south wales gas pipeline project sites oea11 and 21.02 ...€¦ · included site 21.02 and part of...

South Wales Gas Pipeline Project Sites OEA11 and 21.02

Land East of Cilsan Llangathen

Carmarthenshire

Archaeological Excavation

August 2013

for

on behalf of Rhead Group

National Grid CA Project: 9150

CA Report: 13338 Event: DAT108873

South Wales Gas Pipeline Project Sites OEA 11and 21.02

Archaeological Excavation

CA Project: 9150 CA Report: 13338 Event: DAT102846

prepared by

Jonathan Hart, Senior Publications Officer;

Daniel Sausins, Project Supervisor;

and

Luke Brannlund, Project Supervisor

date 14 August 2013

checked by Karen E Walker, Post-Excavation Manager

date September 2015

approved by Martin Watts, Project Director, Head of Publications

signed

date

issue 01

This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeology accepts no responsibility or liability to any third party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report entirely

at their own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission.

© Cotswold Archaeology

Cirencester Milton Keynes Andover Building 11 Unit 4 Office 49 Kemble Enterprise Park Cromwell Business Centre Basepoint Business Centre Kemble, Cirencester Howard Way, Newport Pagnell Caxton Close, Andover Gloucestershire, GL7 6BQ MK16 9QS Hampshire, SP10 3FG t. 01285 771022 t. 01908 218320 t. 01264 326549 f. 01285 771033

e. [email protected]


1

South Wales Gas Pipeline Project Sites OEA 11 and 21.02: Archaeological Excavation

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3

The sites ............................................................................................................ 3

Archaeological background ................................................................................ 4

Archaeological objectives ................................................................................... 4

Methodology....................................................................................................... 5

2. RESULTS (FIG. 2) ............................................................................................. 5

3. PROJECT TEAM ............................................................................................... 10

4. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 11

APPENDIX A: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................... 15

APPENDIX B: THE FINDS .............................................................................................. 17

APPENDIX C: PALAEOENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE BY JAMES RACKHAM ............ 24

APPENDIX D: RADIOCARBON DATING BY SEREN GRIFFITHS ................................. 34

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1 Site location plan (1:25,000)

Fig. 2 Plan of Site 21.02 and detail plan and section of pit 212005 (1:500, 1:20 and 1:10)

Fig. 3 The calibrated radiocarbon dates from the burnt mound at Site 21.02 (Appendix D)

GLOSSARY CA – Cotswold Archaeology

CAP – Cambrian Archaeological Projects

CPAT – Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust

DAT – Dyfed Archaeological Trust

GGAT - Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust

FTP – Felindre to Brecon gas pipeline

HER – Historic Environment Record

MHA – Milford Haven to Aberdulais gas pipeline

NAL – Network Archaeology Ltd

NLMJV – Nacap Land & Marine Joint Venture

UPD– Updated Project Design


2


Summary Project Name: South Wales Gas Pipeline Project

Location: Site OEA11 and 21.02, Land East of Cilsan, Llangathen,

Carmarthenshire

NGR: Site OEA 11: SN 5981 2222; Site 21.02: SN 6009 2251

Type: Excavation

Date: 24 April 2007

Location of Archive: To be deposited with RCAHMW (original paper archive) and

Carmarthenshire Museum (material archive and digital copy of

paper archive; accession number CAASG 2008.0282)

Site Code: FTP06

An archaeological excavation was undertaken by Cambrian Archaeological Projects during

groundworks associated with construction of gas pipelines (part of the South Wales high

pressure gas pipeline scheme) between Milford Haven and Aberdulais, and Felindre and

Brecon, which were conducted between 2005 and 2007.

Site OEA 11

An undated pit containing large amounts of charcoal and burnt stone was identified. This pit

may have functioned as a trough for heating water as part of burnt mound-type activity, in

which case it is likely to have been a prehistoric feature.

Site 21.02

A low density scatter of 13 pits was recorded across much of the site. Pottery, flints and

radiocarbon dates from several of these revealed that they reflect occupation during the

Early to Middle and Late Neolithic period. This occupation was probably episodic. A Middle

Bronze Age burnt mound was also recorded, along with two probable water-heating troughs.


3


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 NACAP Land and Marine Joint Venture (NLMJV), on behalf of National Grid,

commissioned RSK Environment (part of the RSK Group) to manage the

archaeological works (non-invasive surveys, desk based assessment, evaluation,

watching brief, and open area excavation) on a 216km-long section of pipeline from

Milford Haven (Pembrokeshire) to Brecon (in Powys). The high pressure gas

pipeline (part of the 316km long pipeline route from Milford Haven to Tirley in

Gloucestershire) was required to reinforce the gas transmission network. The

archaeological work performed in advance of this pipeline was undertaken in a

number of sections by a number of archaeological companies. The westernmost

section of 122km, from Milford Haven to Aberdulais, was investigated by CA (then

Cotswold Archaeological Trust) during 2005–2007 with some additional excavation

work carried out by CAP. The section of 89km, from Felindre to Brecon was

investigated by CA during 2006–2007 and CAP during 2007. Assessment reports on

the works were completed in January 2012 (NLM 2012a, 2012b) and the current

reporting stage was commissioned in February 2013.

1.2 In April 2007 CAP carried out an archaeological excavation at Sites OEA11 and

21.02, Land East of Cilsan, Llangathen (Site OEA11 centred on NGR: SN 5981

2222 and Site 21.02 centred on SN 6009 2251; Fig. 1). The objective of the

watching brief was to record all archaeological remains exposed during the pipeline

construction.

1.3 The excavation was carried out in accordance with professional codes, standards

and guidance documents (EH 1991; IfA 1999a, 1999b, 2001a, 2001b and IfA Wales

2008). The methodologies were laid out in an Archaeological Framework Document

(RSK 2007) and associated Written Statements of Investigation (WSIs) and Method

Statements.

The sites 1.4 The sites are located within fields on the north bank of the River Towy, with the

present course of the river lying 250m south of Site 21.02 (Fig. 1). They occupy

gently sloping land and lie at 30m–40m AOD towards the base of the Towy valley.

The underlying solid geology of the area is mapped as the Abergwilli Formation

(Mudstone) of the Ordovician Period, overlain by alluvial Clay and Gravel (BGS

2013).


4


Archaeological background 1.5 No archaeological remains were identified within the sites during the preliminary

Archaeology and Heritage Survey (CA 2006). Several palaeochannels have been

recorded near the sites on LiDAR (CA 2006, ref. ID 5874). Finds of prehistoric and

possible Bronze Age date have been recorded 250m north-west of the sites (CA

2006, ref. ID 773) and further burnt mounds were recorded along the length of the

pipeline (Hart et al. 2014). Elements of the medieval landscape also survive, such as

Dinefwr Castle, 1.4km south-east of the sites.

1.6 Further archaeological remains were recorded during the pipeline construction

works (Fig. 1). Of significance in relation to the current sites were ridge and furrow

earthworks at Site 845 and a Neolithic pit at Site 2018, both sites being located

between Sites 21.02 and OEA 11. Further to the south, an undated charcoal spread

and an undated pit were found at Site 20.01whilst Site 20.08 contained a Late Iron

Age/Early Roman roundhouse settlement along with a possible undated enclosure

and possible medieval features. North of the sites, an undated road surface was

found at Site 22.02 and further sites were revealed to further north. All of these sites

are detailed in separate typescript reports.

1.7 The geophysical survey undertaken in advance of the pipeline works (BCC 2006)

included Site 21.02 and part of OEA 11; a subsequent re-route of OEA 11 meant

that this site as excavated largely extended beyond the area investigated during the

geophysical survey. The survey identified faint linear anomalies within and to the

immediate south of Site OEA 11 and further linear and discrete anomalies within

Site 21.01. The evaluation of the pipeline route included a single trench within Site

21.02 (at that time numbered as Plot 21.03). This was targeted on the linear

anomalies identified during the geophysical survey (Fig. 2) but exposed no

archaeological remains (CA 2009 evaluation trench 21.3.T1).

Archaeological objectives 1.8 The objectives of the archaeological works were:-

• to monitor groundworks, and to identify, investigate and record all significant buried

archaeological deposits revealed on the site during the course of the development

groundworks; and

• at the conclusion of the project, to produce an integrated archive for the project work

and a report setting out the results of the project and the archaeological conclusions

that can be drawn from the recorded data.


5


Methodology 1.9 The fieldwork followed the methodology set out within the WSI (RSK 2007 Appendix

B). An archaeologist was present during intrusive groundworks comprising stripping

of the pipeline easement to the natural substrate (Fig. 1).

1.10 The post-excavation analysis and reporting was undertaken following the production

of the UPD (GA 2012) and included re-examination of the original site records.

Finds, environmental and radiocarbon-dating evidence was taken from the

assessment reports (NLM 2012b) except where the UPD recommended further

work, in which case the updated reports were used. The archaeological background

to the site was assessed using the following resources:-

• the Archaeology and Heritage Survey which was undertaken in advance of the

pipeline construction and which examined a 1km-wide corridor centred on the

pipeline centre line, including the then existing HER record (CA 2006);

• Dyfed Archaeological Trust HER data (received July 2014); and

• other online resources, such as Google Earth and Ordnance Survey maps

available at http://www.old-maps.co.uk/index.html.

All monuments thus identified that were relevant to the site were taken into account

when considering the results of the fieldwork.

1.11 The archive from the excavation is currently held by CA at their offices in Kemble. A

digital copy of the archive will be deposited with Carmarthenshire Museum under

accession number CAASG 2008.0282 and the original paper archive will be

deposited with the RCAHMW.

2. RESULTS (FIG. 2)

2.1 This section provides an overview of the excavation results; detailed summaries of

the recorded contexts, finds, palaeoenvironmental evidence and radiocarbon dates

are to be found in Appendices A, B, C and D. Full, original versions of the specialist

reports are contained within the site archive. Several pits within Site 21.02 (212042,

212044, 212046 and 212051) were not georeferenced and are therefore not shown

on the accompanying figures and this is also the case for the feature found at Site

OEA 11.

http://www.old-maps.co.uk/index.html


6


Site OEA 11 2.2 The natural geological gravel and clay substrate was cut by pit 11001. This pit was

0.4m wide and 0.05m deep with a rounded base and was filled by orange-grey silty

clay 11002, which included burnt stones and charcoal.

Site 21.02 2.3 The clay substrate was cut by fifteen pits and a ditch and overlain by a burnt mound.

Activity from the Early to Middle Neolithic, Late Neolithic, Early Bronze Age and

Middle Bronze Age was recorded.

