The Paddock location (site centre OS NG SU 89625.75:85543.70) is shown on (drg ref 1) The location of other relevant reports are shown on (drg ref 2)

From 2001 to 2002 a series of detailed geophysical surveys were carried out over the area of the Church Paddock. These are contained in the report by MT/MAS dated October 2002 (SMR 15726) with relevant data repeated in this report.

The analysis and plots of these geophysical surveys revealed four features of interest designated F1, F2, F3, F4 (drg ref 3):

Of significance is that F2 gave every indication of being a channel, inlet or creek. Excavation by OAU at Riverdene to the north-east revealed a channel possibly man made or existing stream improved and F2 appeared to be aligned towards this OAU feature. The ditch around F1 may be heading towards F2. Both features F3 and F4 seemed to relate in some way to F2 both as to position and alignment. The alignment of F3 and F4 were checked using CAD against every other boundary and building in the village with no correlation found.

F3 and F4 give the appearance of building foundations with F4 possibly having external post holes or post packing (drg ref 4). Comparison of relative resistivity readings was possible for F4 with a known feature under the Vicarage lawn excavated by OAU. This indicated that the "L" shape was producing readings similar to compacted chalk/gravel. The external holes had a higher reading possibly produced by large stones or packing.

Permission exists from the land owners, the diocesan archaeologist and preliminary permission from Babtie for excavation of F4. It was however considered prudent to first seek to understand the nature of F2 to which both F3 and F4 seemed to relate.

A proposal was made and approval given for an auger survey at right angles to F2 but clear of F3 and F4 so as not to disturb any archaeology (drg ref 5). The method proposed was set out in a "Method Statement" (appendix A).

The auger line was set out accurately and positions pegged on the 24th October 2003, from the site datum (GCP PB) (OS NG 89672.67:85583.37) using EDM. The auger bores were carried out by MAS using a 0.1m hand auger, on the 25th and 26th October 2003. Weather was overcast, dry with the ground damp but not wet.

The auger bore site positions were recorded (drg ref 6) and material from each bore recorded (appendix B1, 2, 3). Frequent samples were taken (noted as (S) on the bore record) and sealed in plastic bags for future reference. Samples are identified by bore number and depth from the surface. Position A2 was not bored.

The intention of the method was to sink the bore from the surface to the gravel as the type of auger used would not penetrate gravel. Difficulty was encountered on the bores to the east due to encountering layers close to the surface of random material etc. To overcome this problem, small trenches were dug some 0.5m*0.5m to the bottom of the top soil to give the auger a start. This proved to be fortunate as it revealed many finds and therefore the method was applied to all bore positions.

The bore positions were on a line at right angles to the resistivity feature F2 and in general at 5m centres, designated from F2/A1 west to F2/A7 east . The exception was F2/A4a placed centrally between F2/A4 and F2/A5, explained below. The resistivity plot indicated that auger A1 to A4 should be similar (area of low resistivity) with A5 to A7 being different (area of higher resistivity). This difference was confirmed by the auger.

Auger A1 to A4 revealed an upper layer of cultivated material with chalk pebbles to about -0.40m. This is consistent with the information from the Environment Agency trench on Bell Rope meadow immediately to the north, between the Paddock and the river and the OAU excavation on Riverdene. Below this were layers of dark loam indicative of alluvial material to a depth of about -1.30<-1.40m. At this level the nature of the material changed abruptly from dark to light but still indicative of alluvial. At -2.00<-2.20m clean sand was found down to gravel at -2.40<2.60m at which level was water.

Auger A5 to A7 again a top layer of cultivated material with chalk pebbles but to less depth of about -0.20. Then a mixture of loam of varying colours but mainly dark to about -1.00 where gravel was found. The top material seemed to be mixed and may have been deposited foreign fill with the bottom layers over the gravel being more sandy and possible alluvium.

Comparison of the layers in auger A4 and A5 indicated that the gravel layer might be sloping from -1.04 to -2.6. An auger bore was sunk exactly between A4 and A5 to check, designated A4a. This revealed similar layers to A4 and A5 but the gravel at an intermediate level confirming the possibility of a slope to the gravel between A4 and A5.

AUGER SECTION

The main changes to type of material were plotted to produce a long section profile along the line of the auger bores (drg ref 7). Only the significant changes to type or colour of material were plotted as the purpose of the exercise was to investigate the resistivity of feature F2.

Whilst there must be some doubt as to how representative only one line of auguring is of the general underlying strata, some confidence can be assumed due to it being consistent with other data both resistivity and surface contour.

The plot shows evidence of a deeper layer of alluvium at the east end with the gravel apparently sloping up as a fairly steep bank to the west. Significant is the sand appearing to be river bed or similar between the alluvium and gravel over the deeper part of the section.

