Archaeological Evaluation in August 2022 at Portfield Hillfort, Whalley, Lancashire Statement of Results and Updated Project Design Rick Peterson and Sam Walsh, with contributions by Aiden Dooley and Tom Williams Centre for Field Archaeology and Forensic Taphonomy University of Central Lancashire Preston PR1 2HE Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 2 1 Non-technical Summary ................................................................................................................. 4 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Background to the site ........................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Previous Excavations ........................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Geophysical Survey in 2015 ................................................................................................ 7 3 Aim and objectives .......................................................................................................................... 9 4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 10 5 6 4.1 Excavation methodology .................................................................................................. 10 4.2 Archive deposition ............................................................................................................ 10 4.3 Post-excavation analysis ................................................................................................... 11 4.3.1 Vertebrate skeletal remains.......................................................................................... 11 4.3.2 Ceramics ............................................................................................................................ 11 4.3.4 Worked Stone ................................................................................................................... 11 Education and Public Outreach ..................................................................................................... 12 5.1 Education .......................................................................................................................... 12 5.2 Public Outreach ................................................................................................................. 12 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 13 6.1 7 Structures revealed by excavation .................................................................................... 13 6.1.1 Recent contexts............................................................................................................. 13 6.1.2 Post medieval contexts ................................................................................................. 13 6.1.3 Possible earlier contexts ............................................................................................... 17 6.2 Vertebrate Skeletal Remains............................................................................................. 19 6.3 Ceramic Finds .................................................................................................................... 19 6.4 Worked Stone ................................................................................................................... 20 6.5 Environmental Sample Processing .................................................................................... 22 Project Outcomes .......................................................................................................................... 23 7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 23 7.2 Summary of the archaeological findings ........................................................................... 23 7.3 Educational outputs .......................................................................................................... 23 7.4 Community dissemination ................................................................................................ 24 7.5 Formal publication ............................................................................................................ 24 8 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 25 9 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 27 9.1 Appendix 1 Vertebrate skeletal remains .......................................................................... 27 2 9.2 Appendix 2 Ceramic Material ........................................................................................... 28 9.3 Appendix 3 Worked stone .................................................................................................. 1 9.4 Archive Contents ................................................................................................................. 3 9.4.1 Drawn Record.................................................................................................................. 3 9.4.2 Photographic Record....................................................................................................... 