Old Fold Manor Golf Club Archaeological Metal Detector Survey

Old Fold Manor Golf Club Old Fold Lane Hadley Green Barnet Hertfordshire EN5 4QN Archaeological Metal Detector Survey Planning Reference: 15/03873/FUL Sam Wilson University of Huddersfield November 2015 Old Fold Manor Golf Club Old Fold Lane Hadley Green Barnet Hertfordshire EN5 4QN Archaeological Metal Detector Survey prepared by Sam Wilson, Archaeologist, University of Huddersfield date 15/11/15 issue 01 No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission. © Sam Wilson e. samalexanderwilson@hotmail.co.uk © Sam Wilson Old Fold Manor Golf Club Archaeological Metal Detector Survey, Barnet, Hertfordshire CONTENTS SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 5 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 6 The site .............................................................................................................. 6 Historical and Archaeological background .......................................................... 6 Archaeological objectives ................................................................................... 9 Metal Detecting Methodology ............................................................................. 9 2. RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 12 3. DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................. 12 4. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 14 5. PROJECT TEAM ....................................................................................................... 14 6. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 15 Appendix 1 Old Fold Manor Metal Detector Survey November 2015 - Finds 3 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 Site location and survey area Figure 2 The site, showing grid points, transects walked and finds spread Figure 3 Location of the finds 4 © Sam Wilson Old Fold Manor Golf Club Archaeological Metal Detector Survey, Barnet, Hertfordshire SUMMARY Project Name: Old Fold Manor Golf Course Location: Barnet, Hertfordshire Site Code: OFM15 (to be confirmed) NGR: 524200 198000 Type: Metal Detector Survey Date: 2-6 November 2015 Location of Archive: Currently held at MOLA Offices An archaeological metal detector survey was undertaken by a battlefield archaeologist from the University of Huddersfield, assisted by MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) on land at the Old Fold Manor Golf Club, in an area of the golf course proposed for landscaping. The site lies within the Registered Battlefield of Barnet, fought on 14th April 1471. A principle aim of the survey was to identify any artefacts which may relate to the battle. A total of 73 artefacts of potential archaeological interest were recovered during the survey, none of which were thought to relate to the Battle of Barnet. Instead, they primarily represent accidental losses and artefacts spread by manuring in the post medieval period. 5 1. 1.1 INTRODUCTION In November 2015 a battlefield archaeologist from the University of Huddersfield, with assistance from MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology), carried out an archaeological metal detector survey at the Old Fold Manor Golf Club, Barnet, Hertfordshire (centred on NGR: 524200 198000) (Fig 1). The site lies within the Registered Battlefield of Barnet, fought in 1471. 1.2 The survey was carried out in accordance with standard archaeological methodology for the investigation of historical battlefields, as outlined by Foard (2012, 2013). The site 1.3 The site comprised a mown field used as a practice area for Old Fold Manor Golf Club, and is bounded by the golf course to the east, south and west and by Kitts End Farm to the north. Modern ground level near to the site lies at c. 120m aOD (above Ordnance Datum) at the south end of the field descending to c. 105m aOD at the north. The area of the site is included in planning application 15/03873/FUL for the whole golf course site which covers re-landscaping of areas of the golf course, new structures and a new road. The site is located in a field to be landscaped to create an enhanced practice area within the golf course. 