An:91aaa|agioalDesK—Basad Assasmern in Advance of Development 0! land at The Cedars, flridge. Kent 6. ARCHAOLOGICAL POTENTIAL ................................................................................ .‘ 18 5.1 Palaeolithic, Mesoiithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age 6.4 Anglo-Saxon ............................................................................................... ..21 6.5 Medieval .................................................................................................... .,21 6.6 Post~Mec|ieva! ............................................................................................ ..21 7‘ IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................. .4. ........ ‘. 22 7.1 Existing Impacts ......................................................................................... ..22 7.2 Proposed Impacts ................................ .................................. ............. ..22 8. MSTIGATJON ........................................................................................................... ‘.23 9. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... ..23 9.1 Archive ................................................................................................... .,23 9.2 Reliabmtv/iimitations of sources ............................................................... ..24 9.3 Copyright .................................................................................................... ..24 10. REFERENCES 8: BIBLIDGRAPHV .. .......................................................................... "24 Are‘uaaaiog':a' Desk—Based Assessmem an Adwnca of Develapmsnt oi land ax The cedars, Bridgei Kent Plate 1. View of the Site NW Plate 2. View of the Site E Plate 3. View ofthe Site E Plate 4. View of the Site NW Plate 5‘ View of the site NW Plate 6. View of the Site Plate 7. Google Earth 1940 Plate 3. Gougle Earth 1960 Plate 9. Gnogle Earth 1988 Plate 10‘ Gougle Earth 2013 Plate 11. Aerial view c.1960 Plate 12. Aerial view c.1960 Plate 13. Aerial view c.1960 Plate 14. Andrews Dury map 1769 Plate 15. 05 County map 1801 Plate 16. Vine map 1887 Plate 17. US map 1980 Fig.1 Fig.2 Fig,3 Fig.4 Fig.5 Fig.6 OS Historic mapping 1873 OS Historic mapping 1898 OS Historic mapping 1907 05 Historic mapping 1955 05 Historic mapping 1967 OS Histaric mapping 1993 List of Mates List of Figures iii Archaeological Desk~Based ktsessnemin Advance of Davalapmem vi land a|The Cedars. Eridge. Kem Archaeological Desk-Based Asessmem in Advance of Proposed Develnpment of land at The Cedars, Higham lane, Bridge, Kent NGR: 618869 153791 1 SUMMARY swale & Thames Survey Company ($WATArchaealogy) has been commissioned to carry out an archaeological ales k~based assessment in advance of the proposed development of residential dwellings on land at The Cedars, Higham Lane, Bridge, Kent as part of the planning application submitted by Murston Construction Ltd. This Desk Based Assessment examines the wide variety of archaeological data held by Kent County Council and other sources. Based on this data and the site visit the potential for archaeological sites either an or in the near vicinity of the proposed development can be summarised as: 0 Prehistoric: Moderate - Romano-British: Low - Anglo-Saxon and Medieval: Moderate - Pashmedieval: Law The Desk Based Assessment concludes that: 4 The site has a maderate potential for Prehistoric remains based on aerial photography of the site and its surrounding landscape - Angla—5axon barrows astride a Roman mad have been fauna‘ to the west of the site - To the south west of the af the site is the remains of an enigmatic Roman monument which served as a foci forAnglo-Saxon burials which may continue east to the proposed development site The site lies within the civil parish of Bridge. It comprises of an area af2915 sqm and is located to the rear of 3 8: 5 Sridge Dawn and to the north-west of Highland Court Cottages located in Higham Lane {Plate 10 82 Figure 6). Ai'|>haeolog'rcalDc5kv68sed Assesernont in Advanced Desinlopineni or land B! The Cedars. Bridge. Kent 2 INTRODUCTION SWAT Archaeology has been commissioned by Murston Construction Ltd to carry out an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment to supplement is planning application for the development of the site situated at The Cedars, Higl-ram Lane, Bridge in Ken’: (Figure 6). The report has accessed various sources of information to identify any known heritage assets which may be located within the vicinity of the Proposed Development Area. The site is centered on National Grid Reference 618869 153791. Archaeological investigations, both recent and historic have been studied and the information from these investigations has been incorporated in the assessment. The proposed development area (FDA) is located on high ground overlooking to the north-west the village of Bridge which sits astride the Nailbourne Stream (Plate 14). Recent archaeological investigations in Bridge village by SWAT Archaeology have established Bridge has a Roman foundation. The Roman road connecting Canterbury and Dover to London passes to the west of the proposed development site (PDA). On the west side of the Roman road (now the A2) there is a Scheduled Anglo-Saxon cemetery and further down slope to the west a unique hexagonal feature excavated by Dr Paul Wilkinson in 2006 and shown to be Roman but which also became the focus of rich Anglcvsaxon burials of which nine out of108 were excavated (Wilkinson 2003: www kais.r;o.'