BROMBOROUGH COURT HOUSE:
Excavation Report
Summer 2015
Compiled by J. Kirton BA MA
Big Heritage C.I.C.
Riverside Innovation Centre
Castle Drive
Chester
CH1 1SL
info@bigheritage.co.uk
Summary
Project Name: Discovering Bromborough 2: Moats and Manors
Location: Bromborough Pool, Wirral
NGR: SJ 34496 84189 (Centroid)
Type: Evaluation
Date: September to December 2014
Location of Archive: To be deposited with the National Museums Liverpool, Merseyside
Accession Number: MOL.2015.8
Site Code: BCH14
Title:
Bromborough Court House: excavation report
Authors:
Joanne Kirton, Project Manager
joanne@bigheritage.co.uk
Derivation:
n/a
Origination Date:
13th January 2015
Reviser(s):
Gary Duckers, Karen Gavin
Date of last revision:
13/07/2015
Version:
3.0
Status:
Final
Circulation:
For all stakeholders
Required actions:
For Submission
Filename and location
Bromborough Court House Excavation Report
Approval:
Approved
1
CONTENTS
BROMBOROUGH COURT HOUSE EXCAVATION REPORT ...................................................................... 3
1.
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.
SITE DESCRIPTON............................................................................................................................ 3
2.1.
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2.
Location................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.
Geology ................................................................................................................................... 4
3.
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 4
3.1.
Overview of the Documentary Evidence ................................................................................ 4
3.2.
Overview of Previous Archaeological Investigation................................................................ 5
4.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................... 7
5.
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................. 7
5.1.
Excavation Methods................................................................................................................ 7
5.2.
Recording ................................................................................................................................ 8
5.3.
On-site Finds Identification and Retention ............................................................................. 8
5.4.
Dissemination and Archival Strategy ...................................................................................... 8
5.5.
Project Team ........................................................................................................................... 9
6.
RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 9
6.1.
Trenches 1-5............................................................................................................................ 9
6.2.
Finds Overview ...................................................................................................................... 13
6.3.
Palaeoenvironmental Overview by John Carrott .................................................................. 15
7.
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 15
8.
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 16
9.
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 18
10. FIGURES........................................................................................................................................ 19
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... 30
11.
APPENDIX A: context descriptions........................................................................................... 30
12.
APPENDIX B: finds reports ....................................................................................................... 33
13.
APPENDIX C: palaeoenvironmental evidence ......................................................................... 62
14.
APPENDIX D: trench location information .............................................................................. 68
2
BROMBOROUGH COURT HOUSE EXCAVATION REPORT
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1. From September to December 2014 Big Heritage C.I.C. and community volunteers
undertook five evaluation trenches within the interior of the site known as Bromborough
Court House Moated Site and Fishponds, Wirral (centred on NGR: SJ 34496 84189). These
trenches were sited based upon resistivity results generated in June 2014 (Kirton 2014).
The site is a scheduled monument (SMR 13428). Permission was granted by the land
owners, the Land Trust and Historic England (then English Heritage) to undertake
excavation. Joanne Kirton, on behalf of Big Heritage C.I.C., was granted Scheduled
Monument Consent (Ref: S00089251). The excavation was monitored by Andrew Davison
of Historic England.
1.2. This work was undertake as pa t of the la ge HLF fu ded Dis o e i g B o
o ough :
Moats a d Ma o s , a community archaeology project managed by Big Heritage C.I.C. The
intention of the project was to complete a second year of test pitting around the core of
Bromborough village and undertake an evaluation of the potential for archaeology on the
court house site, whilst providing training for local community volunteers and other
interested parties.
2.
SITE DESCRIPTON
2.1. Overview
The site is currently on the Heritage at Risk Register due to vandalism. However, since the
commencement of this project the trend has changed from declining to improving. The site is
primarily comprised of bank and ditch earthworks interpreted as part of a moated manor site
(LEN: 1012503; UID: 13428). The bank and exterior ditches survive fully on the western side,
partially to the north and south and are completely lost to the east. In addition, there is also
3
an interior and exterior pond network. The interior of the site is some 6000m² and runs
approximately 94m E-W and 116m N-S (See Figure 1). The site is currently heavily overgrown
with access limited to those areas that have been cleared for work.
2.2. Location
Bromborough Court House is situated on Wirral in the county of Merseyside. It is located 2
km north of Bromborough Village and 1 km west of the Mersey Estuary. The area is flat and
low-lying with access to the estuary to the north of the site. The surrounding area is now
largely comprised of industrial buildings and hotels – a process that began in the nineteenth
century. To the west of the site the A41, the main road on Wirral, runs north to south. The
site of Bromborough Court House is adjacent to Bromborough Pool Conservation Area
(www.wirral.gov.uk).
2.3. Geology
The underlying solid geology is Triassic Wilmslow Sandstone Formation and the overlying
geology is Devensian Till, which is clayey with sand, gravel and pebbles (British Geological
Society, Sheet E096, 1:50,000).
3.
BACKGROUND
3.1. Overview of the Documentary Evidence
The site of Bromborough Court House was occupied from at least the seventeenth century
when records demonstrate that a building was erected on the site, which stood until 1969
(Bromborough Society 2000, 47). The architectural features suggest it was constructed c.1680
in the Dutch style (Chitty et al. 1985, 8). In plan, the building was a long straight section with
forward projecting wings at each end. It had three floors (Bromborough Society 2000, 48).
First-ha d a ou ts of the house s e te io and interior survive, detailing its layout, contents
and decoration (Connah 1952, 10; Edwards 1995). The house and its grounds first appear on
an Estate Map in c.1755. The original map has subsequently been lost but a photograph of
4
the map still survives in the Cheshire Record Office and a tracing survives in the Merseyside
Historic Environment Record (MHER) (See Figure 3).
However, it has long been assumed that the site was the location for previous court
houses noted in texts referring to Bromborough. Reference has commonly been made to King
Edward I staying at Bromborough Court House in August 1277 (Bromborough Society 2000,
44). Whilst the Close Roll, Fine Roll and Patent Roll survive for that year and note
Bromborough on the itinerary for the 12th and 13th of August, no reference to the court house
or its surrounding land are made. The first specific reference to the court house is made seven
years later in the Annales Cestriensis, hi h states ho the uildi g u t do
the manor house of B o
o ough i Wi al as a ide tall
u ed do
i
o Ma
. Also
Chitt
et al. 1985, 8; Bromborough Society 2000, 44). Unfortunately, no information is supplied
about the location of this structure or its surrounding area. A second court house was
reputedly built on the same site, which stood until the seventeenth century when it was
demolished (Chitty et al. 1985, 8).
The lack of any description regarding the location of either the first or second structures
or a physical description of their appearance means that there is no way of linking the area
under investigation to the court house noted in these texts. That a court house existed prior
to the structure built in the seventeenth century is not disputed, particularly as several
references are made to the building throughout the medieval period in the Bromborough
Parish Registers, Dean and Chapters Rentals and Hearth Tax Rolls. The problem lies in
physically linking the earlier structures to the site currently called Bromborough Court House.
3.2. Overview of Previous Archaeological Investigation
Limited archaeological investigation has been undertaken on the site (Connah 1955-6; Freke
1979; David and Mills 1981; Chitty 1985 and Bromborough Society 2000). No archaeological
features were unearthed and no finds pre-dating the seventeenth century were recovered.
Excavation in 1978 demonstrated that the moats ditch had either been cut or re-cut
in the seventeenth century (Freke 1979, 47).
5
The only anthropogenic activity to be noted within the interior was a burning horizon.
However, no dating evidence was recovered from the context and its extent was not
sought (Connah 1955-6).
Topographic survey suggested that there was an elevated area within the interior but
it was not possible to determine if this was natural or anthropogenic (Chitty 1985, 7-
9).
Resistivity survey was also undertaken as part of the same project. The technology
was in its infancy but did suggest a concentration of weak low resistance anomalies
within the interior towards the western ditch (David et al. 1981). Again, it was not
possible to determine if this was natural or anthropogenic
Based on the evidence set out above, Big Heritage C.I.C. decided to re-investigate the interior
of the site using modern non-invasive techniques and small evaluation trenches.
3.2.1.
Resistivity Survey Summary
In June 2014 Big Heritage C.I.C. were given access to the interior of the site when the heavy
undergrowth had been partially cleared by the land owners. Resistivity survey was
undertaken in two cleared areas (referred to as A and B) (See Figure 2). For a full description
of the methodology please refer to the resistivity report (Kirton 2014).
The resistivity survey within the interior of the moated site of Bromborough Court
House demonstrated that the technique can be successfully used on this terrain. It proved
the presence of both high and low resistance linear features in Area A, which provided clear
targets for further work. Area B was harder to interpret due to the quantity of strong high and
low resistance anomalies but the uniformity of a group of these features suggested they are
anthropogenic and would form a further target for future investigation. Significantly, the
results from this area supported the suggestion of anthropogenic activity indicated in the
1979 report and implied that the disturbance was genuine and not the result of the
methodology and/or the conditions of the survey. Without invasive investigation it was clear
that it would be difficult to determine what the anomalies in Area B were, either.
anthropogenic or geological, and it would be impossible to date the features across the site.
6
3.2.2.
Topographic and LiDAR Assessment
Topographic and LiDAR analysis was also undertaken to negate the effect of the heavy
overgrowth on the site and limited accessibility. The data analysis conducted largely
corroborated the findings of the 1977-78 topographical survey (Chitty et al. 1985) and
confirms the extant nature of features evident on 1st revision OS mapping, but undiscernible
in the field. It did not provide substantive new information but facilitated a rapid comparative
study with other known sites of a similar morphology and confirmation of the previous
su e s o lusio s fo the full dis ussio please see Du ke s
4.
.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES
Based on the results of resistivity survey, LiDAR analysis and previous archaeological
investigation undertaken within the interior of the moated site at Bromborough Court House,
Big Heritage proposed to excavate five evaluation trenches to a potential depth of 1.2m.
These trenches were located in areas that had the potential to provide information on the
date, phasing, function and character of the site.
5.
METHODOLOGY
The fieldwork comprised the excavation of five trenches of differing size, in the locations
shown (see Figure 4). Each trench was located to target features or anomalies identified
through resistivity survey.
5.1. Excavation Methods
As the trench locations had been pre-selected each was geolocated using a Leica 406
Total Station from an established base station, georeferenced with the OS National
Grid (NGR).
The trenches were excavated by hand under the supervision of archaeological staff
and followed the CIFA Standard Guidance for Archaeological Excavation 3.3 (2014).
7
Changes in contexts were recorded as they presented in the trench. This process was
undertaken to a maximum depth of 1.2m.
Deposits were assessed for their paleoenvironmental potential. Two deposits were
identified as requiring environmental sampling.
5.2. Recording
Each context was recorded using pro-forma sheets (deposit/cut/masonry/group). The
context sheets were supplemented by level recording, photographs, plans and section
drawings.