1.4 The site is underlain by clay, silt and sand of the London Clay Formation, a sedimentary bedrock formed approximately 34 to 56 million years ago in the Palaeogene Period in a local environment previously dominated by deep seas. Superficial deposits of Stanmore Gravel formation are also recorded. These were formed up to three million years ago in the Quaternary Period in a local environment previously dominated by rivers (BGS 2015). Historical and Archaeological background 1.5 Evidence for the prehistoric, Roman and early medieval periods on the site is sparse and the site can be considered to have a generally low archaeological potential for all past periods of human activity, prior to the later medieval period. 1.6 The bulk of Old Fold Manor Golf Club lies within the nationally significant Historic Battlefield designation associated with the Battle of Barnet, one of the battles of the Wars of the Roses, which took place on 14th April 1471. 6 © Sam Wilson Old Fold Manor Golf Club Archaeological Metal Detector Survey, Barnet, Hertfordshire The Yorkist army led by Edward IV defeated the Lancastrian army led by the Earl of Warwick, who was killed at the battle, which was also notable for the early use of handguns and cannon. The application therefore affects a designated heritage asset of archaeological and historical interest, the registered site of the Battle of Barnet. This is the only registered historic battlefield in London and is specifically mentioned in Barnet’s Core Strategy Policy CS5 (Barnet London Borough 2012, 4.1.2). 1.7 The location of the designated battlefield area has been guided by contemporary and near contemporary accounts, which referred to a ‘broad green’ (interpreted as Hadley Green) on the high road to St Albans, also to a ‘hedgeside’ and an area of marshy ground. It was also principally guided by mid 20th century interpretations of the true battlefield location by notable military historians such as Alfred Burne, but backed up by very little other than circumstantial evidence, and certainly no archaeological proof. The mentioned landscape features have traditionally been interpreted as being located in the area of Monken Hadley, encompassing the bulk of the Old Fold Manor Golf Course, together with open land to the east. However, the location of the battle has been disputed. While contemporary accounts place the battle approximately one mile beyond High Barnet, associated with the St Albans Road, on a broad green, few other details are known. Von Wesel's account, written a matter of days after the battle, suggests that Edward positioned his men in an area of marshy ground. Furthermore, the battle is known to have been fought from the early morning onwards, in a heavy mist or fog, which confused combatants and may have confused any subsequent eye witness reports that contemporary chroniclers may have utilised. 1.8 Recent research has suggested that the location of the battle may lie to the north/north-east of the existing designated area (Warren, 2009). Early maps show the location of the battle to the north of Barnet, and the site; the placement of the monument to the death of the Earl of Warwick, constructed in 1740 on Hadley Green to the south-east of the site, may have concentrated opinion by 19th century historians that the battle took place in this vicinity. By the late 19th century the battle’s location had moved to Monken Hadley and Barnet, refinement of which contributed to the designation of the battlefield area by English Heritage (now Historic England) in 1995. Further research has established the location of the battle chapel within the western edge of Enfield Chase, on South Mimms Common (CgMs 2015, 21-22), and suggests the battle was fought to the north-east of the site, outside the existing designated area. 7 1.9 Possible battlefield-related archaeological artefacts identified within the site vicinity have included an undated cannonball and lead shot, found opposite Dury Road to the east of the site (Greater London Historic Environment Record MLO16475) and a cannonball found on Hadley Green to the south-east (Greater London Historic Environment Record ELO1229). Subsequent evaluation of a number of apparent 'cannon ball' finds from the vicinity of the battlefield, now held in Barnet Museum, suggests that they are unlikely to be from the battle (Glenn Foard, pers comm, 2014). However, three lead cannon balls, currently housed in Barnet Museum have been found by amateur metal detectorists within the Wrotham Park Estate, to the north east of the site, and these undoubtedly date from the battle as they are of a construction typically associated with late 15th century cannon balls and comparable with the large assemblage recovered from Bosworth battlefield (Foard and Curry, 2013). Such finds further suggest that the battle took place to the north of the Registered area. 1.10 The 1726 Old Fold Manor Estate map, the South Mimms Tithe map of 1842 and the 1863 Ordnance Survey map show the site as lying in the same field with similar boundaries during the 18th and 19th centuries. Old Fold Manor Golf Club was laid out in 1909 and the course opened in 1910 with many of the field boundaries removed during the 20th century. 