bowls, sometimes associated with lines ofimpressions, very similar to those found at Jerbourg (Burns 1998), L'Erée(Cunliffe & de Jersey 2000) and La Hougue Catelain (Hill 1991) in Guernsey,and in Jersey at funerary structures such as Ville-ès-Nouaux (Hawkes 1938), orGrosnez Hougue (Patton 1995).

On the nearby mainland of France a typical sherd with channels and ribswas found in a late structure from the site of La Burette in Banville in theCalvados (Kerdivel et al., 2009).

The presence of bell beaker pottery is attested by a rim with typical shell-impressed decoration, and thin and flat bases, such as are found all along theAtlantic coast as far as Portugal (Salanova 2000). The chevrons near the lip ona probable Beaker pot are similar to the decoration on Bell Beaker pottery fromLa Ville-ès-Nouaux (Patton 1995).

The association of Jersey Bowls, Bell Beaker Pottery and other domesticceramics on this site evoke the other main Chalcolithic settlements of Jerbourg,L'Erée and La Hougue Catelain, as well on relatively close French sites such asLa Place des Frères Lammenais in Saint-Malo (Ille-et-Vilaine, France; Hinguantet al. 2007) or in Digulleville (Manche, France; Letterlé et Verron, 1986).

A: granulometry of the minerals B: thickness of the walls in millimetresC: external colour of surfaces

Figure 18: Feature 236: analysis on granulometry of minerals (inv = invisible to thenaked eye < 0, 5 mm), VTT = very thin to thin (to 1 mm), VTTMT = very thin, thin,middling thin (to 2 mm), VTTMTVT = very thin, thin, middling thin, very thick (to 3mm and more), thickness of the walls, and coloration of the external surfaces.

2011 PRESIDENT’S REPORT 227

A: granulometry of the minerals; B: thickness of the walls in millimetres;C: external colour of surfaces

Figure 19: Ditch 19/22/138: analysis on granulometry of minerals [(inv = invisible tothe naked eye < 0, 5 mm), VTT = very thin to thin (to 1 mm), VTTMT = very thin,thin, middling thin (to 2 mm), VTTMTVT = very thin, thin, middling thin, very thick(to 3 mm and more), thickness of the walls and coloration of the external surfaces].

Neolithic occupation

Although the quantity of early Neolithic pottery is small, this very inter-esting group offers homogeneity in its technology and characteristic sherdswhich allow comparison to those coming from the end of the early Neolithicsettlements.

The ceramics are 4 to 12 mm thick, but containers are generally close to12 mm. Edges are straight or concave with simple lips. Colourations vary frombeige to light brown. Surfaces, fairly well preserved, are polished. Ribbonedhandles are numerous, on rare occasions with a median depression.

Fingernail or spatula decoration, probably placed close to a thin containeropening, evokes some similar elements associated with north-western Frenchsites, such as Le Haut-Mée at Saint-Etienne-en-Coglès (Ille-et-Vilaine; Cassen etal. 1998) or Les Pichelots (Les Alleuds, Maine-et-Loire; Rousseau 2001) as wellas some settlement assemblages from a final stage of the early Neolithic in theParis Basin (Villeneuve-Saint-Germain; Constantin 1985).

Without complete archaeological forms in terms of complete profiles, theorganisation of the rounded ribbons is difficult to predict. The large fragmentwith oblique or horizontal ribbons, starting from a damaged suspensionelement and with stripes of circular impressions converging towards the edgeis similar to ceramics from L’île Ponneau at Saumur and L’île Verte at Ancenis(Cassen et al. 1999). A fairly large sherd of pottery, with V-shaped ribbonsreaching underlip buttons, was discovered at Jersey at the L’Ouzière site


(Saint-Ouen’s Bay; Patton and Finlaison 2001). This sherd (about 40 cm indiameter), stands comparison with the large stock pots of the final developmentof the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain in the Paris Basin (Constantin 1985), also foundin the Armorican Massif and its margins (Chancerel et al. 1992, 1995; Cassen etal. 1998, 1999).

C. Constantin discusses a ceramic sherd from Les Fouaillages with tip-upimpressions, executed by a seven-or-eight-tooth comb (Constantin 1985). Thepresent author does not consider that this type of decoration exists in a Cernyhorizon, though the ceramic group of the Les Fouaillages is traditionallyattributed do Middle Neolithic I, called Cerny J (ibid.) or more widely Pinacle/Fouaillages group (Patton 1987). On the site of L'Erée an early Neolithic levelhas provided a few very abraded sherds of pottery.

REPORT ON THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE by JEAN-NOËL GUYODO

Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic

Three arrowheads (rectilinear backed-edge points on obliquely truncatedblades; Fig. 20, 1-3) from the Royal Hotel Site and a patinated blade,manufactured from local coastal flint pebbles, suggest post-azilien contexts,more precisely between Recent Azilien and Early Mesolithic, also namedtechno-complexe des industries à pointes à dos rectiligne, a short-lived denominationfor the end of the Tardiglaciaire on the Armorican Massif (Marchand et al. 2004).These artefacts are probably the most northerly examples of a tradition, whichcontinues in the Early Mesolithic in Normandy (cf Roc de Gîte at Auderville,Centrale EDF at Flamanville; Ghesquière et al. 2000). In the Recent Dryas /beginning of the Preboreal, the sea level is estimated to have been between 85and 65 metres lower than the current level, at which time all the Channel Islandswere still attached to the Continent via the Cotentin peninsula (Renouf and Urry1986; Renouf et al in this paper).

Early Neolithic occupation evidence

Signs of human presence in the Early Neolithic are rare but it is worthobserving that they are more obvious in an insular context in Guernsey than inJersey, though the latter was then still joined to the Continent by a narrow spitof land. In Guernsey, one can generally find isolated artefacts. Although theartefacts of the Royal Hotel Site are of great interest, the moving of sedimenthorizons and the combination with Beaker elements, notably for the lithic


assemblage, makes it difficult to draw very precise conclusions. Some featuresmay come from the earliest occupation (notably feature 38) as well as the mostancient layers (Layers 4 and particularly 5 and 6) where the presence of EarlyNeolithic artefacts is the highest.

Four blade fragments stand out in the Royal Hotel site lithic assemblageby the characteristic nature of their raw material. This material is a veryfine-grained homogeneous light grey flint, with a thin and regular cortex(<5 mm), beige on the surface, with a lighter under-cortical area – allcharacteristics indicating that these blades were manufactured from imported

Royal Hotel Site, St Peter Port, GuernseyMesolithic

Royal Hotel Site, St Peter Port, GuernseyEarly Neolithic

Albecq, GuernseyEarly Neolithic

Figure 20 Mesolithic flints from the Royal Hotel site

Figure 21 Early Neolithic flints from the Royal Hotel site and Albecq, Guernsey

Trench 1 Trench 1 Trench 2 Trench 2 Trench 4 Trench 4Number Weight (in g.) Number Weight (in g.) Number Weight (in g.)

U/S 2 12 10 111 124 1991Layer 1 6 169 22 118Layer 2 6 62 1 10 160 1687Layer 3 541 2505Layer 4 507 2754Layer 5 47 200Layer 6 109 1490Total 8 74 17 290 1510 10745


Normandy bathonien flint. The only proximal fragment in the assemblageis from a blade with a concave oblique striking platform and three regularnegative flake scars on the dorsal face, both characteristics of indirect percussion(Fig. 21, no 15). For the three other blade fragments, all mesial sections, theparallel sides, regularity of the arrises and the nature of the raw material, arealso indications, although less convincing, that suggest manufacture by thesame indirect percussion technique (Fig. 21, nos 16-18). These blades, 15-23 mmwide and 2-5 mm thick, were typically knapped from cores with convex fronts,probably prepared by the initial removal of the central crest. Differing corereduction techniques are evident on these pieces with previous removals beingeither semi-rotating or frontal with broadening towards the flanks. No cores orknapping waste from this imported flint have been found on site which suggeststhat the prepared blades themselves were imported.

