Untitled - Council for British Archaeology

and.ploughing from reaching the archaeological Ieatures.
The site, lYing on,a slight gravel spur at 80m. ASL overlooking
the-OUzel valley, between the villages of Gi.
Linford and Willen, was clearly chosen for its light
free-draining soils in preference to.the surrounding
botilder. and Oxford..clays.
The northern part of the site, see Fig. 18, was'mainly
recorded. whilst housing development_was under vay, resulting
in an incomplete plan, althoUgh'the deVelopers (J:.Mowlsms)
were most co-operative in'alioWing'the disturbance_of their
work schedules. OVer 20,000mof the southern and, eastern
part of the site was stripped.by large earthmoving Machines,
as part.of an advance topsoil .6tripping contract, of which
over 12,000m2-was subsequently cleared by:a JD410.and 3-ton
dumper under archaeologicel'supsrVision.
Limited rescue excavation-of.the cleared,.area from
Augusttn November has.revealed. that ,ari 'Early, to Middle
Saxon- village, -containing at least 15 sunken-featured
structures' and possible post-built stru,ctures,'overlay
an extensive Middle Iron Age settleMent, consisting of
at least.two ditched enClosureS:associated'with six roundhouses
and a large groUp of storage,pitS.
The.Iron Age settlement
Enclosure
The enclosure is sub-rectangular, approximately 24 x 28
metres adross with a single narrow entrance near the southwest
corner. On excavation it proved to be considerably
more complex than can be shown on plan (Fig.18), having been
recut at least three times at the entrance and showing signs
of a single recut on an external line all round its circumference.
At the entrance the ditches overlapped and became
progressively deeper towards the inside, reaching a maximum
of 1.60m deep. This frequent recutting, although partly a
result of rapid silting'under the soil conditions, must
testify to a lengthy period of use. No sign of, an internal
or external bank was found and the restricted internal area
makés it unlikely that one ever existed. No associated
features were found with the exception of roundhouse No.5
which must be of a different phase, due to its position in
front of the enclosureis only entrance. The lack of
contemporary features suggests that this small enclosure's
function was primarily for stock-rearing. No horizontal
stratigraphy existed between the two enclosures, making it
impossible to ascertain their relationship. ,The complicated
northern end of the enclosure was difficult to interpret
under the mounting development pressure, but seems likely,to
have been connected with one of the later recuts.
Enclosure 2
This enclosure is also sub-rectangular,' 30 x 21 metres
- 65 -