If you have any comments or new information about this record, please email us.

Summary - not yet available

Monument Type(s):

• BARROW (Bronze Age - 2500 BC to 701 BC)
• GULLY (Middle Bronze Age - 1600 BC to 1001 BC)
• PIT ALIGNMENT (Bronze Age - 2500 BC to 701 BC)
• RING DITCH (Early Bronze Age - 2500 BC to 1501 BC)
• BOUNDARY DITCH (Middle Bronze Age - 1600 BC to 1001 BC)
• BURIED SOIL HORIZON (Middle Bronze Age - 1600 BC to 1001 BC)
• FIELD SYSTEM (Middle Bronze Age - 1600 BC to 1001 BC)
• CREMATION CEMETERY (Bronze Age - 2500 BC to 701 BC)
• PIT (Bronze Age - 2500 BC to 701 BC)

Associated Finds:

• LITHIC IMPLEMENT (Early Mesolithic to Late Bronze Age - 10000 BC to 701 BC)
• BURIAL URN (Early Bronze Age - 2500 BC to 1501 BC)
• CREMATION (Early Bronze Age - 2500 BC to 1501 BC)
• SHERD (Early Bronze Age - 2500 BC to 1501 BC)

Associated Events:

• A14 Fieldwalking survey and evaluation, Ellington to Fen Ditton, 2009 (Ref: A14 09)
• Excavation at TEA 16, A14 Improvement Scheme, Cambridgeshire, 2016-2018

Full description

1. An archaeological evaluation was undertaken along the corridor for a proposed rerouting and widening of the A14 road between Ellington and Fen Ditton. The investigation identified 20 individual sites spanning from the Late Neolithic to Anglo-Saxon periods. A total of 41 trenches were excavated across Area M1, revealing an Early Bronze Age barrow monument including a complex of ring ditches and cremations overlain by mound material as well as later features truncating the mounds.

Stratigraphically the earliest of the exposed archaeological remains were that of a shallow ring ditch, with an estimated diameter of 19.6m. A possible opening orientated towards the southeast was shown by the presence of a possible rounded terminus which could not be investigated further due to an overlying in situ buried soil horizon. The ring ditch enclosed and was filled by the fills of a collapsed mound a maximum of 0.9m in surviving height and comprising of up-cast, generally pale sandy silts. A darker deposit of silty clay, potentially representing a turf deposit overlay the collapsed barrow deposits. The mound sealed a thin, compacted deposit of a potentially buried soil horizon. Two Neolithic flint blades were recovered from the fills of the ring ditch, although thought to be residual. Three pits or linear features were identified within the profile of Trench 118 as truncating the earlier mound/ mound collapse deposits. No use could be assigned to these features as a full extent in plan could not be seen, and no material culture was recovered from them. Following the seeming collapse of the mound and apparent accumulation of a turf layer, a second, deeper and wider ring ditch with an estimated diameter of 49.6m was dug, providing material for a central mound. The primary deposit of this secondary mound was a thick gravelly material immediately overlying the buried turf line of the primary barrow. A cluster of 12 cremation deposits (unexcavated) were identified within the eastern end of Trench 318; 2 of which contained vessels of Deverel Rimbury type. The cremation deposits were placed into pits which truncated a buried horizon as well as the underlying geology, suggesting that the buried soil horizon was associated with and surrounded the primary barrow. The slumping of the secondary mound appeared to have been partially the cause for the infilling of the outer ditch.

The two excavated slots (one within the west of Trench 318 and one within the south of Trench 318A) contained Middle Bronze Age pottery and Bronze Age flint. The fills of the western ditch slot were compacted silty clays with multiple lenses of slumping deposits whilst the southern slot fills were generally softer, more homogenous, moist fills, with occasional, thick visible slumping deposits. A contrast in the quantities of material culture recovered from the two comparable slots could be seen: the 1m wide slot within the western side of the ditch containing 4 sherds of pottery whilst the southernmost slot containing 22 sherds. The upper fills of secondary barrow, finally slumped, filled and sealed the ditch, although a still extant mound of at least 0.95m in height was preserved. Trench 317 was cut to expose any sub-surface features underlying the secondary barrow and the slumping deposits were exposed within the sections. Trench 317A crossed the highest area of preserved barrow material. Although it was not dug to expose geology, it stopped within barrow fills to preserve any in situ buried soil horizons. The recorded section of Trench 317A exposed the same sequence of primary mound collapse, the gravelly up cast, construction and slumping of the secondary mound. A narrow, roughly east-west aligned ditch, was located within the eastern end of Trench 318; truncating the cremation deposits within the eastern end of the trench as well as the secondary barrow material. A single sherd of pottery which although, non-diagnostic, but potentially of an Early Iron Age date, was contained within the fill of the ditch. This was likely to be associated with either the sequence of recut gullies/ ditches within Trench 315, or with the Middle Iron Age ditches/settlement areas located by Trenches 324, 327A, 328, 330A and 331.

Several other features were recorded as truncating the uppermost barrow deposits, likely to represent Medieval or post-Medieval furrows alongside a series of regular, potentially modern deep-plough scars seen to follow both an east-west and north-south alignment. Residual flintwork of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic date were identified from within both primary and secondary barrow ditches, and associated mounds.