3 3 Figures Figure 1: location of Portfield Camp hillfort ........................................................................................ 6 Figure 2: approximate location of previous excavations as recorded in Green (ND) .............. 7 Figure 3: Results of fluxgate gradiometer survey at Portfield Camp in 2015 (image by Michael Woods) ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 4: area of evaluation at Portfield Camp. The OS National Grid co-ordinates for the corner points of the evaluation were: 374583/435603; 374583/435598; 374591/435603; and 374591/435598. .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: photograph facing north across the centre of the evaluation following the removal of contexts (001) and (002)................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 6: photograph facing south showing the investigated portion of context [029] at the end of the evaluation. ............................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 7: south facing photograph of the investigated portion of context [019] ...................... 15 Figure 8: deposits visible at the base of the topsoil and areas of sample excavation in each feature. ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 9: Harris matrix showing all contexts recorded in the evaluation................................... 18 Figure 10: vertical photograph of posthole [043] during excavation with parts of the packing material (026) still in situ........................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 11: fragment of ground stone whetstone recovered from context (015) ..................... 21 4 1 Non-technical Summary This report covers the evaluation carried out at Portfield Camp hillfort, Whalley, Lancashire between the 8th and 26th August 2022 in line with the project research design and written scheme of investigations created in June 2022 (Peterson and Walsh 2022). The primary aim of this season of fieldwork was to evaluate a geophysical anomaly previously identified on the site (Woods 2015). The anomaly was a circular feature approximately 6 m in diameter which, prior to excavation, was believed to be of prehistoric date. During excavation the previously mentioned anomaly was sampled and found to be a large circular feature 5.0 m in diameter and up to 1.6 m deep which contained intensely burnt deposits including lime. This feature is interpreted as part of a lime-kiln of post-medieval date. Other features in the evaluation area included a steep sided linear feature which post-dates the lime kiln, and a group of four apparently related postholes. The latter features may have an earlier date, but no dating evidence was recovered. The most significant finds from the evaluation are a small assemblage of worked chert and flint, some fragments of burnt daub, and a broken whetstone – all of which are likely to be residual from various phases of the prehistoric use of the site. 5 2 Introduction 2.1 Background to the site Portfield Camp (NGR SD 7458 3550) is a complex multi-phase site which has seen several archaeological investigations over the decades (Beswick and Coombs 1986, Green 1989). The extant features on the site are two, heavily plough damaged, ramparts which defend a natural promontory that overlooks the River Calder from the Whalley Gap (figure 1). The ramparts are Late Bronze Age/Iron Age in date and the site is one of relatively few hillforts within Lancashire (Haselgrove 1996, 67-69). A pipeline was laid through the centre of the enclosure in 1966 and uncovered a hoard of gold and bronze artefacts dating to the Late Bronze Age (Blundell and Longworth 1967). The site was excavated between 1969 and 1972 by John Hallam who uncovered a settlement site which was dated to the Neolithic period (Barrowclough 2008, 90-92). Magnetometry surveys were carried out in 2015 and the results revealed the circular feature which was investigated in the evaluation reported on here. Figure 1: location of Portfield Camp hillfort 2.2 Previous Excavations Multiple excavations have occurred at Portfield Camp (see figure 2). In 1957 Bury and District Archaeological Society excavated a short section of ‘earlier’ defences and found unstratified pottery, and a slate disc. During the insertion of a pipeline by Manchester Corporation Waterworks in 1966, a late Bronze Age hoard of two gold and seven bronze 6 artefacts were found by workmen. These include a gold penannular tress-ring and bracelet, and bronze socketed axes (Blundell and Longworth 1967). The site was later excavated by John Hallam in 1967, this excavation found evidence of Neolithic postholes and chert scatters. The excavation of Neolithic pits revealed fragments of burnt bone and charcoal, in addition to chert and pottery (Barrowclough 2008, 91). In 1970 and 1972 excavations were carried out by Pauline Beswick (Sheffield Museum) and David Coombs (University of Manchester). This excavation found artefacts of Neolithic, Bronze Age, Roman, and Medieval dates. An important feature was a Neolithic pit containing Earlier Neolithic pottery (Green 1989). Figure 2: approximate location of previous excavations as recorded in Green (ND) 2.3 Geophysical Survey in 2015 As part of archaeological investigation of the Pendle area by Woods (2015) various methods including drone photography and magnetometry were used to evaluate Portfield Camp. The survey revealed a number of features which are likely to relate to the known Iron Age earthworks, in addition to the circular feature investigated as part of this evaluation (see figure 3). 