1.11 The archaeological potential of the site for the later medieval period can be categorised as high, should it lie within the location of the Battle of Barnet, equally, the potential will be much lower should the battle have taken place elsewhere. Past post-depositional impacts upon archaeological remains have most probably been caused primarily by the layout of the existing golf course during the 20th century. However if the topsoil and subsoil above the natural deposits are not heavily disturbed these could contain metal finds associated with the battlefield if this historic event occurred within the area. 8 © Sam Wilson Old Fold Manor Golf Club Archaeological Metal Detector Survey, Barnet, Hertfordshire Archaeological objectives 1.12 Historic England recommended that an archaeological metal detector survey be undertaken on the practice area to determine if there are any finds present that indicate evidence of the battlefield on the site. 1.13 The objectives of the metal detecting survey was to provide information about the archaeological resource within the site, including its presence/absence, character, extent, date, integrity, state of preservation and quality. It aimed, as far as is reasonably possible, to determine the nature of the archaeological resource within a specified area using appropriate methods and practices (CIFA 2014). The results of the survey will inform the local planning authority of the site’s potential for archaeological remains, enabling them to determine the planning application and, where appropriate, to formulate an appropriate mitigation. 1.14 The survey followed the Standards and Code of Practice laid down by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIFA 2014), local and regional planning authority archaeology guidance, Historic England/GLAAS Archaeological Guidelines (Historic England 2015) where appropriate and research priorities established in the relevant regional research framework document. Additionally the Battlefield Trust endorses the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting produced by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. The metal detector survey has been designed to be minimally intrusive and minimally destructive to archaeological remains. Metal Detecting Methodology 1.15 The metal detecting survey was undertaken within a field at the northern edge of the golf course (see Fig 1) comprising an area c.50m north/south by c.100m east/west or c. 2.5ha in size. 1.16 The works were undertaken by the University of Huddersfield and MOLA. The University of Huddersfield team undertook the metal detecting and the MOLA Survey team established the grid for the survey and assisted where appropriate. MOLA specialists have assisted with identifying significant non-battlefield finds retrieved during the survey work. The survey methodology followed accepted techniques for the investigation of historic battlefields as outlined by Foard (2012, 2013). 9 1.17 The survey area was split into a series of parallel transects set out across the survey area at 2.5m intervals. The transects were set out using GPS equipment. A baseline for the transects was set up at the east of the site and twelve grid points established on the site, one in each corner of the area to be metal detected and four further points at the survey perimeter and four within the survey area to enable the transects to be laid out (see Fig 2). Transects were marked on the ground using temporary markers, including canes, coloured flags and ranging rods. All such markers were removed from site at the completion of each survey day. 1.18 Ground conditions for the survey were considered to be good, the grass being mown very short enabling the detector head to be brought very close to the surface to maximise recovery rates. They clayey soil, damp in most places, also enabled clear signals when artefacts were located. 