By comparison, among the rare items of surface collection one can clearlyobserve a parallel-sided blade with two arrises of grey bathonien flint fromNormandy, broken on the distal part (101m x 25m x 5 mm; Fig. 21, no 19) froma promontory at Albecq (on the north-western coast of Guernsey). The bladewas extracted by indirect percussion, the two edges are microdenticulated,and the right edge was partially altered. This is one of the rare examples ofa continental finished product present in Guernsey, whose technicalcharacteristics evoke, as with the Royal Hotel Site group, the Early Neolithicin the tradition of Villeneuve-Saint-Germain.

Late Neolithic / Beaker occupation

At the Royal Hotel Site, except for fleeting signs of unstratified Mesolithicand Early Neolithic occupation, the most important part of the lithic groupbelongs to the end of the Neolithic.

Figure 22, Table 1: Royal Hotel Site (St Peter Port, Guernsey), lithic group: number and weight by layers


Context no Number Weight (in g.)1 6 832 10 463 2 165 12 1696 8 777 13 658 4 339 9 8910 2 814 1 615 14 17317 19 13018 1 2019 28 7920 1 421 7 24922 1 424 52 32826 3 3427 33 13329 3 2230 9 4431 2 735 11 5136 1 341 1 443 1 644 49 22149 2 550 5 1551 1 952 22 27455 1 563 2 1568 6 3774 19 18976 11 5278 3 880 11 40

Context no Number Weight (in g.)84 7 3286 4 3088 1 1090 1 19105 29 631116 30 151129 2 3134 3 14137 33 114139 88 323146 39 130156 12 32186 9 110192 11 85193 13 131194 7 360197 5 1423201 1 17203 13 70207 1 4208 16 371209 34 409212 4 32220 31 118226 1 4228 3 27235 3 16236 169 1443239 3 30241 136 498243 81 268246 4 15248 15 62249 27 59251 29 86255 2 15258 22 262260 1 2Total 883 7374

Figure 22 Table. 2: Royal Hotel Site (St Peter Port, Guernsey), lithic group: number and weight, byfeature


The lithic material, from all the periods comprised 418 pieces in total, witha weight of 18.483 kg. The majority of the pieces come from Trench 4, notablylayers 3 and 4 (Tab. 1). Altogether, 77 contexts have lithic material, often in smallquantities (Tab. 2). Only contexts 236 and 241 had more than one hundredpieces.

The rest of the lithic material from Royal Hotel Site derives from aflake-based tool industry manufactured on local raw material (flint pebbles),using percussion on an anvil (also called split technology) l. Laminar products,blades (20) and laminar splinters (15) are not frequent, representing only 1.5 %of rough blanks (Fig. 23, nos 1-10). They are mostly extracted by directhard-stone percussion. The tool set does not show much variation (6 classes).The most common by far are scrapers (92) and secondly, splintered pieces(pièces esquillées) (23). Retouched notches (4), borers (3), side-scraper (1) andarrowhead (1) complete the group of tools.

Scrapers are often produced on cortical splinters (calottes) in flint pebbles,extracted by percussion on an anvil (55 %) or direct hard stone percussion (45%). Dimensions are small: 14-44 mm length, 16-37 mm width and 4-19 mmthickness. In most cases (75 %), the active part is distal axial semi-circular,obtained by continuous abrupt direct retouches (Figs 23, nos 11-26).

Splintered pieces are made on cortical flakes, almost exclusively producedby percussion on an anvil (95 %). Active parts are axial opposites (Fig. 24,nos 1-5). Retouched notches (4) are made on various blanks, with variable formand position limited retouches (Figs. 23 and 24, nos 6-8).

Borers (3) are produced on small cortical blanks. Bits are distal axial, madeby continued abrupt direct retouches on the two edges (Fig. 4, nos 9-11).

The only side-scraper (Tr. 4 – L3) is processed from an uncortical flake,made by continual semi-abrupt direct retouches on the right edge.

The only Late Neolithic arrowhead from the site has a trapezoidal form,made on a medium section of laminar splinter, with abrupt direct retouches onthe two edges (Fig. 23, no 12).

Macro-tools are present in a single element of millstone fragment on apebble with a worn active part, coming from Trench 4 Layer 4 (Fig. 24, no 13).All these diagnostic elements – technological and typological – evoke, on theChannel Islands and also in the Armorican Massif and in Normandy, contextsdated from the Late Neolithic and/or Beaker periods (Guyodo 2001, Guyodoand Marchand 2005, Ghesquière and Guyodo 2008). It is unfortunatelyimpossible to be more precise about the attribution of these elements. Evenso, it seems to be clear that prehistoric structures and remains had been badlydisturbed by later occupation, and so by modifications of the more ancientarchaeological layers.


Royal Hotel Site, St Peter Port, GuernseyLate Neolithic / Beaker

Figure 23 Late Neolithic/Beaker flints


Royal Hotel Site, St Peter Port, GuernseyLate Neolithic / Beaker

Figure 24 Late Neolithic/Beaker flints and millstone


Synthesis: Last hunter-gatherers to first agro-pastoral groups

The presence of microdenticulates, bladed cores and laminar blanks (oneand more rarely two arrises) produced from local coastal flint pebbles by directhard stone percussion from a single striking platform (plan de frappe), similarto those from the Col de la Rocque and the Catel de Rozel in Jersey, might wellbe considered as conclusive evidence of occupation from the beginning of theMesolithic (Kendrick 1928, Hawkes 1938, Kinnes 1986, Patton 1995). Suchsparse human presence at the 10th – 8th millennium cal. BC must be linked withnoticeable modification of the coastline (bathymetric level -18 metres at theend of the Middle Mesolithic), by which time Guernsey was a large archipelagoincluding, among others, the nearest islands of Herm, Jethou, Brecqhou andSark. The surface of the emerged landscape thus became much larger thanbefore.

Although Late Mesolithic lithic groups are extremely sparse, they aremore numerous than in the Early Neolithic, either in Jersey (Grosnez Hurel, LeSquez south side), Alderney (Les Pourciaux / Mannez, L’Emauve), Herm orGuernsey (Grandes Rocques, Lihou). The insular position of Guernsey and itsgreater distance from the Continent (48 km) is now clearly established for thegiven period, whether one refers to the bathymetrical levels of -7 or -5 metres,or to the strong tidal range in the area. Just as in former periods, the use oflocal raw materials is exclusive, either coastal flint pebbles or other rolledmetamorphic stones collected on the foreshore. No other rock seems to be used,similar to the situation that is clearly dated to the Armorican Teviecien(Marchand 1999). The relatively small number of artefacts within each groupmakes it difficult for the latter to provide a comprehensive perspective of lithicproduction; narrow backed blades are found in Jersey (Les Pourciaux / Mannez,Les Marionneux and L’Emauve and also in a Middle Neolithic context atGrosnez –Hougue; Rybot 1924), micro-chisels also in Jersey (Le Squez southside,) and trapezes at L’Emauve (Alderney) and Grosnez Hurel (Jersey, Patton1995). In Jersey, the presence of some backed edge, narrow blades, usuallymissing from Recent and Final Mesolithic groups, is puzzling, in terms of thehomogeneity of certain groups. One of the few Mesolithic sites excavated todate in the Channel Islands is located on the islet of Lihou, in the north-westof Guernsey. The techno-typological characteristics of this Late Mesolithictrapeze-based lithic group are very similar to the south Armorican Teviecien(Marchand 1999). However, the Lihou set is distinct from contemporary sitesof the Plaine de Caen, which derive from the Tardenoisien tradition of the Northof France (asymmetric trapezes with invasive retouches akin to Sonchamparrows; Dietsch 1995). Current data for the nearest Cotentin are, for the timebeing, not so specific.


Final Mesolithic occupation sites are relatively dense throughout theChannel Islands, even on the smallest islands (e.g. Herm, Lihou). Thesedomestic implantations are in diverse locations (some on plains away fromthe sea, some on the plateaus); their common denominator is a noticeable shifttowards coastal areas and probably coastal resources, a phenomena which isalso known in north-western France. Consequently, one can see a probablesuperposition or coexistence, in the same ecological niche, of groups of localhunter-gatherers and then first agro-pastorals.