Early to Middle Neolithic

2.4 Pit 212028 was circular in plan, 0.4m in diameter and 0.05m deep with an irregular

profile. Quartz-tempered pottery, not closely diagnostic but possibly dateable to the

Early to Middle Neolithic periods, was recovered from its fill, 212027. Pit 212029 was

located approximately 1m north-west of pit 212028 and had a very similar profile and

fill. No finds were recovered from the pit, but given its proximity and similarity to pit

212028 the two features were probably contemporary.

2.5 Residual Early Neolithic worked flint was recorded in many of the later features on

the site. Three flint flakes from an Early Neolithic stone axe were recovered, all

probably from the same axe, but found within Late Neolithic pits 212005 and

212035. Early Neolithic bladelets were recovered from Late Neolithic pit 212013 and

a piercer of this date was recorded as an unstratified find.

Late Neolithic

2.6 Pits 212005 (Fig. 2, section AA), 212007, 212013 and 212035 were located in close

proximity to each other within the north-western part of the site. They were typically

circular in plan, 0.75m–1.4m in diameter and 0.15m deep with bowl-shaped profiles.

Pit 212031 appeared to belong to the same pit group, but contained no dateable

finds. The pits contained single brown silt fills, most of which had charcoal and stone

inclusions, including burnt stones which presumably acted as pot boilers or the

edges of hearths. Charcoal from the pits included the remains of fuel, although

charred hazelnut shells were also present along with small quantities of cereal

grains. Radiocarbon dating of hazelnut shell from pit 212005 returned Late Neolithic

dates of 2890–2620 and 2880–2580 cal. BC (SUERC-54688 and -54689; 95%

confidence). Identical dates were obtained on hazelnut shell fragments from pit


7


212007 (SUERC-54684 and -54690; 95% confidence), suggesting that the pits were

of the same actual age.

2.7 Pit 212035 contained residual Early to Middle Neolithic pottery similar to that from pit

212028, but also four sherds of Late Neolithic Grooved Ware. Further Grooved

Ware pottery was recovered from pits 212005, 212007 and 212013. Pit 212005 also

contained a single sherd sherd of probable Early Bronze Age pottery, however given

the presence of conjoining, much larger, sherds of Late Neolithic pottery and the

Late Neolithic radiocarbon dates, it is more likely that the pit was a Late Neolithic

feature and that the Bronze Age pottery was intrusive.

2.8 The Late Neolithic pits all produced substantial flint assemblages including both

tools and microdebitage. The proportion of microdebitage to tools was relatively high

(42% and 66% of the assemblages), suggesting that the site had been used for

knapping. Two scrapers recovered from pit 212013 seem to have been deliberately

broken, rendering them unusable, prior to deposition in the pit (Appendix B).

Middle Bronze Age

2.9 Layer 212055 was recorded at the eastern end of the site. It comprised an irregular,

4m-long, 1.2m-wide layer of yellow silty clay with charcoal and burnt stones.

Although relatively few burnt stones were contained within this deposit, it is

interpreted here as a burnt mound; the pipeline route exposed many other mounds,

including examples comprising several layers, of which some were comparable to

layer 212055 in that they were mainly silty clay deposits but with burnt stone and

charcoal inclusions. Two charcoal samples from the mound produced Middle Bronze

Age radiocarbon date ranges of 1260–1040 and 1220–1010 cal. BC (SUERC-55507

and -55506; 95% confidence). Pit 212056 was located immediately north of the

burnt mound. It was rectangular in plan, 1.45m long, 0.7m wide and 0.3m deep with

steep sides and a flat base. It contained mottled grey-black silty clay 212057, which

included burnt stones and charcoal. The clay substrate would have been suitable for

water retention and this pit was probably a water-heating trough associated with the

burnt mound. Circular pit 212058 was found to the west of the burnt mound and

probably represents a second trough. In this case, the feature had steep sides and a

rounded base.


8


Undated

2.10 Pits 212009, 212011, 212021, 212025, 212037 and 212039 and ditch 212001

remained undated. The pits were between 0.4m–1m in diameter and were up to

0.1m deep with bowl-shaped profiles. Most were similar to the Neolithic pits

described above but contained no dating evidence. Unplanned pits 212042, 212044,

212046 and 212051 were similar in size to the other pits and were all bowl-shaped

cuts with the exception of pit 212042 which had steep sides and a flat base. Ditch

212001 was recorded running north-west/south-east across the site, although it was

poorly defined. It had a steep U-shaped profile and was 0.5m–0.8m wide and 0.2m–

0.3m deep. It contained a single clay-silt infill and was undated by finds. This ditch

did not conform to the current alignment of the field boundaries and is not depicted

on any Ordnance Survey mapping but would appear top relate to the anomalies

identified during the geophysical survey (BCC 2006; Fig. 2). Linear features

recorded during the geophysical survey (shown as dashed lines on Fig. 2) were not

identified during the evaluation and subsequent groundworks and were probably

modern drainage features.

Discussion 2.11 The finding of a relatively large group of Neolithic pits is significant. The finds within

them are suggestive of domestic material and are indicative of settlement within the

Early to Middle and Late Neolithic periods (c. 4000 to 2400BC). The site was located

on the first terrace above the River Towy, affording an outlook not only over the

Towy Valley, but also of the confluence of the river with one of its tributaries. Pollen

studies undertaken during the pipeline works, albeit not at the current sites, suggest

that the landscape during the Neolithic was still largely wooded, with localised

clearings (Appendix C). The charcoal assemblages from Site 21.02 seem to confirm

this picture, including as they do a mix of species from mature woodland with

shrubby species associated with the edges of clearings. the charred plant remains

included the remains of locally gathered fuelwood, along with the remains of

gathered wildfood in the form of hazelnut shells (although other species might also

have been gathered but left no physical trace) and a small quantity of charred

cereals. No animal remains were found, but this might reflect the local soil conditions

which are unsuitable for the survival of bone and it is probable that animals (either

hunted or domesticated) also formed part of the local diet.

2.12 Although no structural remains were found, this is not uncommon, especially for

Neolithic occupation sites. These are often identified through the presence of pit


9


groups which can number anything from one or two pits to larger groups (Jones and

Quinnell 2011, 200; Smythe 2012; Garrow 2012; Garrow et al. 2005). It has been

suggested that such pits were specially excavated to mark the closure of phases of

occupation (Carver 2012, 111; Thomas 2012, 2) and at Kilverstone, Norfolk,

radiocarbon-dating of distinct pit clusters identified using conjoining pottery

suggested that each cluster represented a single period of occupation, with the site

overall being in long-term but episodic use (Garrow et al. 2005, 156). It is possible

that the same is true of the current site, given the relatively large number of pits

present and this suggestion is strengthened by the presence of the two flints which

appear to have been deliberately decommissioned prior to deposition. The presence

of deliberately broken flint tools and the abraded nature of many of the Grooved

Ware sherds may indicate that much of the cultural material present represents the

strategic deposition of possibly curated objects. This does not appear to be the case

with the flint debitage, however, which was in a fresh condition at the time of

deposition.

2.13 Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates from two of the pits containing the Grooved

Ware tallies well with the accepted pottery dates and posits a start date for activity

associated with the use of Grooved Ware on this site at 3040–2660 cal. BC (95%

probable) with the end of this activity at 2870–2460 cal. BC (95% probable). On this

basis activity could have lasted 1–190 years (95% probable) but this analysis does

not include the Early to Middle Neolithic activity, which suggests that the site was

used, perhaps episodically, over a much longer duration, although no radiocarbon

dates are available to allow this duration to be estimated.

2.14 Layer 212055 has been interpreted as a burnt mound based on the presence of

charcoal and burnt stones within a Bronze Age context, close to two possible

troughs and perhaps close to a water source. If this interpretation is correct, then

the deposit most probably represents the surviving lower layer of a mound, with any

deposits richer in burnt stone having been ploughed away. The site lies some 250m

from the river, but on the valley floor and it is possible that a former stream channel

lay closer to the site when the mound was formed (Rackham in Appendix C notes

the presence of a small dry valley within a few metres of the site). The burnt mound

dated to the Middle Bronze Age and therefore related to activity post-dating the

Neolithic settlement. An absence of oak within the charcoal assemblage from the

mound and associated features suggests that a change of woodland may have

occurred in the years since the Neolithic occupation, perhaps relating to clearance. It


10


is possible that the feature identified at Site OEA 11 is the remains of a second area

of burnt mound-type activity; if so, the shallow surviving depth of the putative trough

might suggest that the absence of a burnt mound is due to truncation. The relatively

low frequency of burnt stone within the trough’s fill is consistent with it having been a

trough associated with a burnt mound since such troughs typically contain fills

derived both from burnt mound debris and from siltation. However, it is also possible

that this feature was not the remains of a trough and derived from some other

activity, perhaps related to occupation.

2.15 The date of the single ditch remains unknown, although it seems to form part of a

broadly north/south aligned ditch from which ditches lead at right angles to the east

and west. Whilst these might have formed small paddocks/enclosures, they might

more probably have related to drainage and are therefore perhaps post-medieval in

date although this suggestion remains uncertain.

3. PROJECT TEAM

Fieldwork was undertaken by Cambrian Archaeological Projects. This report was

written by Jonathan Hart, Daniel Sausins and Luke Brannlund with illustrations

prepared by Daniel Bashford. The archive has been compiled by Jonathan Hart, and

prepared for deposition by Hazel O’Neill. The fieldwork was managed for CAP by

Kevin Blockley and the post-excavation work was managed for CA by Karen Walker.


11


4. REFERENCES

Anderson-Whymark, H. and Thomas, J. 2012 Regional Perspectives on Neolithic Pit

Deposition: Beyond the Mundane, Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 12.

(Oxbow, Oxford), 216–225

Ashmore, P. 1999 ‘Radiocarbon dating: avoiding errors by avoiding mixed samples’, in

Antiquity 73, 124–30

BCC (Bartlett-Clark Consultancy) 2006 Felindre to Tirley Proposed Gas Pipeline:

Archaeogeophysical Survey 2005-6

Benson, D.G., Evans, J.G. and Williams, G.H. 1990 ‘Excavations at Stackpole Warren,

Dyfed’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 56, 179-246

BGS (British Geological Survey) 2013 Geology of Britain Viewer. Online resource

at http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html accessed 14 August 2013

Brindley, A. 1999 ‘Irish Grooved Ware’, in R. Cleal and A. MacSween (eds) Grooved Ware in

Britain and Ireland, 23-35. Oxford, Oxbow Books

Britnell, W.J. 1982 ‘The Excavation of two Round Barrows at Trelystan, Powys’, Proc.