.)l. reports), Further down slope and to the south recent geophysical survey and analysis by Cambridge University has indicated a potentially important archaeological landscape that includes Roman buildings and this report can be accessed at: w\.vw,arclrcamac/resvzarcii prt;iears/Canterhuryhimerlaraof Chp~imagn1i/bolt 12- rrrpc-"t~j 3r1«201:’3 -smaileripdf immediately to the west of the PDA the postwar housing estate was siariad in 1961 {Plate 13). Dr Mary Watson undertook the archaeoiogical investigation, The area of Watsorfs academic interest was being developed as a housing estate and the site lay in the path of a road which was being prepared. Two rubbish pits which were Amneealvglcal Desk-Based Assesmem ill Advanced De/eloprwental Oalid alTI1e Cedar: Bridge. Ken! eficavaied yielded pre~Roman pottery, including ‘a Swarling type pedestal base and a handle from a Mediterranean type imported in Bslgic times, a are‘ Roman bronze fibula and other bronze fragments, a broken speculum coin, Allen Class l, and domestic animal bones, The area has now been completely developed, but the excavator, Dr, Mary Watson, who retains the find‘; has not, as yet, published a report, In addition archaeological works just to the northeast of the PDA on the Bridge By» pass were undertaluzn by the Canterbury Archaeological 5(.lCi&;'l.V and Canterbury Archaeological Trust in 19664974 (Piate 17). Although the work was funded by gram from the Department of the Environment and an interim report published by Nigel is/lacpherson»Grant with an emphasis on the prehistoric pottery in Archaeologia Cantiana Vol. XCVi, 1980, no full report has been published. It is understood that the region’ was to be published in two parts. Part1. Prehistoric, ami Pan 2 which would have covered the later Roman and Anglo-Saxon cemeteries‘ lt would also liaveincludeci a section on settlement and land-use at Sridge including synthesising the evidence presented in both parts of the regions. it is more than unfortunate the’: two major areas of arnlieeological investigation, one by Dr Mary Watson on the adjacent housing estate and the other by Canterbury Archaeological Trust on the Bridge By-pass have not been published. This report is a desk-based appraisal from known cartographic, photographic and archaeoiogical sources and is a research led statement on the archaeological potential of the proposed development. it may be ihat intrusive investigations such as an Archaeological Evaluation with machine cut trial trenching could be requested by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) as a Planning Condition. Rmlraenlogicalflesi-Based Assessment in Advanced Dorelzspmsnl oi larlfl at The cedars Brfige. Kurt 2.1 Geology and Topography The Geological Survey of Great Britain (150,000) has been consulted and shows that the proposed development site lPDA} sits on the North Downs which consists of Upper Chalk, aithoiigln geologically the Downs consist of the Lower, Middle and Upper Chalks. Most of the Downlarid in the Bridge area is underlain by the Upper Chalk, with the lower strata (Lower Chalk) oulzcroppirig on the scam and valley slopes. The Lower Chalk has a high clay content, qualifying almost as Marl. The Middle Chalk is more pure and whiter, and being llarder resists erosion better. Upper Chalk is purer still, and contains large quantities of flint which an erosion turns into Clay--wilh~Flints. Water is scarce today on the Downs although it is thought there was a higher water table during the first millennium. The only river close to the study area is called the Nailbourne which runs intermittently in the valley below the PDA (Figure 00} flowing north-west until it becomes the Little Slour in the vicinity of \/siingriam. The soil on the Downs is poor, shallow and calcareous, and given the lack of water it is not surprising that the Downs have seen sparser settlement than the valleys below. The average OD height of the PDA is 74m.OGmAODi 2.2 Planning Background The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) Policy 12 is the relevant policy for the historic environment: 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment 12.6. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. in doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. in developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account: 0 the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; Arcivaealoglmai C=esk—Basad Asssssmenl in AdVaXIce0¥Dfi/elopfrierilulland al ‘The Cedars, Bridge. Kenl u the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; I the desirability of new development makinga positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and 0 opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place. 12,23. in determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. Asa minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk~basecl assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation (N PPF 2012). Canterbury City Council in the Canterbury District Local Plan Publication Draft 2 list a number of policies relevant to archaeology: Policy HE1. Historic Environment and Heritage Assets HE2. World Heritage Site and Buffer Zone HE4, Listed Buildings HES. Heritage Assets HE11. Archaeology HE12. Area of Archaeological importance Policy HE1 relates to the importance of the historic environment, HE2 to the world Heritage site, HE 4 and 5 to Listed Buildings, HE 5-10 to the Conservation areas, HE12 to the World Heritage site and HE 13 to Historic Parks and Gardens. Policy HE11 concerns below ground archaeological remains, their evaluation, excavation and mitigation strategies: flmlwsobgbul Desk~Ba$9d fll in Advance of Dwelopmem oi land 31‘ The Dedals. B63253. Kant Policy HE11 The archaeological and historic integrity of designated heritage assets such as Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other important archaeological sites, together with their settings, will be protected and, where possible, enhanced. Development which would adversely affect them will not be permitted. Where important or paten tially significant heritage assets may exist, developers will be required to arrange forjield evaluation to be carried out in advance of the determination of planning applications. The evaluation should define: a The character, importance and condition of any archaeological deposits or structures within the application site; a The likely impact of the proposed development on these features (including the limits to the depth to which groundworks can go on the site); and - The means of mitigating the efiect of the proposed development including: a statement setting out the impact of the development. Where the case for development affecting a heritage asset of archaeological interest is accepted, the archaeological remains should be preserved in situ. Where preservation in situ is not possible ar;‘ustifled, appropriate provision for preservation by record may be an acceptable alternative. in such cases archaeological recording works must be undertaken in accordance with a specification prepared by the City Council's Archaeological Officer or a competent archaeological organisation that has been agreed by the City Council in advance. Regional Policies The South-East Research Framework (SERF) is ongoing with groups of researchers producing a Resource Assessment which will identify research questions and topics in order to form a Research Agenda forthe future. This Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment has been prepared in accordance with the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Good Practise Advice notes 1, 2 and 3 which now supersede the PPS 5 Practise Guide which has been withdrawn by the Government. The Good Practise Advice notes emphasises the need for assessments of the significance of any heritage assets which are likely to Archaeologicai Desk-Based Assoosmeni ill Mdliance oi Delelopmenlol land all The Cedars. Bridge, Kanl be changed, so the assessment can inform xhe decision process. Significance is defined in the NPPF Guidance in the Glossary as "the value of the heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic, or historical. Significance derives not only from a heritage assers physical presence, but also its setting". The setting of the heritage asset is also clarified in the Glossary as ”the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve”. This Desk-Based Assessment therefore forms rhe initial stage of the archaeological investigation and is intended to inform and assist in decisions regarding archaeological mitigation for the proposed development and associated planning aopiicaiions. 2.3 The Proposed Development The proposed development will comprise of up to six residential units, access road and car parking. 2.4 Pmiect Constraints No project constraints were encountereifi during the data collection for this assessment. 