7 Figure 3: Results of fluxgate gradiometer survey at Portfield Camp in 2015 (image by Michael Woods) 8 3 Aim and objectives Aims and objectives for the evaluation were set out in the project research design (Peterson and Walsh 2022, 5). The primary aim was to evaluate the geophysical anomaly discovered in survey in 2015 (Woods 2015). To achieve this aim, the following objectives were completed. Objective 1 – Remove overburden and topsoil to expose archaeological features Objective 2 – identify and record all visible archaeological features Objective 3 – Excavate a 10% sample of all identified negative features Objective 4 – Sample deposits for carbonised plant remains Figure 4: area of evaluation at Portfield Camp. The OS National Grid co-ordinates for the corner points of the evaluation were: 374583/435603; 374583/435598; 374591/435603; and 374591/435598. 9 4 Methodology Excavation work at Portfield was carried out by undergraduate students from archaeology programmes at the University of Central Lancashire. The work was directed by Sam Walsh, with on-site assistance from Aiden Dooley, Sarah Hunt and Tom Williams. Overall project management was the responsibility of Rick Peterson. Methodologies were as described in the project written scheme of investigation (Peterson and Walsh 2022) and in concordance with Chartered Institute for Archaeologists standards and guidance documentation for archaeological excavation and field evaluation (CIfA 2014a: CIfA 2014b). Variance from the proposed methodologies in the written scheme of investigation were minor and are detailed in the appropriate sections below. 4.1 Excavation methodology The evaluation adopted a strip, map and sample approach. Excavation work began with the removal of topsoil in the 5 x 8 m area indicated for investigation on figure 4. This was followed by the archaeological cleaning of the exposed surface. Relationships within the in situ deposits were recorded by photography and measured drawing of the sections exposed through this process. All artefacts were retained for processing and analysis. Locations for all finds were recorded in terms of OS national grid co-ordinates using a Leica GS12 differential GPS total station. Following advice from environmental specialists, and in view of the identified date of the features revealed by excavation (see section 6 below), samples for environmental analysis were not taken from the standing sections. Bulk 40 litre samples for floatation were taken from each excavated deposit and the results of the initial processing of these samples is reported in section 6.5 below. Excavated areas were recorded according to the normal principles of stratigraphic excavation. The stratigraphy of each area was recorded, using the paper record forms and systems used by Oxford Archaeology Ltd. A unique alpha-numeric project code (PFC22) appears on all records. The detailed contents of the drawn and written archive are listed in appendix 9.4. 4.2 Archive deposition The project archive and finds will be deposited with the finds in Clitheroe Museum. A full digital copy of the project archive will also be deposited with the museum. Prior to the fieldwork starting, archiving requirements were confirmed in writing with Lancashire Museums Service. Written landowner consent was obtained for the deposition of the finds with Lancashire Museums Service. 10 4.3 Post-excavation analysis 4.3.1 Vertebrate skeletal remains In view of the possibility that fragmentary cremated human remains would be discovered during the excavation, a Ministry of Justice licence was applied for in advance of the work and a proposed methodology for dealing with the remains established (Peterson and Walsh 2022, 8). In the event, no burials were uncovered and therefore this element of the proposed methodology was limited. All surviving faunal anatomical elements were to be identified to species or family level where possible using the University of Central Lancashire reference collection and various identification atlases (such as Schmid 1972). Unidentifiable specimens were assigned to size categories. The summary data of the recovered skeletal remains is provided in appendix 9.1. 