Prehist. Soc. 48, 133-202

Britnell, W.J. and Savory, H. N. 1984 Gwernvale and Penywyrlod: Two Neolithic Long Cairns

in the Black Mountains of Brecknock. Cardiff, Cambrian Archaeological Association

Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995 ‘Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal

program’, Radiocarbon 37(2), 425–30

Bronk Ramsey, C. 1998 ‘Probability and dating’, in Radiocarbon 40(1), 461–74

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001 ‘Development of the radiocarbon calibration program OxCal.’, in

Radiocarbon 43(2A), 355–63

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009 ‘Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates’, in Radiocarbon 51(1), 337–60

Carver, G. 2012 ‘Pits and Place-making: Neolithic Habitation and Deposition Practices in

East Yorkshire c. 4000–2500 BC’, in Proc. Prehist. Soc. 78, 111–134

CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2006 Felindre to Tirley Gas Pipeline: Archaeology and Heritage

Survey. CA typescript report 05140 CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2009 Felindre to Brecon Gas Pipeline: Archaeological

Evaluation. CA typescript report 09079 CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2014a South Wales Gas Pipeline Project. Site 23.07 Land

South of Pen-y-Banc, Manordeilo and Salem, Carmarthenshire: Archaeological

Excavation. CA report 13268 CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2014b South Wales Gas Pipeline Project. Site 51.02 Land at

Pysgodlyn Farm, Yscir, Powys: Archaeological Excavation. CA report 13330

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html


12


CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2014c South Wales Gas Pipeline Project. Sites 245 and 253

Land South of Wiston, Wiston, Pembrokeshire: Archaeological Excavation. CA

report 13201 Carruthers, W. 2008 ‘Assessment Report for Charred Plant Remains’, in NLM 2012b

EH (English Heritage) 1991 The Management of Archaeological Projects 2

Freeman, S., G. Cook, A. Dougans, P. Naysmith, K. Wicken and S. Xu 2010 ‘Improved

SSAMS performance’, in Nuclear Instruments and Methods Physics Research B

268, 715–17

GA (Groundwork Archaeology) 2012 Milford Haven to Aberdulais and Felindre to Brecon

High Pressure Gas Pipelines: Updated Project Design

Garrow, D. 2012 ‘Concluding discussion: pits and perspective’, in Anderson-Whymark and

Thomas 2012, 216–225

Garrow, D. Beadsmoore, E. and Knight, M. 2005 ‘Pit Clusters and the Temporality of

Occupation: an Earlier Neolithic Site at Kilverstone, Thetford, Norfolk’. Proc. Prehist.

Soc. 71, 139–158

Garwood, P. 1999 ‘Grooved Ware in Southern Britain: Chronology and Interpretation’, In R.

Cleal and A. MacSween (eds) Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland, 145-176.

Oxford, Oxbow Books

Gibson, A.M. 1995 ‘First Impressions: a review of Peterborough Ware in Wales’, In I. Kinnes

and G. Varndell (eds) Unbaked urns of Rudely Shape – Essays on British and Irish

Pottery for Ian Longworth, 23-40. Oxford, Oxbow Books

Gibson, A.M. 1999 The Walton Basin Project: Excavation & Survey in a Prehistoric

Landscape 1993-1997. Research Report 118. York, Council for British Archaeology

and Cadw Welsh Historic Monuments

Gibson, A.M. 2013 Milford Haven to Aberdulais and Felindre to Brecon Gas Pipeline: The

Neolithic and Bronze Age Pottery from the Archaeological Investigations, Gibson

typescript report no. 121 Grimes, W.F. 1939 ‘The Excavation of Ty Isaf Long Cairn, Brecknockshire’, Proc. Prehist.

Soc. 5, 119–42

Hart, J., Rackham, J., Griffiths, S., and Challinor, D. 2014 ‘Burnt mounds along the Milford

Haven to Brecon gas pipeline, 2006-7’, forthcoming in Archaeologia Cambrensis

163, 133–172

IFA (Institute for Archaeologists) 1999a Guidelines for Finds Work. IFA, Birmingham.

IFA (Institute for Archaeologists) 1999b Standard and Guidance for Finds and Ecofact

Studies and Curation. IFA, Reading


13


IFA (Institute for Archaeologists) 2001a Standard and Guidance for the Collection,

Documentation, Conservation and Research of Archaeological Materials. IFA,

Reading

IFA (Institute for Archaeologists) 2001b, Standard and Guidance for Archaeological

Excavation

IFA Wales (Institute for Archaeologists of Wales/ Cymru) 2008 Introducing a Research

Framework for the Archaeology of Wales, consulted December 2008

at http://www.archaeoleg.org.uk/intro.html

Jones, A.M. and Quinnell, H. 2011 ‘The Neolithic and Bronze Age in Cornwall, c 4000 cal BC

to c 1000 cal BC: an overview of recent developments,’ Cornish Archaeology 50,

197–230

Lynch, F.M. 1975 ‘Excavations at Carreg Samson megalithic tomb, Mathry, Pembrokeshire’,

Archaeologia Cambrensis 124, 15-35

Millson, D., Waddington, C. and Marshall, P. 2011 ‘Towards a Sequence for Neolithic

Ceramics in the Milfield Basin, and Northumberland’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser.

40, 1-40

Mook, W. G. and H. T. Waterbolk 1985 Handbook for archaeologists. No 3. Radiocarbon

dating. Strasbourg; European Science Foundation

NLM (Nacap Land and Marine) 2006 Milford Haven to Aberdulais Natural Gas Pipeline:

Scheme of investigation for a programme of archaeological works

NLM (Nacap Land and Marine) 2012a Milford Haven to Aberdulais High Pressure Gas

Pipeline: Archaeology Assessment of Potential for Analysis

NLM (Nacap Land and Marine) 2012b Felindre to Brecon High Pressure Gas Pipeline:

Archaeology Assessment of Potential for Analysis

Needham, S. 2005 ‘Transforming Beaker Culture in North-west Europe: Processes of Fusion

and Fission’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 71, 171-217

Pannett, A. 2014 Milford Haven to Brecon LNG Pipeline: Lithic Analysis Report A. Pannett

typescript report

RSK (RSKENSR) 2007 Felindre to Tirley Natural Gas Pipeline: Archaeological Framework

Document, v7. Nacap Land and Marine Final, RSKENSR Environmental Ltd

Reimer, P., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. Beck, P. Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, P. Grootes, T.

Guilderson, H. Haflidason, I. Hajdas, C. Hatté, T. Heaton, D. Hoffmann, A. Hogg, K.

Hughen, K. Kaiser, B. Kromer, S. Manning, M. Niu, R. Reimer, D. Richards, E. Scott,

J. Southon, R. Staff, C. Turney and J. van der Plicht 2013 ‘IntCal13 and Marine13

Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years cal BP’, in Radiocarbon 55(4), 1869–87

Schmidl, A., Jaques, D. and Carrott, J. 2009 ‘Charcoal’, in NLM 2012b

http://www.archaeoleg.org.uk/intro.html


14


Slota Jr, P.J., A.J.T. Jull, T.W. Linick and L.J. Toolin 1987 ‘Preparation of small samples for

radiocarbon accelerator targets by catalytic reduction of CO’, in Radiocarbon 29,

303–6

Smythe, J. 2012 ‘Breaking Ground: an overview of pits and pit-digging in Neolithic Ireland’, in

Anderson-Whymark and Thomas 2012, 13–29

Stuiver, M. and R.S. Kra 1986 ‘Editorial comment’, in Radiocarbon 28(2B), ii

Stuiver, M. and H. A. Polach 1977 ‘Discussion, reporting of 14C data’, in Radiocarbon 19(3),

355–63

Stuiver, M. and P. J. Reimer 1986 ‘A computer program for radiocarbon age calculation’, in

Radiocarbon 28, 1022–30

Stuiver, M. and P. J. Reimer 1993 ‘Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age

calibration program’ in Radiocarbon 35, 215–30Thomas, J. 2012 ‘Introduction:

beyond the mundane?’, in Anderson-Whymark and Thomas 2012, 1–12

Vandeputte, K., L. Moens and R. Dams 1996 ‘Improved sealed-tube combustion of organic

samples to CO2 for stable isotope analysis, radiocarbon dating and percent carbon

determinations’, in Analytical Letters 29, 2761–73

Wainwright, G. J. and Longworth, I. H. 1971 ‘The Rinyo-Clacton Culture reconsidered', in G

J Wainwright with I H Longworth, Durrington Walls: Excavations 1966-1968.

London, Soc Antiq London (Res Rep No. 29) 235-306

Ward, G.K. and, Wilson, S.R. 1978 ‘Procedures for Comparing and Combining Radiocarbon

Age Determinations: a critique’, in Archaeometry 20, 19–31

Williams, A. 1953 ‘Clegyr Boia, St Davids (Pemb)’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 102, 20-47

Xu, S., R. Anderson, C. Bryant, G. T. Cook, A. Dougans, S. Freeman, P. Naysmith, C.

Schnabel and E. M. Scott 2004 ‘Capabilities of the new SUERC 5MV AMS facility for

14C dating’ in Radiocarbon 46, 59–64


15


APPENDIX A: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS

Site OEA11 Context No.

Fill of Context interpretation

Description L (m)

W (m)

Depth (m)

Spot date

11001 Pit Circular, moderate sides, concave base

0.4 0.05

11002 11001 Pit fill Mid orange-grey silty clay with stone and charcoal

0.4 0.05

11003 Topsoil Mid grey silt 0.15 11004 Subsoil Yellow-grey silty clay 0.15 11005 Natural Stone and gravel with pale grey-

brown clay

Site 21.02 Context No.