3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 34 The Desk-Based Assessment was commissioned by Murston Construction Ltd in order to inform the planners of the potential archaeological importance of the sire and to supplemem a planning application for the development of the site at land at The Cedars, Higham Lane, Bridge in Kent. 3.2 Desktop Study — institute for Archaeologists (revised 2011) This desktop study has been produced in line with archaeological standards, as defined by the institute for Archaeologists (2014). A desktop, or desk-based assessment, is defined as being: ”a programme ofsrudy of the historic environment within a specified area or site on land, the inter-tidal zone or underwater that addresses agreed research and/or conservation objectives. /2 consists of an analysis of existing written, graphic, Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment h Advanoeol Dsvelopmenloi land at The cedars, Bridge. Kan! photographic and electronic information in order to identify the likely heritage assets, their interests and significance and the character of the study area, including appropriate consideration of the settings of heritage assets and, in England, the nature, extent and quality ofthe known or potential archaeological, historic, architectural and artistic interest. Significance is to be judged in a local, regional, national or international context as appropriate”. (ClfA 2014) 4 METHODOLOGY 4.1 Desk-BasedAssessment 4.1.1 Archaeological databases The local Historic Environment Record (HER) held at Kent County Council provides an accurate insight into catalogued sites and finds within both the proposed development area (FDA) and the surrounding environs of Higham in Bridge. The Archaeology Data Service Online Catalogue (ADS) was also used, The search was carried out within a 300m radius of the proposed development site (24/11/15). Relevant HER data is included in the report (Appendix 2). The Portable Antiquities Scheme Database (PAS) was also searched as an additional source as the information contained within is not always transferred to the local HER. 4.1.2 Historicoldocuments Historical documents, such as charters, registers, wills and deeds etc were considered not relevant to this specific study. 41.3 Cartographic and pictorial documents A cartographic and pictorial document search was undertaken during this assessment. Research was carried out using resources offered by Kent County Council, the Internet and Ordnance Survey Historical mapping (Plates 14«17Figs. 1-6). Map Regression 1759- 1993 A limited map regression exercise on large scale Ordnance Survey maps has been carried out on the Proposed Development Area (Figures 3:6). in addition earlier Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment in Advance of Development cl land at The Cedars. Bridge, K.’-znl historical maps have been viewed and have shown that the site in 1769 was open fields‘ The Andrews Durv map shows with tremendous detail the various country seats around the PDA and also in great detail the course of the Nailbourne Stream. Higham and Higham Farm both adjacent to the PDA are also shown (Plate 14). The publication in 1801 of the first 05 County map shows the landscape around the PDA had still not changed (Plate 15). The map of 1887 by the Rev. F. Vine to be found in his book ‘Caesar in Kent’ shows in some detail historical and archaeological features around the area of the proposed development. From the ’Roman‘s Cold Bath’ in Bourne Park where modern investigation has found Roman buildings to the ‘hexagonal fort’ now known to be an early Roman monument to field systems and lynchets (in red lines} of which two are identified in the vicinity of the PDA (Plate 16). The OS map of 1873 shows a landscape comlnated by ’Briclgehili House’. The proposed development area is adjacent to the formal garden but with no buildings or features on the area to be developed (Figure 1). The OS map of 1898 shows no development on the FDA apart from a small building just 10 the north. To the west the Anglo Saxon cemetery adjacent to the Roman road has been discovered and mapped (Figure 2). The OS map of 1907 shows no change on the FDA (Figure 3) but by 1956 there is a substantial building on the PDA, to the north-west a quarry has been dug and Tumuli are drawn on the area of the Anglo Saxon Cemetery (Figure 4) By 1967 the building on the FDA is now called The Cedarsfi There is a house built in the quarry called ‘The Dell‘ and the landscape north and west of the FDA is now developed with over 56 detached houses (Figure 5). There is little additional change on the US map of 1993 (Figure 6]. Amhaeologicsl Desk-Based Assessment ln Advaroa 01 Devvalopmsm ollarid at The Cedars, Bridge. Kefli 4.1.4 Aerial photographs The study of the collection of aerial photographs held by Google Earth was undertaken (Plates 7-10) and various aerial photographs held in the SWAT archive (Plates 11~13) The 1940 Google Earth AP is not correct with its tiles but does show no development on the PDA (Plate 7). The 1960 Google Earth AP is more useful and shows the residential development started next to the PDA with the estate roads— Bridge Down Road stripped down to the chalk ready for building. The FDA has a building on it and