For the Early Neolithic, there is no evidence of visible settlementconcentration near to local mineral resources, notably coastal flint pebbles,predominately stranded on the north-western coasts of Guernsey and Alderney,brought down by streams. The available ovoid blocks are about 10 centimetreslong, which is also the maximal length of blanks since the Mesolithic period:there is no evidence that the supply of the largest pebbles decreased over time.However, the renewal of flint pebbles on the coasts is not infinite. Today, inthe Channel Islands as in south Brittany, resources have almost been exhausted.Demographic increase during the Neolithic, associated with the diminishingresource, could have progressively led groups of people to use the poorestpebbles to the detriment of debitage and required tools (Guyodo and Marchand2005). Lithic groups from Royal Hotel Site and Albecq prove a continentalcomplementary supply of finished products – exclusively composed of largeblades knapped by indirect percussion from bathonien flint – evidence ofmaritime contacts, regular or occasional, between these insular contexts andthe nearby Continent. The production and exchange networks emerging inthe Plaine de Caen, whose area of influence has been recently enlarged toencompass the Armorican Massif (Marchand 1999, Guyodo 2001, 2005,Marchand and al. 2006, Pailler and al. 2008), are now extended to the north-west. It goes without saying that it is not a proof of a Norman origin for theseagro-pastoral pioneer populations, although the proximity of the ChannelIslands and ease of access by sea could suggest this possibility.

GEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE ROYAL HOTEL SITEJOHN RENOUF, HELEN WALKINGTON and LES JAMES

Location and Levels

The site lies immediately to the west of the Glategny Esplanade just northof the small valley marked by St Julian's Avenue. The very narrow coastal plainof St Peter Port south of St Julian's Avenue widens out somewhat northwardstowards La Salerie. The heights (all with reference to GD, Guernsey Datum,


Figure 25 Description of the sedimentary succession found in the geological trench in the middle of theRoyal Hotel site


which is ± the equivalent to Ordnance Datum) recorded at ground level on thecleared site show a rise of only 1 m from the Esplanade at 6.00 - 6.40 m to theback of the site at 7.20 m. Above this line there is a significant steepening ofthe slope, representing the old, nearly ubiquitous, fossil cliff-line of the ChannelIslands and adjacent Normandy. The site from east to west measured some65 m and from south to north some 55 m. The lowest point recorded on sitewas from the bottom of the geological section trench (4.31 m); other heightsrelating to a ditch and Layer 118 at the north end were 5.49 and 6.24 m GDrespectively. However, from information gathered at the time and fromcomparison with other sites in the area, the interface between the soft rocksand the underlying bedrock, the St Peter Port gabbro, is known to lie at about1.25 m GD, and thus some 2.75 m below the base of the section (Fig 25). Byprojection westward based on the general shore profile and the steepening ofthe old cliff line at the top of the site, the position of the likely raised beach ornotch of the last Interglacial sea-level would lie at an altitude of approximately8/9 m GD (Fig. 26).

Geological Composition of the Site

Overall, the soft sediments forming the surface of the site were loessic butwith a significant scatter of small subangular clasts and locally a coarse sand togravel component. Nowhere was there any indication of rounded sand grainsindicative of blown sand or a beach source.

The examined geological section (Fig 25) is strongly loessic down to adepth of 71 cm below the surface but with the occurrence of coarse sand andgravel as noted for the generality of the site surface. Below about 60 cm thenon-loessic components increase their percentage. However, a single 'roundedgranitic pebble' was recorded between 60 and 70 cm; no further informationis available on this pebble. The colour of this upper 70 cm was pale yellowyorange but, below this, the sediments were darker orange grey. The interfacebetween the upper and lower parts was not horizontal but varied between71 and 74 cm.

The lower 150 cm part of the section is variable but can be characterisedas overall sandy (fine to coarse) containing different proportions of angular tosubangular clasts. Many of the clasts are deeply weathered gabbro, which vergeon disintegration and may have contributed significant amounts of sand to thesediment profile. Below this, again from information gained on site at the time,the sediment down to the bedrock varies little though there is an increase of thesubangular, weathered, rocky fragments (gabbro). 'Rounded flints' at 90, 120and 150 cm were recorded.


-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 2550 2575125 100150 50 75 100 125 150 175 200metres

met

res

with

ref

eren

ce to

pre

sent

mea

n se

a-le

vel *

La Frégate

Approximate storm beachheight of the MIS 5e sea-level

HWST and MSL estimatesfor Present sea-level

Possible MIS 5e cobble beach

Approximate position of Royal Hotel site

Situation during Stage MIS 5e 120 000 years ago

HWST and MSL estimatesfor MIS 5e sea-level

30

40

50

60

met

res

with

ref

eren

ce to

pre

sent

mea

n se

a-le

vel *

La Frégate

Head deposits of the last Cold Stage, the Devensian

Head deposits of the last Cold Stage, the

the Devensian, ending atSituation during the last Ice age,

11 000 years ago the Devensian, ending atSituation during the last Ice age,

11 000 years ago

-10

0

10

20

125 100150met

res

with

ref

eren

ce to

pre

sent

mea

n se

a-le

vel

0 2550 2575metres

Approximate position

50 75 100 125 150


(sea not present in the ChannelIslands' area)

150 175 200

(sea not present in the ChannelIslands' area)

Figure 26 Reconstructed west/east geological profile across the site at about 120,000 years ago during thelast Interglacial period

Figure 27 Reconstructed west/east geological profile across the site at about 11,000 years ago at the endof the last cold Glacial period


-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 2550 2575125 100150 50 75 100 125 150 175 200metres

met

res

with

ref

eren

ce to

pre

sent

mea

n se

a-le

vel *

La Frégate

...

....

...

.. ..

.

...

...

.

...

...

.. ......

.. .

.. ... . ..

....

...

.. ..

.

.. .....

.

.

...

.

..

..

....... .. ... ..... .. ... ....

..

. ... ......

...

... ..

... .. ... ...

.. .. ... ..

.

...

... .. . .. ...

.....

...

...... ... ..

. ...

....

...

..... .. ... ..

. . ... ... ... ..

.. ..

. .....

. ..

.

...

.

.

..

.. .

..

.

. ... ...

...

. ....

...

... ..

... .....

...

... ... ..... .. ... ..

....

.

.

. ..

... ... ..

.

....

.

..

.....

.

.. .

.

..

...

... ..

... ... .. .....

..

... .

...

.... .

.... ... .. ..

...

..

....

....

.. ....... . .. ..... .

. .

. .. . .. ..

.

.. ..... ..

. .. ..

..

.

..

... ..

...

... ...

.. ... .. .....

.

... .. .. .

.. . .. .

. . .. .. .

.

. ..

. ...

. ..... .. ..... .

... ....

. .. .....

..

. ... .

. .. .....

... .. .... .

.

..

. ...

.

.

... ...

...

....

... .

....

..

. ... .

. .. .....

. . .. ..

.. ...

.... ...

.. ..

... .

... ... .

.... ... .. ..

.....

... ..

....

... ..

.... .

...

. ..

...

... ..

... ... .. .....

.. ..

... .

... ... .

.... .... ..

...

. .... .. . .... ..

. ...

.. .

.

..

...

...... .. . ..

.. ..... ..

...

.. ..

... .

...

.... .

.... ... .. ..

..... .

...

. ..

.. ... ..

... ... .. .....

. . ...

. .. ..

..

. ..

... .

...

.... .

.... ... .. ..

..... ..

... . .

...

... .. .

..

... .. .....

.. ..

... .

... ... .

.... .... ..

...

. ...... .. ..

...

. .. .. .

..

... ...

.. ..

....

...

... ..

... .... ..

..... .. . .. . .. ...

.... ..

.. ..

... .

...

. ... ..

... .....