4.3.2 Ceramics Analysis of prehistoric pottery sherds follows the methodology set out in the Prehistoric Ceramic Research Group guidelines, 3rd Edition (2010) and in Orton et al. (1993, 231-242). Sherd data was recorded as follows: sherd mass; inclusion type, size, sorting and roundness; fabric hardness and texture; colour of interior surface, exterior surface, core and margins. Where possible, sherds were grouped into fabric groups on the basis of this data. Sherd refits and decorative detail were used to suggest further subdivision into a minimum number of vessels represented. The catalogue of sherds recovered is provided in appendix 9.2. 4.3.4 Worked Stone Assessment of the worked stone finds followed the broad principles outlined in Andrefsky (2005). All worked lithics were macroscopically scanned and assigned to a category within a lithic classification system. Following the assessment reported on in this document (see section 6.4 below) more detailed analysis and comparative research on the lithic assemblage was not thought to be worthwhile. Cores were characterised by reference to the number and type of platforms, and the reduction strategy exhibited by their flaking fronts. Evidence for the maintenance and upkeep of cores during reduction were also be recorded when present. Blade, flake, and indeterminate debitage were assessed by technological character, while diagnostic tools and utilised pieces were characterised by type and classification. 11 5 Education and Public Outreach 5.1 Education Participants in the field project included eleven students of archaeology from the University of Central Lancashire. The fieldwork formed the assessed placement element of modules taken by these students at levels 5, 6 and 7 (equivalent to 2nd and 3rd year undergraduate level and master’s level). The students took part in a structured programme of training, delivered and assessed by the project staff on a weekly basis, including continuous informal feedback on their progress and a one to one formal assessment meeting at the end of every week. All but one of the students successfully completed the assessed placement and the written assignment which followed. 5.2 Public Outreach The site falls within the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The Pendle Hill area of the AONB has been the subject of a Heritage Lottery Funded Landscape Partnership since 2018. Part of this partnership has involved a community archaeology programme (Pendle Hill Landscape Partnership 2022). Community archaeologists from the PHLP team brought a group from the Community Archaeology Forum to visit the site on 17th August 2022. They also brought a group from the Deen Centre in Briarfield for a visit on 18th August 2022. In both cases visitors were given tours of the site and the archaeology and had to opportunity to take part in the excavation. In addition, casual visitors to the excavation were welcomed and participation in visitor outreach was an assessed part of the student placements. 12 6 Results 6.1 Structures revealed by excavation In line with the methodology outlined above in section 4.1, archaeological features were identified following the removal of the topsoil (see figure 8). These structures have been described in the section below in stratigraphic order (see figure 9), with the most recent deposits discussed first. 6.1.1 Recent contexts The modern topsoil, context (001), was a brownish-grey loose sandy loam which extended over the whole of the excavated area. This deposit was 0.2 m deep and contained modern glass, ceramics and iron objects. Beneath the topsoil was a mid-orange-brown compact clayey silt, context (002), which also extended over the whole of the excavated area. Finds from this layer included modern glass and ceramics but also included burnt bone fragments and some worked lithics. Context (002) was around 0.15 m thick and once the base of this deposit was removed a number of earlier deposits were visible in plan (see figures 5 and 8). Figure 5: photograph facing north across the centre of the evaluation following the removal of contexts (001) and (002) 6.1.2 Post medieval contexts Running across the eastern part of the excavated area from north to south was a 1.5 m wide linear deposit of dark orange-brown compact clayey silt, context (004). A 1.5 m wide sample of the feature containing this deposit was excavated in the north-eastern part of the 13 excavation area (see figure 8). Context (004) contained worked stone, pottery and burnt bone fragments and was up to 0.5 m deep. Beneath context (004) at the northern edge of the sampled area was context (031): a 0.06 m by 0.03 m lens of hard reddish-brown clayey silt. Beneath this lens and context (004) in the northern part of the sampled area was context (032). This deposit was a firm yellowish-brown clayey silt with plentiful charcoal flecks and was up to 0.5 m deep. On the southern edge of the sampled area the uppermost fill of the feature was context (033). This deposit was a firm brownish-grey silty clay up to 0.6 m deep. Beneath this deposit was