Whilst no material culture was recovered from the numerous linear features and curvilinear gullies identified within Trench 315, immediately to the south of the barrows complex, it is curious to see that the quantity of material culture recovered from the south side of the in-filled barrow ditch was much higher than that recovered from the western slot of the same ditch. This suggests a settlement located to the south of the barrows with the possible curvilinear feature within Trench 315 being representative of the periphery of this settlement.

Also throughout Site 11, a series of linear features were found, largely undated by material culture, which could be placed onto a broadly north-east to south-west alignment. The only datable material culture to be recovered from any of these features was from the furthest east, including a comparatively large assemblage of Middle Bronze Age pottery. This linear feature, as well as suggesting a nearby Middle Bronze Age settlement, could indicate a general dating for the fieldsystem as a whole. The presence of a similarly wide north-west to south-east aligned linear feature within Trench 325 could suggest that together they formed the south-eastern and north-eastern sides of a more substantial outer boundary to the inner ditch system.

The environmental samples taken from the fills of the recut ditch suggested it to be contemporary with a phase of localised deforestation; also suggesting that the slope to the river was not intensively utilised for agriculture until the Middle Bronze Age. The lack of any definitive Bronze Age linear features truncating the barrow monuments suggests the location of the monument was respected within the working landscape.

No features were uncovered within the trenches of Area M1 that could be firmly dated earlier than the Early Bronze Age however flints of a Mesolithic and Early Neolithic date were identified within the Bucket Sampling survey. The highest concentration of blades and bladelets was from the presumed bank collapse of deeper boundary ditch within Trench 328, potentially reflecting a Bronze Age truncation of a Mesolithic/ Early Neolithic flint concentration closer to the river.

2. Archaeological investigations at TEA 16 as part of the A14 road improvement scheme identified a series of archaeological features from the Bronze Age through to the Iron Age.

Undated features comprised a pit alignment of 59 oblong and sub-circular pits on a northwest to southeast alignment extending for a length of 155m and beyond the limit of the excavation area. No dating evidence was recovered from these features but they were interpreted as certainly prehistoric and likely Bronze Age in date. Immediately north of the pit alignment was a partially surviving rectilinear enclosure comprising three sides measuring 70m in length north-northwest by south-southeast. Internal features within the enclosure comprised two pairs of post holes, three shallow pits and two further post holes. This feature was tentatively interpreted as Iron Age in date. Two linear ditches to the west of the barrow were also interpreted as prehistoric in date. A shorter pit alignment comprising 11 pits was recorded to the east of the barrow. This alignment comrpised five orientated ESE-WNW and six aligned northwest-southeast. Other associated features included a slight curving ditch 70m in length and a series of smaller gullies and pits.

The barrow was subject to full excavation at this stage with eight phases of activity recorded. The first phase of construction comprised the building up of the mound followed by the addition of the oval shaped enclosure measuring 36m by 19m. Phase 3 comprised the early infilling of the oval enclosure characterising a period of gradual erosion. Phase 4 comprised the construction of a larger ring ditch around the original mound. The ditch measured c5m in width with an upcast bank created. Phase 5 represented a period of clearing and/or recutting of the outer ditch. Phase six represents the primary backfill of the outer ditch and phase seven the deposition of 65 cremated remains within and without funerary vessels throughout the mound. Finally, phase eighter represents the recut through the outer ditch which remodelled the mound and truncated the cremations.

3. Aerial imagery show the circular enclosure during excavation

Smith, A. & Bowsher, D., 2019, A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire Archaeological investigations Volume 1: post-excavation assessment (Unpublished report). SCB74521.

Smith, A. & Bowsher, D., 2019, A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire Archaeological investigations Volume 2 Updated Project Design (Unpublished report). SCB74522.

Smith, A. & Bowsher, D., 2019, A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire Archaeological investigations Volume 3.1 Finds Assessment (non pottery) (Unpublished report). SCB74523.

Sutton, A., 2019, A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire Archaeological investigations Volume 3.2 Pottery assessment (Unpublished report). SCB74524.

Carty, N. & Knox, E., 2019, A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire Archaeological investigations Volume 3.3 Human Remains Assessment (Unpublished report). SCB74525.

Pipe, A. & Ewens, V., 2019, A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire Archaeological investigations Volume 3.4 Animal remains and molluscs assessment (Unpublished report). SCB74526.

Walker, A., 2019, A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire Archaeological investigations Volume 3.5 Plant and insect remains assessment (Unpublished report). SCB74527.

Taylor, D. & Spurr, G., 2019, A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire Archaeological investigations Volume 3.6 Geoarchaeology Assessment (Unpublished report). SCB74528.

<1> Patten, R., Slater, A., & Standring, R., 2010, Archaeological evaluation of the proposed A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton: 2009 (volumes I & II) (Unpublished report). SCB21630.

<2> Campbell, M., 2018, TEA 16 Summary Report (Unpublished report). SCB57213.

<3> Historic England, 2022, Historic England Aerial Photograph Explorer https://historicengland.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2626ed0c37484d96b8954dd33187084e, 33592_034 (Website). SCB74356.

Sources and further reading

Documents

Search results generated by the HBSMR Gateway from exeGesIS SDM Ltd.