HWST for the risingHolocene sea-level at about 5 500 BC

Slope and stream washsediments flushed out downslope and downthe St Julian's Avenue valley


Possible remnantsof MIS 5e cobbles

Situation at about 5 500 years BC(section)

Figure 28 Reconstructed west/east profile across the site at about 5,500 years ago towards the close of theMesolithic period/beginning of the Neolithic

Figure 29 Graph of Holocene sea-level rise derived, but modified, from Lambeck (1997)


Geological Interpretation of the Soft Sediments

The upper 70 cm of the section is colluvial loess (the strong loessiccomponent containing gravel, sand and small clasts resulting from slope washdeposits tapping into a cover of probably almost pure loess higher up the townslope above the site—several archaeological investigations above the town haveconfirmed a loess cover on bedrock. The overall coarser grain size and largerangular clasts of the lower section, but still with a significant sand component,suggests a possible derivation from head deposits higher up the slope by smallstream dispersal as well as slope wash.

The presence of a number of rounded flints and other lithologies withinthe heart of the section raises a problem of provenance if they are to be derivedupslope of the site. There is an adequate supply of flint cobbles in raisedbeaches of last Interglacial age, i.e. MIS 5e (Marine Isotope Stage 5e) but, forthem to be found within this section, requires a similar derivation process asfor the section as a whole, that is upslope. The MIS 5e beaches in Guernsey areknown to occur up to 8/9 m GD (Keen, 1978) and in this sense offer a sourcehigher than where they are found now. Flint is also recorded (Keen, 1978) fromthe Les Vardes level raised beaches at more than 35 m GD but preservation ofthese beaches is rare. If the MIS 5e beaches are to be acceptable as the solution,it does require the existence of such a beach and its exposure more or lessdirectly upslope from the site at the relevant time. This is not known but therapid steepening of the slope above the site does allow the strong possibilitythat a raised beach of the right age was pushed up into the angle between thesteep and shallow slopes back of the site and perhaps just a little to the WSW towhere the steps begin to go up from St Julian's Avenue towards La Frégate. Atthe time of MIS 5e beach formation, there would have been no sediment wedgein front of the steep slopes and a steep to vertical rock cliff several metres highwould also have been common at their base (Fig. 26).

The processes of stream and slope wash would likely have been precededby an early, wet, post-Glacial period of erosion which is known to have flushedout many valleys in the Channel Islands as a whole (Jones et al., 1990). Sucherosion down the St Julian’s Avenue valley could have cleared away much ofany wedge shaped mantle of head which would have been in place around thebase of the steep slopes leading down from the main island plateau (Figs 28 andFigure 30 - colour plate). Later, as the vegetation cover grew thicker, erosionlessened but would readily have supplied enough sediment from above to allowa platform of softer deposits to be built out in front of the steep plateau slopebefore the earliest evidence of Neolithic peoples in the area and before the risingsea-level arrived.


The three dimensional form of the St Julian's Avenue valley is severelymasked by surface developments of roads and houses but the axis of the valleywould have lain virtually along the Avenue in its lower parts adjacent to thedemolished Royal Hotel. This suggests that the site itself before disturbancecould have had a slight slope to the south to southeast representing the northside of the shallow valley at this point.

The Holocene Sea-level Rise

Background

The precise dating of the stages in the Holocene rise in sea-level becomesdifficult after about 5,000 BC (Fig. 28), when the rate of rise decreases strongly.Only very slight changes in the height of sea-level at any given time after thiscan result in significant time differences. The chart does not document anymajor inconsistencies and a fairly steady rise is accepted in recent years overthe more punctuated versions prevalent in the 1970s to early 1990s. In thisrespect the 2.67 m rise in sea-level after the mid-fourth millennium BC advancedin the monograph on the Holocene of Jersey (Jones et al., 1990), based on diatomevidence from a core in Le Marais de St Pierre (Goose Green Marsh), should beviewed as extremely unlikely, though not yet formally proven to be wrong.With the reservations above, the rise of sea-level used here is that shown inFigure 28.

Research in progress (Renouf, 2012) indicates very variable erosion ratesfor different parts of the Guernsey coastline during the advance of the Holocenesea. In an overall sense the sea was advancing over a landscape—presentlydrowned—which had been subject to extremes of cold climate for long periodsduring the last Glacial period (Devensian). The land surface had been fracturedand weathered down to depths of several metres in places and, as the sea spreadover the land, it had considerable erosive powers. The result was the removalof between 1 and 2 metres of surface material over large areas. This effect wouldhave begun to take place as soon as the high tide at any given time reached newland. It is for this reason that the sea-level in Figure 26 has been converted fromMSL to HWST, the conversion being based on the working assumption of thepresent 10 metre Guernsey tidal range also applying to the last few thousand years.

The graph demonstrates, that even with the various provisos noted above,the present MSL outline of Guernsey would have come under potential attackfrom the rising sea at about 5,500 BC. There is no evidence to suggest that anysignificant thickness of superficial deposits—essentially loess—accumulatedover the general landscape of the Channel Islands area during the Devensian.


Thus, it was only when the advancing high tide of the sea front reached the toeof the small stream and slope deposits (Figs 28 and 30), formed as a wedgeextending out from the steep slopes leading up to the island plateau, that thesedeposits could have come under direct attack. Even then, it is likely that manydeposits were over-ridden rather than completely eroded away—the NeolithicVazon Bay peats on Guernsey’s west coast are one example among many.However, it is very rare to find a complete wedge of soft deposits from toe tosummit.

The Royal Hotel Site

The Royal Hotel site, as has been argued, would have had an apron ofDevensian head at the end of the Devensian some 11,000 years ago (Fig. 27)extending over most of the site, though thinning rapidly eastward. This headhad been formed by solifluction and allied processes and generally accumulatedin the angle between the old sea shore of the MIS 5e sea and the steep cliffsabove (Fig. 28), with the likely accumulation of a high-tide and storm zoneof pebbles at the back of the beaches of the time. Immediately following theDevensian, a period of erosion ensued when much of the head was flushedout, to expose locally the MIS 5e pebble beach. A different regime was thenestablished of slope and stream processes when sediments began to fill the spacein front of the old cliff slopes. Sediments spread out eastward across the oldexposed beach platform to create the 4 to 6 m thick layer of soft sedimentforming the present coastal plain. These sediments would have tailed awayeastward fairly rapidly, probably not extending out more than a hundred/twohundred metres beyond the present position of the Esplanade. It was the toe ofthis sediment that the rising sea began to attack at about 5,500 BC.

At 5,500 BC the sea was still on the steeper part of its Holocene rise(Fig. 26). It flattened off in the decades preceding the close of the 6thMillennium. By 5,000 BC the HWST of sea-level was within only two metres ofthat of the present. This mounted to one metre about 3,000 BC with the presentsituation being reached at about the BC/AD mark. Bearing this summary inmind, it is likely that the erosion or over-riding landward was relatively rapidat the beginning of the Neolithic, though it was only operating on relatively flatterrain, i.e. that marked out by our present mid- to low-tidal levels. The tidallandscapes being produced would have been likely to resemble the present tidalareas immediately to the north of La Salerie in Belle Grève Bay. After 5,000 BC,the sea would also have been attacking and/or over-riding the toe of the softsediment shelf with a possible curve landward to the immediate south of theRoyal Hotel site marking encroachment up the shallow embayment,


represented by the outflow of the St Julian's stream (Fig. 28). Within theseparameters the situation would have changed comparatively little over the nextfew thousand years with some encroachment on an uneven front from LaSalerie to the Town Church. What remains problematic is to be absolutelyprecise about the position of the high tide mark at any given point in time.