context (034). This was a firm yellowish-brown clayey silt, around 0.5 m deep. Distinct laminations in the section through this deposit were interpreted in the field as evidence that it had formed from turves placed into the feature while it was being backfilled. All of the deposits described above formed the fill of cut context [029]. This linear feature seems to have run diagonally from the north-east corner of the excavated area (see figures 6 and 8). In cross-section the excavated portion is steep-sided, between 20° and 45° from the vertical, on the western edge and with a distinct stepped profile on the eastern edge. The maximum overall depth of the feature was 1.15 m and the base was flat. The southern portion of the upper fills of this feature appeared to be contiguous with contexts (005) and (015) described below. Figure 6: photograph facing south showing the investigated portion of context [029] at the end of the evaluation. Beneath context (002), in the southern part of the excavated area, was a semi-circular spread of yellowish-brown compact silty clay around 2.0 m in diameter and with a maximum depth of 0.5 m. This deposit, context (005), formed the uppermost central fill of a large and deep circular feature in this area. It contained finds of pottery, worked lithics and burnt 14 bone. Beneath this deposit was context (018), a dark brownish-orange loose silty clay. Context (018) was around 1.7 m in diameter and up to 1.1 m deep and contained a single sherd of 17th or 18th century manganese-glazed earthenware pottery (see section 6.3 below). Beneath context (018) was a spread of compact light yellowish-brown silty clay up to 1.6 m deep. This deposit, context (035) formed the third fill of this large negative feature and did not contain any finds. Beneath this deposit was a fourth fill, context (030). This deposit was a charcoal-rich dark brown loose clayey silt which contained large amounts of burnt stone. Context (030) was around 1.4 m in diameter and up to 0.7 m thick. Contexts (036), (037) and (038) were found at the base of context (030). Context (036) was a lens of charcoal and charcoal-stained soil 0.4 m in diameter and 0.3 m thick. Context (038) was a deposit of loose dark brown silty clay containing plentiful burnt stones which was directly beneath context (036). Context (037) lay to the south of these two deposits and was a 0.3 m diameter and 0.3 m deep patch of burnt lime. All three of these contexts sealed context (024) a mixed deposit of burnt clay and charcoal-stained soil around 0.5 m in diameter and 0.05 m deep. None of these base deposits contained any small finds. All of the deposits described above formed the fill of a large negative feature, cut context [019], see figure 7. Judging from the area covered by the unexcavated portions of context (005) this would have been a large circular feature over 5.0 m in diameter, at least half of which would extend out of the excavated area to the south. The excavated portion of the cut is at least 2.9 m wide and 1.6 m deep. The break of slope at the top of the cut is gradual, with the main sides of the feature sloping at around 45° to the vertical and the base is uneven. Figure 7: south facing photograph of the investigated portion of context [019] 15 This negative feature cut through context (014), a linear deposit around 0.4 m wide and 0.1 m deep Context (014) appeared to run in a north-south direction and may have been the fill of a shallow linear feature. Three pieces of worked stone came from this deposit. The eastern portion of context (005) was also investigated in a separate area where it was abutted by context (015), see figure 8. In section, context (015), a yellowish-brown compact silty clay, was not distinguishable from context (005) and it is probable that they should be regarded as equivalent layers. Context (015) was around 0.18 m deep. There was a single small find from this context, a ground stone whetstone with a perforation at one end (see section 6.4 below and appendix 9.3). At the base of context (015), a circular patch of loose dark orange-brown sandy silt around 0.17 m in diameter was visible, context (017). This deposit filled a shallow and straight-sided negative feature, cut context [021], which was only around 0.03 m deep. This feature was interpreted as the truncated remains of a small posthole. The deposit cut by this possible posthole was a light yellowish-brown firm silty clay which was around 0.4 m deep, context (022). Beneath this context were two further fills, which were apparently contemporary with one another. To the west of the excavated area was context (025) which was a friable dark brown to black silty loam with large quantities of charcoal flecks and charcoal staining around 0.25 m deep. Finds from this context included three pieces of worked stone, an iron nail and five fragments of burnt bone. To the east of the excavated area was context (039), a very stony dark greyish-brown firm silty clay around 0.25 m deep. No finds were recovered from the excavated portion of this context. All of the layers described in the paragraph above filled context [040]. This context should be regarded as equivalent to context [019] reported above and as being the cut of the same large circular feature. In this area the sides of the feature slope at around 45° to the vertical, with a sharp break of slope at the top of the cut and an irregular base. The feature is a maximum of 0.88 m deep at the limit of excavation reached. 