Fill of Context interpretation

Description L (m)

W (m)

Depth (m)

Spot date

212001 Ditch NW/SE aligned with U-shaped profile

0.8 0.25

212002 212001 Ditch Fill Dark brown clay sand 0.8 0.25 212003 Ditch = 212001 0.65 0.3 212004 212003 Ditch Fill = 212002 0.65 0.3 212005 Pit Circular with steep bowl-shaped

profile 0.75 0.7 0.25

212006 212005 Pit Fill Mid yellow-brown sand silt with stones

0.75 0.7 0.25 3010– 2580 cal. BC

212007 Pit Oval with steep bowl-shaped profile

0.8 0.8

0.2

212008 212007 Pit Fill Mid grey-brown silty sand with charcoal and stones

0.8 0.8 0.2 2890– 2580 cal. BC

212009 Pit Sub circular with bowl-shaped profile

0.7 0.55 0.05

212010 212009 Pit Fill Black-brown silt y clay with charcoal

0.7 0.55 0.05

212011 Pit Irregular in plan with irregular profile

0.55 0.4 0.1

212012 212011 Pit Fill Mid brown silty clay with charcoal 0.55 0.4 0.1 212013 Pit Oval in plan with bowl-shaped

profile 1.4 0.85 0.15

212014 212013 Pit Fill Dark grey-brown silty sand with burnt stone and charcoal

1.4 0.85 0.15 LNeo

212015 Ditch = 212001 0.5 0.2 212016 212015 Ditch Fill = 212002 0.5 0.2 212017 Root disturbance 212018 Root disturbance 212019 Root disturbance 212020 Root disturbance 212021 Pit Sub circular in plan with bowl-

shaped profile 1.0 0.1

212022 212021 Pit Fill Mid yellow-grey silty clay with stones

1.0 0.1

212023 Not Used 212024 Not Used 212025 Pit Sub-circular in plan with bowl-

shaped profile 0.8 0.7 0.1

212026 212025 Pit Fill Mid yellow-brown silty sand with stones and charcoal

0.8 0.7 0.1

212027 212028 Pit Fill Mid brown silty clay with charcoal 0.35 0.4 0.05 ?EMNeo


16


212028 Pit Circular in plan with irregular profile

0.35 0.4 0.05

212029 Pit Circular in plan with bowl-shaped profile

0.35 0.05

212030 212029 Pit Fill Mid brown silty clay with charcoal 0.35 0.05 212031 Pit Circular in plan with an bowl-

shaped profile 0.45 0.3 0.1

212032 212031 Pit Fill Mid grey silty clay with charcoal 0.45 0.3 0.1 212033 Ditch = 212001 0.3 0.2 212034 212033 Ditch Fill = 212002 0.3 0.2 212035 Pit Circular in plan with bowl-shaped

profile 0.8 0.1

212036 212035 Pit Fill 2nd fill; grey-brown silty sand with charcoal

0.8 0.1 LNeo

212037 Pit Oval in plan with bowl-shaped profile

0.5 0.4 0.6

212038 212037 Pit Fill Mid grey-brown clay silt with burnt stone

0.5 0.4 0.6


0.4 0.1

212040 212039 Pit Fill Mid grey-brown clay sand with charcoal and stones

0.4 0.1

212041 Not Used 212042 Pit Circular in plan with steep sides

and flat base 0.6 0.9

212043 212042 Pit Fill Mid brown-grey silt clay with stone (possibly burnt)

0.6 0.9


0.6 0.9

212045 212044 Pit Fill Mid brown-grey silty clay with charcoal

0.6 0.9

212046 Pit Irregular oval in plan with bowl-shaped profile

1.25 0.9 0.4

212047 212046 Pit Fill 2nd fill: mid brown-grey silty clay with charcoal

1.25 0.9 0.4

212048 212046 Pit Fill 1st fill: mid grey silty clay with charcoal

0.8 0.6 0.2

212049 212035 Pit Fill 1st fill: burnt stones 0.6 0.4 212050 = 212001 39.5 212051 Pit oval in plan with bowl-shaped

profile 1.4 0.7 0.25

212052 212051 Pit Fill Mid yellow-brown silty clay with large stones

1.4 0.7 0.25

212053 Irregular layer of stones 1.2 0.5 0.1 212054 212051 Pit Fill Dark black-brown silty clay with

charcoal 0.75 0.2 0.4

212055 Burnt mound Yellow-grey silty clay with burnt stones and charcoal

1.2 0.9 0.1 1260– 1010 cal. BC

212056 Trough Rectangular in plan with rounded corners. Flat base and steep sides

1.45 0.7 0.3

212057 212056 Trough fill Mottled mid grey-black silt clay with abundant burnt stones and charcoal

1.45 0.7 0.3

212058 Trough Irregular oval in plan with steep sided bowl-shaped profile.

1.05 0.8 0.3

212059 212058 Trough fill Mottled mid yellow/grey silt clay with stones and charcoal

1.05 0.8 0.3


17


APPENDIX B: THE FINDS

Prehistoric Pottery (Gibson 2013)

Summary

Weight (g) No of Contexts Periods Represented

292 7 Early/Middle Neolithic, Late Neolithic, Early Bronze Age?

Catalogue


P1 – 212027: 1 sherd (12g). Sherd with a pink-brown outer surface, black inner surface and core. The fabric

averages 8mm thick and contains abundant crushed quartz inclusions up to 3mm across. There is neither

decoration not formal features, however the abundance of quartz may suggest an Early or Middle Neolithic date.

P2 – 212036. 3 sherds (14g). Three sherds with abraded light brown outer surfaces, black, sooted inner surfaces

and a black core. The fabric averages 10mm thick and contains abundant crushed stone unclusions, including

quartz, up to 3mm across. There is neither decoration nor formal features, however the abundance of quartz may

suggest an Early or Middle Neolithic date.

Discussion

The identification of these sherds as Early to Middle Neolithic (c.4000-3000 BC) is based purely on fabric and is

therefore tenuous. The quartz fabrics have been identified at a number of Early Neolithic sites in Wales. A

hemispherical bowl with thickened rim comes from the floor of the chamber at Carreg Samson and this too is

quartz-tempered (Lynch 1975). The settlement at Clegyr Boia also provides parallels (Williams 1953). As does

the phase 2 pottery from Gwernvale and the plain bowls from Ty Isaf (Britnell & Savory 1984: Grimes 1939).

However the fabric of the present sherds seems too thick for an earlier Neolithic date. Quartz has been shown to

have been the opening material of choice in Impressed Ware, especially the Mortlake substyle, and the thickness

of the present sherds might favour this later (3600–3000 BC) identification (Gibson 1995, fig.3.8).

Grooved Ware

P3 – 212005/212006

Two conjoining sherds (11g). The fabric is medium hard and the breaks are abraded.

The outer surface is light brown, the inner surface grey and the core black. The fabric

averages 8mm thick and contains grog inclusions. The decoration comprises a zone of

parallel oblique incised lines bounded by a single incised line. Below this is a row of

four roughly circular impressions.

P4 – 212008

12 sherds plus crumbs (108g). Soft abraded sherds with light brown outer

surfaces, light brown to brown inner surfaces and with a dark grey core (though

the breaks are abraded. The fabric averages 9mm thick and contains finely

crushed grog inclusions. Two base sherds suggest a tub-shaped vessel.

Decorated sherds have zones of multiple oblique incisions arranged in

herringbone motif.


18


P5 – 212008

One sherd (21g). Soft abraded sherd with light brown outer surface, light brown to brown

inner surface and with a dark grey core (though the breaks are abraded). The fabric

averages 10mm thick and contains finely crushed grog inclusions. The sherd is very similar

to P4 but the incised lines are very shallow (scored) and set wider apart suggesting a

different but similar vessel.

P6 – 212008

Three conjoining sherds (11g). Soft abraded sherds with light brown outer surfaces,

light brown to brown inner surfaces and with a dark grey core (though the breaks are

abraded). The fabric averages 11mm thick and contains finely crushed grog

inclusions. The vessel has 10 multiple parallel lightly scored lines.

P7 – 212008

Three sherds (28g). Soft abraded sherds with light brown outer surfaces, light brown to

brown inner surfaces and with a dark grey core (though the breaks are abraded). The

fabric averages 11mm thick and contains finely crushed grog inclusions. The vessel is

decorated with parallel grooved lines defining a panel of rustication.

P8 – 212008

Four sherds (12g). Abraded undecorated sherds probably belonging to any of the Grooved Ware vessels above.

P9 – 212014

Six sherds (53g). Soft abraded sherds with grey outer surface, darker grey-brown

inner surface and with a black core (though the breaks are abraded). The fabric

averages 10mm thick and contains finely crushed grog inclusions. The sherd is very

similar to P4 and P5 above but the incised lines are much more broad and are set

more widely apart suggesting a different but similar vessel. The decorative motif

appears to be filled broad and curved chevrons or lozenges.

P10 – 212036

Four sherds (13g). Very abraded sherds in a soft grog-filled fabric with light pink/orange-brown surfaces and a

grey core. Two sherds are from base angles and the fabric at this point is 12mm thick. Possibly Grooved Ware

Discussion

Whilst the identification of these sherds as Grooved Ware is not in doubt, their small size and the fragmentary

nature of the assemblage makes it difficult to attribute them to any particular style. The use of incised, grooved

or scored oblique lines and the base sherds from P4 suggesting a tub-shaped vessel suggests that they may

belong to Longworth’s Clacton or Durrington Walls style (Wainwright and Longworth 1971). The former is

suggested by the curving oblique lines forming broadly triangular panels (P9), and impressed or rusticated panels

(P3, P7). The opposed oblique lines of P4 may be better paralleled in the Durrington Walls style; however none

of the sherds have the plastic decoration associated with this style. Similarly, diagnostic rim forms are also

absent from the assemblage.


19


Grooved Ware is rare in Wales with the two largest assemblages being from Trelystan, Powys (Britnell 1982) and

Upper Ninepence, Powys (Gibson 1999). At the former site both incised and scored oblique lines are common as

are chevron motifs , filled panels and rusticated decoration, especially circular impressions similar to those on P3.

At Upper Ninepence, diagonal lines and chevron panels are also represented as is the combination of incision

and circular stabs (Gibson 1999, fig 56, P63) and panels filled with close-set incised diagonal lines similar to P3.

Closer to the pipeline, a small Grooved Ware presence has been reported from Stackpole Warren Dyfed (Benson

et al. 1990) on decorated with jab marks close to a groove and another with grooved rim and raised cordon both

of which can be paralleld at Upper Ninepence if not in the present assemblage.

The rarity of Grooved Ware in Wales is difficult to explain given that it is spread widely over Britain and has been

increasingly recognised in Ireland. Indeed, some thin-walled vessels from Upper Ninepence compare closely with

some vessels from Newgrange (Brindley 1999) where the sweeping curved triangular panels of P9 can also be

matched.

Not surprisingly, given the paucity of Grooved Ware sites in Wales, evidence for the dating of the tradition within

the Principality is also poor. The Grooved Ware contexts from Upper Ninepence spanned the first half of the 3rd

Millennium (c. 2900-2500 BC; Gibson 1999, 44). A similar date range was established by Garwood (1999) for the

Clacton and Durrington Walls styles in southern England though perhaps extending as late as Needham’s

Fission Horizon c. 2200 BC (Needham 2005). In the North of England, though again based on few dates and not

always from totally reliable samples, Marshall would place Grooved Ware between 3100 BC and 2245 BC

(Millson et al. 2011). The present assemblage must also date to this Late Neolithic period.

Other Material

P11 – 212005/212006.

One sherd (9g). Sherd with a very abrader pink-brown outer surface, grey inner surface and with a black core.

The fabric averages 11mm thick and contains abundant crushed stone inclusions up to 3mm across. There is

neither decoration nor diagnostic formal features. Probably Early Bronze Age.

212006 – 2123016

Featureless crumb.

212014

Two bags of undiagnostic crumbs.

212036

Two featureless crumbs.


20


Flint (Pannett 2014)

The assemblage comprises 301 struck lithics recovered from six pits and as unstratified surface finds.

