Evaluation at Central Park, Dagenham. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. DA - PK 96. LDVAL 4005 TQ 4976/8672.

Transcription

1 Evaluation at Central Park, Dagenham. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. DA - PK 96. LDVAL 4005 TQ 4976/8672. Project Manager: K. MacGowan. Supervisor M. Beasley

2 Table of Contents Abstract page 3 Introduction page 4 Historical Background page 5 Archaeological Methodology page 6 Summary of Results page 7 Interpretation and Conclusions page 8 Bibliography page 9 Appendix A GLSMR/RCHME NMR Archaeological page 10 Report Form Illustrations Figure 1A Area Location follows page 4 Figure 1B Site Location follows page 4 Figure 2 Trench Location follows page 6 Figure 3A Trench 2 Plan follows page 7 Figure 3B Trench 2 Section follows page 7 2

3 Evaluation at Central Park, Dagenham. London borough of Barking and Dagenham. DA - PK 96. M. Beasley. 1. Abstract. 1.1.The evaluation revealed an undated linear ditch, ploughsoil cut by two linear mole drains, and topsoil. 3

4 2. Introduction. 2.1.An archaeological evaluation was conducted on an area of Central Park, Dagenham (Figs. 1A, 1B), by a field team from the Archaeology Section of Newham Museum Service, on 20th and 21st January The evaluation was designed to investigate sub-surface anomalies on a resistivity survey conducted by the Section on a parch mark evident on aerial photographs (Beasley, 1996). This parch mark had been provisionally identified as being a building of possible Roman date. The resistivity survey showed high resistance anomalies provisionally interpreted as walls. These formed a possible linear structure cut by two probable service cuts. The high resistance readings were, however, fairly diffuse, and this was thought to have been the result of demolition rubble spreading either side of any remaining walls, probably as a result of ploughing during intervening centuries. Trenches were decided upon to investigate these anomalies. 2.2.The work was conducted to evaluate the perceived danger to underlying archaeological deposits from heavy plant associated with the annual fair held in the park. 2.3.The evaluation was funded by London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, directed by Ken MacGowan, and supervised by the author. The Museum and the author would like to thank Councillors Mrs. J. Alexander; Mr. C. Fairbrass, Jim Hopper, Chris Galleyhawk and Yan Britain of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham; Mark Watson of Valance House Museum; Lawrence Pontin and Rob Whitehead of the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service; Ken MacGowan; Graham Reed for the illustrations; Ian Hanson and Paul Thrale. 4

5 3. Historical Background. 3.1.Central Park appears to have been exclusively farmland until the creation of the park in Study of the relevant maps held by the Museum shows no buildings in the area concerned to explain the parch mark. The earliest available map, a tithe map of 1844, as well as Ordnance Survey maps from 1862 to the present, show the area to be undeveloped. This puts the date of any structure to be earlier than the mid 1800's. 3.2.One interpretation of the parch mark is that it is of possible Roman date. This dating is due to parallels with excavated Roman buildings, and a degree of correlation exists. 3.3.Study of the aerial photographs by the Royal Commission for Historic Monuments of England (R.C.H.M.E.) has, however, suggested that the parch mark overlies a large linear ditch of 20th century date, possibly part of the outer London defences constructed during the 1940's. This would make the parch mark of 20th century date. 5

6 4. Archaeological Methodology. 4.1.The evaluation was designed to conform to English Heritage guide-lines (Archaeological Guidance Paper 3. "Standards and Practices in Archaeological Fieldwork"). Two trenches were surveyed to locate them in positions specified by the project design (MacGowan, 1997), and to tie them to a 1:7500 plan (Fig. 2). 4.2.Both trenches measured 10m. x 2m. Trench 1 was aligned NW-SE, and Trench 2 was aligned E-W, 10m. north of Trench These trenches were machine excavated down to archaeological deposits and hand cleaned. Archaeological features were hand excavated and recorded using the single context planning according to Museum practice. features were planned at 1:20, recorded on Museum pro-forma sheets and photographed. A single long section was drawn at 1:10. Finds were handled according to standard retrieval methods. 4.4.The trenches were back filled at the end of the evaluation. 4.5.All relevant Health and Safety procedures were applied. 6

7 5. Summary of Results. 5.1.After stripping dark grey sandy clay silt topsoil a horizon of orange brown sandy clay was revealed. This was cut in both trenches by linear mole drains of probable 20th century date. This has been interpreted as plough soil. This was removed to reveal natural orange brown sandy clay with gravel. This was cut in Trench 2 by a linear U-shaped ditch 0.6m. wide by 0.2m. deep. This feature was undated (Figs. 3A, 3B). 5.2.The only finds recovered from either trench were from topsoil, so definitive dating of any of the deposits is not possible. 7