1.19 The equipment used to carry out the survey consisted of a Minelab XTerra 705 metal detector, and GPS survey equipment. The Minelab X-Terra 705 metal detector is a highly sensitive system capable of several modes of operation and discrimination. 1.20 Metal detecting progressed along each transect by sweeping the search head as close to the surface as possible and allowing for approximately 30% overlap in order to produce a consistent sample. Each sweep covered a width of c. 2m (1m each side of the centre of the transect). 1.21 An appropriate working offset was employed to either side of any upstanding metal fences, powerlines or other obstructions, in order to avoid unnecessary interference, as appropriate. 1.22 The survey targeted non-ferrous metals only, due to the potential for a large number of ferrous metal signals across most land. However, had concentrations of medieval or earlier material been identified, further detecting for all metals may have been necessary in those specific areas. However, no such concentrations of artefacts were located. 1.23 Artefacts were removed from the ground using a trowel and spade. Care was taken to fill in and level all holes after the removal of material. No artefacts were removed from a depth greater than the ploughsoil (c. 300mm). All metal-detected finds of potential archaeological interest were plotted using a GPS. 10 © Sam Wilson 1.24 Old Fold Manor Golf Club Archaeological Metal Detector Survey, Barnet, Hertfordshire Artefacts plotted with GPS were labelled with a unique ID number (see Appendix 1). They were stored in breathable plastic bags or wrapped in acid-free tissue and placed in plastic cases, as appropriate. Artefacts of undoubted modern date were collected and bagged together by transect and a single ID number allocated (see Appendix 1). This was done to gauge the ‘background noise’ within each transect and determine if there were any factors which may be affecting artefact recovery rates. Typical levels of ‘background noise’ were encountered, during the survey and nothing which was deemed to have a detrimental affect on artefact recovery. 1.25 The University of Huddersfield and MOLA will comply fully with the provisions of the Treasure Act 1996 and Treasure (Designation) Order 2002 and the Code of Practice referred to therein. 11 2. 2.1 RESULTS This section provides an overview of the notable metal detector survey results (Figure 3). All recovered finds of archaeological significance are detailed within Appendix 1. These results should be examined in conjunction with (Figure 3) which illustrate the spatial deposition of the artefacts. All finds discussed are highlighted in bold within the text (1, 2, etc). Finds 2.2 A total of 73 artefacts of potential archaeological interest were recovered from the survey area. Principally these consisted of copper alloy objects, but included a number of lead, pewter and silver objects. All finds are detailed within Appendix 1. 2.3 3. 3.1 No finds were recovered that were thought to be related to the Battle of Barnet. DISCUSSION No finds were recovered that are likely to date from the Battle of Barnet. Whilst it is not possible to discount the current Registered Battlefield as the true location of the battle based upon this small survey area, it is possible to conclude that the site did not play a crucial role in the landscape of the battle, and indeed may have played no role at all. 3.2 The recovered finds assemblage simply represents a background of occupation in the vicinity of the site during the post medieval period and are likely the result of accidental losses and material spread over the field during manuring. Some finds clearly relate to the 20th century use of the site as part of the golf course. No obvious distribution patterns can be noted from the location of the finds, emphasising their nature as chance losses. 