Context No. Description No. Lithics 212006 Single fill of pit 212005 33 212008 Single fill of pit 212007 23 212014 Single fill of pit 212013 176 212026 Single fill of pit 212025 1 212032 Single fill of pit 212031 1 212036 Upper fill of pit 212035 64 212057 Single fill of pit 212056 1 Unstratified 2 Total 301

Context 212006

Primary Technology

The assemblage comprises fresh flint of varying shades of grey. Cortex survives on six dark grey pieces and

comprises a pitted chalky exterior characteristic of the nodular flint found in areas of chalk or clay with flints in

England. None of the cortical pieces show evidence of deriving from a pebble resource. The assemblage is flake

dominated, with 12 complete flakes and 5 distal flake fragments and a single piece of angular shatter. On only

one flake is the dorsal surface sufficiently clear to reveal the reduction sequence, and this piece had been struck

from a single platform flake core. Complete pieces are, on average, 16mm long, 13mm broad and 2.5mm thick.

Three complete flakes retain a planar platform, with a fourth retaining a cortical platform. Eight complete flakes

retain lightly hinged terminations, the remaining four retaining feathered terminations. Bulbs of percussion are

predominantly diffuse, suggesting the use of a soft hammer, although two flakes display a pronounced bulb of

percussion and pronounced concoidal ripples indicative of a hard hammer technique. On one flake the dorsal

surface is smoothed and polished. The flake appears to have been struck from a polished flint axe and is of Early

Neolithic date. The remaining 15 pieces comprise microdebitage pieces less than 5mm in diameter, derived from

knapping.

Context 212008

Primary Technology

The assemblage is dominated by fresh flint, predominantly light grey. Six pieces of burnt flint are also present.

Cortex survives on six pieces:, 5 dark grey with a chalky, pitted exterior and 1 light grey with a smoother exterior.

The assemblage is flake dominated, with a single piece of angular shatter and a single burnt chunk also

identified. One complete flake had been removed from a single platform core, whilst a second complete flake had

been removed from a multiple platform core; the dorsal surface is indistinct on the remainder of the pieces.

Complete pieces are, on average, 18mm long, 15mm broad and 3.5mm thick. Three complete flakes retain a

planar platform, with one retaining a cortical platform. Five pieces retain a hinged termination, 2 a feathered

termination and 1 a plunging termination. Bulbs of percussion are predominantly diffuse and concoidal ripples

minimal, indicative of a soft hammer technique. Two flakes have pronounced bulbs of percussion, suggestive of

the use of a hard hammer. One core trimming flake was identified, struck to remove multiple hinge fracture scars

from the face of a single platform core. The remaining 10 pieces comprise microdebitage pieces, of comparable

colour and potentially derived from the same core.

Secondary Technology

Two flake fragments had been retouched. One has abrupt retouch around one edge forming a scraper, the form

of which was not identifiable but is likely to be Neolithic. The second retouched piece comprises a flake fragment

with abrupt retouch around the distal end, trimming the edge. It is undiagnostic.


21


Context 212014

Primary Technology

The assemblage is dominated by fresh flint, with 15 pieces of burnt flint identified. The fresh flint varies from dark

grey to light grey/white. Seventeen struck pieces retain cortex, nine of which are dark grey/black pieces with a

chalky pitted exterior. The remaining pieces are light grey with a smoother, water-rolled cortex. The assemblage

is dominated by flakes, with 35 complete flakes, 3 complete bladelets, 13 flake fragments, 3 burnt chunks and 6

pieces of angular shatter. Three flakes had been struck from a single platform flake core, 2 from a multi-platform

flake core and 1 flake and 1 blade from a single platform blade core, with the dorsal surface indistinct on the

remainder of the pieces. Complete flakes are, on average, 11mm long, 13mm broad and 2.5mm thick. Complete

bladelets are, on average, 7mm long, 5mm broad and 1.5mm thick. Fifteen complete flakes retain a planar

platform, 2 flakes and 2 bladelets retain a planar platform with preparation/trimming on the platform edge, while

1flake has an abraded platform and 1 had been struck from the outside of a nodule and retains a cortical

platform. Terminations ae predominantly feathered, with 9 complete flakes displaying a hinged termination and 3

a plunging termination. Bulbs of percussion are generally diffuse, with a six pronounced platforms on complete

flakes. One core trimming flake was identified, struck from the prepared platform edge of a core of indeterminable

form. The majority of the flakes are undiagnostic, although the bladelets are likely to be of

Early Neolithic date. The remaining 116 pieces within the assemblage comprise microdebitage. With the

exception of one piece of dark grey flint, the microdebitage assemblage comprises entirely light grey flint and it is

possible that all of the chips were struck from a single core.


Five flakes had been retouched. Scrapers are the dominant tool form within the assemblage, with three end

scrapers, one horseshoe scraper and one side scraper:-

Scraper form Description Date Nosed scraper – distal retouch Nosed scraper fragment - abrupt retouch along distal

end forming steep scraper edge and distinctive rounded 'nose' in centre. Possibly deliberately broken as struck from both sides to remove distal end.

Early Neolithic

End scraper – proximal retouch Invasive and abrupt retouch along proximal edge forming slightly curved scraper edge

Neolithic

Side scraper Cortical flake with semi-invasive and abrupt retouch along left hand side dorsal edge - majority of worked edge broken off, possibly deliberately as strike on break clear.

Neolithic

One complete flake has small stretches of abrupt retouch along one edge forming a simple, unmodified edge. It is

not identifiable as a tool type and is undiagnostic.

Context 212026

Primary Technology

A single piece of angular shatter formed on a light grey fresh flint was recovered. It is undiagnostic.

Context 212032

Primary Technology

A single piece of microdebitage formed on dark grey fresh flint was recovered. It is undaignostic.


22


Context 212036

Primary Technology

The assemblage is dominated by fresh flint, with three pieces of burnt flint microdebitage. The flint varied from

dark grey to light grey/white. Eight pieces retained cortex, both dark and light grey flint, comprising a chalky pitted

exterior. The assemblage is flake dominated, with 16 complete flakes, two distal flake fragments and three pieces

of angular shatter. On only one flake was the dorsal surface sufficiently clear to reveal the reduction sequence,

and this piece had been struck from a single platform flake core. Complete pieces were, on average, 14.1mm

long, 14.1mm broad and 2.7mm thick. Nine complete flakes retained a planar platform, one a cortical platform.

The majority of flakes retained a feathered termination, with four retaining a hinged termination. Bulbs of

percussion were predominantly diffuse, with five flakes displaying a pronounced bulb indicative of hard hammer

use. On two flakes the dorsal surface was smoothed and polished. The flakes appear to have been struck from a

polished flint axe and are of Early Neolithic date. The remaining 42 pieces within the assemblage comprise

microdebitage. The microdebitage assemblage comprises entirely light grey flint and it is possible that all of the

chips were struck from a single core.


Two flakes and a single piece of angular shatter have been retouched. The two complete flakes have been

retouched to form scrapers:

Scraper form Description Date Horseshoe scraper – distal and double side retouch

End and double side scraper manufactured on chunky rounded flake- horseshoe scraper of early Neolithic date. Invasive and abrupt retouch forming scraper edge around the flake. Struck from single platform flake core

Early Neolithic

End scraper - distal Chunky cortical flake with abrupt and invasive retouch around distal end, forming end scraper with possible cutting edge. Platform removed by abrupt retouch, possibly for hafting.

Neolithic

The piece of angular shatter had abrupt retouch along one edge forming an unmodified edge and a tool of

indistinct form. It is undiagnostic.

Context 212056

Primary Technology

The assemblage comprises a single complete flake manufactured on dark brown fresh flint. It is 14.1mm long,

7mm broad and 6.9mm thick. The platform is planar and the termination feathered. The flake comprises a core

trimming flake, removing the platform edge from a core of unidentifiable form. It is undiagnostic.


The flake displays edge damage along the distal, possibly indicative of use.

Unstratified

Primary Technology

Two fresh flint flakes were recovered as topsoil finds, one manufactured on light grey flint and one on dark grey

flint. Both pieces comprise complete flakes, one 4.1mm in length, 15mm broad and 2.3mm thick and one 44.4mm

long, 21.9mm broad and 5.2mm thick. Neither retain a platform, one retains feathered termination while the


23


second has been retouched. The retouched piece comprises a core trimming flake struck to remove a platform

edge from a core of indeterminable form.


The core trimming flake has been retouched to form a double ended piercing tool. Abrupt retouch has been

employed to create short protrusions at both the proximal and distal ends, removing both the platform and the

termination. The point at the proximal end is 3.1mm long, while the distal point is 5.4mm long. The points were

smoothed and rounded through use. Abrupt retouch has also been employed along the left hand side dorsal

edge to trim the flake edge. The piercer is likely to be Early Neolithic in date.

Discussion and Interpretation

Four of the pits identified on the site produced substantial lithic assemblages (pits 212005, 212007, 212013 and

212035). The pits were located close together. The assemblages from these four pits are comparable, with

significant quantities of microdebitage, together with struck flakes and tools. The proportion of microdebitage is

particularly significant and unusual, forming between 42% and 66% of the assemblages. Microdebitage is a direct

product of knapping and is generally only found in such quantities on knapping floors or knapping sites, on the

spot where the knapping is occurring. To recover such large quantities from pit fills suggests that knapping was

occurring close to the site of the pits and that knapping waste was deliberately deposited into the pits. Much of

the microdebitage is struck from comparable material, a light grey fresh flint, and it is likely that much of it derived

from a single core. In all four pits flakes of dark grey flint retaining a chalky, pitted cortex were found,

characteristic of nodule flint. This material is particularly interesting as it does not occur in the geology of South

Wales, the nearest sources being on the southern side of the Severn Estuary. There was little evidence for the

exploitation of more locally available pebble flints in the assemblages.

Of particular significance is the identification of three flakes struck from a polished stone axe. These flakes were

of comparable material and it is probable that they were struck from the same axe, despite having been

recovered from different pits. It is possible that a sizeable proportion of the microdebitage found in the pits also

derived from the knapping of the axe as the light grey flint of the axe is similar to that of a proportion of the

microdebitage. The axe fragments are Early Neolithic in date, as are two of the scrapers recovered. Also of

interest is the likelihood that two of the scrapers were deliberately broken, struck on their edges to remove the

proximal end, rendering them unusable.


24


APPENDIX C: PALAEOENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE BY JAMES RACKHAM

Site OEA 11

One environmental sample is recorded as having been taken from Site OEA 11, but a residue of a second

sample was found and refloated (Table 1). The recorded sample was the whole fill, 11002, of pit 11001, a

possible trough. A second sample is suggested by a residue but has no site record and whose label describes

the site as RDX011. It has the same context number, but the sample sheet for 113000 indicates that the whole fill

was collected for the sample so a second sample would appear unlikely.