As is seen elsewhere in Guernsey at present, the potential for landwarderosion of soft Holocene sediments remains so long as some remain below theHWST mark. The edges of L'Erée facing west and southwest are an example.Along the island's eastern waterfront from Havelet northwards, where sea wallshave been built, the erosional characteristics have obviously been changed.Encroachment, at least while human intervention maintains them, has beenhalted.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSby HEATHER SEBIRE

Phasing and Relationships

Upper Palaeolithic/ Mesolithic

Within the flint assemblage four flints, three from the disturbed Layer 3(including SFs, 144 &145) and one in Layer 236 (in the north-east extension,SF146) had Upper Palaeolithic characteristics indicating a presence in the areac 12,000bp when Guernsey was still part of mainland France and so mayrepresent a transient presence. The nearest similar material is at CrevichonBeach between the islands of Jethou and Crevichon some 5km by sea to thesouth-east (Sebire & Renouf, 2010).

One fine Mesolithic blade was found in clearing (Feature 17) above anarea that revealed a large shallow pit, defined by smaller pits/stakeholes(Feature 30, see above). Two bone pins (SF81 & SF82) were also found in thisarea. Two other Mesolithic blades (Fig. 20 Nos 2 &3 ) were found during theinitial excavations in 1999.

Early Neolithic

The accumulated evidence from the postholes and other features indicatesthat at least one long rectangular house structure c. 5m long by c. 2.5m widefrom the Early Neolithic stood on the site, albeit severely cut by moderndisturbance. A model of how the features may be interpreted is drawn in Figure31 (and see above Fig. 4 and 6). An extensive area of burning in the interior of


the large possible structure indicated hearth areas although these did not haveany structural remains. Very little stone was found in features on the site ingeneral. Early Neolithic pottery was found here although there were also severallater sherds from the Chalcolithic (see above). The burnt area within Feature44 provided a sample of burnt wood fragments which has been dated to 5370-5200 BC (OxA-12996) (see Appendix 1).

The ceramics and lithics that survive have elements of the Villeneuve-StGermain culture. No faunal remains were recovered, as due to the acidity ofthe granitic soils bone survival is rare. Polished bracelets were also absent. Dueto the amount of modern disturbance the stratigraphy and relationships of thefeatures were difficult to assign specifically to the Early Neolithic with completecertainty, however it is likely that early agriculturalists, who were exploitingthe fertile loess soil and nearby fresh water from streams flowing down thevalley side, had established a settlement in the area.

Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic

The majority of the ceramics are from this period. The main feature was asmall ditch that was traced intermittently across the site over some eightmetres cutting the earlier Neolithic structures. Flint scrapers were found indeposits associated with ‘Jersey bowl' pottery, a local variation of the Beakerphenomenon (see below). A few fragments of burnt, possibly cremated, bonewere recovered from an area of modern disturbance (Feature 24), located closeto the ditch 19/22/138 which may have been a burial related to the later phaseof the site.

Iron Age

Unlike many other areas of St Peter Port the Royal Hotel site did notproduce any Iron Age material.

Roman

Roman pottery, most of which was very abraded, was found in featurestowards the end of the excavation. This has not been reported on here but willbe included in a forthcoming Roman volume (Sebire et al forthcoming).

Medieval

Several medieval pits were located on the site and a range of ceramics andother finds mainly from disturbed layers were recovered which will be reportedon elsewhere.


Figure 31 A hypothetical model for structures at the Royal Hotel site


Discussion

Geological Background

The geological background is discussed in detail above but in summaryby the late Mesolithic period, c 5500 BC, Guernsey, Herm and Sark were islands,while neighbouring Jersey remained attached to the mainland, particularlyduring low tides, by a narrow causeway over what are now Les Minquiers andLes Chausey islets. The Royal Hotel site would have been slightly furtherinland than today but once the coastline stabilised in the early fifth millenniumBC there would have been little change over the next few thousand years untilc 2000BC, apart from occasional encroachment of the sea (Renouf & Urry, 1986,Renouf and Sebire, 2010).

Environmental Background

Palynological analyses conducted in Jersey demonstrated the importanceof birch and willow during the boreal and pre-boreal periods (10th to 7th millcal BC). During the Atlantic period (as early as 6600 cal BC), the oak and thehazel tree were the most important species, with elm and birch woods inland,and peat bogs on the littoral fringe.

Evidence suggests the dominance of birch woodland at the beginning ofthe Neolithic, with elm and beech in the post-glacial period on higher ground,and birch and willow on the valley bottoms and coastal marshes, with alder inthe wetlands by the coast, with grassland and scrub woodland in the drier areas(Jones et al. 1990). Elm is in decline however, which may indicate that grasseswere probably used for fodder.

The human impact on the vegetation of sites in Alderney and Guernseywas documented in research by Campbell (2000). At Vazon Bay on Guernsey’s-west coast, evidence suggests that there were human-induced changes todeciduous woodland during the Late Mesolithic-Early Neolithic period,c5000BC with major clearing of woodland by burning and the clearance ofalder carr probably for pastoral purposes.

Mesolithic

Research on Mesolithic deposits on Lihou Island (Schadla-Hall, 2003) andwork by Mark Patton and Margaret Finlaison on Jersey (Patton, 1993, Patton &Finlaison, 2001; Conneller et al. forthcoming) has confirmed the presence of


Roya

l Ho

tel G

uer

nse

y N

157

159

150

153

134

130

127

31

55

30

47b

61

3425

54

48

44

39

42

3841

49

40

45

47

63

59

58 178

36

43 71

37

176

168

174

172

170

151

184

180

182

165

118

142

116

161

No

rth

Ext

ensi

on

66

Mo

der

n d

istu

rban

ce

57

6465

70

67

19/2

2

Sou

th E

xten

sio

n

28

136

148

121

123

125

101

103

119

99

113

111

107

10516

3

146

155

Early

Neo

lithi

c Pr

ehis

tori

c Fe

atu

res

Figure 32 Early Neolithic features at the Royal Hotel site


Mesolithic communities in the Channel Islands in relation to the exploitation ofan extensive coastline that then existed below present day sea-level. Althoughno indicative environmental evidence was retrieved from the Royal Hotel site,the few Mesolithic finds are an indication of groups of people living in the area,who were likely to have been exploiting marine resources as a majorcontribution to their food sources in a variety of landscapes (a variety of faunawould have been available from the wooded valley slopes above the site,fordiscussion, see Patton 1993).

Neolithic

The Royal Hotel site has produced substantial evidence of occupation inthis low-lying coastal setting from the early Neolithic through to the Chalcolithicperiods. Despite being heavily disturbed, the post and stake-holes and otherevidence described above, which survived later development, suggest thatseveral Neolithic buildings or structures stood on the site (see Fig. 32). Theevidence presented here will contribute to the long-running discussions onthe development of settled farming communities in the Channel Islands andneighbouring France and their integration with Mesolithic populations. Thesediscussions are well rehearsed with regard to France (Ghesquière et al. 2000,Marchand, 2005, Cassen et al., 2000, Scarre, 2002, and more recently Marchandet al. 2010, and Scarre, 2011). The arrival of agriculturalist populations in theEarly Neolithic in Normandy is described as the Rubané Récent du BassinParisien (RRBP, Le Lazarro à Colombelles; Ghesquière et al 2000a). TheVilleneuve-Saint-Germain culture (VSG) on the Armorican Massif and itsmargins is seen as a continuum of settlement known in the Paris Basin(Chancerel et al. 1992, Cassen et al. 1998). The VSG culture is considered to bea western extension of the Bandkeramik first farmers who followed the fertilesoils across from the Danube to the Paris Basin bringing with them distinctivepottery with linear decoration, stone tools such as shoe adzes, and architecturein the form of timber long houses. The question of the possible presence of thesepopulations on the nearest islands to mainland France and the implications ofthe material culture crossing water are interesting to consider.

Comparisons can be clearly be drawn for the Early Neolithic materialfrom the Royal Hotel with the VSG settlements sites such as La Haut Mée some30km south-east of Mont St Michel in Normandy (Cassen et al 1998), where pitsand post holes of a trapezoidal long house were excavated. Although only afew post and stakeholes survived at the Royal Hotel, it is possible to hypothesizethat one large structure or several smaller ones stood on the site. There wereconsiderable amounts of daub found within many features and in particular


Layer 4 in the original trench, which may have been from the walls of thesestructures. The material associated with the postholes and pits suggests theyare from the earliest Neolithic phase of the site, but later Chalcolithic settlementalso seems to have been present.