5.3. On-site Finds Identification and Retention
All soil was screened for artefacts using sieves with a standard 6mm mesh, with the
exception of very heavy clay soils and all artefacts were retained during the
excavation process.
Any finds that were believed to be of particular importance were recorded
individuall
ith a u i ue s all fi d
u
e a d e o d.
All artefacts excluding metal, slag, fabric and any other material deemed too delicate
were washed and dried in preparation for analysis.
Artefacts were sorted into their material type i.e. ceramic, lithic, metal, plastic, glass
etc. and grouped by context.
Each material from each context was then counted, weighed and bagged with relevant
information noted on the bag and a Tyvek label, which was inserted into the bag. This
was repeated for each context from each trench.
Artefacts were then recorded by material and context using an Access Database.
Each material type was then dispatched for specialist analysis where appropriate.
5.4. Dissemination and Archival Strategy
The archaeological records and finds have been retained by Big Heritage for analysis,
reporting and archiving. Upon completion, the project will be signposted on the OASIS
website, http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/oasis, the report submitted to the Merseyside Historic
Environment Record [MHER] and digitally disseminated though the Archaeology Data Service
8
[ADS]. A copy of this report will also be available through the Big Heritage website
(www.bigheritage.co.uk and project blog digbrom.com).
The site archive will be deposited with the National Museums Liverpool (Accession Number:
MOL.2015.8), the approved registered museum for the deposition of archaeological archives
in Merseyside. The archive was compiled following guidelines supplied by National Museums
Liverpool (2014).
5.5. Project Team
The fieldwork and post excavation processing was managed by the Big Heritage Project
Manager, Joanne Kirton, supported by Karen Gavin. The report was written by Joanne Kirton
and illustrations prepared by Joanne Kirton and Karen Gavin. The finds reports have been
written by Olaf Bayer, Rose Broadley, Julie Edwards, David Higgins and Ian Smith. The
palaeoenvironmental Report was compiled by John Carrott. The archive has been prepared
by Joanne Kirton and Karen Gavin.
6.
RESULTS
This section provides an overview of the evaluation results: detailed summaries of the
recorded contexts, finds and environmental samples.
6.1. Trenches 1-5
6.1.1. Trench 1 (Figures 5, 6 and 7)
Trench 1 measured 2m north to south and 4m east to west. It was sited to target a low
resistance linear running north to south within the interior of the moated area. The natural
mid yellowy-orange clay substrate (105) was reached at 0.47m. A number of natural and
anthropogenic features disturbed this context, the largest of which was an old tree root
system and the subsequent fill 0.7-0.8m in depth (106). A compacted stone spread (104) was
found to sit on top of the natural clay surface in the east side of the trench. This was truncated
9
by a linear cut (108) dug into the natural clay at a depth of 0.25m. This was clearly created to
hold a wattle fence, based on the impressions left on the clay surface sides and the obvious
spacing of post-holes. This feature correlates with that highlighted in the resistivity survey,
which demonstrates that the fence line runs a minimum of 20m north to south. Toward the
western extent of the trench a small linear cut (111) at a depth of 0.26m and fill (112) was
identified. However, its purpose was not discernible, as it was associated with no other
features. A further potential circular cut (114) and its associated fill (113) (approx.
0.43x0.42m) was located in the west facing section. However, this was not evident in plan
during excavation, suggesting the cut survives largely intact in the section side. Only further
excavation will reveal the purpose of this cut. All contexts were sealed by a light orangeyyellow clayey-silt subsoil 0.2m in depth (102) and a light greyish-brown sandy-silt topsoil
0.23m in depth (101).
6.1.2. Trench 2 (Figures 8 and 9)
Trench 2 measured 2m north to south and 3m east to west. A 1m extension was added to the
east side after permission was granted by Historic England. The natural mid browny-orange
clay substrate (204) was identified at 0.38m, below which sat the natural boulder clay first
encountered at 0.59m (209). The trench was largely void of archaeological features. An old
tree root system and the subsequent fill (208) reaching a depth of 0.57m was identified
throughout the trench. This was originally identified as a potential cut but once the trench
had been extended it was clear that the feature was natural. One cut (205/206) was identified
truncating context (204), running north-west to south-east through the trench. This feature
was also visible on the ground surface for some 20m. It was filled by several large pieces of
rotten wood and by the mid blacky-brown silt subsoil 0.28m in depth (202). The trench was
sealed by the dark blacky-brown silt topsoil 0.15m in depth (201). The cut feature likely served
as a drainage ditch. In Trench 2 a perched-water table was encountered at approximately
50cm, closely associated with the natural substrate.
10
6.1.3. Trench 3 (Figure 10 and 11)
Trench 3 measured 2m north to south and 2m east to west. A 1m extension was added to the
west side after permission was granted by Historic England. This trench was sited to explore
a series of high resistance anomalies identified during the resistivity survey. The natural light
greyey-orange clay substrate (303) was encountered at 0.41cm depth. This context was also
identified in Trench 4 and Trench 5 (403/504) at similar depths. At this depth a perched-water
table was present in both Trenches 3 and 4. Sat within this clay context was a heavily degraded
sandstone feature (306). This sandstone feature is seemingly anthropogenic, constructed
from sandstone blocks in a linear running NW to SE for 1.4m. The trench was extended to
explore a possible return running NE to SW. The extension demonstrated that the linear
continued into the western trench extension, at a length of 2.04m, confirming that the feature
was likely structural. Several other degraded sandstone spreads were also identified within
the trench. However, due to the limited size of the trench it was not possible to identify their
function. The perched-water table was responsible for the poor condition of the sandstone
feature. It had also caused leaching of the material around the feature (305), creating a dark
reddy-brown deposit, comprised of degraded sandstone and silt, mixed together through the
leaching process. This material was sampled for paleoenvironmental processing – Sample
Number 002. The material recovered from the sample was deemed to have little
interpretative value and was comprised largely of modern intrusions. No material was
identified as appropriate for dating methods. The sandstone feature was sealed by a mid
browny-grey sandy-silt subsoil approximately 0.29m in depth (302) and mid browny-black silt
topsoil approximately 0.12m in depth (301).
6.1.4. Trench 4 (Figures 12 and 13)
Trench 4 measured 2m north to south and 2m east to west. This trench was sited to explore
a series of high resistance anomalies identified during the resistivity survey. The natural light
greyey-orange clay substrate (403) was encountered at 0.48m depth. This context is the same
as (303 and 504). At this depth a perched-water table was present, as noted in Trench 3. Cut
into (403) was a pit or large post-hole (405) 0.35m in depth. The extent of the cut is unknown
as it is truncated by the trench edges on the south and east sides. As no further features were
located in Trench 4 it remains unclear what the purpose of this feature is. The fill (404) was
11
the leached material seen elsewhere on the site in Trench 3 (305) and Trench 5 (505). This
consisted of a dark reddy-brown deposit, comprised of degraded sandstone and silt, mixed
together through the leaching process. The fill was sampled for paleoenvironmental
processing – Sample Number 001. The material recovered from the sample was deemed to
have little interpretative value and comprised largely of modern intrusions. No material was
identified as appropriate for dating methods. Further leeching was evident across the surface
of (403) and was given a separate context number (406). The leached material and cut were
sealed by a mid browny-grey sandy-silt subsoil approximately 0.33m in depth (502) and mid
blackey-brown silt topsoil approximately 0.15m in depth (501).
6.1.5. Trench 5 (Figures 14 and 15)
Trench 5 measured 1m north to south and 5m east to west. This trench was sited to explore
a large high and a large low resistance anomaly identified during the resistivity survey. The
natural light greyey-orange clay substrate (504) was encountered at 0.40m depth. This
context is the same as (303 and 403). At this depth a perched-water table was present, as
noted in Trenches 3 and 4. Within context (504), further evidence of the degraded sandstone
noted in Trenches 3 and 4 was uncovered (506), running in a rough linear 1.3m east-west. A
second potential linear appeared to run from NW to SE although the extent is unknown as
the feature was truncated by the northern trench edge. The degraded sandstone was
surrounded by the leached material also present elsewhere on the site (505). To understand
the nature of the context (506) the trench will need to be expanded. The leached material
and degraded sandstone material was sealed by a mid browny-grey sandy-silt subsoil
approximately 0.24m in depth (502) and mid blackey-brown silt topsoil approximately 0.16m
in depth (501).
12
6.2. Finds Overview
In this section a brief summary of the information gained from specialist analysis of the sites
material culture will be outlined. For the full reports please see Appendix B.
6.2.1. Animal Bone
There is limited evidence of animal bone on the site. The two identifiable bones were from
improved breed cattle. The remaining six bones were unidentifiable, notably all had been
burned. The limited collection provides no additional information about the site and there
are no further recommendations for the assemblage.
6.2.2. Ceramic Building Material
A total of 185 fragments (1883 g) of ceramic building material were excavated from Trenches
1-5. Contexts (202) and (204) produced the greatest quantity of fragments - 60 fragments,
494 g and 37 fragments, 716 g respectively.
The ceramic building material is predominantly composed of abraded oxidised red fragments,
the assemblage is in a very poor condition and the majority of the fragments do not have any
surface features to indicate form or date. Those that do, belong to the post-medieval period
or later.
There are no further recommendations for the assemblage.
6.2.3. Clay Tobacco Pipes and Marbles
77 fragments of clay tobacco pipes were recovered from the site – 38 bowls, 37 stems and 2
mouthpiece fragments. The earliest examples date from the seventeenth century. The
material suggests that the fabric was imported, possibly shaped and fired in Chester. The
seventeenth and eighteenth century fragments appear to have been broken and mixed in
cultivated soil, as they are highly abraded.
The majority of the pipe fragments dated to the nineteenth century. Their state of survival
suggests they were trampled underfoot but the land was not disturbed i.e. for cultivation as
seen with the earlier fragments. This indicates that activity on the site changed at some point
during the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries.
13
Comparison with material unearthed during the 1979 excavation suggests parts of the site
were being used at different times. Their varying states of survival in specific areas of the site
also suggests different uses for the land, particularly in the nineteenth century.
There are no further recommendations for the assemblage.
6.2.4. Glass
A total of 674 fragments of glass were found, weighing a total of 1468 g. The assemblage is
entirely Post-Medieval, and largely confined to the twentieth century. Approximately 20% of
the glass sherd count is vessel glass, with the remainder being window glass. Almost all of the
identifiable vessel glass comes from utility bottles of various kinds.
There are no further recommendations for the assemblage.
6.2.5. Pottery
The assemblage consists of 1207 sherds weighing 4566 g. Post-medieval wares dominate the
assemblage. Where form can be discerned tablewares such as plates, dishes, bowls, cups, jugs
and storage vessels are most common but a fragment of a jelly mould and flowerpots are also
present and a small miniature porcelain plate may be from a dolls tea set or dolls house. The
range of wares are typical for the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries being massproduced types produced in Staffordshire and elsewhere in Britain, along with blackwares
and slipwares made in traditional potteries such as those at Buckley, N Wales, Staffordshire
and Prescot in South Lancashire. A small number of earlier wares are present as well as
fragments imported from the Rhineland and China. Examples of earlier post-medieval wares
are late seventeenth/eighteenth century mottled wares which may have been made in
Buckley or Staffordshire. Fragments of late fifteenth/sixteenth century Cistercian-type wares
are too small to indicate a provenance but production sites at Rainford, South Lancashire,
Staffordshire and Yorkshire all supplied the region.
At least one sherd is definitely medieval – a fragment made in a Coal Measure clay is of
fourteenth or fifteenth century date, another abraded red earthenware is perhaps medieval
but is too abraded to identify precisely.
14
A piece of Roman pottery has been noted but it is too small to identify or date precisely. It is
possible that Roman wares are present amongst some of the very abraded red earthenwares
but if so they do not have enough diagnostic features to identify them.
6.3. Palaeoenvironmental Overview by John Carrott
The two sediment samples were of approximately 35 litres (Sample 001) and 20 litres (Sample
002) and were collected from degraded sandstone features within a perched-water table
encountered in Trenches 3 and 4; consequently, they consisted largely of fragments of stone
ith little sedi e t
the e
Fu the
at i . Ve
little
ate ial as e o e ed i the t o sa ple flots a d
e e o a ie t e ai s, o ga i o othe
o e, so e of the e ai s i
oth flots
ise, of a
i te p etati e value present.
e e al ost e tai l
ode
i t usio s
(earthworm egg capsules).
Although sufficient charcoal for radiocarbon dating (via AMS) was present in both of the
flots , o e of this
ate ial ould be recommended for this purpose as identification to
species and/or determination of the number of years of wood growth represented was not
possi le a d, o se ue tl , the old ood p o le
ould appl .
The dearth of ancient organic remains recovered precludes any further study.
7.
DISCUSSION
The five evaluation trenches have suggested that activity on the site began in earnest during
the seventeenth century based on the presence of substantial material culture, including
pottery, glass and clay tobacco pipe. This is not unexpected as records demonstrate that the
structure demolished in 1969, east of the current area of excavation, was constructed in the
mid to late-seventeenth century. The material culture assemblage is also comparable to
material recovered from earlier archaeological investigations (Freke 1979). The range of
material dating from the seventeenth to twenty-first centuries was all retrieved from the
topsoil, subsoil or disturbed contexts and cannot be linked to specific features in the trenches.
15
A small number of earlier objects were located in comparable contexts. A few sherds
of possible Roman material were identified but their level of preservation was so poor that a
firm identification could not be made. One fragment of medieval pottery was also identified.
However, the presence of this material is limited and cannot be used to suggest Roman or
medieval activity. However, the presence of three sherds of Ewloe-type Ware and two sherds
of Cistercian-type Ware dating to the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries is indicative of potential
activity on the site during this period. This small assemblage is the first evidence, albeit on a
small-scale, for potential occupation at the site prior to the seventeenth century. Further
evaluation trenches around the original area of investigation will possibly help establish if
there is a concentration of activity from this period on the site.
Whilst archaeological features and deposits survive in the study area, none were able
to be dated prior to the seventeenth century. This may, in part, be due to the destructive
nature of the perched-water table. However, the positive and negative features identified in
trenches 3 and 4 suggest activity away from the main seventeenth century building complex.
However, the character and function of these features remains unclear, in-part, due to the
size of the evaluation trenches.
8.
CONCLUSION
The five evaluation trenches have established that resistivity survey has been successful in
identifying anthropogenic activity within the interior of the site. As the site is cleared of
vegetation it is recommended that further resistivity survey, where appropriate, be
undertaken prior to further evaluation trenching.
The 2014 evaluation trenches established that archaeology survived in situ. However,
the presence of a perched-water table noted in trenches 2, 3, 4, and 5 at c. 50cm below
ground-level has significantly affected the preservation of archaeological deposits. Trench 1
was not affected by the perched-water table, consequently archaeological deposits survive
well. This suggests that the level of preservation across the site must differ. Further evaluation
trenches and/or coring is necessary to establish the extent of the perched-water table and
the potential level of preservation across the site.
16
To characterise the monument, further evaluation trenching is required across the study
area. These should be sited based on resistivity results and an appropriate sampling strategy,
where geophysical survey cannot be undertaken. Based on the results of further non-invasive
and invasive evaluation a decision should then be made whether to consider open-area
excavation. This is not recommended at present.
17
9.
REFERENCES
British Geological Survey (accessed 07/07/2014)
http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html
Bromborough Society. 2000. Bromborough in Times Past, Millennium Edition,
Bromborough.
Bromborough Court House Moated Site and Fishponds, List Entry Number: 1012503,
(accessed 06/08/2014) www.heritagegateway.org.uk
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. 2014. Standard and Guidance for
Archaeological Excavation. http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/nodefiles/CIfAS&GExcavation_1.pdf
Chitty, G. 1985. Report 2: Bromborough Court House: A survey of the Evidence.
Merseyside Archaeological Society, Liverpool.
Connah, G. E. 1955-56. Annual Report of the Bromborough Society, Bromborough.
David, A. and Mills, P. 1981. Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report. Report on
Resistivity Series. Series Geophysics G 4/79 Bromborough.
Duckers, G. 2014. Topographical and LiDAR analysis of Bromborough Court House
Wirral. Unpublished.
Edwards, H. 1995. Bromborough Court House: a personal recollection of the historic
site and house, which stood in Pool Lane, Bromborough Pool. Unpublished.
Freke, D. 1979. Bromborough Court House Moated Site Excavations 1979. Journal of
Merseyside Archaeology Vol 2, 47-52.
Kirton, J. 2014. Bromborough Court House: report on a resistivity survey. OASIS IDbigherit1-155184
Wirral Council website (accessed 07/07/2014) https://www.wirral.gov.uk/myservices/environment-and-planning/built-conservation/conservationareas/bromborough-pool
18
10.
FIGURES
Figure 1: Bromborough Court House location on Wirral and pertinent features noted
19
Figure 2: Resistivity Grids: Area A and Area B in relation to ditch and bank
20
Figure 3: Tracing of the c. 1755 Estate Map (MHER)
21
Figure 4: Location of Evaluation Trenches
22
Figure 5: Plan of Trench 1
23
Figure 6: Cut (108) for fence line and post hole running north to south in Trench 1
24
Figure 7: West facing section in Trench 1
Figure 8: North facing section in Trench 2
25
Figure 9: East facing section in Trench 2
26
Figure 10: Plan of Trench 3
Figure 11: Context 306
27
Figure 12: Plan of Trench 4
Figure 13: Trench 4 (403/404)
28
Figure 14: Plan of Trench 5
Figure 15: Context (504)
29
APPENDICES
11.
APPENDIX A: context descriptions
Description
L(m)
W(m)
Depth/
thickness
Light
grey/brown
sandy silt.
Pebbles 7-8cm
Light
orange/yellow
clayey silt
Light
orange/yellow
clayey silt.
Sandstone and
clay inclusions
Rubble spread
including
river/sea
pebbles 1020cm
Yellow/orange
clay matrix
around 104
Grey silt/clay
with manganese
staining. Fill of
tree root
system
Grey/brown silt
4.00
2.00
0.23
4.00
2.00
0.20
4.00
2.00
0.04
1.03
2.00
0.20 – depth
of largest
stone
2.93
2.00
Encountered
at 0.47
2.00
Min 0.20
Max 0.65
Min 0.70
Max 0.80
2.00
0.18
0.25
2.00
0.18
0.25
Void
Cut in light
orange/yellow
subsoil
Context void
N/A
N/A
N/A
Void
Context void
N/A
N/A
N/A
Linear cut into
105
0.45
Subsoil
Mid brown silt
0.48
Max 0.15
Min
<0.01
Max 0.15
Min
<0.01
unknown
0.26
Subsoil
Cut into
yellow/orange
clay
Mid brown silt
Cut
Rounded cut
within section
0.48
unknown
0.42
201
Layer
Topsoil
3.00
2.00
0.15
202
Layer
Subsoil
Unexcavated
cut within
section
Dark
black/brown silt
Mid
black/brown
silt. Rounded
sandstone
inclusions 78cm
3.00
2.00
Min 0.23
Max 0.28
Trench
No.
1
Context
No.
101
Type
Fill
of
Layer
Context
interpretation
Topsoil
1
102
Layer
Subsoil
1
103
Layer
Subsoil
1
104
Layer
Sporadic
rubble spread
1
105
Layer
Natural
1
106
Fill
Subsoil
1
107
Fill
1
108
Cut
Linear cut
within subsoil
1
109
Void
1
110
Void
1
111
Cut
1
112
Fill
111
1
113
Fill
114
1
114
2
2
108
Fill of cut
0.45
Spot
date
Postmedieval
Postmedieval
0.26
0.42
30
2
203
Same as (202)
Same as (202)
N/A
N/A
N/A
204
Same
as
(202)
Layer
2
Natural
3.00
2.00
0.21
2
205
Cut
Ditch
0.99
Max 0.60
Min 0.30
0.29
2
206
Cut
Ditch
1.27
0.35
0.35
2
207
Void
Void
Brown/orange
clay
Cut for ditch SENW alignment.
Same as 206
Cut for ditch SENW alignment.
Same as 205
Context void
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
208
Fill
Fill of tree
root system
Min
0.55
Max
2.00
Min
0.30
Max
0.70
0.57
2
209
Layer
Natural
Red/brown
sandy silt.
Rounded
pebbles and
sandstone
fragments
Compact
red/brown clay
3
301
Layer
Topsoil
3.00
2.00
3
302
Layer
Subsoil
Mid
black/brown silt
Brown/grey silt
Encountered
at Min 0.18
Max 0.30
0.12
2.00
2.00
0.29
3
303
Layer
Clay deposit
Grey/orange
2.00
2.00
3
304
Layer
Red/brown
0.60
0.20
3
306
Layer
2.00
Unknown
401
Layer
2.00
2.00
0.15
4
402
Layer
Subsoil
2.00
2.00
0.33
4
403
Natural
Clay deposit
2.00
2.00
Encountered
at 0.48
4
404
Fill
0.40
0.45
0.35
4
405
Cut
Cut
0.40
0.45
0.35
4
406
Layer
Degraded
sandstone
2.0
0.19
Min 10
Max 15
5
501
Layer
Topsoil
5.00
1.00
0.16
5
502
Layer
Subsoil
5.00
1.00
0.24
5
503
Natural
Clay deposit
Dark brown/red
sandstone
Mid
brown/black
silt. Rounded
sandstone
inclusions.
Mid brown/grey
silt
Light
grey/orange
clay
Dark red/brown
silt. Two
separate areas
comprise 404.
Pebbles
Rounded cut,
partially
excavated
Dark
black/orange
silty sand. Two
separate areas
comprise 406.
Sandstone
stones 5-10cm
Mid
brown/black silt
Mid brown/grey
sandy silt
Light
grey/orange
1.40
4
Decayed
sandstone
Structural
deposit
Topsoil
Encountered
at 0.41
Unknown
5.00
1.00
Encountered
at 0.40
405
Fill of cut
2.00
31
5
504
Same as (503)
505
Same
as
(503)
Layer
5
5
506
Layer
Structural
deposit
Mixed deposit
clay. Same as
504
Same as (503)
Dark
black/orange
firm and loose
material
surrounding
506. Sandstone
stones 5-10cm.
Dark brown/red
sandstone
N/A
1.24
0.45
Min 0.05
Max 0.10
1.60
0.80
Unknown
32
12.
APPENDIX B: finds reports
12.1.
Animal Bone by Ian Smith
Introduction and Location
Big Heritage undertook excavations at Bromborough Court House which is a scheduled
[1012503]
moated and fish pool site (NGR: SJ 334492, 384166) in Bromborough, Wirral,
E gla d a d as o the He itage at ‘isk ‘egiste i 2014. Community excavations were run
by Big Heritage in the autumn months of 2014 and a small group of bones were recovered by
hand and are the subject of this report.
The work was commissioned by Joanne Kirton of Big Heritage, Chester. The assessment work
was undertaken by Ian Smith on 24th January 2014.
Aim
The aim was to assess the potential and significance of the material and to advise Big Heritage
accordingly.
Methods
F ag e ts e e ide tified usi g the autho s
ode
o pa ati e olle tio . ‘eference was
also made to Halstead and Collins (1995). Diagnostic zones of Serjeantson (1996) were
recorded for the two identified fragments. The approximate state of preservation was
recorded at context level (Baker and Worley 2014) following weathering stages for large
mammals first detailed by Behrensmeyer (1978) and repeated in Lyman (1994).
Stratigraphic Integrity
The bone bearing contexts are broadly post-medieval in date, the presence of Victorian
material is attested and the presence of some more recent intrusive material cannot be
33
excluded. The cattle astragalus and femur are from contexts which contain clay pipe and other
post-medieval artefacts.
Identifications and preservation states
The identifiable bones (NISP=2) are from cattle (Bos taurus) probably of improved breed. The
other small fragments (NISP=7) include six that are burnt, calcined and white in colour. The
two identified specimens are affected by surface flaking and erosion. The femur is also
affected by recent longitudinal splitting which appears to be ongoing.
Measurements
Only one useful potential measurement (smallest diameter or SD of the mid shaft) is available
from the femur (although the fusion state is unknown). The shaft is affected by surface
damage but nevertheless the obvious relatively large shaft diameter most probably indicates
a recent, improved breed of cattle. Only the proximal part of the astragalus survives, which
precludes any widely used measurements (Dreisch, 1976). A larger group of remains of
improved stock (cattle, sheep and pig) from Bromborough were recorded by Gidney (2014)
from test pits excavated by Big Heritage in 2013.
Discussion
The preservation states of the bones recovered here are not unusual in the north-west on
relatively shallow clay rich or acidic soils (Brennand et al 2007, 181). Amongst all the contexts
and specimens the state of preservation is poor, equating approximately to Behrensmeyer
(1978) stage 4 or 5 (although the calcined material has been distorted and shrunk by heat, is
not affected primarily by weathering).
34
Potential
The small size and state of the assemblage precludes any wider discussion of species,
husbandry or diet. No teeth were recovered and no states of epiphyseal fusion can be
determined, the femur being represented b a
li de . The p i a
data
Bake a d
Worley 2014, 18) is limited by the state of fragmentation and erosion of bone surfaces. This
and the small size of the group limits its potential and significance and the group should be
considered a small adjunct to the work of Gidney (2014) and other groups from Bromborough
which are to be recorded in the near future (Kirton pers comm).
Recommendations
No further work is recommended.
References
Baker, P and Worley, F. 2014. Animal Bones and Archaeology: guidelines for best practice,
English Heritage
Behrensmeyer A. K. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering,
Palaeobiology 4, 150-162
Brennand, M., Chitty, G., and Newman, R. 2007. Research Strategy, in M. Brennand (ed)
Archaeological Research Framework for the North West Region
Driesch, A. von den. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological
Sites, Peabody Museum Bulletins, Harvard: Harvard University
Gidney, L. 2014. Discovering Bromborough, Merseyside, Faunal Remains Assessment.
Archaeological Services Report 3413, Durham: Durham University
Halstead, P. and Collins, P. 1995. Sheffield Animal Bone Tutorial: taxonomic identification of
the principle limb bones of common European farmyard animals and deer: a multimedia
tutorial
Lyman, R. L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
35
Serjeantson, D. 1996. The animal bones, in S. Needham and T. Spence (eds) Runnymede
Bridge Research Excavations. Volume 2. Refuse and Disposal at Area 16 East, Runnymede,
194–223, London: British Museum
Table 1. Summary by trench/context/species/anatomical element of recovered faunal
remains.
Key: cf med mammal=possible medium sized mammal, unid=unidentified
end
0
15.5
unid
unid
frag
0
<1
1
1
med
202
2
1
mammal
unid
unid
frag
302
3
1
cattle
femur
right 3456
cylinder 0
cf
302
3
3
med
mammal
4
1
mammal
232
shaft
unid
unid
large
402
Approx. weight (g)
Burnt/White
Type
1234
med
mammal
cf
Serjeantson
1
astragalus left
(1996) zones
1
Side
cattle
cf
101
Element
1
Species
1
NISP
Trench
Context
101
frag
3
2
shaft
limb bone unid
frag
1
2
limb bone unid
frag
1
3
large
502
5
1
mammal
36
12.2.
Ceramic Building Material by Julie Edwards
A total of 185 fragments (1883 g) of ceramic building material were excavated from Trenches
1-5. Contexts (202) and (204) produced the greatest quantity of fragments - 60 fragments,
494 g and 37 fragments, 716 g respectively.
101
101
101
102
102
102
103
201
201
201
202
202
204
204
204
204
204
302
401
401
402
402
501
502
502
CBM
CBM
CBM
daub
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBMblackware
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBM
CBM
tile
tile
brick?
daub
brick
?
?
brick
tile
?
brick
?
brick
brick
brick
?
ridge
tile
?
brick?
tile
brick
tile?
brick?
brick
tile
1
1
4
1
7
6
5
14
2
4
52
8
20
1
1
13
2
24
25
10
31
46
18
5
155
5
6
470
24
152
261
34
67
202
8
4
1
2
1
8
18
1
30
45
24
12
9
39
187
2
The ceramic building material is predominantly composed of abraded oxidised red fragments,
the assemblage is in a very poor condition and the majority of the fragments do not have any
surface features to indicate form or date.
Identifiable objects are the remains of two post-medieval unglazed redware tiles – possibly
for a floor or other hard surface – from (101) and (401) – and two pieces from a blackware
37
ridge tile for a roof which is a type that came into production during the 18th century in North
Wales and the pieces are similar to types made in Buckley. A piece of tile made from a
refractory clay was found in context (101) and was perhaps a floor or yard tile.
Some featureless fragments have fabrics with a texture and range of inclusions commonly
seen in post-medieval bricks and identifiable brick fragments are present in the assemblage
but they are too abraded and small to identify as to precise form or date.
One piece of abraded daub was identified from context (102).
The high level of fragmentation and abrasion prevents any discussion of the origin, date or
function of the assemblage.
12.3.
Clay Tobacco Pipes and Marbles by D A Higgins
Introduction
This report deals with a group of clay tobacco pipes that were recovered from five evaluation
trenches excavated in 2014 on the site of Bromborough Court House, a scheduled monument
situated at Bromborough on the Wirral, Merseyside. The trench numbers can be identified
from the first numeral of the context number, Trench 1 starting with 101, Trench 2 with 201,
etc. The project was undertaken by Big Heritage C.I.C. of Chester and the site code used was
BCH 14.
The pipes themselves were individually examined by the author in February 2015 and an
archive record compiled on an Excel worksheet. In the archive record and the following report
lo al fa i
efe s to pipes
ade usi g a slightl off-white fabric, typically with a granular
fracture and/or gritty inclusions, which is presumed to have been obtained from the local Coal
Measu es deposits i south La ashi e o
o th Wales. I
o t ast, i po ted fa i
efe s to
a fine, whiter coloured clay, almost inclusion free, that was probably imported from the southwest of England.
38
The Clay Tobacco Pipes
A total of 77 fragments of pipe were recovered during this project, comprising 38 bowl, 37
stem and 2 mouthpiece fragments. A description of the finds from each context is given
below. Each entry starts with the context number, followed by the number of pipe fragments
recovered from that context in brackets. These are presented in a standard formula with the
numbers of bowl, stem and mouthpiece fragments being given in that order, separated by
slashes, and then the total number of fragments in the group. Thus (7/14/3 = 23) represents
7 bowl fragments, 14 stem fragments and 3 mouthpiece fragments, totalling 23 pieces in all.
101 (9/5/0 = 14) One of the five stems is 29mm long and very abraded but may have been
ground against a hard surface at both ends after having been broken, perhaps for use as a
piece of chalk to draw with. This piece could date from the eighteenth century and is residual
in this group. The other four stems are all of nineteenth century or later types and one has an
incuse moulded sans-se if lette N
ithout a
o de o o e side the othe side does ot
have any surviving lettering). It is not clear whether this is from the start or end of a word,
but the latte is pe haps
o e likel si e it ould
ell e the e d of the
o d DUBLIN , a
popular pattern name for a pipe style at this date. The bowl fragments are all very small, as
if from a well trampled surface, but four of them join together showing that they have not
been widely scattered since having been crushed. These pieces make up a good portion of a
spurless bowl of c. 1850-1910 with a large acanthus leaf underneath and a plain rib on the
seam facing away from the smoker (the other is missing, but would probably have been the
same). The other fragments include part of a thick-walled Irish style bowl with moulded
milling, two plain rim fragments and another with two quite broad raised bands around the
bowl, parallel with the rim. All of the bowl fragments are typical of forms that would have
been current from c. 1850-1920.
102 (1/8/0 = 9) Three of the stems are of seventeenth or early eighteenth century date but
all three are very abraded and residual in this context. One is made of a local fabric. The other
five stems are of mid-eighteenth century or later date and most are likely to date from the
nineteenth century. The single bowl fragment is part of a large and thick-walled Irish style
39
bowl with a deeply hand impressed band of milling at the rim. This may well be an actual Irish
import, since hand applied milling was very rarely used in Britain at this date, and probably
dates from c. 1840-80.
103 (0/1/0 = 1) A tiny fragment from a thin piece of stem, broken in half longitudinally,
probably dating from the nineteenth century.
201 (2/1/1 = 4) This group comprises one small fragment from a bowl of c. 1810-1900 with
simple leaf decorated seams, a thick-walled plain bowl fragment of c. 1840 or later and a
joining stem and mouthpiece. These make up most of the stem of a short cutty pipe with a
trimmed nipple mouthpiece, which dates from c. 1840-1900.
202 (13/9/1 = 23) Two or three of the stems could be of late seventeenth or eighteenth
century date, but they are abraded and clearly residual in what is predominantly a mid to late
nineteenth century looking assemblage. There is a flattened oval mouthpiece with nipple end
and six milled bowl fragments from at least three different pipes. These are all thick-walled
Irish styles, five of which have moulded milling and one piece hand applied milling. There is
no other decoration on the bowl fragments, one of which is the rounded base from a spurless
bowl. In addition to the stem/mouthpiece join, there are also two pairs of bowl fragments
that fit.
204 (0/2/0 = 2) Two joining stem fragments from a pipe with quite a thick stem and relatively
s all ste
oe
/
,
ost likel dati g f o
c. 1680-1740.
301 (3/2/0 = 5) One stem and one bowl fragment are residual fragments of late seventeenth
or eighteenth century date. The other pieces are all of nineteenth century or later date, with
the latest fragment being part of a bowl with moulded milling dating from c. 1850-1920.
40
302 (0/2/0 = 2) Two rather undiagnostic stem fragments that are hard to date accurately.
One piece is probably seventeenth century (but could be later) and the other is of eighteenth
or nineteenth century date (very abraded).
401 (4/2/0 = 6) The two stems are of late eighteenth or nineteenth century types. The four
bowl fragments are all plain and of a similar date. They comprise three square cut rim
fragments from one or more large plain bowls with relatively thick walls and a plain spur
fragment (not trimmed). The bowl fragments have a slightly different feel to others from the
site and could represent a late eighteenth to early nineteenth century group, but this not
certain and they could simply represent a later group of large plain bowls.
402 (0/4/0 = 4) Two very abraded stem fragments of seventeenth century date and two
joining stem fragments with a thin very pale yellowish brown glaze coating, which extends
over one broken end, showing that the pipe was broken before being tipped and then
subsequently used in this state. This type of glazed tip is most likely to date from c. 17801840.
501 (2/0/0 = 2) Two small bowl fragments. One has very faint and small leaves decorating
the seam of quite a thick-walled bowl and is of a general nineteenth century type. The other
has part of an oval incuse sans-serif stamp facing the smoker with the lettering GAR. . .
surviving. This was probably a stamp reading GARIBALDI PIPE (or similar), a popular pattern
name around 1860-90.
502 (4/1/0 = 5) All these fragments are likely to date from the nineteenth century with the
latest c. 1840-1900. There is one plain stem fragment and one plain bowl fragment. The base
of a spurless bowl has a deep oval stem and a pattern of random dots starting near the bowl
and covering the surviving portion. This may have been intended as a crudely modelled acorn
cup. The other two fragments are fluted, perhaps from the same bowl with evenly spaced
narrow flutes. One piece comes from the bowl junction, which could have been spurless, and
41
the other from the rim, showing that the flutes stopped about 6mm below the rim, and
parallel to it.
Discussion of the Pipes
A summary of the pipe evidence is given in Table 1, including date ranges for the groups from
each context and details of the marked and decorated pieces recovered.
Tr
Cxt
B
S
1
101
9
5
M
Tot
Range
Latest
Mark
Type
Pos
Decoration
14
1700-
1850-
N
IM
SS
acanthus leaf and
1920
1920
rib x 2; moulded
milling x 1; raised
bands x 1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
102
1
103
201
202
302
1
1
2
13
204
301
9
8
1
9
2
3
2
2
1
1
4
23
2
5
2
actual milling x 1
1610-
1840-
1900
1880
1800-
1800-
1900
1900
1810-
1840-
1900
1900
1680-
1840-
moulded milling x
1920
1920
5; actual milling x 1
1680-
1680-
1740
1740
1680-
1850-
1920
1920
1610-
1700-
1900
1900
leaf seams x 1
moulded milling x 1
42
4
4
5
5
Tot
401
4
402
501
502
6
2
4
4
2
2
4
38
5
1
37
2
1780-
1780-
1900
1900
1610-
1780-
1840
1840
1810-
1860-
1900
1900
1800-
1840-
1900
1900
77
glazed x 2
GA‘…
IS
BF
leaf seams x 1
fluted x 2; dots x 1
2
19
Table 1: Context summary showing the Trench (Tr) and Context numbers (Cxt) followed by the
numbers of bowl (B), stem(S) and mouthpiece (M) fragments recovered, together with the
total (Tot). The range shows the overall spread of dating for all the pipes represented followed
by the date of the latest pieces present. The marks are transcribed followed by their type (IM
= incuse moulded; IS = incuse stamped) and position (SS = sides of the stem; BF = on the bowl,
facing the smoker).
Several of the contexts produced stem fragments of seventeenth or eighteenth century date
but no recognisable bowl forms were recovered. All of these early fragments were very
abraded, partly as a result of adverse soil conditions that has made the fragments rather soft
and powdery, and partly because they appear to have been well broken and mixed, as if in a
cultivated soil. One of the stems was made of a local fabric, but the others were all relatively
fine and probably imported. This may suggest that pipes were being brought primarily from
Chester, where imported fabrics were used from an early date, as opposed to south
Lancashire, where an important pipemaking industry developed using local clays (Higgins
2008a). The early fragments were too abraded to determine surface finish, such as burnishing,
and almost all these pieces were residual in their contexts.
43
The majority of the pipe fragments, however, date from the nineteenth century and, in
particular, from c. 1840-1890. These pieces were also very fragmented (no whole bowls were
recovered) but it was notable how many joins were present amongst the fragments. This
would be consistent with a trampled surface into which pipe fragments were crushed but not
subsequently disturbed. The pipe deposition on this part of the site contrasts with the areas
examined in 1979, where the pipes were found to primarily date from c. 1820-50 (Higgins
1987, 20-21; the range given in 1987 was c. 1810-60, but this can now be tightened at both
ends). The 1979 finds included several distinctive local types of mark and decoration
characteristic of the second quarter of the nineteenth century, such as scalloped decoration,
a stag s head
otif fa i g the s oke ,
oulded shields o tai i g the
ake s i itials a d
panel decorated bowls, none of which were present amongst the 2014 finds. The 1979 finds
were also much more complete, showing that not only were different parts of the site being
used for discard at different times but also that the nature of the archaeological deposits in
these areas differs as well.
The nineteenth century pipes that were recovered in 2014 were mainly plain but with a
notable number of the fragments having milled rims (9 out of 19 decorated or glazed
f ag e ts . These e e ge e all thi k alled o ls of I ish st le a d t o of the pie es had
hand applied rather than moulded milling. These are likely to have come from actual Irish
imports as opposed to the moulded examples, which are just as likely to have been made by
English makers catering for the demand fo this st le. The ste
a
ell e f o
a I ish st le pipe
a ked DUBLIN ,
a
ith a i use
of
hi h
oulded N
e e also
ade
British manufacturers. Irish style pipes seem to have been the favoured form in use when this
material was deposited, with only small numbers of other mould decorated forms
represented. There two fluted fragments may well come from the same pipe as do the two
with acanthus leaf decoration. There is one fragment with horizontal bands on the bowl, one
with dots (probably in imitation of an acorn) and two with simple leaf decorated seams. The
o l othe
a ked pie e is pa t of a o l sta p, p o a l f o
a Ga i aldi Pipe .
44
The two mouthpieces both come from short-stemmed cutty pipes with nipple ends and the
majority of the fragments recovered probably came from pipes of this type, including one or
t o that had spu less o ls. All of the pipes e o e ed a e o
o
u of the
ill t pes
that would have been in everyday use during the nineteenth century. The Irish style pipes in
particular were favoured by working men because of their robust nature and there is nothing
amongst this assemblage that stands out as being particularly special.
In summary, there is some evidence for smoking on the site from the seventeenth century
onwards, but the majority of the pipes from this area were deposited during the third quarter
of the nineteenth century. This contrasts with other areas of the site and shows that it is not
possible to extrapolate the nature or date of the finds from one area to another. In this area
the pipes appear to have been trampled into a surface, which does not seem to have been
disturbed much since. The pipes include a range of typical forms for the area and represent
cheap, everyday pipes that are most likely to have been smoked by working men, with Irish
styles being particularly favoured.
The Marbles
The excavations also produced two marbles, perhaps indicating that children were also
playing in this area. These are hard to date but are most likely to have been produced during
the nineteenth century, particularly given the date of the bulk of the pipes and the fact that
one of them appears to be a machine ground stone example, which has been finished with
three red painted lines around it. A similar pattern was observed in Chester, where thirteen
marbles recovered from excavations at 25 Bridge Street appeared to be primarily associated
with post-1800 deposits (Higgins 2008b, 259). The two marbles from Bromborough are as
follows: -
401 A rather irregular handmade clay marble with a diameter varying between 13.0 mm and
14.2 mm. This has been made of pale buff coloured clay with occasional streaks of darker
45
brown clay. There are occasional very fine sandy inclusions in the fabric visible under a lens.
Surface very abraded.
502 A very small marble made with quite a good spherical form and a diameter of 10.9 mm.
This is made of quite a dense, heavy material (presumed to be stone) with a white slightly
crystalline/granular surface. The small size and good form of this marble suggest that it was
mechanically ground and it has been finished with three fine parallel lines of red pigment
around its middle.
At Chester, the majority of the marbles were found to have been made of stone with only a
small number being of clay. The stone marbles ranged in size from 13.9 mm to 20.0 mm,
emphasizing how small the Bromborough example is in comparison. There were only two
examples that were certainly made of clay from Chester and these ranged from 16.3 mm to
16.5 mm. Both were made of marbled red and white clays like the Bromborough example.
Two clay marbles have also been recorded from excavations at Castle Rushen Stores on the
Isle of Man (Higgins 2008b, 96-97). These were both made of a fine white pipe clay and ranged
from 15-18 mm in diameter. Although they are of a broadly similar size to those from Chester
and Bromborough, their different fabric may well indicate that they came from a different
source.
References
Higgins, D. A., 1987, Some Clay Pipes from Cheshire and Merseyside, North West Archaeological
Trust, Liverpool, Report No 3 (22pp).
Higgi s, D. A.,
, Cla Ma les f o
e a atio s at Castle ‘ushe “to es i Da e P. J.,
Freke, D. J. & Higgins, D. A., Excavations in Castletown, Isle of Man 1989-1992, Liverpool
University Press, 96-7 (177pp).
46
Higgi s, D. A.,
a, Me se side Cla To a o Pipes, c1600-
, Journal of the Merseyside
Archaeological Society, 12, 125-60.
Higgi s, D. A.,
, Cla To a o Pipes a d Othe Pipe la O je ts i Da Ga e et al,
Excavations at Chester: 25 Bridge Street 2001 – Two Thousand Years of Urban Life in Microcosm,
Archaeological Service Excavation & Survey Report No 14, Chester City Council, 243-86 (437pp).
12.4.
Glass by Rose Broadley
Overview
A total of 674 fragments of glass were found, weighing a total of 1468 grams. The assemblage
is entirely Post-Medieval, and largely confined to the twentieth century. Approximately 20%
of the glass by sherd count is vessel glass, with the remainder being window glass. Almost all
of the identifiable vessel glass comes from utility bottles of various kinds.
Aim
The aim was to assess the potential and significance of the material and to advise Big Heritage
accordingly.
Discussion
The earliest and most interesting fragments are from a utility bottle that appears black in
reflected light (C202). The shape and condition of the rim and neck date the manufacture to
between 1820 and 1870. This is the only glass from the site that can be confidently dated to
before the mechanization of the glass industry at the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth
centuries. A large neck and shoulder and nine body sherds from the same or a very similar
vessel were also found in the same context, as was the narrow rim and neck of a small and
very pale blue bottle. The base and a body sherd from another black utility bottle came from
47
C201, as well as twenty-one sherds from C101, seventeen from C102, four in C204, two in
C501, and one each from C103, C301 and C401.
The sherds from a range of other utility bottles in different colours and shapes were also
found: a pale green base with a rounded end and straight edge (C401); the corner of a pale
blue base with three vertical planes meaning that the bottle would have been eight-sided
(C102); and one green and two colourless sherds with traces of moulded lettering or designs,
but with too little surviving for identification (C101). However, these are difficult to identify
or date precisely due to the lack of legible moulded lettering or other distinguishing features.
They are all twentieth century however, and probably from the first half of that century. The
glass assemblage also features a glass marble from a Codd-necked bottle, which were
invented in 1872 especially for carbonated drinks. However, the period of greatest use was
the first half of the twentieth century, which is the likely date for this example. Utility bottles
were used for containing a wide range of liquids, including perfumes, medicines, and
chemicals as well as alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. It is likely that the black bottles
contained alcoholic drinks, and the remainder contained medicines or chemicals, with the
exception of the marble, which indicates a carbonated and probably soft drink bottle.
However, this distinction was far from absolute.
The vast majority of the identifiable vessel sherds in this assemblage are from bottles.
However, it is possible that a handful of sherds represent drinking glasses or vases. The only
clear case is a colourless rim sherd with a grid of inverted prisms moulded from one
centimetre below the rim and a visible mould seam (C101), dating to the first half of the
twentieth century.
The majority of the window glass is modern, thin and colourless, although there are a number
of thicker colourless sherds with an obscuring pattern of very fine parallel ridges on one side
(five in C102, one in C302, one in C101), which are also twentieth century in date.
Recommendations
The potential of the assemblage for further research is considered to be very limited, and no
further work is recommended.
48
12.5.
Lithic by Olaf Bayer
Overview
A total of 2 potential lithic artefacts were found in the topsoil of Trench 5 (501) and subsoil of
Trench 1 (102).
Aim
The aim was to assess the potential and significance of the material and to advise Big Heritage
accordingly.
Discussion
The lithic from (501) is a possible fragmented unmodified struck flake. The lithic from (102) is
a small unmodified struck flake. The presence of such lithic material is not unexpected, as two
additional flints were found within the grounds of Bromborough Courthouse and at Shore
Field (S. Nicholson pers comm). Within the parish of Bromborough, a Neolithic arrowhead
was discovered in a garden at Croft Avenue, and four prehistoric find spots were discovered
prior to development at Cowpasture Wood (NGR: SJ 353 824), although no evidence of
settlement was revealed (LUAU 1994). During the 2013 test pitting project two further lithic
artefacts were recovered from Bromborough Village. The first was a Mesolithic bladelet and
the second, a Neolithic arrowhead (Duckers, Kirton and Paton 2014).
Recommendations
The potential of the assemblage for further research is considered to be very limited, and no
further work is recommended.
References
Duckers, G., Kirton, J. and Paton, D. 2014. Discovering Bromborough Test Pit Excavations,
Summer 2013. Retrieved from Discovering Bromborough website:
49
https://discoveringbromborough.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/discovering-bromboroughreport-2013.pdf
LUAU. 1994. Cowpasture Wood, Bromborough, Wirral, Merseyside: Archaeological
Evaluation, unpubl rep.
12.6.
Pottery by Julie Edwards
Introduction
This report describes an assemblage of 1207 sherds, 4566 g of pottery recovered during
excavations by Big Heritage at Bromborough Courthouse, Bromborough in 2014.
Methodology
The pottery has been quantified in line with the minimum standards of the Medieval Pottery
Research Group (MPRG 2001), that is by sherd count and weight according to ware type and
where possible form within context groups; the data has been recorded in an Excel
spreadsheet. The terms used to identify the wares are those employed in the CWAC Historic
Environment Team fabric reference collection modified for the post-medieval period by the
common ware names recommended by the Potteries Museum during an English Heritage
sponsored training course in 1999. Forms have been defined as far as possible using terms
recommended by the Medieval Pottery Research Group (MPRG 1998).
The pottery has been divided and bagged by ware type within context groups except for the
smaller assemblages where the pottery was returned to the same bag. It is possible that some
of the wares classified as C19th/20th whitewares i.e. fine white glazed earthenwares may be
from the plain areas of decorated wares but unless there is an obvious sherd join with a
decorated fragment it is not possible to identify such wares and they have been bagged
separately.
This report summarises and discusses the assemblage, detailed information can be found in
the archive record.
50
Condition
The pottery assemblage is very fragmentary and consists of small and very small fragments
which are often too small and abraded to identify accurately to ware type and form. No
vessels can be partly or totally reconstructed from the fragments although some pieces are
clearly from the same vessels and sometimes join to form larger fragments of a vessel.
Unglazed and medieval fragments are the most abraded and on some the surfaces and any
diagnostic features have been totally worn away making the pieces unidentifiable.
Range
Post-medieval wares dominate the assemblage. Where form can be discerned tablewares
such as plates, dishes, bowls, cups and jugs and storage vessels are most common but a
fragment of a jelly mould and flowerpots are also present and a small miniature porcelain
plate may be from a dolls tea set or dolls house. The range of wares are typical for the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries being mass-produced types produced in
Staffordshire and elsewhere in Britain, along with blackwares and slipwares made in
traditional potteries such as those at Buckley, N Wales, Staffordshire and Prescot in South
Lancashire. A small number of earlier wares are present as well as fragments imported from
the Rhineland and China but this is not unusual as both areas exported large quantities of
ceramics to Britain during the post-medieval period. A few tin-glazed ware fragments were
possibly made in London, Bristol or Liverpool although a Low Countries source cannot be
excluded. One piece of transfer-printed porcelain may be an example of eighteenth century
Liverpool porcelain which is not commonly found on excavations. Examples of earlier postmedieval wares are late 17th/18th century mottled wares which may have been made in
Buckley or Staffordshire. Fragments of late 15th- 16th century Cistercian-type wares are too
small to indicate a provenance but production sites at Rainford, South Lancashire,
Staffordshire and Yorkshire all supplied the region.
At least one sherd is definitely medieval – a fragment made in a Coal Measure clay is of 14th
or 15th century date, another abraded red earthenware is perhaps medieval but is too
abraded to identify precisely.
51
A piece of Roman pottery had been bagged with the ceramic building material, it is too small
to identify or date precisely. It is possible that Roman wares are present amongst some of the
very abraded red earthenwares but if so they do not have enough diagnostic features to
identify them.
The principle groups are summarised below.
Description
Trench 1: 417 sherds, 1603 g
The topsoil and subsoil layers (101) and (102) layers produced the largest quantity of pottery
in this trench (411 sherds, 1594 g); the remainder was found in the, subsoil layer (103), tree
root fill (106) and fill of cut within the subsoil (108).
Transfer-printed wares and undecorated 19th/20th century whitewares dominate the
assemblage by sherd weight and count but blackwares, unglazed red earthenware flower pots
and brown salt-glazed stonewares contribute a sizeable but lesser component by weight.
Sherd size prevents many of the transfer-printed designs being identified and dated more
closely but blue Chinese inspired patterns including Willow pattern are common; purple,
black, green and brown patterns are also present and include floral, foliage and abstract
patterns and some rural or outdoor scenes. Black and blue transfer prints were introduced in
the second half of the 18th century but other colours did not appear until during the first half
of the 19th century. Other decorated wares include blue, green and purple sponge prints,
painted wares, blue banded factory slip wares, relief-moulded smear glazed stonewares and
Jasper-type wares as well as a late 18th or 19th century trailed slipware vessel.
The wares present are largely domestic in character but some of the storage wares may have
had a commercial use. Sherd size prevents the vessel type of many of the fragments from
being identified however vessels for serving food and drink can be recognised and include
cups, mugs, a tea-bowl, plates, bowls, dishes, jugs and a large transfer-printed lid potentially
from a tureen. Storage wares include blackware jars and large dishes – one jar fragment has
a deposit that may be paint and could have been used as a paint pot; cylindrical whiteware
52
jars, stoneware bottles including a black leading bottle fragment and a possible mottled ware
chamber pot. All the unglazed redwares appear to be flower pots of various sizes.
The wares represented were mostly made and used in the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries however some such as creamwares, blackwares, brown salt-glazed stonewares
span the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A small number of earlier post-medieval wares
are present such as late seventeenth/early eighteenth century tin-glazed wares, late
seventeenth – mid-eighteenth century mottled wares, seventeenth century yellow ware, an
eighteenth century white-salt glazed stoneware and an eighteenth century Jackfield-type
ware (a refined black-glazed ware). Four fragments are much earlier in date. Three sherds of
a Ewloe-type ware (SF- 1008/1009/1010) probably from North East Wales is common in the
14th and 15th centuries but some evidence from Chester suggests these wares may continue
into the 16th century (Edwards 2008). One very small piece of Roman pottery (SF – 1011) was
identified, the piece has a fine white/cream fabric with what appears to be the remains of a
buff colour coat on both surfaces however the piece is too abraded to identify as to ware or
date (G.Dunn pers comm.).
Table1: Trench 1
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
102
102
102
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1
12
12
12
Blackware
Bone china
Brown salt-glazed stoneware
C19th/20th painted ware
C19th/20th whiteware
C19th brown glazed ware
C19th buff ware
Creamware
Factory slipware - banded ware
Notts-type stoneware
Pearl-shell edged
Porcelain
Sponged ware
Stoneware
Transfer Printed Ware (TPW)
TPW-Flow blue
Unglazed redware
Black slip-coated ware
Blackware
Bone china
14
16
3
1
99
2
6
12
2
1
1
2
6
1
59
5
34
1
15
2
169
31
22
3
307
8
19
17
11
3
1
1
15
1
109
37
300
2
105
1
53
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
102
102
102
102
102
102
103
103
103
106
108
12
12
12
12
12
27
13
13
13
14
15
Brown salt-glazed stoneware
C19th/20th painted ware
C19th/20th whiteware
Ewloe-type Ware?
Factory slipware - banded ware
Glazed redware
Jasper-type Ware
Mottled Ware
Pearlware
Self-coloured Ware
Slipware-trail
Smear glazed stone ware
Smear glazed stone ware Cypls Type
Sponged Ware?
Tin-glazed Ware
Transfer Printed Ware (TPW)
TPW-Flow blue
Yellow Ware
Roman - Possible
Jackfield-type Ware
C19th buff ware
C19th/20th whiteware
Self-coloured ware
Blackware
4
1
46
3
1
1
4
7
5
3
2
1
9
98
1
106
21
1
1
4
32
18
31
3
13
32
1
6
29
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
7
53
8
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
Trench 2: 375 sherds, 1390 g
Pottery was recovered from the topsoil and subsoil layers (201) and (202) and one fragment
from layer (204) a natural layer, which has been heavily disturbed by tree-roots.
Transfer printed wares and undecorated 19th/20th century whiteware fragments dominate
the assemblage by sherd count and weight but blackwares are the greater by weight, these
are largely concentrated in (202) and there are slightly more present than in Trench 1. There
is a much lesser quantity of unglazed redwares (largely flowerpots) than in Trench 1 and they
a e o l p ese t i
Pheasa ts a e
o te ts
o
a d
. The t a sfe p i ted patte s i lude Asiati
o p i t that as popula f o
the
s, Willo patte , Fi e a
popular abstract design of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and unidentified floral, foliage
and abstract geometric prints. Blue, purple, green, black, brown and grey prints are present.
The border transfers on one purple printed plate have been misaligned so that the pattern is
54
not continuous, this suggests that the plate may have been sold or acquired as a second.
Other decorated wares include fragments painted with stripes and bands and flowers; Bone
China with blue or violet sprigged flowers which date from c.1820; factory slipwares with
bands of green, brown and blue; sponged wares with cut sponge motifs in green and purple
dating from the 1830s; blue painted and printed porcelains and blue painted tin-glazed wares.
Trailed slipware dishes are also present.
The assemblage is very similar in character to
Trench 1 and the pottery consists of
predominantly household wares which are largely factory produced tablewares for eating
and drinking, these include cups, saucers, bowls, plates, an egg cup, a jug and fragments of a
late 19th century brown-glazed teapot. The blackwares include fragments of what appear to
have been large storage jars and bowls or dishes as well as smaller cups or mugs, the latter
may be 17th or 18th century in date. Less common but not unusual in assemblages of this date
are a plain miniature porcelain plate of poor quality which is perhaps from a dolls service or
dolls house and the head of a man with a bouffant hairstyle which is probably from an
ornamental figurine. All the unglazed redwares appear to be flower pots of various sizes, one
has an applied horizontal handle and may have taken the form of a jar.
Fragments of a 19th century stoneware Selters mineral water bottle were found in (202) and
(204) Mineral water like today was popular largely because sources of clean drinking water
were not widely available until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, imports from Germany
and Low Countries arrived in tall cylindrical stoneware bottles similar to those used more
recently for gin.
Whilst the majority of the assemblage spans the late 18th to early 20th centuries some earlier
wares are present and include the following. Two fragments of Westerwald stoneware from
(202) and (204) appear to be from globular mugs or round-bodied jugs, one piece has sprigged
decoration this and the forms suggest they are probably seventeenth century in date. Blue
and grey Westerwald stonewares continued to be imported into the UK long after the brown
salt-glazed Rhenish stonewares were replaced by English stonewares, they are commonly
found as jugs, chamberpots and mugs. The handle from a mottled ware cup dates from the
late 17th to the mid 18th century. A small fragment of white salt-glazed stoneware is also from
the 18th century as is a fragment from an 18th century tin-glazed ware bowl with blue floral
decoration, a possible fragment of 18th century Liverpool porcelain with a blue transfer print.
55
A Chinese porcelain cup and a fragment from a large press moulded slipware dish are of 18 th
or 19th century date.
In general it is difficult to comment on the type of households that may have used this pottery
but the Liverpool porcelain would have been from a reasonably comfortably off household as
perhaps were the tin-glazed wares and Westerwald stoneware.
Table 2: Trench 2
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
2
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
3
Blackware
Bone china
Brown salt-glazed stoneware
C19th brown glazed ware
C19th buff ware
C19th/20th decorated ware
C19th/20th whiteware
Factory slipware - banded ware
Mottled ware
Pearlware
Porcelain
Sponged ware
TPW
TPW-Flow blue
Unidentified
White salt-glazed stoneware
Blackware
Bone china
C19th brown glazed ware
C19th buff ware
C19th/20th decorated ware
C19th/20th whiteware
Factory slipware - banded ware
Mottled ware
Notts-type stoneware
Porcelain
Selters bottle
Slipware-trailed
Sponged ware
Stoneware
TPW
TPW-Flow blue
Westerwald stoneware
Unglazed Redware
3
5
1
2
2
4
19
3
1
1
3
1
8
1
2
1
20
13
4
7
7
95
9
1
1
3
5
1
1
7
58
2
1
2
44
16
6
21
9
36
69
7
3
8
5
1
8
3
3
1
279
18
10
21
18
196
24
13
5
6
42
2
1
39
211
2
6
14
56
202
202
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
3
3
4
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
4
Unidentified
TGW
Unglazed redware
Agate ware
Black ware
Bone China
C19th/20th whiteware
Chinese porcelain
Creamware
Mottled ware
Porcelain
Selters bottle
Slipware-trailed
Sponged ware
Tin-glazed ware
TPW
TPW - Blue Ware
Westerwald stoneware
Unglazed Earthenware
1
1
3
1
12
2
31
1
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
10
2
1
4
1
1
18
5
52
2
33
5
13
4
4
12
32
7
5
38
2
3
6
Trench 3: 139 sherds, 557 g
Pottery was retrieved from the topsoil and subsoil deposits (301) and (302). Transfer-printed
wares, C19th/20th whitewares and blackwares are the most numerous wares by sherd count
and weight.
A similar range of wares and vessel forms are present as in Trenches 1 and 2 but there are
signifi a tl fe e flo e pot f ag e ts. T a sfe p i ted desig s i lude Asiati Pheasa ts ,
Willo
patte , Fi e Flo
Blue as
ell as f ag e ts of othe u ide tified desig s. Less
common wares are a piece of probable Chinese porcelain with a European inspired blue
transfer print and two pieces of Westerwald stoneware with a scheme of decoration that
suggests a 17th rather than 18th century date. A tiny blue decorated porcelain fragment may
be English rather than a Continental or Chinese import.
A small fragment of a late medieval ware made from a white firing Coal Measure clay is
possibly a Ewloe-type ware from North East Wales whilst an abraded red earthenware is
difficult to identify but a Roman date cannot be discounted.
57
Table 3 Trench 3
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
302
302
302
302
302
302
302
302
302
302
302
302
302
302
302
302
Black slip-coated ware
Blackware
Bone china
Brown salt-glazed stoneware
C19th/20th decorated ware
C19th/20th whiteware
Factory slipware - banded ware
Glazed earthenware
Porcelain
Salt-glazed stoneware
stoneware
TPW
TPW-Flow blue
Unglazed redware
Blackware
Brown salt-glazed stoneware
C19th/20th whiteware
Creamware
Ewloe-type pink/white ware
Factory slipware - banded ware
Glazed earthenware
Mottled ware
Porcelain
Slipware-trailed
stoneware
Tin-glazed ware
TPW
TPW-Flow blue
Unglazed redware
Westerwald stoneware
1
5
4
2
1
13
5
1
1
2
1
17
2
2
11
1
28
4
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
20
3
1
2
1
55
17
43
1
69
7
3
16
6
28
73
6
5
113
1
37
9
1
4
1
3
1
13
2
1
34
4
1
2
Trench 4: 135 sherds, 637 g
Pottery was retrieved from the topsoil and subsoil layers (401) and (402). A similar range of
wares and forms are present in these contexts as was found in the topsoil and subsoil deposits
in the other trenches. These represent domestic vessels for use at table or in the kitchen or
with a storage function although some such as the jug described below may have been for
display. Transfer printed wares and 19th/20th century whitewares predominate and a similar
range of p i ted patte s a e ep ese ted i.e. Asiati Pheasa ts , Fi e a d Willo patte s.
58
Most of the assemblage is composed of a range of 18th – 20th century pottery such as factory
slipwares, sponged ware, Bone China, and stonewares, the latter include part of the handle
of a large storage vessel.
Four joining sherds from a highly decorated tall narrow 19th or early 20th century smearglazed stoneware vessel, possibly a jug or tankard, were found in (402). The vessel has reliefmoulded decoration depicting a male figure in a late medieval costume with a helmet at his
feet. The decoration may be a theatrical scene or a romanticised view of a medieval scene
and was probably inspired by 16th century Siegburg stonewares from the Rhineland.
Earlier post-medieval wares are represented by late 17th-mid 18th century mottled wares. The
remains of two Cistercian-type ware cups, commonly in use in the late 15th and 16th centuries
were found in (402) these along with a small abraded red earthenware which is possibly
medieval are the earliest wares to be found in this trench.
Table 4: Trench 4
401
401
401
401
401
401
401
401
401
401
401
401
401
401
401
402
402
402
402
402
402
402
402
402
19th brown glazed ware
19th buff ware
Blackware
Bone china
Brown salt-glazed stoneware
C19th/20th whiteware
Factory slipware - banded ware
Porcelain
Salt-glazed stoneware
Slipware-trailed
Smear glazed stoneware
Sponged ware
TPW
Unglazed redware
Unidentified
19th buff ware
Blackware
Bone china
C19th/20th whiteware
Cistercian-type ware
Creamware
Factory slipware - banded ware
Glazed earthenware
Mottled ware
2
4
1
7
1
24
6
2
1
1
4
3
28
7
2
1
4
5
3
2
4
2
1
1
1
52
33
15
81
86
7
2
1
22
52
4
94
39
2
1
32
14
3
3
6
7
34
1
59
402
402
402
402
Pearl-shell edge
TPW
Unglazed redware
Unidentified
2
15
1
1
5
38
1
1
Trench 5: 149 sherds, 379 g
Pottery was recovered from the topsoil and subsoil deposits (501) and (502). A similar range
of wares are present in these contexts as was found in the topsoil and subsoil deposits in the
other trenches. Transfer printed wares and C19th/C20th whitewares predominate.
Identified vessel forms are cups, saucers, plates, dishes, bowl, a possible brown glazed teapot
fragment, flowerpots and a transfer printed mug with the remains of a black printed motto,
although not enough survives to identify the wording. Whilst no storage wares have been
identified these are probably represented amongst the pieces of blackware and brown-glazed
stoneware. A small fragment of jelly mould is an example of a vessel that can definitely be
identified and associated with food preparation.
With the exception of one very abraded redware fragment which could perhaps be Roman
the wares in the assemblage fall into the date range of the late eighteenth – early twentieth
centuries. Unlike the other trenches no early post-medieval wares appear to be present.
Table 5: Trench 5
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
501
502
502
19th buff ware
Blackware
Bone china
Brown salt-glazed stoneware
C19th/20th whiteware
drainpipe
Factory slipware - banded ware
Slipware-trailed
Smear glazed stoneware
Sponged ware
Stoneware
TPW
TPW-Flow blue
Unglazed redware
Blackware
Bone china
6
4
1
3
34
1
7
8
1
7
1
14
1
1
8
2
29
39
1
25
61
13
9
12
14
8
1
32
1
4
62
2
60
502
502
502
502
502
502
502
502
502
502
C19th brown glazed ware
C19th/20th whiteware
Creamware
Glazed earthenware
TPW
TPW-Flow blue
Factory slipware - banded ware
Sponged ware
19th/20th decorated ware
Unglazed redware
1
19
1
2
6
2
1
1
1
8
2
25
1
1
7
1
1
1
2
25
Discussion
The pottery found during the excavations is similar in character and range as that found
elsewhere in the Cheshire/Wirral region from topsoil and sub-soil deposits close to or within
later post-medieval settlements.
The high level of fragmentation and abrasion suggests re-working and re-deposition of soils,
the pottery may have originally been deposited as a result of domestic rubbish dumping or
may have been intentionally added to the soil to assist drainage, either in the context of
gardening or agricultural activities.
Whilst the occupation and activities suggested by the presence of the pottery span the 19 th
and 20th century earlier occupation or activity on or in the vicinity of the site is suggested by
the presence of potential Roman and medieval pottery and the late 15th-16th century
Cistercian-type wares.
References
Edwards, JEC 2008 Post-Roman Pottery. In Garner D Excavations at Chester 25 Bridge Street
2001 two thousand years of urban life in microcosm. Chester City Council 187-242
MPRG 2001 Minimum standards for the processing, recording, analysis and publication of
post-Roman ceramics. Medieval Pottery Research Group Occasional paper 2.
MPRG 1998 A guide to the Classification of Medieval Ceramic Forms. Medieval Pottery
Research Group Occasional Paper 1.
61
13.
APPENDIX C: palaeoenvironmental evidence
12.1 Assess e t of iologi al re ai s fro flots fro two sedi e t sa ples
collected during excavations at Bromborough Court House, Bromborough, Wirral,
Merseyside (site code: BCH14)
By John Carrott, Palaeoecology Research Services
Overview
An archaeological excavation was undertaken by Big Heritage C.I.C. and community
volunteers at Bromborough Court House Moated Site and Fishponds (scheduled monument
SMR 13428), Bromborough, Wirral, Merseyside (NGR SJ 34496 84189) between September
a d De e
Bo
e
. This o k as u de take as pa t of the la ge HLF fu ded Dis o e i g
o ough : Moats a d Ma o s , a o
u it a haeolog p oje t
a aged
Big
Heritage C.I.C. The intention of the project was to complete a second year of test pitting
around the core of Bromborough village, together with an evaluation of the potential for
archaeology on the court house site, whilst providing training for local community volunteers
and other interested parties.
Five evaluation trenches were excavated in an area assumed to be the interior of the medieval
moated manor (although artefactual evidence recovered subsequently suggested a 17 th
century or later date) and encountered stone spreads, fence lines, possible drainage ditches,
pits or post-holes, and what appeared to be constructed features formed from sandstone
blocks (now heavily degraded).
T o flots f o
sedi e t sa ples GBA / B“ sensu Dobney et al. 1992) processed by the
excavator were submitted to Palaeoecology Research Services Limited (PRS), Kingston upon
Hull, for an assessment of their bioarchaeological potential.
Methods
The two sediment samples were of approximately 35 litres (Sample 001) and 20 litres (Sample
002) and processed using a 2 x 1.3 mm mesh. The samples were collected from degraded
62
sandstone features within a perched water-table encountered in Trenches 3 and 4 and,
consequently, consisted largely of fragments of stone with little sediment matrix.
The s all flots e o e ed did ot appea to o tai u ha ed a ie t o ga i e ai s a d
were dried prior to submission to PRS. Each was examined for macrofossils and other remains
present using a low-power microscope (x7 to x45 magnification). The components of the
flots
ere recorded either as actual counts or via a five-point semi-quantitative scale: 1 –
few/rare, up to 3 individuals/items; 2 – some/present, 4 to 20 items; 3 – many/common, 21
to 50; 4 – very many/abundant, 51 to 200; and 5 – super-abundant, over 200
items/individuals.
The residue fractions from the processed samples were not submitted for assessment
Macrofossil remains were identified by comparison with modern reference material (where
possible), and the use of published works (e.g. Cappers et al. 2006 for plant remains). Remains
were identified to the lowest taxon possible or necessary to achieve the aims of the project.
Charcoal identifications were attempted for a small number of larger fragments, all of which
were over 4 mm. Pieces were broken to give clean cross-sectional surfaces and the anatomical
structures were examined using a low-power binocular microscope (x7 to x45) and higher
magnification where necessary (x150). Identifications were made by comparison with modern
reference material where possible, and with reference to published works (principally Hather
2000 and Schoch et al. 2004). Nomenclature for plant species follows Stace (1997).
Co
etio s p ese t i
oth flots
e e e a i ed fo
i ofossils usi g the s uash
technique of Dainton (1992). Originally designed specifically to investigate the content of eggs
of intestinal parasitic nematodes, this method routinely reveals other microfossils, such as
pollen and diatoms, which were also recorded if present. The slides were scanned at x150
magnification and at x600 where necessary.
During recording, consideration was given to the suitability of macrofossil remains for
submission for radiocarbon dating by standard radiometric technique or accelerator mass
spectrometry (AMS).
63
Results
The results are presented below in context number order. Context information and
descriptions of the sampled sediments follow the information provided by the excavator.
Context 305 [Trench 3; undated]
Sample 002
Dark reddish-brown deposit, composed of degraded sandstone and silt, formed from leaching
of sandstone structure (306) owing to a perched-water table.
The ti
flot ~
l; . g
as ostl
o posed of s all f ag e ts of oal to
, i de
(to 5 mm) and charcoal (to 7 mm); all abundance score 2. Other components were five small
stones, two pieces of slag and a single indeterminate wood fragment (all to 5 mm), together
ith t o o
etio s to
, o e ea th o
egg apsule a d the seed head f o
winged sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus L.) seed (i.e.
issi g the
a
i g .
The charcoal present was sediment encrusted and identification attempted for the two
largest fragments yielded little information. Both fragments exhibited distorted cell
structures, a rather vitrified appearance and considerable mineral impregnation; the largest
could not be identified even in part but the other fragment was of a ring-porous species. There
were no roundwood fragments present for which the number of years of wood growth
represented could be determined.
The s uash subsample from the concretion was mostly inorganic, with a little organic
detritus (mostly burnt, i.e. ash). No interpretatively valuable microfossils were present.
64
Context 404 [Trench 4; undated]
Sample 001
Dark reddish-brown deposit filling rounded pit or large post-hole (405) and composed of
degraded sandstone and silt; formed from leached sandstone owing to a perched-water table
(as seen in Context 305, above, and also Context 505 in Trench 5).
The ti
flot ~
l; . g
as
ostl
o posed of oal (to 5 mm) and fragments of
indeterminate wood (to 8 mm); both abundance score 2. Other components were a stone (to
12 mm), one piece of cinder (to 6 mm) a concretion (to 23 mm), three earthworm egg
capsules, a single calcined indeterminate bone fragment (to 6 mm) and six small pieces of
charcoal (to 8 mm – but all bar the largest less than 5 mm).
The charcoal present was sediment encrusted and identification was attempted for the
largest fragment only. Some mineral impregnation was evident and the fragment could be
identified as of a diffuse-porous species but not more closely. There was roundwood charcoal
present for which the number of years of wood growth represented could be determined.
The s uash su sa ple f o
the o
etio
as e ti el
i e al, although this perhaps
incorporated a little (abundance score 1) mineral-replaced organic detritus. No
interpretatively valuable microfossils were present.
Discussion and statement of potential
Ve
little
ate ial
as e o e ed i the t o sa ple flots a d the e
e e o a ie t
remains, organic or otherwise, of any interpretative value present. Furthermore, some of the
e ai s i
oth flots
e e al ost e tai l
ode
i t usions (earthworm egg capsules).
Although sufficient charcoal for radiocarbon dating (via AMS) was present in both of the
flots , o e of this ate ial ould e e o
e ded fo this pu pose. Ide tifi atio to spe ies
and/or determination of the number of years of wood growth represented was not possible
a d, o se ue tl , the old ood p o le
of adio a o dati g the ha oal, he e
a
date returned could be far earlier than the charring event but by an unknown number of years
(the carbon content of the wood being fixed at the time of its growth), would apply.
65
Recommendations
The dearth of ancient organic remains recovered from the samples precludes any further
study.
Unless required for purpose other than the study of biological remains, the two sa ple flots
may be discarded.
References
Cappers, R. T. J., Bekker, R. and Jans J. E. A. (2006). Digitale Zadenatlas van Nederland.
Groningen Archaeological Studies 4. Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen
University Library.
Dainton, M. (1992). A quick, semi-quantitative method for recording nematode gut parasite
eggs from archaeological deposits. Circaea, the Journal of the Association for Environmental
Archaeology 9, 58-63.
Dobney, K., Hall, A. R., Kenward, H. K. and Milles, A. (1992). A working classification of sample
types for environmental archaeology. Circaea, the Journal of the Association for
Environmental Archaeology 9 (for 1991), 24-6.
Hather, J. G. (2000). The identification of the Northern European Woods: a guide for
archaeologists and conservators. London: Archetype Publications.
Kenward, H. K., Hall, A. R. and Jones, A. K. G. (1980). A tested set of techniques for the
extraction of plant and animal macrofossils from waterlogged archaeological deposits.
Science and Archaeology 22, 3-15.
66
Schoch, W. H., Heller, I., Schweingruber, F. H. and Kienast, F. (2004). Wood anatomy of central
European Species. Online version: www.woodanatomy.ch
Stace, C. (1997). New flora of the British Isles
67
14.
APPENDIX D: trench location information
Trench 1
Easting
Northing
NE Corner
NW Corner SE Corner
SW Corner
334512.726 334509.139 334513.545 334509.896
384173.994 384172.348 384172.187 384170.576
Trench 2
Easting
Northing
NE Corner
NW Corner SE Corner
SW Corner
334498.568 334494.996 334499.388 334495.816
384168.976 384167.351 38416.107 384165.491
Trench 3
Easting
Northing
NE Corner
NW Corner SE Corner
SW Corner
334457.684 334454.643 334457.806 384132.559
384134.761 384134.548 384132.776 334454.766
Trench 4
Easting
Northing
NE Corner
NW Corner SE Corner
SW Corner
334460.261 334458.227 334460.286 334458.255
384133.242 384133.208 384131.189 384131.152
Trench 5
Easting
Northing
NE Corner
NW Corner SE Corner
SW Corner
334474.399 33440.481 334475.114 334471.194
384142.065 384138.678 384141.321 384137.94
68
69
Dr Joanne (Jo) Kirton