Table 1. Bulk environmental sample from Site OEA11

sample no context feature description processedWt kg. Vol. l.* 113000 11002 11001 Pit fill 7 8 112001 11002 (recorded as

RDX011)

* volume recorded on site – not accurate

The samples were processed in the manner described in the assessment report (Carruthers 2008) with the

additional refloating of the dried sample residues whose flot volume (2nd flot) is indicated in Table 2. The re-

processed residues were sorted for archaeological finds and burnt stone and checked with a magnet. This

second flot was sorted for charred macrofossils. The second sample 112001 is not discussed since it cannot be

securely attributed to pit 11.001. No archaeological finds are recorded from sample 11.3000 although just over a

kilogramme of burnt stone was sorted from the residue (Table 2). The flots are entirely composed of charcoal and

no other charred plant remains have been recorded. The charcoal from the sample was not assessed (Schmidl

et al 2009) and in the absence of dating for the pit or any other environmental remains the charcoal was deemed

unsuitable for post-excavation study.

Table 2. Data for the environmental sample

sample context wt kgl 1st flot vol ml 2nd flot vol ml residue fired

clay*

burnt

stone * flint* magnetic#

11.3000 11002 7 131 1 1632 - 1033 - 1.2

112001 11002 nd nd 2 + +

* abundance rating – 1= 1-10 items; 2=11-50, 3=51=100, 4=101-200, 5=>200; # weight in grammes

Discussion

The pit has been provisionally considered as a possible trough associated with a burnt mound. The site lies on

the south and south-east facing slope of Cilsan Bank, overlooking the River Towy floodplain. There is in the

present no evidence for a water course within 100m of the site, although there may have been a seasonal water

course just to the north east where a small linear feature that crosses two fields may mark either a former stream

or run off channel or an old path, although the latter is not marked on the 1st edition OS map. This feature passes

within a few metres of the site and lies in a shallow dry valley supporting an inference that a former stream or run-

off channel ran south off the hillside above. The sampled feature was very shallow (0.05m), has a burnt stone

proportion of less than 15% (the total surviving burnt stone content of the feature being just over 1 kilogramme)

and no evidence for a burnt mound in the immediate vicinity. The presence of burnt stone and charcoal clearly

indicates fire debris, but both these might derive from a range of activities and dates. The character of the

activities that generated this debris cannot be suggested from the environmental data - bonfires, campfires,


25


domestic fires, burnt mound fires and ‘industrial’ fires could all generate such debris, and even if radiocarbon

dated interpretation would still be speculative.

Site 21.02

Bone

No bone was recovered from this site either by excavation or from the samples. It is assumed that the burial

environment was unsuitable for the survival of unburnt bone. Environmental Soil Samples

Twenty three environmental samples were collected from Site 21.02. The majority of these derive from a scatter

of pits. A burnt mound was found at the eastern edge of the site from which two samples were collected, and a

sample was taken from an adjacent pit, 212056. The samples were processed in the manner described in the

assessment report (Carruthers 2008). The residues were located for refloating, sorting and checking for a

magnetic component. It was clear from the labels and sample processing records that not all the residues were

found. This indicates that the figures noted in Table 3 may represent only partial recovery (particularly for the

burnt stone component) and a ‘+’ symbol in the ‘residue wt’ column indicates that the records show an additional

residue that was not found and subsequent entries in these lines will not reflect the total compliment of finds from

that sample. Despite this the figures have been used to give general ‘minimum’ concentrations of material in the

samples. The finds from the residues are noted on Table 3. Unusually for an early prehistoric site several

samples produced finds. Pottery sherds or ‘crumbs’ were recovered from six of the samples, and flint debris from

nine. Very small fragments of fired earth/burnt clay were present in two samples and a small magnetic fraction

was recovered from the residue of seven samples, composed largely of pink or grey mudstone, possibly heat

damaged, suggesting some mineral fire debris. Burnt stone was recovered from the majority of the samples (20

of the 23 samples) with concentrations varying from 9g. per kilogramme of sample to 330g/kg, although higher

concentrations may have occurred because not all the residues from each sample were located for refloating and

sorting. The bulk of this burnt stone was mudstone. The two burnt mound samples and the adjacent pit produced

365, 590 and 352g/kg, a higher concentration than any of the other samples and consistent with their

interpretation as a burnt mound. Pit 212056 on the basis of the concentration of burnt stone seems likely to be

associated with the mound despite a lack of any dating evidence. The stone in the burnt mound deposits included

fire fractured sandstone pebbles and angular sandstone in contrast to the mudstones recorded in the Neolithic

pits (see discussion below).


26


Table 3 Bulk environmental samples from Site 21.02

* volume estimated on site, not accurate

sample no context no feature description Proc. Wt kg. Vol. l.*

2123000 212008 212007 NW fill of oval pit 4 nd 2123001 212010 212009 Western half of pit fill 16 30 2123002 212006 212005 Northern part of pit fill 27.5 40 2123003 212012 212011 SW part of pit fill 6 7.5 2123004 212018 212017 Stake hole/root fill in pit 212005 0.49 0.5 2123005 212020 212018 Stake hole/root fill in pit 212005 0.47 0.25 2123006 212014 212013 Surface of pit fill 9 nd 2123007 212014 212013 Northern part of pit fill 114.5 100 2123008 212022 212021 Burnt stone, charcoal rich pit fill 20.5 37 2123009 212032 212031 Pit fill 9.5 15 2123010 212030 212029 SW half of pit fill 3 1.5 2123011 212027 212028 Pit fill 5 3 2123012 212036 212035 West part 2nd pit fill 39 55 2123013 212038 212037 Shallow pit fill 17 30 2123014 212040 212040 Shallow pit fill 4 10 2123015 212026 212025 Pit fill 51.5 90 2123016 212006 212005 pit fill 20 30 2123017 212008 212007 Pit fill 57 30 2123018 212052 212051 Primary pit fill 13.5 25 2123019 212054 212051 Upper pit fill 2 3 2123020 212057 212056 Pit/trough fill 12 30 2123021 212055 BM Top 50mm spit of burnt mound 12.5 25 2123022 212055 BM Lower 50mm spit burnt mound 8 12


27


Location of the bulk environmental samples across the site (samples 3017 and 3018 from pit 212051 are not marked on plan)


28


Table 4 Data for the environmental samples from Site 21.02

Sample no

Context no

Feature no.

processed wt kg

1stflot Vol ml

2ndflot Vol

residue

wt g pottery

burnt clay

g.

burnt stone

g.

Flint

Magnetic wt g.

HNS 1st flot no/wt g

HNS res no/wt g

HNS 2ndflot no/wt g

HNS total

NoHNS/kg

comments

North western group of pits 2123002 212006 212005 27.5 166 1 2260 1211 x4+ 1.8 1195 /4.3 193/6 16/0.2 10.5e 51 2123016 212006 212005 20 85 3 1276 <1g 462 5+ 464/9 29/1 72/1 11 28 2123004 212018 212005 0.49 5 0 none - 13/0.2 - - 0.2 27 2123005 212020 212005 0.47 1 0 none + - 1/- - - <0.2 2 2123000 212008 212007 4 7 3 789 138 1 17 35 1 13 Cereal grain x1(?rye) 2123017 212008 212007 57 270 40 5344 17g 0.8 +++ 7+ 1026/20 387/9 976/6 35 42 Triticum sp. x1; Avena sp. x1 2123006 212014 212013 9 84 1 484 350 x12 0.6 973/10.5 209/2 47/0.4 12.5 136 2123007 212014 212013 114.5 1000 398 4487+ 2+ 2545 22+ 5 12020e/247e 814/16.25 1264/4 267.25e 123 2123009 212032 212031 9.5 120 6 290+ 112+ x1 172/1 110/1 2/- 2 30 2123012 212036 212035 39 295 4 14240 9.6g 1 3580+ 4+/5g 5431/89 431/20 115/1 110 153 South western group of pits 2123001 212010 212009 16 990 3 606 145 3 - - - - 0 2123003 212012 212011 6 21 1 178 126+ x1 0.2+ 297/1.2 43/1 81/0.2 2.4 70 2123008 212022 212021 20.5 35 4 5643 5092 2/- - 8/- <0.2 0.5 Central group of pits 2123010 212030 212029 3 9 1 426+ 339 0.2+ 11/- - 7/- <0.2 6 2123011 212027 212028 5 35 1 577 14g 517 10/- - 12/- <0.5 4 2123013 212038 212037 17 60 4 6237+ 5572+ 2.4+ 1/- - 3/- <0.2 0.2 2123014 212040 212040 4 25 2 1313 877+ 4/- - - <0.2 1 2123015 212026 212025 51.5 35 100 8568 5040 3g 11/- - 208/2 2 4 Unlocated pit 2123018 212052 212051 13.5 2 1 517 - - - - 0 2123019 212054 212051 2 11 4 171 + - - 1/- <0.2 0.5 Burnt mound and associated pit 2123020 212057 212056 12 75 3 4658 4378 2/- - - <0.2 0.2 Charcoal heavily mineralised 2123021 212055 BM 12.5 120 6 7582 7374 4/- - - <0.2 0.3 2123022 212055 BM 8 38 4 2960 2817 2/- - - <0.2 0.25

*quantities – E=1-10; D=11-50; C=51-100; B=101-200; A=200+ items; HNS - hazel nutshell fragments; + pot crumb or additional material not quantified because part of residue lost;

e estimated on the basis of a 10 or 20% fraction of the flot.


29


The environmental evidence from the samples is limited to charcoal and charred plant remains. No burnt bone

was recovered. Just three charred cereal grains were recorded from the pits, an unidentified grain (possibly rye –

Carruthers 2009) recorded during the assessment from Neolithic pit 212007, and an oat and wheat grain from a

second sample from the same pit (Table 2). In contrast charred hazel nutshell was abundant. It was found in

every pit sampled except pit 212009, and in very small quantities in the burnt mound and adjacent pit 212056

(Table 4). Quantities of nutshell varied from just one or two fragments to over 12,000 fragments weighing over

250 grammes. An estimate of the number per kilogramme was calculated for all samples and indicated by colour

on the site plan reproduced within this appendix. These figures should be used as a guide because the counts

and weights of the larger samples were estimated after sorting and counting either 10 or 20% of the whole

sample. Also the counts include sorts of the >1mm and <2mm flot fraction and at this size not all the nutshell will

have been recognised so the figures represent a minimum.