3.3 A number of fragments of shrapnel were identified amongst the 'junk' finds. The likely origin of these is probably an anti-aircraft battery in the vicinity of the site, which presumably defended London during the Blitz. Anti-aircraft shells would explode at altitude, showering their shrapnel over a wide area. 12 © Sam Wilson Old Fold Manor Golf Club Archaeological Metal Detector Survey, Barnet, Hertfordshire 3.4 Coins Julian Bowsher, MOLA Numismatist All of the pieces remain uncleaned and in most cases are also corroded. Each piece has been thoroughly examined but Identification for many remains tentative. Of the 31 specimens presented, Two (20, 63) turned out to be buttons. The remaining numismatic items are all copper-alloy except nos 43 and 51 are silver. Of the coins, the largest denomination is a silver shilling of William III minted in York dated to the last years of the 17th century 51. The next denomination down is a heavily battered sixpence of Queen Victoria but its exact date cannot be determined due to its poor condition 43. The rest are clearly pieces of small change with the dominant denomination the halfpenny. These largely date to the late 17th to 18th centuries 22, 46, 53, 62, 70, 72, though 54 might be of George I and 39 is definitely of George II. What might be an earlier, 17th century, halfpenny 35 is puzzlingly crude. A crisis in the 18th century led to the proliferation of counterfeit halfpennies. The probable examples here are too dirty and corroded to be sure but they are generally crude around the edges and weigh less that genuine examples; 3, 5, 45, 61 and 66 almost certainly had a contemporary circulation as genuine halfpennies. Farthings were the lowest denomination and only introduced in copper-alloy at the beginning of the 17th century - 23 might be one of these early examples. The remaining examples are 17th - 18th century 11, 33, 49, 49 as well as a 19th century example 41. Although a higher denomination, the one threepence found 71 is by far the most modern piece in the collection, dating to 1937-1952. There are six pieces that may be late early post medieval jettons or tokens 36, 48, 56 and 73, though 28 and 64 are thicker and cruder and may be later tokens. In conclusion, there are no positively identified pieces contemporary with the battle of Barnet though it might repay cleaning and conserving the tentatively early pieces. The bulk of this numismatic assemblage dates to the late 17th and 18th centuries. 4. CONCLUSION 4.1 The survey was undertaken in order to assess whether any material relating to the Battle of Barnet was present within the Site. No such material was found. 13 4.2 The finds represent the background noise of sustained occupation in the vicinity of the site during the post medieval period. No finds definitely pre-dating the post medieval period were recovered. An assessment of the coins has provided some evidence of the circulation of counterfeit coinage in the 18th century, although this has limited 4.3 heritage significance in terms of archaeological evidence. It is thought unlikely that the site played a role in the landscape of Barnet battlefield, and would have been very peripheral to the battle, if involved at all. Therefore, based upon the recovered finds assemblage, the need to undertake additional metal detecting, seems unlikely. 5. PROJECT TEAM 5.1 Metal detecting was undertaken by Sam Wilson of the University of Huddersfield. Further assistance was provided by Derek Seeley, MOLA Project Manager and the MOLA survey team. The finds were assessed by Derek Seeley, Julian Bowsher and Lyn Blackmore. The report was written by Sam Wilson. 5.2 Additional thanks must go to the Old Fold Manor Golf Club for their assistance during the survey, particularly in the provision of a golf buggy for carrying equipment. Thanks are also due to CgMs Consulting and Woodland Environmental for commissioning the survey and to Sandy Kidd at Historic England for advice during the consultation period. 6. REFERENCES Barnet London Borough 2012, Barnet’s Local Plan (Core Strategy), Development Plan Document BGS (British Geological Survey) http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geology 2015 Geology of Britain viewer_google/googleviewer.html Viewer Accessed November 2015 CgMs. 2015 Old Fold Golf Club, Old Fold Lane, Hadley Green, Barnet EN5, Archaeological Impact Assessment (First draft for comment) Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, (CIFA), 2014 By-Laws, Standards and Policy Statements of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, Standards and guidance 14 © Sam Wilson Old Fold Manor Golf Club Archaeological Metal Detector Survey, Barnet, Hertfordshire Foard, G. 2012 Battlefield Archaeology of the English Civil War. BAR British Series 570, Oxford: Archaeopress Foard, G., Curry, A. 2013. Bosworth 1485. A Battlefield Rediscovered, Oxford: Oxbow Books Historic England 2015 Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service, Guidelines for Archaeological Projects in Greater London Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice (2nd