The section plot profile was overlaid onto the resistivity plot (drg ref 8) and coincides with the resistivity plot.

The depth of penetration of the resistivity was about 1m and records the average signal represented by moisture content for that depth. The auger bore and plot show two different types of alluvium over gravel at different depths. The deeper area of alluvium may be assumed to hold more volume of moisture whilst the less deep area over higher gravel has less volume of moisture and may drain better. In this way it appears that the resistivity plot and auger profile are showing the same shaped feature.

Plotted on (drg ref 9) Whilst the variation in level is slight the dip in level is consistent with both the apparent channel on the resistivity and auger plot.

The shallow trenches dug to facilitate the auger produced a number of finds see schedule (appendix C). These were plotted on a schematic section (appendix C1). The distance between plots and size of trench shown has no relevance. The finds are plotted in bands of similar depth with one find from A4 (20) being found in the auger.

The finds from the shallow auger trenches:

The only significant find was No. 59 a small piece of shelley fabric pot rim from a pot some 0.25m in diameter, provisionally dated to mid<late iron age (subject to further verification). This came from the shallow top soil trench A6 at a depth of -0.38m. (appendix G)

Only finds that could be identified and dated are shown as any particular period, no attempt has been made to date the many small building material fragments but it would seem that the majority of the material is medieval with a range of possible dates. This is entirely consistent with the finds reported by the OAU on Riverdene a little to the north-east. The OAU concluded that the area had been filled at some time with material containing building rubbish and the finds reported here would seem to be consistent with this suggestion.

In 1989 the above carried out a resistivity survey using fairly simple equipment and without the benefit of modern analysis and plotting systems. These kindly made available to us their original basic data and with some difficulty we were able to reanalyse and plot this data and overlay it onto the survey (drg ref 10)

This plot provides a useful confirmation of the features as it was carried out under different conditions and with completely different type of equipment. This plot shows the same feature (F2) in a less precise way but nevertheless is completely consistent with the profile produced by the auger section and the 2002 resistivity plot. The 1989 plot shows the east end of the feature appearing to end but this may have more to do with the plotting system closing the contour lines.

OAU Vicarage (appendix D)
Reports a ditch and chalk block wall [OAU, 1986, para 5]. This feature was found again in 2002 by MAS using resistivity and provided a useful data comparison. Unfortunately the report does not contain enough information to be sure of the alignment of either the ditch or wall. However from the drawing appended to the report it seems possible that these features may have some similarity of alignment with F4. No date is proposed for the ditch and wall the report states that the wall predated the ditch in which was found post-medieval material. It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that the chalk block wall may be Medieval.

OAU Riverdene (appendix E)

Environment Agency trench Bell Rope Meadow (appendix F)

The purpose of this fieldwork was to confirm or otherwise the existence of feature F2 which appeared from the resistivity to be an inlet or channel leading from or to the Thames. Accepting the limitations of method there would seem to be little doubt that the feature F2 is some form of inlet or creek. Assuming that the top layers as seen also on Bell Rope and Riverdene of -0.35<-0.40m were later fill and that the sand layer is showing the original bottom, then this inlet or creek would have been some 2m deep. It is also reasonable to assume that this silted up and was later filled which accounts for the abrupt change of colour at about -1m. It would seem by the shape of the profile against the bank that this silt may have been re-dug at some time and this would be consistent with the suggestion of OAU on Riverdene.

The fill material on Bell Rope, Riverdene and the Paddock all contained medieval finds and a lot of building fragments that may also be medieval but there is no indication of where this came from except the practical consideration of from not very far. Unfortunately there is little if anything to suggest dates for any feature. Considering all of the evidence there seems to be a hint that these features may be associated with the period of chalk block at the Vicarage with the suggest a date of Medieval, although this needs to be proven.

Whilst not certain it is probable that the east edge of the channel F2 showing as a bank on the auger profile is the same feature as recorded by OAU on Riverdene. If this is correct it indicates the route of this bank to the river.

It is tempting to suggest that F2 was a natural feature, re-dug and aligned as a way of getting boats from the river and marshy area, to firmer ground for unloading etc. If this is the case then F3 and F4 may be structures associated with this activity.

Despite the lack of dating evidence so far, the date for the chalk block on the Vicarage and similarity of alignment to F2 and F4 plus the preponderance of Medieval material over the features suggest Medieval. Against this suggestion is that this material could have been spread at any time and the inclusion of recent material increases the uncertainty. The indication of F2 being re-dug introduces the possibility of an earlier first date for this feature or a natural watercourse being improved. If as suggested F2 was some sort of dock, the water level would have had to be some 1m higher than at present and it is known that there are several periods when this happened. The area to the west of F2 shows less clear signs of a bank leading to the possibility that F2 was a cleared channel against an island with the area to the west being marsh as is indicated from the information from Bell Rope.