See important guidance on the use of this record.

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

Summary

Evidence for a multi-phase settlement was recovered during an archaeological evaluation on land adjacent to Shepherd's Lane. Features dating from the Neolithic through to the Post-Medieval period were identified.

Location

Protected Status

• SHINE: Prehistoric irregular, quadrilateral enclosure with two widely spaced ditches and internal subdivisions north east of Higher Coombe Farm

Other References/Statuses: none recorded

Monument Type(s) and Dates

• SETTLEMENT (Early Neolithic to Post Medieval - 4000 BC to 1750 AD)

Full description

Ordnance Survey, 2013, MasterMap (Cartographic). SDV350786.

Haines, C, 2013, Shepherds Lane, Teignmouth, Archaeological Evaluation (Report - Evaluation). SDV351005.

Evidence for a multi-phase settlement was recovered during an archaeological evaluation on land adjacent to Shepherd's Lane. Features dating from the Neolithic through to the Post-Medieval were identified.
Two discrete features containing ceramics dating to the prehistoric period were identified. A small pit contained five sherds of Neolithic or Bronze Age pottery. The pit, which stood in apparent isolation, appeared to have been used for the disposal of burnt domestic waste. The absence of further prehistoric archaeological deposits in this location suggests that they were either not exposed by the evaluation or that they do not survive possibly due to truncation through intensive agricultural use of the site in the Roman period and by the employment of modern agricultural methods.
A posthole, containing a further sherd of Neolithic to Bronze Age pottery was recorded almost directly in the centre of the Roman enclosures. Whilst it is possible that is of prehistoric date and that further structural remains from this period were either not exposed by the evaluation or do not survive due to the intensive use of the site in the Roman period it seems more likely that the pottery, which was recovered from the top fill of the feature, is residual and the posthole Roman in date. The posthole was located in close proximity to other probable structural features of Roman date, in the form of possible beam slots or drip gullys cut into the base of a terrace.
Struck flints recovered from some of ditches could only be attributed a broadly prehistoric date. The more westerly of these ditches corresponded to a curving linear anomaly on the geophysical survey. It is possible this could represent the partial remains of an enclosure pre-dating the system seen in the northern part of the site.
A large quantity of middle Bronze Age pottery which may originate from a single vessel was recovered from one of the dtiches. The geophysical survey results suggest this ditch is respected by the Roman enclosure system - the Roman ditches are aligned both parallel and perpendicular to it. It is possible the Bronze Age pottery is residual in a feature originating in the Roman period but no Roman finds were recovered from the ditch and the pottery, which was dispersed throughout the ditch fill, was not abraded as is typical of residual sherds.
Romano-British buried remains of a large scale probable multi phased enclosure were identified in the northern part of the site. Substantial ditches were observed in all trenches in this area, targeted over linear anomalies identified by the geophysical survey. The enclosure appears to comprise a large outer ditch, and two successively smaller internal enclosures. This complex geometric organisation is typical of prehistoric and Romano-British homesteads.
A possible entrance in the north-eastern side of the enclosures was indicated by the geophysical survey results, demarcated by a possible ditched causeway. Possible ancillary enclosed areas were also recorded to the north and to the south-west of the main enclosure system. The presence of these appendages and apparent alterations to the enclosure may attest to use of the site for more than a single phase or over an extended period. It is not unusual for successive enclosures of this period to overlap one another resulting in such complex plans. The phasing was not investigated as part of the evaluation but the large quantities of pottery recovered from secure deposits in both the external, internal and possible ancillary enclosure ditches suggest the site was in use from the 2nd to 4th century AD. However, due to health and safety constraints lower fills could not be investigated, therefore an earlier date may be possible.
A re-cut of one of the internal enclosure ditches was observed. The silted fill of this re-cut contained a large quantity of 2nd-century pottery suggesting the event occurred when the enclosure was in one of its earliest phases of use and may also indicate the complex pre-dates the Roman period. The re-cut may represent a localised clearance of the ditch possibly due to the collapse of the bank which was observed lying along the north-western edge of the original ditch. It was not apparent whether this bank was located on the internal or the external side of ditch (23010) as it was not possible during the course of the evaluation, to establish whether this ditch was part of the same enclosure as the ditches seen in Trenches 16 and 19 to the north (16007 & 19002) or to ditch 25000 to the south. The survival of bank material in this location, suggests this part of the site has suffered less truncation than the rest of the enclosed area as no other evidence for banks associated with the enclosure ditches were observed elsewhere on site.
Structural remains located within the enclosed area were recorded. In Trench 22 two possible beam slots or drip gullys were observed in the base of what may be a terraced area. It is possible these remains pre-date the enclosures; the finds recovered from the silting of this terrace date to the same period as those found throughout the enclosures ditches. The posthole and possible stone surface observed in Trench 65 may also indicate the presence of structures internal to the enclosure.