we know from contemporary maps ifs a residential building called ‘The Cedars’. The earlier formal garden adjacent can be seen, albeit overgrown (Plate 8). The 1988 Google Earth AP shows the residential estate adjacent to the PDA fully developed and the Bridge By—pass built. Both projects have not had their archaeological findings published (Plate 9). The 2013 Google Earth AP shows the PDA in its current state (Plate 10). The two large fields to the west of the PDA have not been developed and AP photographs from the SWAT/KAFS Collection show: Aerial view c.1960 showing route of the Roman road through Bridge to Canterbury. Note the crop mark of the Roman hexagonal monument and the build of the new housing estate adjacent to the PDA (Plate 11.) Aerial view c.1960 showing the hexagonal monument and the adjacent Anglo-Saxon burial mounds. Roman road is the black band next to the modern A2 road (Plate 12). Vertical aerial view c.1960 of the PDA. Anglo-Saxon burial mounds and hexagonal monument. Note formal garden with maze at top of picture (Plate 13). 4.1.5 Geotechnicallnfarmation To date, no report is available of the recent geotechnical investigations at the site. 4.1.6 Secondary and statutory resources Secondary and statutory sources. such as regional and periodic archaeological studies, landscape studies; dissertations, research frameworks and websites are considered appropriate to this type of study and have been included within this assessment where necessary. Prehistoric ' ‘ly°cisi-medieval K N ‘ iviédén} Archaecioglcnl Deakvfiased Assessmsnllrl Advance of Develaprnerl 01 land aiTha Cadets, Bridge, Kent 5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 5.1 Introduction Palaeotlahipckl ’ °‘c.”sb”ufoéji:Ec—c.1o,66u”sé’: c.io,6o6'ac1 c. 4,3dd‘sE“ A . ‘.300 ac- (' 2,3450 écm , 300 BC —c. 500 as N AD 410 - AD 1066 I in iliss lilo ilabél“ W V A presehr day V I 0 Table 1 Classmcation ofA rchaeologicnl Periods The Archaeological record within the area of Bridge is diverse and comprises possible activity dating from the Prehistoric through to the Post—medieval period. The geographic and topographic location of the site is within a landscape that has been the focus of trade, travel and communication accelerated by the building of the Roman road that lies to the west of the PDA. There have been numerous archaeological investigations (Appendix 1) that have delivered a wealth of archaeological data, particularly relating to the Roman and Early Medieval periods. 5.2 History of the site The PDA lies on a hill within a rich archaeological landscape overlooking the southern edge of Bridge village. A number of sites have been investigated in the vicinity, mainly archaeological works on the Bridge By»pass by the Canterbury Archaeological Society in 1966-1974, Although the work was funded by grants from the Department of the Environment and an interim report published by Nigel Macpherson-Grant with an emphasis on the Archaeological Desk-Based Awsssrrenl in Mlwnoe ol Develnpmenl 0! hand at T718 Cedars. Bridge,Kenl prehistoric pottery in Archeeologia Cantiana Vol. XC\/l, 1880, no fuil report has been published. _ it is understood that the report was to be published in two pants, Part 1. Prehistoric, and Part 2 which would have covered the later Roman and Anglo-Saxon cemeteries. It would also have included a section on settlement and land»use at Bridge including synthesising the evidence presented in both parts of the reports, in 1961 Dr Mary Watson undertook iield work gust to the east of the current study area. The area of Watson's interest was being developed as a housing estate and the site lay in the parh of a road which was being prepared. Two rubbish pits which were excavated yielded pre~Roman pottery, includinga Swarling type pedestal base and a handle from 3 Mediterranean type imported in Belgic times, a ore~ Roman bronze fibula and other bronze fragments, as broken speculum coin, Allen Class l, and domestic animal bones. The area has now been completely developed, but the excavainr, Dr. Mary Watson, who retains the finals has not, as yet, published a report. Extensive crop marks are recorded within the surrounding landscape (Appendix 2}. These include linear droveways, enclosures, ploughed out round barrows, and over 50 small barrows with penannuiar and ring ditches. A full clesariplion of HER features within the study area is itemised below: TR 15 SE 2 Description Faussett in 1771 mentions over 100 tumuli on Hanging Hill, in front of and between Bourne Place, Bishopsbourne, and the Roman road (some parallel to the road); others had been oloughed down. Wright opened three and found them to be Saxon. ‘I his grave mound cluster is partly in woodland and partly under the plough; only eleven mounds survive and these, in general, are in a poor condition (No report). TR 15 SE 7 Description [TR 18595388] Romano-British urns and other vessels, (some in Liverpool