8 6. Interpretation and Conclusions. 6.1.No structural elements relating to a building of any date were observed in either of the evaluation trenches. Human activity was limited to two linear mole drains of probable 20th century date, and a single section of ditch. It seems likely that the linear features shown on the resistivity survey relate to the mole drains. These appear to form the same pattern as shown on the resistivity plot. 6.2.The trenches were located to determine the nature of these linear feature, and it is possible that the trenches missed any surviving structural remains. This is unlikely as no finds of any kind were retrieved. If a building had existed in the immediate area some cultural material would undoubtedly be found in the vicinity, especially roof tile. This is not the case. Not even residual building materials were found in the plough soil overlying the ditch. 6.3.Running through the area was a ditch which may suggest that the parch mark is the result of a complex of such ditches that are possibly the foundations of a building. This is considered unlikely as the U-shaped profile of the feature would be incompatible with it being a foundation trench. In addition, no finds were recovered from the ditch. Even if the walls had been robbed out it is implausible to suggest that the robbing also removed all fragments of building material, whether it be stone or brick. 6.4.This leaves two possible interpretations for the parch mark. Firstly it is possible that that the features forming the parch mark are ditches filled with silty clay. The fill of the ditch was noticeably drier than the surrounding clay and this may have resulted in a parch mark. 6.5.Secondly, it is possible that the parch mark on the aerial photograph is of a temporary, and consequently modern, nature. This is supported by the fact that R.C.H.M.E. suggested that the parch mark was overlying the defence ditch. 6.6.In conclusion, the evaluation trenches appear to discount a building of any date in the area. It seems likely that the parch marks relate to a temporary structure, but there is no indication of what this structure may be. 8

9 Bibliography. Beasley, M Report on Resistivity Survey at Central Park, Dagenham. unpublished report, Newham Museum Service. MacGowan, K Project Design for the Archaeological Evaluation of a Parch mark in Central Park Dagenham Unpublished, Newham Museum Service. 9

10 APPENDIX A GLSMR/RCHME NMR ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT FORM 1. TYPE OF RECORDING. Evaluation Excavation Watching brief Other (please specify) 2. LOCATION. Borough: LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM Site address: CENTRAL PARK DAGENHAM Site name: CENTRAL PARK Site code: DA-PK 96 Nat. Grid Refs: Centre of site: TQ Limits of site: a) N/A b) c) d) 3. ORGANISATION. Name of archaeological unit/ company/ society: NEWHAM MUSEUM SERVICE Address: NEWHAM MUSEUM SERVICE 31, STOCK STREET PLAISTOW LONDON E13 OBX Site director/ supervisor: M. BEASLEY Project manager: K. MACGOWAN Funded by: LB BARKING AND DAGENHAM 4. DURATION. Date fieldwork started: Date finished: Field work previously notified? YES/ NO 10

11 Fieldwork will continue? YES/ NO/ NOT KNOWN 5. PERIODS REPRESENTED. Palaeolithic Roman Mesolithic Saxon (pre-ad 1066) Neolithic Medieval (AD ) Bronze Age Iron Age Post-Medieval Unknown 6. PERIOD SUMMARIES. Use headings for each period (Roman; Medieval; etc.), and continue on additional sheets as necessary. 20th. Century. Topsoil and two linear mole drains. Post-Medieval. Undated. Probable plough soil. Linear ditch cut into natural. 7. NATURAL. (state if not observed; please DO NOT LEAVE BLANK) Type: SANDY CLAY Height above Ordnance Datum: A.O.D m. 8. LOCATION OF ARCHIVES. a) Please indicate those categories still in your possession: Notes Plans Photos Negatives Slides Correspondence Manuscripts (unpub. reports etc.) b) All/ some records have been/ will be deposited in the following museum/ records office etc. : NEWHAM MUSEUM SERVICE, 11

12 31, STOCK STREET, PLAISTOW, LONDON E13 OBX. c) Approximate year of transfer: 1997 d) Location of any copies: NEWHAM MUSEUM SERVICE, 31, STOCK STREET, PLAISTOW, LONDON E13 OBX. e) Has a security copy of the archive been made? YES/ NO If not, do you wish RCHME to consider microfilming? YES/ NO 9. LOCATION OF FINDS. a) In your possession? ALL/ SOME/ NONE b) All/ some finds have been/ will be deposited with the following museum/ other body: NEWHAM MUSEUM SERVICE, 31, STOCK STREET, PLAISTOW, LONDON. E13 OBX. c) Approximate year of transfer: BIBLIOGRAPHY Beasley, M. Evaluation at Central Park, Dagenham. Unpublished report, Newham Museum Service. 12

13 SIGNED: DATE: NAME (Block capitals) M. BEASLEY Please return completed form to The Greater London Sites and Monuments Record, English Heritage London Region, 30 Warwick St., London W1R 5RD. Tel / 3779 (direct dial). 13