The richest (highest density) hazel nutshell assemblages were found in pits 212013 and 212035, two of the north

western group of pits (Table 4) where over 100 fragments per kilogramme are recorded. This group of pits

produced the bulk of the hazelnuts from the site, and only pit 212011 in the south western group produced

comparable concentrations. The north western group also produced most of the ceramic and flint finds indicating

a greater input of occupation debris than the other pits across the site. This needs a little caution since the

density of nutshell in two samples from pit 212007 varied by a factor of nearly four, and many of the other pits

across the site were heavily truncated with just 5 or 10cm of fill surviving which may well not have been the

richest part of their fills. A brief analysis of the nutshell fragmentation (Table 5) indicates that all the nutshell is

heavily fragmented with few fragments over 6.5 mm in size (generally less than 10% by weight) only one sample

from pit 212013 having nearly 18% by weight in this larger fraction. The fraction below 2mm (and above1mm) is

partly so low (Table 5) because recognition of nutshell fragments at this scale is less easy and fragmentation to

this level would indicate very heavy mechanical or other damage. A fragmentation index (no. fragments/weight)

has been calculated for the bigger assemblages (Table 5) showing relatively low fragmentation for some samples

(index of 50-70) and high for others (>120). The fact that this variation occurs in samples from the same deposit

indicates one of the problems with using and interpreting this type of data. This fragmentation indicates significant

damage, much of it probably occurred in situ but some will have occurred during excavation and processing since

many of the nutshell fragments are brittle. Despite the high fragmentation the concentrations in pits 212005 and

212007 would suggest primary deposition of the shells after extraction of the kernel. In many of the other pits the

low density of nutshell suggests incidental or secondary deposition of material.

Charcoal was common to abundant across the site and in fairly good condition, but only a small number of

samples produced very rich assemblages (Table 4), particularly pits 212009 and 212013. Samples from pit

212013 in the north west group, pit 212009 in the south west group, pit 212040 in the central group, and burnt

mound 212055 were assessed (Schmidl et al 2009). The pits produced alder/hazel stemwood and roundwood to

a maximum of 50mm diameter with traces of alder/birch/hazel, Maloideae and cherry/plum (Prunus sp.) in pit

212009 and oak stemwood in 212040. The Late Bronze Age burnt mound assemblage (212055) included alder

stemwood and roundwood to a diameter of 20mm, with possible Maloideae and cherry/plum. With the dating of a

number of features a series of eight samples were selected for detailed charcoal analysis from the Neolithic pits

and the Bronze Age burnt mound.


30


Table 5 Fragmentation of hazel nutshell in the richer samples.

sample no

context no

feature no

>6.5mm no/wt

>2mm no/wt

<2mm & >1mm no/wt

fragmentation index

2123002 212006 212005 15/1 1277/9 112/0.5 134 2123016 212006 212005 9/0.5 527/10 32/0.5 52 2123017 212008 212007 21/3 1972/30 296/2 65 2123003 212012 212011 -/- 177/2 243/0.4 175 2123006 212014 212013 41/1 996/8 192/1 123 2123007 212014 212013 420/46 11830/210 1463/6.25 58 2123012 212036 212035 159/14 5629/92 189/2 55

Fragmentation index=no. fragments per gramme Charcoal (Dana Challinor)

Eight samples were studied from two distinct phases of activities: Neolithic pits (212005, 212007, 212009,

212031, 212035 and 212037) and the Bronze Age burnt mound and associated trough/pit 212056. Standard

methodological procedure was followed, with 30 fragments identified from each sample. Five taxa were positively

identified; Quercus sp. (oak), Alnus glutinosa (alder), Corylus avellana (hazel), Prunus spinosa (blackthorn) and

Maloideae (hawthorn, apple, rowan etc.) (Table 6). The identification of P. spinosa was confirmed on the basis of

ray width. Preservation was generally good, but with varying degrees of sediment encrustation. Some of the

samples contained very large fragments (up to 50mm in length). Many of the fragments exhibited moderate or

strong ring curvature, indicative of roundwood, but few retained pith and/or bark. The identification of heartwood

was rare, confirmed in only one sample <2123009>, where it formed a significant component of the assemblage.

Insect tunnels were recorded in an alder fragment in sample <2123001> and hazel fragments in <2123002> and

<2123021>.

Table 6 Charcoal h=heartwood; s=sapwood; r=roundwood; (brackets = presence in some frags only)

Feature type

Neo. pit

Neo. pit

Neo? pit

Neo? pit

Neo. pit

Neo? pit

burnt mound

trough fill

Feature no. 212005 212007 212009 212031 212035 212037 212056

Context no. 212006 212008 212010 212032 212036 212038 212055 212057

Sample no. 3002 3017 3001 3009 3012 3013 3021 3020

Quercus sp. oak 1 16 (hr) 1 17

Alnus glutinosa Gaertn.

alder 8 15 (r) 2

Corylus avellana L. hazel 11 (r) 21 (r) 9 (r) 20 (r) 9 (r) 15r 12 (r)

Alnus/Corylus alder/hazel 10 8 3 9 6

Prunus spinosa L. blackthorn 3 3r

Maloideae hawthorn group 1 15 (r) 12r 7 (r)

Indeterminate bark 2

Indeterminate diffuse porous 1

Indeterminate 3

Total 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


31


Neolithic pits

The preservation of charcoal in some of these pits was remarkably good for such an early period, with particularly

large fragments in sample 2123001. Most were from incomplete roundwood, but growth ring analysis on the more

complete pieces suggests uncharred diameters of approximately 5.6mm to 64mm, with age ranges of 3 to 10

years. A number of the alder fragments in 2123001 were 8 years, with varying diameters and average to fast

growth rates (ARW 1.1mm-4.2mm). In contrast, the assemblage from sample 2123009 contained a notable

quantity of slow grown oak heartwood, with a minimum age of 40 years and ARW of 0.4mm.

In general, the assemblages from the pits were quite different, with three comprising mainly hazel (212005,

212007, 212035), one with roughly equal quantities of alder and hawthorn group (212009) and only two with

significant quantities of oak (212031, 212037). The significance of this is difficult to gauge; one explanation is

that the assemblages resulted from differing activities and reflect different collection strategies for specific events.

Without artefactual or other ecofactual remains to indicate the activities from which the charcoal derived, no

further development of context-related variation is possible. In general, however, it is likely that the charcoal

derived from some domestic-type activities and, at least, reflects the use of fuelwood from local resources,

encompassing oak-hazel woodland, hedgerow/woodland margins (hawthorn group and blackthorn) and riverside

and wet ground habitats (alder).

Taxonomic composition of Late Neolithic pits, based upon fragment count (N=179)

The Neolithic charcoal from Site 21.02 demonstrates significantly less oak than appears to be the case at other

sites along the pipeline. The chart above shows that oak accounts for merely 19% of the Late Neolithic

assemblage, with hazel representing at least 40% (possibly more taking into account that the undifferentiated

Alnus/Corylus category will include some additional specimens). While the synthesis of all the pipeline data will

show whether this picture is especially unusual or not, it is interesting considering the absence of oak in the

Bronze Age burnt mound assemblage.

Bronze Age burnt mound

Site 21.02 presented reasonably preserved charcoal from burnt mound deposit (212055) and trough/pit fill

(212057), both of which were dominated by hazel and hawthorn group charcoal, with a little blackthorn, including

Quercus 19%

Corylus 39%

Alnus 14%

Alnus/Corylus 17%

Maloideae 9%

Prunus 2%

Quercus

Corylus

Alnus

Alnus/Corylus

Maloideae

Prunus


32


a quantity of roundwood fragments. This was the only burnt mound site (of any phase) along the pipeline to

produce an assemblage in which oak was absent. The site was not immediately adjacent to other burnt mound

sites, but it was located in the Towy River valley (at approximately 40m OD). Other sites at this level and in the

valley produced plentiful oak, but also alder; both taxa are present in the Neolithic pit samples.

Discussion

The site sits on the north-west side of a small hilltop plateau, at about 40m OD, with the hill rising to the north

east to 97m OD, and overlooks a small valley to the north and west and with the River Towy out of sight over the

plateau top to the south. The site looks over the small shallow valley of a tributary of the Nant Stephanau, which

flows into the River Towy 700m to the south west of the site. The nearest project pollen study contemporary with

the site is about 17km due south at RLX01 (Rackham et al in prep.) where the Late Neolithic (estimated by

extrapolation from the dated horizons) is represented by an oak and hazel dominated woodland, with alder

growing along the rivers and streams and a limited open pastoral element, although there is a Poaceae (grass)

peak at around this time that then falls. The implication is a landscape largely wooded, but with areas that had

been opened up by the Neolithic population. The Middle to Late Bronze Age in this pollen diagram, contemporary

with burnt mound 212055, shows a reduction in oak and hazel woodland, but an expansion of birch, perhaps

reflecting regeneration of birch in areas cleared of woodland in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. There is

evidence for the expansion of grassland habitats with increasing grasses (Poaceae) and ribwort plantain

(Plantago lanceolata), and cereal type pollen first appears during this period.

It is well to be aware that this picture is a generalisation and locally the landscape may have varied. The charcoal

assemblages would suggest a local landscape of oak and hazel woodland in the Neolithic, but with significant

clearance allowing members of the hawthorn group and blackthorn to expand in peripheral areas of the woodland

and in hedgerows. Alder was clearly locally abundant probably growing alongside the stream some 140m to the

north, as well as along the banks of the Nant Stephanau and River Towy 500 and 250m to the west and south

respectively. Perhaps of more interest are the charcoal results from the burnt mound and associated pit 212056.

The charcoal samples from both these features lack any oak, with hazel and hawthorn group dominating the

assemblages, and a little alder/hazel and blackthorn. As noted above this is the only burnt mound assemblage

lacking oak and perhaps suggests an absence of local oak woodland in the Middle to Late Bronze Age. A lack of

birch in the assemblages, in contrast to the pollen data, may just reflect little or no local generation of birch

woodland.

It is clear from the assemblages obtained from the group of pits in the north western part of the site that this was

an occupation site in the 3rd millennium BC, and the two groups of pits 25m to the south west and 20m to the

east seem likely to be broadly contemporary, although only one pit, 212028, produced any dating evidence. The

quantities of burnt stone in the pits suggest stones were used either as pot boilers or to edge domestic fires, or

both. The traces of charred cereal indicate access to cultivated crops, but otherwise the assemblages are

exclusively gathered hazelnuts from the local woodlands, a pattern similar to most of the other Neolithic sites

along the pipeline. Several Neolithic sites produced small assemblages of cereal grain with hazel nutshells

including sites 24.07, 26.05, 51.02, 52.03, 52.04, cremation site 222, 245, 509 and 513, and in these emmer

wheat predominated, although barley, free threshing wheat and occasional oat grains were found. The charcoal

assemblages would appear to be consistent with domestic fuel use, with roundwood predominating, and

exploitation of hazel, alder, oak, hawthorn group and Prunus family. The latter two perhaps obtained from

hedgerows or woodland edge environments. The woodland may have been very local, perhaps on the hillside


33


overlooking the River Towy, while alder is likely to have grown within 150m of the site along the stream in the

valley ‘in front of’ the site.