The ceramics from this earliest phase, as described above, are part of thetradition represented by the material cultures from the sites of Villeneuve-St-Germain and Augy-Sainte-Pallaye (Constantin, 1985; Guyodo & Hamon, 2005).The Augy group is considered to belong to the latest phase of the VSG materialdated in France to around 4800 B.C. Thus, the charcoal date, which gave 5200BCfrom the Royal Hotel associated with the earliest phase, is unexpected (seeAppendix 1). Other sites on Guernsey have produced early dates however. AtL’Erée on the west coast charcoal from a gully with undiagnostic pottery in thefill gave a date of 5270-5060BC. The previously identified earliest ceramics fromthe Channel Islands have been referred to as the Le Pinacle/Fouaillages group(Kinnes 1982, Constantin 1985, Patton 1995), which is linked to the northernFrench Cerny group. More recently a ceramic chance find at L’Ouziere in Jerseywas clearly attributed to the VSG pottery culture (Patton and Finlaison, 2001).

In a recent paper Cyril Marcigny and colleagues have brought together asynthesis of recent material from Normandy and northern Armorica (2010).They place the pottery found at Mont Orgueil in Jersey (Cunliffe, 1984) in asimilar date range, c. 4800BC, whereas the Pinacle/Fouaillage group is from aslightly later phase, c. 4600BC.

Parallels to the Royal Hotel site in the Channel Islands include furtherrecent work at L’Erée (Garrow & Sturt, in prep.) and the Guernsey Airport site(P de Jersey pers comm.) both of which are adding further to the corpus ofmaterial available for study. Both sites have produced stone hearth features,which are not present at the Royal Hotel although the post and stakeholes(particularly at L’Erée) and gullies are similar. This may be a factor of thelimited survival at the Royal Hotel site. In the case of L’Erée the site is locatedbelow Le Creux ès Faïes, a megalithic passage grave and at the Royal Hotelanother rescue site at Les Canichers c 100 metres up the valley slope revealedpart of a large stone-built cairn. The material from the site has not yet beenexamined but prehistoric pottery and flint tools including scrapers were foundincorporated into the structure suggesting that it might be contemporary withthe later phase of the Royal Hotel site. At the Guernsey Airport site HélènePioffet (pers comm) has made an initial assessment of the pottery and considersthat the majority is Middle Neolithic, which would provide a useful sample ofmaterial, which appears to be missing from both L’Erée and the Royal Hotel.


Roya

l Ho

tel G

uer

nse

y N

134

140

55b

60

32

33

31

56

51

30

178

43

184

182

118

116

No

rth

Ext

ensi

on

69

19/2

2

138

Sou

th E

xten

sio

n

28

62

136

144

155

Late

Neo

lithi

c Pr

ehis

tori

c Fe

atu

res

Geo

log

y Se

ctio

n

146

Figure 33 Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic features at the Royal Hotel site


Chalcolithic

Due to the high level of disturbance on the site it was difficult to establishthe relationship between the possible Neolithic structure described above andthe later ditch (feature 19/22/137) which contained Beaker pottery (see Fig. 33).The majority of the pottery was from this phase and is similar to material foundat Jerbourg (Burns, 1988), La Hougue Catelain (Hill, 1991) and more recentlyat L’Erée (Garrow & Sturt, in prep). However the Chalcolithic material couldbe associated with settlement such as that at Mondeville near Caen inBasse-Normandie where an enclosure ditch from the Late Neolithic wasexcavated (Chancerel et al. 2006). There was no information retrieved about theinterior of the enclosure but it is thought to relate to a domestic settlementbased on the artefacts found including pottery, flint and querns. One fragmentof grinding stone was found at the Royal Hotel site in Layer 4 (see Fig 25)indicating food production.

Conclusions and significance of the evidence

Excavations at the Royal Hotel site have produced evidence of two mainphases of prehistoric occupation on Guernsey. The site is likely to be one ofmany such settlements in coastal locations, many of which however are nowsubmerged and or eroded away due to rising tide levels. The Royal Hotelsite has provided very important information about the Mesolithic/Neolithictransition in Guernsey and the other islands as, despite the amount ofdisturbance that was encountered, it has produced the earliest evidence of theuse of pottery on Guernsey in a style reflected on the nearby mainland of France.This has implications for the modelling of the arrival of agriculture in the islandsand particularly Guernsey as the animals, seeds and skills for agriculture wouldhave to have arrived by sea. This implies a maritime network of influence upand down what is now called the English Channel and the Western Approaches.The earliest phase of the Royal Hotel settlement pre-dates the era of megalithbuilding in the middle Neolithic which is part of the Atlantic façade traditionreflected on the other islands and neighbouring France. The material excavatedwill add to the corpus of artefacts and archaeological contexts related to theNeolithic of the islands in a European context.


Appendix 1

The sample submitted for radiocarbon analysis was taken from the fill ofFeature 44, which was discerned to be the ‘interior’ of a domestic structure(possible structure 1). There is no reason to suggest that the burnt material doesnot relate to human activity such as wood burning in a fire or hearth for warmthor food production. However, the date of the sample may be distorted by theage of the wood itself rather than the activity that caused the burning.

Radiocarbon Dates (analysis by Oxford University Accelerator Unit)Royal Hotel Site, 49:276 2:320, GuernseyOxA-12996 RHS 01, charcoal, δ13C =-27.1 0/00 6308± 36

The date is uncalibrated in radiocarbon years BP (Before Present –AD1950) using the half-life of 5568 years. Isotopic fractionation has been correctedfor using the measurement δ13C values quoted (to ±0.3 per mil relative toVPDB). For details of the chemical protreatment, target preparation and AMSmeasurement see Archaeometry 31 (2), 99-113, 42 (1), 243-254, 42 (2), 459-479and Radiocarbon 34 (3), 306-311. When calibrated, using the Oxcal computerprogram (v3.5) of C. Bronk Ramsey (Proc. 15th Internatl. 14C Conf, Radiocarbon37(2), 425-430) using atmospheric data from ‘INTCAL98’ (Stuiver et al.Radiocarbon 40, 1041-1083), the age ranges are obtained.

95.4% probability (91.3%) 5370BC-5200BC(4.1%) 5170BC-5140BC68.2% probability (64.3%) 5330BC-5230BC(3.9%) 5220BC-5210BC