Museum) with skeletons and fragments of weapons, were found c.1833 about halfway up Bridge Hill during alterations to the Canterbury - Dover road. Three more burials I5 Archaeological Deslbfiesed Assassmenl in Advance of Devalapmenl 01 land al The Oedas, Bridge. Kerri under the pavement on the north side of the road were found with 4th C. puttery in 1956. The 1956 burials were found when a GED. cable was laid at the iunctlon of Beech Hill and Bridge Hill at TR 18535396: the nottery, which included two 4th c. jugs, has been retained by Mr. Jenkins (No report). TR 15 SE 17 Description {TR 18938] An Late Iron Age site was found in May 1961 on Bridge Hill above the 200 Contour near the summit of the hill (and adjacent to the Study Area} where it slopes :0 the north-west. The area was being developed as a housing estate and the site lay in the path of a road which was being prepared. Two rubbish pits which were excavated yielded pre~Ruman pottery, including a Swarling type pedestal base and a handle from a Mediterranean type imported in Belgic times, a pre-Roman bronze fibula and other bronze fragments, 3 broken speculum coin, Allen Class l, and domestic animal bones. The area has been completely developed, but the excavator, Dr. Mary Watson, who retains the finds, indicated the approximate find spot at TR 18875388 (No report). TR 25 SE 154 Description Hexagonal feature with dark centre, probable WW2 military installation. TR 15 SE 155 Description Rectilinear enclosure with probable building foundation against its west side. TR 15 SE 164 Description Complex of linear features parallel in Roman Road, with "castellated" WW2 slit trenches, possible trackwavs etc. Documentary Evidence The most important historical information has come from the Rev. F. Vine who was aware of the hexagonal feature on Star Hill and in 1883' wrote in his book ‘Caesar in Ke nt': Archaeological Desk—B§ed Assessment in Advance of Devalopmenl Mland al The Cedars. Bridge. Kent "’On the brow of the hill, in Bourne Park, there are what appear to be the remains of two {Roman} outposts, 400 yards apart, surrounded each by a ditch. They are of the same dimensions, and form almost perfect hexagons, each side being about 50 feet in length. They are situated in comrranding positions on a hill, called locally ‘Star Hill,’ and would afford excellent stations for the guards placed before the gates of the camp, whence they could view the position and movement of the enemy‘ They are known traditionally as ‘the Ports.‘ They are now bare of trees but have the appearance of having been planted at some comparatively recent period ”(\/ine 1887: 197). in Vine's book ’Caesar in Kent’ there are also some excellent maps which show the iocation of not one but two similar hexagonal features. A critique of Vine‘s work by Matthew Bell has been located. Beil, a local landowner, bought Bourne House in 1845 and wrcte in the Bourne Book: "The two hexagonal enclosures, p191, surrounded by a bank, there is no ‘ditch’, and supposed to be outposts’, are easily recognised: he says ‘they are known traditionally as the Forts’: this is another instance of a tradition known to hardly anyone. i have never heard it mentioned. But, whatever else they may have been, they were certainly once plantations, as the trees (Scotch firs} still existed forty years ago in one of them, and a few stumps were visible in the other: the bank of ihe N. W. hexagon is still perfect, but after making ample allowance for the levelling effects of time and weather, it seems to me far too insignificant in its dimensions to have ever been the embankment of a Roman ’oul:post’ while it is exactly what one might expect to find as a bank thrown up to assist in protecting a plantation made perhaps less than 100 years ago" (Raraty M. M. pers comm 2008)‘ 5.3 This section of the assessment will focus on the archaeological and historical development of this area, placing it within a local context. Each period classification will provide a brief introduction to the wider landscape (175m radius centered on the site of the FDA), followed by a full record of archaeological sites, monuments and records within the site's immediate vicinity, Time scales for archaeological periods represented in the report are listed on page 14 in Table 1. Anilslealoyical Des<—Based ksesamsril in Advancaol Devshpmcnl Bl land at The Cedars, Bridge, Kem A preliminary review of the cultural heritage data shows that the site has some archaeological potential. 5.4 Scheduled Monuments; listed Buildings; Historic Parks & Gardens and Conservation Areas One Scheduled Monument, Anglo—Saxon barrows on Hanging Hill, one Grade ll listed building (TR 15 SE 202)), one Historic Parks and Gardens Bourne Park (TR 15 SE 325) and one Conservation Area (Appendix 2). 6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 6.1 Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age Archaeological investigations suggest that Prehistoric activity and iron Age settlement have been found in Bridge and its immediate surrounds. 