The Bronze Age burnt mound lies at the eastern edge of the field and, in contrast to the Neolithic pits, the burnt

stone includes sandstones. Although the site lies on mudstones the BGS geology mapping shows sandstones

(http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html) of the Ffairfach Grit Formation in the south east corner of

the field and the field to the east, with Llandeilo Flags (sandstone, limestone and argillaceous rocks) just beyond,

so the burnt mound appears to be preferentially using sandstones, both angular sandstone and sandstone

cobbles. The bulk of the residue recovered from deposit 212055 and pit 212056 was burnt and firecracked stone

(Table 4). The charcoal fuel is predominantly hazel and hawthorn group roundwood, and perhaps the lack of oak

indicates the loss of local oak woodlands by this time. The mound appears to be some distance from a water

source. The stream flows some 140m to the north of the site, while the River Towy is 250m to the south and

nearly 20m below the site, suggesting that the stream would have been the source. However there is a ‘nick’ in

the 40m contour immediately NW of the burnt mound indicating stream erosion of the hillside at this point, and

some trace of this can be seen in aerial photographs (Google Earth). It is possible that the mound was sited

adjacent to a former or seasonal stream, flowing NW toward the present stream, from which water could be

collected which would have placed a water source within 20-30m of the site and it is possible that pit 212056 and

adjacent unsampled pit 212058 would have filled naturally during seasonal rains. The heavy mineralisation of the

charcoal in pit 212056 contrasts with all the other samples from the site and suggests a fluctuating water table at

this location supporting the suggestion that the pit could have been seasonally water filled. The mound has been

calculated at 3.9 square metres, with an approximate volume of the surviving mound of 2.34m3. Assuming the

two samples are representative a rough estimate of the quantity of burnt stone in the mound can be calculated at

1.59 tonnes, a fairly small mound by comparison with some of the others along the pipeline. Like many of the

other mounds evidence for food is very limited and just half a dozen fragments of hazelnut in total were

recovered from the mound and pit 212056, and no other finds were present.

References

Carruthers, W. 2008 Felindre to Brtecon Natural Gas Pipeline. Assessment report from charred plant remains.

For Cambrian Archaeological Projects

Rackham, J., Challinor, D., Langdon, C. and Scaife, R. in prep Palaeoenvironmental studies along the Milford

Haven to Aberdulais and Felindre to Tirley Natural Gas Pipeline. Southampton University Archaeology

Monograph Series

Schmidl, A. Jaques, D. and Carrott, J. 2009 Milford Haven to Brecon Natural Gas Pipeline. Assessment report

for charcoal. For Cambrian Archaeological Projects.

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html


34


APPENDIX D: RADIOCARBON DATING BY SEREN GRIFFITHS

Introduction

For the analysis, radiocarbon measurements were produced on short-life, single entity (Ashmore 1999), charred

plant remains. Samples with the ‘Beta-‘ laboratory code were pretreated as detailed here

http://www.radiocarbon.com/. Samples with the ‘SUERC-‘ laboratory code were pretreated using an acid-base-

acid process (cf. Mook and Waterbolk 1985). Samples are combusted as described by Vandeputte et al. (1996)

and (Freeman et al. 2010). Following combustion, the samples are graphitized using methods described by Slota

et al. (1987), and dated by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS; Xu et al. 2004; Freeman et al. 2010). The

results are conventional radiocarbon ages (Stuiver and Polach 1977), quoted according to the international

standard set at the Trondheim Convention (Stuiver and Kra 1986). The results have been calibrated using

IntCal13 (Reimer et al. 2013), and OxCal v4.2 (Bronk Ramsey 1995; 1998; 2001; 2009). The date ranges in table

1 have been calculated using the maximum intercept method (Stuiver and Reimer 1986), and have the endpoints

rounded outward to 10 years. The probability distributions shown in the figures were obtained by the probability

method (Stuiver and Reimer 1993). Bayesian modelling has been applied using OxCal v4.2. All Bayesian models

pass the acceptable agreement indices, the models are defined by the OxCal command query language 2

keywords and the brackets shown in the figures (Bronk Ramsey 2009).

Two radiocarbon results produced on shortlife samples from the burnt mound at Cilsan were statistically

consistent (T’=0.4; T’5%=3.8; df=1; Ward and Wilson 1978), and could be of the same actual age. If these results

represented a single archaeological event, a weighted mean taken prior to calibration might suggest activity

associated with the burnt mound in the 13th to 11th centuries cal. BC.

Four radiocarbon dates from pits 212007 (SUERC-54684 and -54690) and 212005 (SUERC-54688 and -54689),

which both contained Grooved Ware, are all statistically consistent (T’=0.5; T’5%=7.8; df=3; Ward and Wilson

1978) and could be of the same actual age. An estimate for the start of activity associated with the use of

Grooved Ware on site 21.2 is 3040–2660 cal BC (95% probable; or 2890–2710 cal BC 68% probable; Start 21.2;

Fig. 3). The end of this activity is estimated as 2870–2460 cal BC (95% probable; or 2760–2600 cal BC 68%

probable; End 21.2; Fig. 3). From this limited sample, Grooved Ware activity at the site could have gone on for 1–

190 years (95% probable) or 1–90 years (68% probable).


35


Context Feature Sampled material

Laboratory ref Measured age

δ 13C Calibrated date (95%)

212006 Pit 212005 HNS SUERC-54688 (GU34686)

4143±29 -24.8 2880–2580 cal BC

212006 Pit 212005 HNS SUERC-54689 (GU34687)

4160±29 -24.9 2890–2620 cal BC

212006 Pit 212005 Corylus sp. charcoal

SUERC-56039 (GU35403)

4289 ± 40 -25.8 3010-2870 cal BC

212006 Pit 212005 Alnus sp. charcoal

SUERC-56040 (GU35404)

4224 ± 40 -26.4 2910-2690 cal BC

212008 Pit 212007 HNS SUERC-54684 (GU34685)

4136±29 -25.6 2880–2580 cal BC

212008 Pit 212007 HNS SUERC-54690 (GU34688)

4158±29 -25.5 2890–2620 cal BC

212055 Burnt mound

Corylus sp. charcoal

SUERC-55506 (GU35195)

2922 +/-30 -28.3 1220–1010 cal. BC

212055 Burnt mound

Maloideae charcoal

SUERC-55507 (GU35196)

2950 +/-30 -26.8 1260–1040 cal. BC

Dating undertaken by Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre

Fig. 3 The calibrated radiocarbon dates from the burnt mound from Site 21.02.

Fig 2 Inset

Site 21.02

OEA 11

Site 2& 24

Site 24.01Site 23.09

Site 22.09

Site 22.02

Site 20.01Site 20.08

Site 20.18

Site 23.04

Site 23.07

Site 845

BRECON BEACONS NATIONAL PARK

Gwendraeth Fach

Afon

Llyn

fi

Gwendraeth Fawr

East

ern

Cled

dau

A Llwchwr

R Lo

ugho

r

Afron T

ywi

A Nyfer

A Cothi

A Rhondda Fach

A Rhondda Fawr

R Neath / A Nedd

A Cynin

A C

ywyn

Wes

ster

n Cl

edda

u

CARMARTHENSHIRE

SWANSEA

NEATH

PEMBROKESHIRE

AL PARKPARKAACONS NATIOACONS NATIONABEAACCO S S OOATIONANNATNNAACEAB T BBRECON BB C BBBRECONB

Gwendr

Gwendraeth FachFach

draeth

Afon

Lly

Afon

Llyn

fin

Lly

A

endraet

Gwendraeth FawawrFa

East

ern

ster

n Cl

edda

uda

u

AAA Llwchwr LlwAA

gR

Loug

hor

R Lo

ugho

r

Afron T

ywi

Afron T

ywi

onAAffrfro

n TywTywi

A Nyfer

A Cothi

A C

A Rhondda Fach

ondda F

awr

A Rhondda Fawr

A Rhondda

h / A Nedd

R Neath / A Nedd

R Neath / A Nedd

A Cynin

A Cyni

A C

ywyn

AC

ywyn

Cy

AC

ywWes

Wes

ster

n Cl

edda

udd

au

RRSHISSSNHENTTTTARAAAMRRARCACACC ESM NN RRMARR SS EEHHCARMARCARMARTHENSHIRE

ASSANAAAWWAWWSSW EEASWANS AS NNWSWANSSSWANSEA

ATHNEEEANNN HNEATH

ugugugu

chc

CC

RSHIRSESEKKOOOOROROPEMBR KKKK SHIRESOOBMP RR S EHKPEMBROKESHIRE

MilfordHaven

Aberdulais

Felindre

Brecon

25km0

Site 21.02

N

0 1km

Reproduced from the 2005 Ordnance Survey Explorer map with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeology Ltd 100002109

c

CotswoldArchaeology

Cirencester 01285 771022

Milton Keynes 01908 218320

Andover 01264 326549

w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.DATEREVISIONSCALE@A4

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BYAPPROVED BY

Milford Haven to Aberdulais pipeline

Felindre to Brecon pipeline

0-75m contour

75m contour

200m contour

400m contour

600m contour

Site location plan

South Wales Pipeline. Sites OEA 11 and 21.02 Land East of Cilsan, Llangathen, Carmarthenshire

9150DJBPJM 1

23-08-2013001:25,000

0 25m

pit 212005 containingEarly Neolithic flint

axe fragments2890-2620 cal. BC2880-2580 cal. BC

pit212007

2890-2620 cal. BC2880-2580 cal. BC

pit212009

pit212011

pit212013

pit212021

pit212025

pit212028

pit212029

pit212031

pit 212035 containingEarly Neolithic flint

axe fragments

pit212039

pit212056

pit212058

pit212037

ditch212001

burnt mound212055

1260-1040 cal. BC1220-1010 cal. BC

60095

22513

SNSN

pit212005

0 1m

pit212005

212006

40.75mAOD

NE SW

Section AA

0 0.5m

SNSN 602

225

N

0 100m1:5000

Site 21.02

evaluation trench21.3.T1

CotswoldArchaeology

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.DATEREVISIONSCALE@A3

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BYAPPROVED BY

N

N

Plan of Site 21.02 and detail plan and section of pit 212005

South Wales Pipeline. Sites OAE 11 and 21.02 Land East of Cilsan, Llangathen, Carmarthenshire

23-08-2013001:500 1:20 1:10

9150DJBPJM 2

Reproduced from the digital Ordnance Survey Explorer map with the permissionof Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeology Ltd 100002109 c

Cirencester 01285 771022

Milton Keynes 01908 218320

Andover 01264 326549

w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

e [email protected]

burnt mound


Late Neolithic

Bronze Age

linear features shown ongeophysical survey plot

pipeline centreline

south wales gas pipeline project sites oea11 and 21.02 ...€¦ · included site 21.02 and part of...

Documents