References

AQ 80/1 Map of St Peter Port, States of Guernsey Archive ServiceBURNS, R. B. 1988 Excavations at Jerbourg, Guernsey. Guernsey Museum Monograph No 1. CAMPBELL, J. 2000 Holocene Paleoenvironments of Guernsey and Alderney, Channel Islands.Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Coventry.CASSEN S., AUDREN C., HINGUANT S., LANNUZEL G., MARCHAND G., 1998 ‘L’habitatVilleneuve-Saint-Germain du Haut-Mée (Saint-Etienne-en-Coglès, Ille-et-Vilaine)’ Bulletin de laSociété Préhistorique Française, t. 95, n° 1, p. 41-75.CASSEN S., MARCHAND G., MENANTEAU L., POISSONNIER B., CADOT R., VIAU Y., 1999‘Néolithisation de la France de l’Ouest, témoignages Villeneuve-Saint-Germain, Cerny etChambon sur la Loire angevine et atlantique’ Gallia-Préhistoire, t. 41. Paris, p. 223-251.CASSEN S., BOUJOT C., VAQUERO J. 2000 Eléments d’architecture. Exploration d’un tertre funéraireà Lannec er Gadouer (Erdeven, Morbihan). Constructions et reconstructions dans le Néolithiquemorbihannais. Propositions pour une lecture symbolique. Mémoire XIX. Chauvigny, Association desPublications Chauvinoises, 814 p.CHANCEREL A., DESLOGES J., DRON J.-L., SAN JUAN G., 1992 ‘Le début du Néolithique enBasse-Normandie’, in C.-T. Le Roux dir., Paysans et bâtisseurs : l’émergence du Néolithique atlantiqueet les origines du mégalithisme, Actes du XVIIème colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Vannes,29-31 Octobre 1991, Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest, suppl. n° 5, p. 153-176.CHANCEREL A., GHESQUIÈRE E., LEPAUMIER H., FORFAIT N., LECLERC G., 1995 ‘Nouvellesimplantations du Villeneuve-Saint-Germain en Basse Normandie’, in Actes du XXe colloqueinterrégional sur le Néolithique, Evreux 1993, Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest, suppl. n° 7, p. 43-56. CHANCEREL A., MARCIGNY C. et GHESQUIÈRE E. (dir.), 2006 Le plateau de Mondeville(Calvados) du Néolithique à l’Age du Bronze, Document d’archéologie française, daf 99, Paris:Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 205 p.CONNELLER C., BATES M., SCHADLA-HALL R., COLE J., POPE M.,SCOTT B. & SHAW A,forthcomming The Mesolithic of the Channel Islands.CONSTANTIN C., 1985 Fin du Rubané, céramique du Limbourg et post-Rubané - Le Néolithique le plusancien en Bassin Parisien et en Hainaut. B.A.R. International Series, 273. Oxford, 2 vol., 356 p et 294 pCUNLIFFE, B. & DE JERSEY P. 2000 ‘Rescue excavations on Guernsey and Herm, 1998, 1999’,Trans Soc. Guernesiaise, 24, 5: 867-944.DIETSCH M.-F. 1995 ‘Les stations du Mésolithique final de Falaise et de Saint-Pierre-du-Bû(Calvados)’, Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest, 12, p. 5-20.GARROW, D. & STURT, F. 2009 ‘Excavations of a Late Neolithic and Early Bronze age occupationsite at L’Erée Guernsey, Channel Islands’, Antiquity 83, p321. Project Gallery antiquity.ac.uk/antiquityNew/projgall/garrow321/index.htmlGHESQUIERE E., GUYODO J.-N. 2008, Les industries lithiques taillées des IVe et IIIe millénairesavant J.-C. dans le quart nord-ouest de la France’, In Dias-Meirinho M.-H., Léa V., Gernigon K.,Fouéré P., Briois F. et Bailly M. (dir.), ‘Les industries lithiques taillées des IVe et IIIe millénaires enEurope occidentale’. Actes de la Table-ronde de Toulouse 2005. British Archaeological Reports,International Series, Oxford, n° 1884, p. 113 – 133.GHESQUIÈRE E., LEFÈVRE P., MARCIGNY C., SOUFFI B. 2000 ‘Le Mésolithique moyen du Nord-Cotentin, Basse-Normandie, France’. British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 856, 292 p.GHESQUIÈRE E, MARCIGNY C, GIAZZON D, GAUMÉ É. 2000a ‘Un village rubané en Basse-Normandie ? L'évaluation du site de la ZAC du Lazzaro à Colombelles (Calvados)’. Bulletin dela Société préhistorique française 97 405-418GUYODO J.-N. 2001 Les assemblages lithiques des groupes néolithiques sur le Massif armoricain et sesmarges. Thèse de doctorat multigraphiée, Université de Rennes I Beaulieu, 1 vol., 466 p., 61 fig., 69 pl.


GUYODO, J-N. & HAMON G. 2005 ‘Le Processus de Néolithisation des Isles Anglo-Normandesà travers l’exemple de Guernesey’. In G. Marchand (ed.) 2005. La Néolithisation de la façadeatlantique de L’Europe. Rapport d’ARC (Action collective de recherche).GUYODO J.-N. 2005 ‘Les assemblages lithiques de la fin du Néolithique ancien et du Néolithiquemoyen sur le Massif armoricain et ses marges’. In Marchand G., Tresset A. (dir.), ‘Unité et diversitédes processus de néolithisation sur la façade atlantique de l’Europe (6è – 4è millénaires avantJ.-C.)’. Actes de la table-ronde de Nantes, 26-27 avril 2002. Société Préhistorique Française, mémoiren° 36, p. 213-224.GUYODO J.-N., MARCHAND G. 2005 ‘Entre déterminisme naturel et tradition technique: le «débitage côtier » dans l’Ouest de le France’. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, t. 102, n°3, p. 539-549.HAMON G. 2003 Les productions céramiques au Néolithique ancien et moyen dans le nord-ouest de laFrance. Thèse de Doctorat multigraphiée, Université de Rennes I-Beaulieu. 2 vol., 329 p., 32 fig., 122 pl.HAWKES J. 1938 The Archaeology of the Channel Islands. Vol. 2: The Bailiwick of Jersey. SociétéJersiaise, 1938, 312 p.HILL, M.G. 1991 ‘The Excavation on La Hougue Catelain (Banque à Barque), L’Ancresse, Vale,1982 and 1983’. Trans. Soc. Guernesiaise 22.5, 827–70.HINGUANT S., GUYODO J.-N., HAMON G., 2007 ‘Une occupation littorale campaniforme à St-Malo (Ille-et-Vilaine)’. In Agogué O., Leroy D., Verjux C. (dir.): ‘Camps, enceintes et structuresd’habitats en France septentrionale’. Actes du 24ème colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique,Orléans, 1999. Revue Archéologique du Centre, p.309-326.JONES, R.L., D.H. Keen, J.F. Birnie & P.V. Waton. 1990. Past landscapes of Jersey: Environmentalchanges during the last ten thousand years. La Société Jersiaise, Jersey. KEEN, D.H. 1978. ‘The Pleistocene deposits of the Channel Islands’. Reps Inst. Geol. Sci., 78/26: 1-14.KENDRICK T. D. 1928 The Archaeology of the Channel Islands. Vol. 1: the Bailiwick of Guernsey.London, Methuen.KERVIDEL G., HAMON G., DESLOGES J., 2009 ‘La Burette à Banville (Calvados): une enceintedu Néolithique moyen II’. In Actes du 28ème colloque Interrégional sur le Néolithique. Le Havre. Quoide neuf à l’ouest? Cultures, réseaux et échanges des premières sociétés néolithiques à leur expansion. PressesUniversitaires de Rennes, p. 211-236.KINNES I. 1982 ‘ Les Fouaillages and Megalithic origins’. Antiquity 56:216, 24-30KINNES I. 1986 ‘La Néolithisation des Iles Anglo-normandes’. In: Actes du Xe colloqueinterrégional sur le Néolithique, Caen 1983. Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest, suppl. n° 1, p. 9-12.KINNES I. 1988 ‘Megaliths in action: some aspects of the Neolithic Period in the Channel Islands’.Société Jersiaise Bulletin, 145, p. 13-59.LAMBECK, K. 1997. ‘Sea-level change along the French Atlantic and Channel coasts since thetime of the Last Glacial Maximum’. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 129 : 1-22.LETTERLÉ F., VERRON G., 1986 ‘Un site d’habitat campaniforme à Digulleville (Manche)’, in:Chancerel A. et al. (dir.), actes du Xème colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Caen 1983, Rev.Archéol. de l’Ouest, suppl. n° 1, Rennes: 237-252.MARCHAND, G. 1999 ‘La néolithisation de l’ouest de la France: caractérisation des industrieslithiques’. British Archaeological Reports. International Series 748., 487 p.MARCHAND G., BLANCHET S., CHEVALIER G., GALLAIS J.-Y., LE GOFFIC M., NAUDINOTN., YVEN E. 2004 ‘La fin du Tardiglaciaire sur le Massif armoricain: territoires et culturesmatérielles’. Paléo, n° 16, p. 137-170.MARCHAND G. (ed.) 2005. La Néolithisation de la façade atlantique de L’Europe. Rapport d’ARC(Action collective de recherche).MARCHAND G., PAILLER Y., TOURNAY G. 2006 ‘Carrément à l’Ouest! Indices du Villeneuve-Saint-Germain au centre de la Bretagne (Le Dillien à Cléguerec et Bellevue à Neuillac, Morbihan)’.Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 2006 pg 519-533.