Revision) 1996, DCMS Treasure (Designation) Order 2002, TSO Warren, B. 2009 Reappraisal of the Battle of Barnet 1471, Potters Bar: Potters Bar and District Historical Society 15 Appendix 1 Old Fold Manor Metal Detector Survey November 2015 - Finds Object No Fig 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Description Date Metal type Button, circular undecorated Perforated oval disc Coin/plain disc Lead fragment/offcut Coin/plain disc Cylindrical object Button, circular undecorated Buckle Mount with 2 studs on back Porringer handle Coin/plain disc Crotal bell fragment Oval pellet/weight Lead shot Buckle Buckle Thick lead disc with curved edge Buckle Tee peg Button, circular decorated Buckle Coin Coin sub-circular lead perforated disc Buckle Spoon Lead shot Coin Stud Buckle Button Coin Coin Buckle & pin Coin Coin Buckle Machine stand foot Coin Round ended broken fragment Coin Coin Buckle Button Coin Coin Bale Seal Coin Coin Crotal bell Coin Buckle Coin Coin Disc Coin Sub-rounded disc Buckle Lead shot Cutlery handle Coin Coin 18th-19th Cu alloy 18th-19th Cu alloy Mid 18th c Cu alloy 17th-19th Lead Mid 18th c Cu alloy 17th-19th Lead 18th-19th Cu alloy/tin 19th/20th? Cu alloy 18th-19th Cu alloy 17th-19th Lead Late 17th c Cu alloy 18th-19th Cu alloy 17th-19th Lead 17th-19th Lead 19th/20th? Cu alloy/iron 19th/20th? Cu alloy/iron 17th-19th Lead 19th/20th? Cu alloy 20th c Bronze 19th c Cu alloy 19th/20th? Cu alloy 17th-19th Cu alloy 1613-49 Cu alloy 17th-19th Lead 19th/20th? Cu alloy 17th-18th Pewter 17th-19th lead 16th-18th Cu alloy 17th-19th Cu alloy 18th-19th Cu alloy 18th-19th Cu alloy 17th ? Cu alloy 16th-17th? Cu alloy 19th/20th? Cu alloy 1729-39 Cu alloy 19th Cu alloy 19th/20th? Cu alloy 18th-19th Cast Iron 1820's Cu alloy 18th-19th Lead 1820's Cu alloy 19th c Silver 19th/20th? Cu alloy 18th-19th Cu alloy 17th-18th Cu alloy 17th-18th Cu alloy 17th-18th lead 17th? Cu alloy 18th Cu alloy 18th-19th Cu alloy 1695-1699 Silver 19th/20th? Cu alloy/iron 17th-18th Cu alloy 18th Cu alloy Lead 15th-17thc Cu alloy 18th-19th Lead 19th/20th? Cu alloy 17th-19th Lead 18th-19th Pewter 18th Cu alloy 17th-18th Cu alloy Size Condition Comment 23mm diameter 68mm x 50mm 28mm dia, 1mm thick 26mm x 16mm x 5mm 28mm dia, 1mm thick 29mm long, 18mm diameter 25mm diameter 30mm x 24mm 55mm diameter, studs 7mm diameter - 7mm high 57mm wide, 30mm high (broken edges) 24mm diameter, 1mm thick 31mm diameter 28mm x 20mm x 12mm thick with a flat base 15mm/1/2" diameter 25mm wide x 18mm deep, 19mm (3/4") internal width 40mm wide x 41mm deep, 24mm internal width 28mm diameter x 8mm thick 30mm wide x 28mm deep x 28mm internal width 45mm (1¾" high) 27mm diameter 36mm wide x 36mm deep x 21mm internal width 26mm diameter 17-18mm diameter 31-36mm diameter, 5mm thick, 4mm (1/8") circular hole 57mm long x 40mm wide x 29mm internal width 40mm max surviving width. Handle circular 5mm diameter 17mm diameter 26mm diameter 18mm long x 10mm diameter at ends, reducing to 5mm at centre 38mm long x 40mm wide x 22mm internally 19mm diameter with small loop 5mm diameter 22mm diameter 21mm diameter 22mm long x 30mm deep x 21mm internally 30mm diameter, 2.5mm thick 25mm diameter 25mm wide x 31mm high x 23mm internally 42mm wide reducing to 34mm wide and 11mm thick 28mm diameter 26mm long, 20mm wide, 4mm thick 21mm diameter 20mm diameter 33mm wide x 39mm deep x 29mm internally 21mm diameter, broken loop on rear 27-28mm diameter 27-28mm diameter top XXX above m bottom plain top unclear bottom INL LE.I 20mm diameter 25mm diameter 31mm diameter, 2 circular perforations upper half, 2 joined across split in lower half William 111 silver shilling, 1695-9 York mint 24mm x 34mm x 25mm internally 28mm diameter 27mm diameter 21mm diameter, 1.5mm thick 21-23mm diameter Sub-circular 41mm diameter x 3mm thick 31mm x 45mm x 35mm internally 17mm diameter 63mm long (broken) x 18mm wide reducing to 9mm at the break. Up to 4mm thick. 