16 Figure 8: deposits visible at the base of the topsoil and areas of sample excavation in each feature. 6.1.3 Possible earlier contexts Context (007) was a sub-square deposit of dark orange-brown compacted sandy clay, approximately 0.2 m in length and width. Upon excavation this deposit proved to be the fill of a straight-sided posthole, context [011], with an irregular base which was around 0.15 m deep. This feature was immediately to the west of context [029] but was not stratigraphically related to it. Approximately 0.8 m to the north of this feature was a deposit of loose dark grey-brown sandy clay, context (008). This deposit was 0.34 m long and 0.27 m wide and upon excavation was discovered to be the fill of another straight-sided posthole, context [012], with a level base which was 0.43 m deep. Around 2.1 m to the west of this pair of features was another pair of postholes. The fill of the northern-most of these was context (016), a dark blackish-brown clay silt 0.26 m by 0.20 m. This deposit formed the post-pipe of the posthole and was surrounded by context (026), medium sized limestone fragments which formed the packing of the posthole. Both of these layers filled a 0.26 by 0.20 m straight-sided posthole which was 0.55 m deep, cut context [043], see figure 10. Approximately 1 m to the south of this feature was the second posthole of the pair. The fill of the posthole was context (041), a dark yellowish-brown loose sandy silt which was 0.22 m wide and 0.30 m long. This was surrounded by a layer of packing material, context (006), a mid yellowish-brown compact silt which contained substantial limestone fragments. Both 17 of these layers filled context [042], a straight-sided posthole which was 0.70 by 0.5 m and 0.4 m deep. Between these two pairs of postholes was a spread of dark yellowish-brown compact sandy silt and limestone fragments, context (028) which was investigated in a 0.4 m square trial area. The whole deposit appeared to spread over a 1.28 m by 0.5 m area, overlying the natural subsoil, context (003), and was around 0.14m thick where investigated. Eight pieces of worked chert and one piece of worked flint were found in context (028). Figure 9: Harris matrix showing all contexts recorded in the evaluation. 18 Figure 10: vertical photograph of posthole [043] during excavation with parts of the packing material (026) still in situ. 6.2 Vertebrate Skeletal Remains A small amount of poorly preserved bone was recovered from contexts (002), (003), (004), (005), (006), (014), and (025). These remains sum a total of 19.13 grammes of nondiagnostic bone fragments. These remains were almost all burned to a white colour and were undiagnostic in terms of bone identification or species. The fragments ranged from one to three centimetres in size. The remains could have originally come from a cremation burial or animal bones burned within the lime kiln. Microscopic analysis of the bone would be required to demonstrate if the remains are human or other species. The majority of bone fragments (12.18g) came from context (002), most likely permeating this layer from processes such as ploughing and bioturbation. See appendix 9.1 for further details. 6.3 Ceramic Finds Seventy-eight sherds and fragments of ceramic material were recovered from various contexts during the evaluation (see appendix 9.2 for a full list). Of these, 49 were fragments of post-medieval ceramic building material in a relatively hard, slightly laminated reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) fabric with plentiful very fine rounded quartzite inclusions. There were also eight fragments in two different fabrics which probably are the remains of burnt daub. The first of these, fabric group 4, comprised of six irregular fragments up to 23 mm thick with concave impressions on some of the surfaces. The fabric was relatively soft, ranging in colour from reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) to reddish brown (2.5YR 4/3). It contained very 19 plentiful very fine rounded quartzite inclusions and sparse amounts of medium rounded metasediment inclusions. The other possible burnt daub material, fabric group 5, was in a slightly different fabric, ranging in colour from light brownish grey (10YR 6/2) to reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6). There were two larger lumps and 15 fragments of this material, which had much less quartzite in the matrix. There were also