45m north of the PDA early iron Age rubbish pits were excavated (TR 15 SE 17). in addition scatters of prehistoric worked flint were found by KAFS in archaeological investigations at the hexagonal feature in Bourne Park (TR 15 SE 154). 6.2 Iron Age lron Age activity and features were found in the investigations by the Kent Archaeological Field School on the hexagonal feature on Star Hill (EKE 12133). 6.3 Romanu—Britisl1 The Romans built a tribal town and capital (Durovernum Cantiacorum) at the crossing point of the River Stour of the Roman road now called Watling Street. This Roman road is situated to the west of the PDA and is upslope from the village of Bridge, situated at the road crossing of the Nailbourne Stream, sometimes called the Lesser Stour. Recent work on both sides of the Roman road in Bridge has identified Roman settlement. Upslope and on the west side of the Roman road a hexagonal feature identified in aerial photographs and thought to be a WWII feature was excavated by the Kent Archaeological Field School (EKE 12133, 12130, 121131, Archaeological Defivfiased Assessrnevii In Rd‘/nncs 04 Development oi land at The Cedars. Bridge. Kan! 12132) during campaigns underialwh in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Excavation took place in 2006. During May Bank Holiday in 2003 investigation by the KAFS of three points of the hexagon enabled the students to find the centre of the hexagon whore stripping of the turf and subsoil revealed a circuiar pit, about three metres in diameter cut into the chaik. The pit had been pillaged Sometime in the past but shards of Late iron Age pottery. burnt bone, and Medieval pottery may suggest a cremation deposit of Late Iron Age/ Early Roman period plundered during the Medieval period. The hexagon wasseen to have been cut as a decorative feature with the sides curved and terraced. The fill comprised chalkgranules and larger pieces of chalk mixed with some soil. There was no evidence remaining of an internal bank that can be seen in some air photographs. The internal measurement of the hexagon sides was 15m 40cm l50ft 7“) in length. it is of interest that the hexagon was built to Raman measurements, the length of the internal sides at 1S.!i0m is S2pM (Roman feet, the Roman pes lvlonetalis of 296mm length). Further stripping of the topsoil in 2004 within the perimeter of the hexagon failed to find any tree planting pits. indeed the only features revealed were a number of prehistoric post-holes, together with 'ubbish pits dug into the chalk during the Vnrst and Second World Wars. in 2005 further work was undertaken on the south side of the hexagon where almost immediately an east-west orientated grave cu’t into the chalk was revealed, with a number of seventh century Ang|o—Sa>'on coins exposed in the disturbed fill. Further work revealed a possible family group of 12 graves orientated to the hexagon feature, with Graves 3, 4 and Ila cutting the fill of the hexagon feature ditch. The graves were an obvious target for treasure hunters and full excavation proceeded with the appropriate licence obtained. Most of the graves contained artefadzs that were Treasure Trove and included a gold pendant, glass palm cup, Frankish pottery vessels, heads, spears, knives, cowrie shells, loom weights and over 60 silver coins. The ditch has been terraced into a monumental feature whilst the 2005 excavation revealed an even more complex feature with a double ditch with curved profiles. it seems, given the complexity of the design, that the ditch was a feature designed to 19 Archaeological Desk-Based Assasaneniin Advance of Dsvelopmeni of land all The Cedars. Bridge, Kent be seen or can just be a ditch recur. Worked flint and iron Age pottery sherds were also retrieved by sieving the topsoil and subsoil within the excavated area. The worked flinl: is the subject of a specialist report (see Appendix iv) which dates the assemblage to the Neolithic and suggests that stone tool manufacture was taking place on site. The constant retrievai of scattered fresh iron-age pottery shercls throughout the site did suggest that iron-Age occupation was a possible feature of the site, The land at Star Hill has a complex mass of crop—ma,—'l«plonnaiflentswastiadvancedsearch,n£-px National Monument Records: http://www.pastscape.org.uk Vine. F. (Rev) 1887 Caesar in Kent 24 Archsealugical Des~i<~Based Assemifieni in Mvance of Dlivelnpmsnl of land at The Cedars. Blidge,Keni APPENDIX 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES HER Ref. Location Period Summary EKE 4066 N of site iron Age Rubbish pits EKE 12133 SW of site Roman Hexagonal feature EKE 14699 SW of site Roman, Geophysical survey in the grounds of Medieval Bourne Park EKE 4065 W of Site Saxon Saxon barrow cemetery EKE 12130 W of site Saxon Archaeological