27mm diameter 26mm diameter average good very corroded average very corroded good good good average incomplete poor poor fair good incomplete incomplete laminating Incomplete fair corroded fair corroded corroded good good fragment good corroded fair good good corroded corroded corroded corroded corroded poor good corroded fair corroded corroded fair corroded corroded corroded good corroded corroded fair very worn corroded poor poor average corroded fair poor good broken corroded corroded broken loop 6 Holes 1/4"(7mm) diameter - repair patch? Probably a counterfeit halfpenny Trapezoidal, flat back, slightly rounded upper face and sides Probably a counterfeit halfpenny ? Roller with hollowed ends/?weight Flat disc with tinned surface/broken loop Complete small rectangular cu alloy frame/remains of iron pin plain disc - fitting for machinery Openwork handle with part of bowl rim. Missing termal lobe Illegible - possibly late 17th century farthing 30% complete plain oval rounded pellet with flat base musket ball Complete small sub-rectangular Cu alloy frame with recessed bar/remains of iron pin Complete D-shaped frame with broad sides curving down to the bar. Pin missing Plain unperforated disc Complete D-shaped frame with recessed bar Naked lady tee peg Decoration illegible - lettering suggests 19th c Complete D-shaped frame with expanded, angled outer end recessed bar Possibly 17th-18th C halfpenny. Very worn Possibly an early 17th century (c1613-49) farthing. Almost completely worn 7mm square impression around hole on one side Complete U-shaped frame with broad outer end, sides curving down to bar, pin missing part of oval bowl and handle with rat tail junction on back. No decoration crude shape-uncertain Dumbell form with flat surface at one end, rounded at the other. Complete square frame with broad sides, curving slightly down to the bar, roller at outer end, pin missing Plain, complete with integral loop probably a late 17th-18th c farthing late 17th-18th c farthing Complete small sub rectangular cu alloy frame with iron pin around the recessed bar ? 17th c halfpenny - but quite heavy ?light & traces of design suggest a jetton/token 16th-17th c Complete small sub rectangular cu alloy frame with iron pin around the recessed bar L shaped foot and leg broken 40mm above the base. Central raised ridge up external face George II 1729-39 (young head) Complete rectangular cu alloy frame with recessed bar George IV 1820-30 farthing Victoria - mutilated silver sixpence Flat disc button, loop broken, undecorated ?17th-18th century counterfeit halfpenny Proabably late 17th-18th c halfpenny complete double seal with lettering on both sides. Needs more work to interpret Probably a 17th c token (very thin) Farthing complete but for broken loop Complete small sub rectangular cu alloy frame with traces of iron pin around the recessed bar Halfpenny - late17th-18th c Halfpenny - possibly George I undecorated or inscribed Possibly a token Complete rectangular cu alloy frame with recessed bar moulded decoration on upper surface - possibly a model for casting in silver or other metal Counterfeit halfpenny Possibly late 17th early-18th c halfpenny 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Button Coin Buckle Coin Broken oval disc Foil cap Porringer Handle Coin Coin Coin Coin 18th-19th 16th-18th 19th/20th? 18th 17th-19th 19th/20th? 17th-19th 1820-30 1937-52 17th-18th 15th-17thc NON-RELEVANT MATERIAL Fig 2 Cu alloy Cu alloy Cu alloy Cu alloy Lead ? Pewter Cu alloy Cu alloy Cu alloy Cu alloy 17mm diameter 27mm diameter 32mm x 35mm x 26mm internally 28mm diameter 38mm diameter x 3mm thick 17mm diameter 62mm long x 55mm wide 28mm diameter 22mm diameter - polygonal 28mm diameter 27mm diameter Transect 1 Fe-2, Cu-2, Pb-1, coin-1 2 Fe-2, Cu-4,Pb-4, coins-2 3 Fe-1,Pb-2, coins-3, ball marker -1 4 Fe-2,Pb-6, coins-2, bottle top-1 5 Fe-1, Cu-1, Pb-5, coin -1 6 Fe-2, Pb-4, Ball marker -1 7 Cu-1, Pb-2 8 Cu-2, Pb-1 9 Fe-1, Cu-3, Pb-1, 1 coin frag 10 Fe-1, Cu-1, Pb-2, coin-1, Al-1 11 Fe-2,Pb-2, Coin-1,ball marker-1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Pb-2, coin-1 Cu-1, Fe-1 Fe-1, Pb-4 Pb-2, coin-1, ?ball marker-1 Fe-2, Pb-2, coin-1 Fe-1, Pb-3, Cu-1 Pb-2, Cu-4 coins-2 19 20 21 22 23 Pb-5 Cu -1 Pb -1 Al- 2 Cu-1,Fe-3, Pb-1 24 25 26 27 Al- 2 Cu-1, Pb-3, coin-1 Pb-2, Coin-1 Fe-2, Al-2, 1 ball marker, 1 metal cover for cork bottle stopper Fe-4, Pb-1 Pb-1, Al-1 Cu-3, Al-1, Coin-1 Pb-2, None None None Cu-2, Al-1, Coin-1 Coin-1 Fe-1, Pb-3 Coin-1 Pb-1, Coin-1 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Iron washer, circular wire loop, Lead plug, copper ferrule(broken) and scrap, 1p coin 1 Iron machine part, 1 screwdriver handle, 3 lead scraps, 1 tile bracket, 3 copper scraps 1 .303 cartridge case, 1928 Eire penny, cut half new p Iron flat bracket with 2 screw holes, 1 rolled up perforated lead strip, 1flat perforated lead strip, 1 modern ball marker (Schroders) 1856 Napoleon III 10 cents, 1942 1 Franc alloy coin, 1new pence 3 lead cylinders, 2 lead scraps, 1 lead square, 2 iron scraps, 1screw top, 2 x 1p coins 1 lead pipe, 3 lead scraps, 1 lead flange, 1 copper fragment, 1 1825 George IV silver shilling Lead scrap, folded lead strip, cut lead fragment, fragment of moulded decorative piece, 1 iron scrap, 1 machine part. I modern ball marker - The K Club 2 lead scraps, 1 Cu cylindrical handle fitting for square tanged file or trowel 1 cut lead scrap, 1 Cu fragment, 1 Cu stud in leather 1 Fe machine part, 1 Cu bracket, 1 Cu point ? Tang, 1 Cu electrical component, 1 cut new pence 1 Fe circular fragment, 1 lead scrap, 1 lead plug, 1 small Cu chest/cupboard lock, 1half new pence, 1 ring pull 1 Fe strap hook, 1 circular fragment, 1 lead scrap, 1 lead hollow cylinder, 1 1862 halfpenny, 1 ball marker - Woodhall Spa 1 cut lead strip,1 cut lead rectangle, 1971 new half penny Cu fragment, Fe washer Fragment of circular Fe object, 2 lead scraps, ?small Lead pot & lid Decorated circular lead cap, 1 lead fragment, 1 cut new half penny, Cu Ball marker? 2 lead scraps, 1 Fe bracket, 1 Fe fitting, 1 coin ?William IV penny 1 lead offcut, 2 lead scraps, 1 iron fragment, 1 circular brass base or door/drawer handle 1 lead offcut, 1 lead scrap, 1 brass ring, 1 brass stair rod bracket, 1 brass picture hook, 1 hollow cylindrical machine part, 2 - 1 new pence coins 3 lead offcuts, 2 lead blobs 1 set of cuff links 1 lead blob 1 crushed drinks can, 1 ring pull 1 oval brass gas tap, 1 lead offcut, 1 perforated Fe strip, 1 Fe fragment, 1 sash window cord pulley 1 ring pull, 1 circular threading eye for plastic or canvas sheets 1 cylindrical object fragment, 1 folded lead strip, 2 lead fragments,1 George V halfpenny 2 lead fragments, 1 George V halfpenny 2 iron scraps, 2 fragments of crushed drinks can, 1 ball marker (Bonner), 1 metal cap for cork stopper off a small Bells whisky bottle 3 Fe scraps, 1 small steel threaded tube, 1 lead strip 1 Lead scrap, 1 crushed drinks can 2 copper scraps, 1 picture hook, 1 aluminium ring pull, 1 new pence cion 2 lead scraps 1 cu offcut, 1 cu fragment, 1 ring pull, 1x 10 newpence coin -1971 cut fragment of a 1 new penny coin Iron ring - 60mm diameter, 10mm thick, 3 lead fragments 1 new penny coin Lead fragment, 1 old penny coin - illegible corroded corroded corroded poor corroded corroded fair corroded corroded corroded corroded broken loop on back crude shape-uncertain Complete D-shaped frame with recessed bar Counterfeit halfpenny - mid 18th c Plain surfaces? crushed foil cap for bottle/container? heart shaped openwork handle with part of bowl rim Halfpenny - late17th-18thc Threepenny bit - GeorgeVI 1937-52 Halfpenny - probably late 17th-18th c ?jetton 15th-17th c © MOLA 2015 the site area not accessible accessible survey area 0 scale 1:10,000 300m Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright and database right Fig 1 Site location and survey area BARN1087EVAL15#01 l l l l E l l Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright and database right l E 205/460 l l E l l l l l l l l 39 sect Tran l l 205/540 l l 5 ect 3 Trans ct 37 e s n Tra 205/400 l l l E 8 ect 2 Trans l l 230/460 2 ect 1 Trans 4 1 ect Trans 6 ect 1 s n a Tr 8 t c e 1 Trans ct 20 e s n 2 Tra ect 2 Trans 24 t c e Trans ct 26 e s n Tra l l El 230/540 l l l l l l l l E l l l l l l 0 6 ect 3 Trans t 38 c e s Tran BARN1087EVAL15#02 l l 255/460 l l l l l E 280/460 l l l l l l l l l E 255/540 l l l ect 8 Trans 1 ect 1 Trans 13 t c e Trans 5 ect 1 Trans t 17 c e Trans 9 ect 1 Trans 1 ect 2 s n a r T 3 ect 2 s 5 Tran ect 2 n 7 a r T s ect 2 Trans 30 t 29 Transect c e Trans 197950 198000 198050 198100 198150 524150 ll l E l l l l E 280/600 l E l ect 5 Trans 10 197900 524200 280/612 34 sect Tran 32 sect Tran 280/540 l l 524250 33 31 sect sect Tran Tran ect Trans Fig 2 The site, showing the transects walked during the survey and the spread of finds 40m scale 1:1,250 E 280/400 © MOLA 2015 ect 2 ect 1 Trans Trans ct 4 3 t ec Transe Trans ect 6 Trans ect 7 Trans ect 9 Trans © MOLA 2015 524150 524200 524250 1 l 2 21 22 l l l 63 4 l l 3 l 64 23 l 5 l 198100 l 6 l 24 l 25 l 26 l 27 l 28 49 l 65 l l 50 l 31 9 l 66 l l 29 198050 l 10 l 33 l 67 l 30 l 52 l 59 53 l l l 32 l 8 7 51 l l l54 55 l 11 16 l l 12 34 68 198000 l l 41 56 l 35 l 58 l ll13 14 l l 36l l 69 l 15 57 40 l l 37 38 39 l l l 60 l 42 l 62 61l 17 l l 43 18 l 44 48 l l 197950 l 70 l 71 l l72 46 47l l 45 l 19 l 20 l 73 l 0 scale 1:1,000 30m Fig 3 Location of the finds BARN1087EVAL15#03