MARCIGNY C., GHESQUIERE E., JUHEL L., CHANCEREL F., 2010, ‘Entre néolithique ancien etnéolithique moyen en Normandie et dans les Iles Anglo-Normandes: parcours chronologique’ inBILLIARD C, et LEGRIS M. (eds) Premiers néolithiques de L’Ouest, 28e colloque interregional surle Néolithique, Archaeologie et Culture, PUR ed, 117-162MORZADEC-KERFOURN M.-T. 1974 ‘Variations de la ligne de rivage armoricaine auQuaternaire’. Mémoire de la Société Géologique et Minéralogique de Bretagne, 17.PAILLER Y., MARCHAND G., BLANCHET S., GUYODO J.-N., HAMON G. 2008 ‘Le Villeneuve-Saint-Germain dans la péninsule Armoricaine: les débuts d’un’ enquête’. In Burnez-Lanotte L.,Ilett M., Allard P. (dir.): ‘Fin des traditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique du Bassin parisien etde la Belgique (5100 – 4700 avant J.-C.). Autour des recherches de Claude Constantin’. Actes ducolloque de Namur 2006. Mémoire XLIV de la Société préhistorique française, p. 91-111.PATTON M. 1987 Jersey in Prehistory. Jersey, La Haule Books. PATTON, M.A. 1993 ‘The Mesolithic of the Channel Islands: Economy and settlement in achanging landscape’. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 12, 1, 9-17.PATTON M., 1995 ‘Neolithic communities of the Channel Islands’. British Archaeological Reports,British series 240.PATTON M., FINLAISON M., 2001 Patterns in a prehistoric landscape: the archaeology of Saint-Ouen’sbay, Jersey. La Société Jersiaise.RENOUF J., URRY J. 1986 ‘The Channel Islands during the neolithic sea level changes andpatterns of exploitation’. In Actes du Xe colloque interrégional dur le Néolithique, Caen 1983.Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest, suppl. no 1, p. 13-23.RENOUF, J. 2012. ‘Aspects of coastal cliff and slope modification in the Channel Islands duringthe past half million years’. Conference Abstracts, Ussher SocietyMeeting January 2012. ROUSSEAU J. 2001 Le Néolithique moyen entre Loire et Gironde à partir des témoignages céramiques.Thèse de Doctorat multigraphiée, Université de Rennes I-Beaulieu, 1 vol., 329 p., 83 fig., 145 pl.RYBOT N. V. L. 1924 ‘Grosnez Hougue’. Bulletin de la Société Jersiaise, 10, 2, p. 72-74.SALANOVA L., 1992, ‘Le décor à la coquille dans le Campaniforme du Sud-Finistère’, Rev. Archéol.de l’Ouest 9, Rennes, 1992 : 79-82.SALANOVA L., 2000. ‘La question du Campaniforme en France et dans les Iles anglo-normandes:productions, chronologie et rôles d’un standard céramique’. Coédition Société PréhistoriqueFrançaise et Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques, 392 p. SCARRE, C.J. 2002 ‘Contexts of monumentalism: regional diversity at the Neolithic transition innorth-west France’. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21, 23-61SCARRE, C. J. 2011 Landscapes of Neolithic Brittany. OxfordSCHADLA-HALL, R.T. 2003 ‘Excavations and investigations at GU582, Lihou Island, August2001’. Privately circulated paper, Institute of Archaeology, London.SCHULTING R. J., RICHARDS M. P. 2001 ‘Dating women and becoming farmers: newpaleodietary and AMS dating evidence from the breton mesolithic cemeteries of Teviec andHoëdic’. Journal of anthropological archaeology, 20, p. 314-344.SEBIRE, H., RENOUF, J., 2010 ‘Sea Change: New Evidence For Mesolithic And Early NeolithicPresence In The Channel Islands With Particular Reference To Guernsey And The Rising HoloceneSea’ Oxford Journal Archaeology 29,4 p361-386SEBIRE, H., MONAGHAN, J., & DE JERSEY P forthcoming The Romans in Guernsey. GuernseyMuseum MonographTRESSET A. 2005 – ‘La place changeante des bovins dans les bestiaires du Mésolithique final etdu Néolithique d’Armorique et des régions adjacentes’. In: Marchand G., Tresset A. (dir.), Unitéet diversité des processus de néolithisation sur la façade atlantique de l’Europe (6è – 4è millénairesavant J.-C.). Actes de la table-ronde de Nantes, 26-27 avril 2002. Société Préhistorique Française,mémoire n° 36, p. 273-286.


Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to many people who have helped with theexcavation at the Royal Hotel site and this report. Many thanks are due tomy co-authors and colleagues whose reports have provided much usefulinformation. Thanks are due to Longport Ltd who gave a generous contributionto the post-excavation work, Bancroft Ltd who allowed the initial access tothe site and R G Falla and Bob Froome & Sons for help with clearing the site forexcavation. Jason Monaghan, Phil de Jersey and Tanya Walls of GuernseyMuseum for continued support and access to the site archive. Alan Howell andLisa Burton also of Guernsey Museum for help with images. A special thanksto Paul Le Tissier who produced many of the figures. Barbara MacNeeproduced the original pottery and flint drawings from which the figures havebeen drawn up. Gwenaëlle Hamon also helped with interpretative plans. DrDarryl Ogier, the States of Guernsey Archivist helped with information onhistorical documentary material during the initial stages of the excavation.

Digimap Guernsey helped with surveying and information on mapping.Southampton University Archaeology Department for a short input of labourduring a training excavation in summer of 2001.

Dr Chantal Conneller kindly provided the information about the flintfrom Lihou Island and Crevichon Beach, Guernsey and Donovan Hawley andDavid Lane discussed aspects of the lithics in light of other Guernsey material.

Thanks are due to many colleagues for discussion on the Neolithic overmany years: Ian Kinnes, Barry Cunliffe, Rick Schulting, Anne Tresset, EmanuelGhèsquière, Cyril Marcigny, Duncan Garrow, Fraser Sturt and Chris Scarre.

The Guernsey Museum Archaeology Group assisted the excavations.Particular thanks go to those who dug regularly in all weathers: David Lane,Rex and Viv Ferneyhough, Jean Edwards, Aurthur Knight, Kathy Edwards,Adrian Nicolle, Wendy Bowen, Annie Nettleship, Rod Swanson, Nicky David,John Lihou, Jenny Giddins, Mary Sims, Hazel Hill, Margaret White, MariaCameron, Lyndsey Kemp, Wally de la Mare, Simon le Page and many others.

Chris Scarre, Duncan Garrow and Phil de Jersey kindly providedcomments on the text. Finally this work is dedicated to the late Ian Kinnes, whoin the 1980s initiated the recent development in the study of the Neolithic inthe Channel Islands.

REPORT AND TRANSACTIONSOF LA SOCIÉTÉ GUERNESIAISE

VOLUME XXVII PART I 2011

Council for 2011 3Honorary Secretaries of Sections 4Main Events 5President’s Report 6Land Management Report 8Section Reports for 2011 Archaeology 11 Astronomy 27 Botany 30 Entomology 39 Family History 46 Historic Buildings 48 History and Philology 53 Junior Section 55 Nature Conservation 57 Ornithology 59 Bird Ringing Report 68 Guernsey Gulls Colour-ringing Annual Report 76Bat Report 87Weather Table 88Obituaries: Hugh Lenfestey, Betty Caldwell 89George Nash: Uncovering complex histories: Excavation of the Gallery 92 Grave within Delancey ParkRichard Hocart: Open Fields and Enclosure in St. Martin’s 108Philip de Jersey and Jenny Cataroche: Excavation at St. Martin’s 146 Parish ChurchJenny Cataroche: The Funerary Archaeology of La Varde: 167 an Osteological AnalysisHeather Sebire: Excavations at the Royal Hotel site 188Book Review 256Accounts 2011 258Guernsey Environmental Services Ltd. 260

excavations at the royal hotel site

Documents