It is possible that more substantial structures associated with the enclosure system may have existed but either do not survive or were not exposed by the evaluation. However, a lack of building stone or ceramic building materials recovered from the site suggests an absence of large scale structures constructed in the Roman tradition. Although the six fragmentary pieces of slate recovered could represent degraded roof slates, they possessed no features indicative of use for roofing and were too limited in quantity to be suggestive of the presence of a slate roofed structure. It is however noteworthy that small lumps of burnt clay which could represent daub and an iron nail were recovered All of these trenches are located within the southern part of the enclosed area from where no archaeological features relating to structures were recorded. These finds could attest to the presence of buildings of timber construction in this part of the enclosure evidence of which has been entirely destroyed by ploughing. However the aforementioned survival of the bank suggests this area has suffered less truncation than other parts of the complex.
In general the enclosure ditches appeared to have been well maintained and kept clear of debris. Evidence for only one incidence of the dumping of domestic waste in the ditches was found. However, a large probable refuse pit in was identified down slope, approximately 160 metres from the enclosure. The pit contained dumps containing both domestic and industrial waste including oyster, cockle and limpet shells, slag and residues from ironworking and ceramics dating to the 3rd century, when the enclosure was in use. It seems probable this pit was used not only for the disposal of refuse created at the enclosure but possibly also by other nearby settlement or centres of industry as no evidence for iron working was found in or near the enclosure. Furthermore the re-use of the lower stone of a rotary quern in the rough stone surface in Trench 65 indicates cereal processing may have been occurring nearby.
Four sided enclosures of this period such as this are not uncommon in Devon and though few have been excavated in recent times a number of similar sites with quadrilateral concentric ditches have been identified in the county notably through aerial reconnaissance in the 1980s. Such sites include, Pitt Farm, Mamhead and Kenton both of which are located within six miles, north-east of the site at Shepherd’s Lane. Examples of other Romano-British homesteads which have undergone excavation in Devon include the more simple rectilinear enclosures at Rewe Cross at Clyst Honiton along with the more similar substantial ditched enclosure identified at Aller Cross, Kingkerswell in 1993. This site is located only five miles to the south-west of the enclosure at Shepherd’s Lane and is comparable in scale, both in the size of the enclosure ditches and in the size of the enclosed area at approximately one hectare. However, unlike at Aller Cross, no firm evidence could be found at Shepherd’s Lane to support the presence of activity on site in the Iron Age or of the presence of substantial Romanised structures.
The complex at Shepherd’s Lane appears to have had a primarily agricultural function and probably represents a moderately sized farmstead. Any structures within the enclosed area are likely to have comprised small timber built buildings and it seems likely some of the auxiliary enclosed areas were used for the corralling and holding of livestock. Though few such sites have been excavated evidence suggests they are numerous in the immediate vicinity of this site and throughout Devon.
The evaluation revealed evidence for several removed post-medieval field boundaries recorded on the 1842 Tithe Map (CA 2012b). These boundaries were not excavated during the evaluation but appeared to comprise ditches or lynchets running east / west across the site. A number of post-medieval or modern field drains were also observed. Evidence for the post-medieval quarrying of Breccia was observed.
A layer of subsoil was recorded in most trenches and appeared to seal some archaeological features. It is possible that the areas without subsoil have suffered more significant truncation than those areas where the subsoil is present, probably as a result of modern agricultural practices. However, archaeological features were recorded directly underlying the modern plough soil in numerous trenches which may have suffered such truncation. No clearly defined areas where truncation appeared to have been particularly severe were identified as the trenches without subsoil were spread across the site, but a slight tendency toward more truncation in the trenches located further upslope in the northern half of the site, over and around the area of the enclosure was observed.
The results of the evaluation largely corresponded to anomalies identified through the analysis of crop-marks depicted on aerial photographs and identified by the geophysical survey. However a number of features were identified that were not identified prior to fieldwork. Such features were frequently overlain by a considerable overlying depth of colluvial material. It is possible more features survive below this material that were not identified by the geophysical survey and that lay outside the trenched areas. Archaeological deposits dating to the Roman period were seen to cut colluvial material and it is again possible that earlier features, i.e prehistoric ones, underlie these deposits.

Sources / Further Reading

Associated Monuments

Associated Finds

• FDV5320 - FIRED CLAY (Unknown date)
• FDV5319 - METAL OBJECT (Unknown date)
• FDV5322 - FLINT (Prehistoric - 698000 BC to 42 AD)
• FDV5318 - SHERD (Early Neolithic to XVIII - 4000 BC to 1800 AD)
• FDV5321 - ROTARY QUERN (Late Iron Age to Roman - 100 BC to 409 AD)
• FDV5324 - MARINE MOLLUSCA REMAINS (Roman - 43 AD to 409 AD)
• FDV5323 - METAL WORKING DEBRIS (Roman - 43 AD to 409 AD)

Associated Events

• EDV6116 - Archaeological Evaluation, Shepherds Lane Teignmouth (Ref: 12373)

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