evaluation of hexagonai feature on Star Hill EKE 121312 W ofsite Roman Archaeological excavation of hexagonal feature on Star Hill TR 15 SE 17 N of site Medieval Two early iron Age rubbish pits excavated by Dr Marywatson ____ N TR 15 SE 202 S of site Listed Grade ll listed building Bridge Hill House building TR 15 SE 154 W of site Roman Archaeological evaluation of hexagonal feature on Star Hill TR 15 SE 281 W ofsite Modern WWII Flame Projecting Installation TR 15 SE 60 W of site Modern Milestone TR 15 SE 325 W of site Post Bourne Park Estate Medieval TR 15 SE 2 W of site Early Scheduled Monument Saxon barrows Medieval Archnealagioal Dssk—Basad Assessment in Advanced! Developrnenloflnud SI The Cedars. Brfiga. Ken! Plate 1. View of Site (looking northwest an east side) Plate 2. View of the Site (looking east on the north side) 26 Archaeological Desk-Based Assdssanlarfl in/Xdvanee oi Dervabpmen1 0! land a1 The Curlers. Bridge, Ken! 27 Aruhflwlugical Desk-Based Assewnenl in Ildvanoe of Devebpman ofllnd it The Cedars. Bddge. Kent Plate 6. View of Site (looking east from south area) 28 Archaeulogicai Dssk—Ba5ed Assssimeni in Advance oi DevL>k1:meM at land at The Cedars. Bridge. Kent ’ A.‘ I ~ V. , v Plate 8, Aerial view 1960 Gaogle Earth 29 Arclvaeulagical Desk-Based Asssslmeni in Advance of Doveiopment crfland 91 The Cadets, Brfdge. Ken! Archaealoginax Desk-Bened Assesvnsnl in Advance OI Deva!-spment 0! land al The Cedars, Bridge-1.Kem Plate 11. Aerial view c.1960 showing route of Roman road through Bridge to Canterbury. Note cropmark of hexagon monument and the build of the new housing estate adjacent to the PDA. 31 AIC7IISO?0g'tE| Deekvsawd Lwassmem In Advance of Development of land Q The Dedfils, Bridge, Kem ' Q » ' . « W ‘xx , , . . Piate 12. Aerial View c.1960 showing hexagon monument and adjacent Anglo—Saxon burial mounds. Roman road is black band next to the madam A2 road. 32 Archaeological Desfivfiased Awesarnavll In Mvsncs of Development 0‘ band at The Calills, Bridge. KBM E . .. ‘ ~ Plate 13. Vertical aerial View c.1960 of FDA (blue arro ,., A»! . E, .21» w], Anglo~Saxon burial mounds and hexagonal monument. Note formal garden with maze at top of picture. 33 Amhamlogloal Deskvaased Assessment in Acvanca of Dsveluprnenl OMEN Hi The Cedars. Bflige. Karl! rzwc _ ‘kw L-,*ax’.t§".¢§_»,£*_~_'.;.’;'r;‘a" ‘ ‘J3 “ m, ‘ 3 ‘ , x ' ’ . 7 us allm-n_=: evf’ :(iSA§ Ta}: - H \. R V !IfI5(:'f ‘_ ~'*z:.w 2. N ‘Q kg finfig.‘ H ’ L#’5i,:.v§.:-.¥;r 1 210"”? ‘ av 2-.r.'z‘ ,_ ~.z./x7?:§xr.w«' 3" he FDA 34 Archaeoiogival D6ak~Based Assesnmem In Advnnoe nl Developmeni 0! land at The Cedars. Bridga.Ken1 Amhaeolagieal Disk-Based Assessrnenl in Mvance of Dcvekzpmmx of bud 21 The Cedars, Efidge, Ken! Plate 16. 1887 map produced by the Rev Fvine Nbhaacloginsl Desk-Based Assessrnant Vnrwivauce 01 Davelopmenl aflsvvd at The Cedars. Bridge, Kent :5;tqg‘§{Park '2’ .. . kg ‘ -uE...,¥'W3>‘ " caurfgé Park 6 3!‘ Plate 17. OS 1980 map showing the Bridge By-pass adjacent to the PDA ;07.0mE .s974.0mN -.;~mf.ypm'/X’ ':>;‘\Ift.s Ii 3 re .3$__... Figure 1: Hismric mapping 1873 Om >5» _ 619132.0mE 153602.0mN ' 618607.0mE $'153974.DmN in" , - ’ e1 91 name 153602.0mN Figure 2: Historic mapping 1898 _é}618607.On1E ‘ 153974.0mN i§z*iaz’gwiei!! = _ fz”’7 ~~,«; sf:*x‘s1€ii*".:‘§ 619132.0mE 1 53502.0mN Figure 3: Historic mapping 1907 _s1 8607.DmE I53974.0mN /~\ \./ Figure 4: Historic mapping 1956 j ______ M. , Om 1 :2500@AA 200m V E19132.DmE 153602.0mN 61S607.0mE ' 153974.0mN 619132.0mE Q.) 1 53602.0mN *. ____ ..._ ::‘__::_w.,J Figure 5: Historic mapping 1967 0m 1325°°@A4 200'“ _s1aeo7.omE 15a974.omN Figure 6: Historic mapping 1993 V V —_ om 1:2500@AA _$_619132.0mE 153602.0mN L_'_;_.. ,1 200m Kent Historic Environment Record - Reports 43 4<.;...e; . County nmaucaa by Km County Bound! (cg Cmmn Cnpyrighl. Ax ugh; ramrverl vnitatazszjnlz 86 ‘I70 3:10 Metres . Cnuncnj mmmx N’ Kent Historic Environment Record - Monuments 1...»: Humans; ‘iv trash Site 1, Varrmteac .: nmsspat Lism 9-mm ‘Punmn. ggfluaraeme 1 Monument E mm an-xsoes -mun C3h«:n (Pom smuuéeu by km County Brunei: 1:) Drwn liopyright, Ax «gm reserved won tozssmnaa Kent Historic Environment Record - Events 9 Exeanssa EKE12'I3B \ _ N" EV.E4|:l€5 \5"“““"‘*“' ‘ 5:92:33 EKEi46S.*9 3’ E1«ies1:*132 Frwluced by rm. County Counter: 0 515 “B 35!?! Metxae: (cu Cvomu nopmm 41 ..9ms 12$»: wd «am mas. am I ,____ _1// Kent Historic Environment Record - Designatians mm ls! De-:in5iM Mir) H Basia)-I7 6 (my) 4.“ cmsuwum am: 340 Mamas L......I....._..L.....__L......L__J.........L...__I_.__.J mom by mm tour; Council my Dmum Cupyligh. R! nglws Asserva2rH!‘1nI)l92$8.2€Il2 Kent Historic Environment Record - Cropmarks P r .2 ’ mductd a; K at County Councvl D as “,0 (D) crown copydgm. mrighus reserved -mm aszasxms _, $OUTH~\/\/EST '-‘AGING A 54 .6(Jm (,4_55,,, EAST FACING “W 2004 / :2; ‘ > \ we TURF / €3.9!m Figure 55. Areas of 20034005 Investigation >E:mmo_om_om_ .: