Summary
Buried remains of a Roman small town, located on open arable land approximately 850m south of the village of Great Staughton, on gently sloping ground which drops from 50m in the south to 25m above Ordnance Datum immediately south of the River Kym. The site measures around 1.45km north-west to south-east and 0.43 km north-east to south-west, covering an area of approximately 31 ha.
Reasons for Designation
The Roman small town south of Great Staughton is scheduled for the following principal reasons:
Survival: as an extensive and complex series of crop marks which are well defined and, when combined with evidence from excavated test pits, demonstrate the quality and quantity of the deposits;
Diversity: the site comprises a palimpsest of components including settlement and industrial remains which appear to demonstrate evolution over time, displaying a depth of diversity and chronology;
Potential: for the extensive deposits, unencumbered by later development, which have the potential to increase understanding of the settlement, its evolution and function from probable pre-Roman origins to Roman occupation and possibly post-abandonment;
Group Value: for its close proximity to the Roman site at Rushey Farm (NHLE 1006866), interpreted as an Iron Age farmstead, Roman villa and inhumation cemetery;
Documentation: aerial photographic interpretation, geophysical survey, and limited excavation reports all contribute to our understanding of the monument;
Period: the Roman small town is a strongly representative monument type of the period.
History
Five types of town are known to have existed in Roman Britain: coloniae, municipia, civitas capitals, Roman provincial capitals and Roman small towns. The first four types can be classified as `public towns' because each had an official status within the provincial administrative system. Roman small towns are settlements of urban character which lack the administrative status of public towns, but which are nevertheless recognisably urban in terms of morphology, features and function. They tend to lack the planned rectangular street grids, public buildings and well-appointed town houses of the public towns and instead are generally characterised by mainly insubstantial timber or half-timbered structures. Some small towns possess an enclosing wall, while others have masonry or earthwork defences. Additional features include temples, bath houses, ovens, kilns and cemeteries. Roman small towns began to emerge in the mid- to first century AD. However, the majority of examples appeared in the later first and second centuries, while the third and fourth centuries saw the growth and development of existing establishments, together with the emergence of a small number of new ones. Some small towns had their origins in earlier military sites such as fort-vici and developed into independent urban areas following the abandonment of the forts. Others developed alongside major roads and were able to exploit a wide range of commercial opportunities as a result of their location. Around 140 Roman small towns have been recorded in England. These are mainly concentrated in the Midlands and central southern England. Some examples have survived as undeveloped `greenfield' sites and consequently possess particularly well-preserved archaeological remains.
A settlement south of Great Staughton was first documented as a Roman small town in 2009 following aerial photographic analysis, and a series of roads and regular rectangular enclosures were mapped as part of the Bedford Borough National Mapping Project in 2019. Cambridgeshire Historic Environment Record (HER) also records a number of finds, primarily of Roman date, which have been found in the vicinity of the buried remains. Approximately 775m south-east of the Roman settlement site is a scheduled Roman site at Rushey Farm (NHLE 1006866), excavations here in the mid-C20 have shown the site to include an Iron Age farmstead, Roman villa and inhumation cemetery. Collectively this evidence is indicative of concentrated Roman activity across this area of the landscape and suggests a high degree of archaeological potential.
The settlement is close to a main Roman road leading from Dorchester-on-Thames to Alconbury Weald which passes south of the settlement in a south-east to north-west alignment. This will have provided a good transport route for the settlement and, together with the River Kym, offered key communication links for the town.
Following desktop research AOC Archaeology Group were commissioned by RNA Energy Ltd to undertake an archaeological geophysical survey using magnetic gradiometery across the area. The survey ran between November 2022 to October 2023 as part of a wider scheme of archaeological assessment in advance of a proposed development of the site. The geophysical survey demonstrated a more extensive settlement and provided considerably more evidence about the plan and form of the settlement. In May 2024 four targeted evaluation trenches were dug to test the presence or absence of archaeological remains, the depth of remains, the condition and significance of the archaeology. The excavations confirmed the buried archaeological features correspond well with those shown in the geophysical survey and that they survive in a reasonably good state of preservation.
Details
Principal Elements: Buried remains of a Roman small town. The site is located on open arable land approximately 850m south of the village of Great Staughton, on gently sloping ground which drops from 50m in the south to 25m above Ordnance Datum immediately south of the River Kym. The site measures 1.45 km north-west to south-east and 0.43 km north-east to south-west, covering an area of approximately 31 ha.
Description: The site includes the buried remains of an extensive Roman small town which has been identified through assessment of aerial photographs, geophysical survey, small scale excavation and recovered artefacts and finds.
The archaeological features show on plan as linear, curvilinear and rectilinear forms but circular and annular features have also been recorded on the HER. The settlement appears to focus on a central, rectilinear-shaped area which shows relatively few archaeological features suggesting it functioned as an open space. Numerous double ditched trackways radiate from the open space leading in various directions linking with other tracks to form a network of roads. Between the roads, multiple rectilinear enclosures, organised in a structured manner, demonstrate organisation and spatial order to the settlement plan, defining a slightly semi-circular plan-form curving south of the river. The highest density of archaeological features occurs around the central open area, with decreasing density away from the centre. Interestingly, the enclosures furthest from the centre contain a greater number of circular archaeological features which suggests these may represent industrial activity of some kind. There is little or no evidence to suggest a defended settlement but double ditched trackways can be seen to run along the south-western and south-eastern edges of the central focus of the settlement, with a possible junction around grid reference TL1325763447 although this is obscured by current field tracks and field drains. This junction appears to ‘square off’ the otherwise semi-circular plan.
To the north-east of the main focus of the settlement at grid reference TL 1331663814 is an area of quarrying including the possible location of a building which is visible as a cropmark, both of which could also be Roman in date.
One road, leading out of the south-east corner of the settlement, in a southerly direction, forms the spine of a linear stretch of settlement with rectangular enclosures, containing multiple archaeological features, on both sides of the road. The road continues south, leading to a junction with the north-east to south-west aligned Dorchester-on-Thames to Alconbury Weald road, although the relationship between the two roads is not clear from the available evidence. South of the Dorchester to Alconbury Weald road junction, the road out of the settlement continues south passing to the east of the scheduled Roman site at Rushey Farm (NHLE 1006866) approximately 200m to the south.
A similar linear stretch of the settlement extends to the north-west with a double ditched trackway flanked on both sides by rectilinear enclosures again containing multiple, circular, pit like features, possibly associated with industrial activity.
In the central part of the complex, three broad curvilinear features have been identified through the geophysical survey. These differ in morphology from other features and are distinctive. Their morphology, magnetic signal and their alignment with the River Kym, suggest a natural origin but their alignment in relation to the settlement implies human modification. It is possible former natural stream channels were altered and canalised to supply water or contribute to an industrial process.
The entire complex suggests the existence of a highly advanced settlement with possible production activities such as pottery or metal working located around its margins. The distribution and density of archaeological features suggest more than one phase of settlement activity in the central focus of the settlement, but the consistent and homogenous nature of features around the margins of the settlement indicate a more contemporaneous development. The provisional results of the targeted trial trench evaluation (June 2024) indicate the majority of features are dated to the Roman period, however, the excavations only investigated the upper level features which lie approximately 0.30m below the surface. A greater depth of deposits and complex stratigraphy is highly likely particularly in areas which suggest more than one phase of activity and it is possible that the settlement spans a considerable period of time. Its curvilinear plan-form would certainly suggest a pre Roman settlement which later became Romanised but this cannot be confirmed with the currently available evidence.