sherds from three different wheel-thrown vessels. Vessel 1, in fabric group 1, was represented by a single very fine rim sherd, around 3 mm in thickness. The fabric is very hard, with a fine fracture and is light brown (7.5YR 6/3) in colour. The sherd is glazed with a dusky red (2.5YR 3/2) glaze which survives over all the external surfaces. It is possible that vessel is part of the rim of a manganese-glazed earthenware cup (see Draper 2001, 14 for a similar example) of late 17th or early 18th century date. Vessel 2, in fabric group 2, is represented by two body sherds and a single base sherd. The fabric is relatively hard, and the matrix contains plentiful fine rounded quartzite and haematite fragments and sparse amounts of medium-sized sandstone fragments. The internal and external surfaces and margins are reddish yellow (5YR 6/8) and the core is grey (2.5YR 5/1). There are patches of surviving glaze on the external surface of one sherd, this is light olive grey (5YR 6/2) in colour. These sherds are likely to be part of a medieval or post-medieval green-glazed redware. Vessel 3, in fabric group 3, is represented by two joining body sherds, around 5 mm thick, in a relatively hard fabric. The external surface and margin on the pot is light brown (7.5YR 6/4) and the core, internal margin and interior surface are reddish yellow (5YR 6/8). The inclusions within the fabric are plentiful very fine rounded quartzite, moderate fine angular quartzite, and sparse quantities of fine angular metasediment. These sherds are likely to be part of a post-medieval coarse redware. All of these redware sherds would be in keeping with other excavated assemblages from rural sites in the north-west, in particular 15th and 16th century material reported from Cuerden, South Ribble (Cook et al. 2018, 35). 6.4 Worked Stone A total of 69 worked stone objects were recovered from different contexts, see appendix 9.3 for a full list. The worked stone assemblage included a greater proportion of chert artefacts to flint ones (N41:24) in addition there was one item of mudstone, and one of unknown lithology. The highest number of lithic artefacts came from context (002) (N:23) with a lesser extent from context (005) (N:19). The worked stone assemblage from Portfield can be characterized as being dominated by angular shatter (N43). The highest number of other lithic types are flakes (14) and blades (8) see table 1 for more details. In addition two of the flakes showed evidence of retouch. Table 1: The number of lithic artefact types from Portfield Object Core Blade Flake Burin Number 1 8 14 1 20 Gunflint Whetstone AS 1 1 43 The single core recovered from context (028) was made of an unknown lithology, this core did not appear to have had any significant blade removal. A single partial burin of chert was also recovered. The single whetstone recovered from context (015) had a circular perforation at one end making a pendant form (see figure 11 and table 2 for object dimensions) the whetstone was sub-rectangular in cross-section. Both ends of the whetstone appear to have been damaged. This item would have been used to hone the edges of metallic items so dates to the Bronze Age at the earliest (Barber 2003). Comparable examples dating to the Bronze Age are discussed by Woodward et al. (2005). Table 2: Dimensions of whetstone Dimension Measurement (mm) Length 7.75 Max width 18.7 Max depth 10.1 Perforation inner diameter 4.4 Perforation outer diameter 6.3 Figure 11: fragment of ground stone whetstone recovered from context (015) 21 In summary the analysis of the lithic assemblage from Portfield demonstrates a chronology from the Mesolithic through to the Bronze Age with continuing use of both chert and flint. The assemblage is typical of others from Lancashire. 6.5 Environmental Sample Processing Bulk 40 litre samples from excavated deposits, or the entirety of deposits if these were less by volume than this were processed using a Siraf-type flotation tank. 100% of each sample was processed. The flots were collected on a 300μm mesh, air-dried and examined under a binocular microscope. Any material still retained in the residue was also extracted and assessed. The contents of each flot, such as cereal grains, cereal chaff, weed seeds and molluscs, were quantified, as was material such as coal, bone, mortar, and ceramic building material (CBM). The presence of modern contaminants, such as roots, insect eggs and modern seeds, was noted. All the deposits sampled had very sparse quantities of carbonised plant remains. Additionally, all deposits except contexts 007, 008, 016 and 041 were heavily contaminated with modern root material. In view of this no further detailed analysis was attempted. 22 7 Project Outcomes 7.1 Introduction Project outcomes will be reported below. There has been some variance from the expected project outcomes as set out in the original research design (Peterson and Walsh 2022) and these are detailed in the appropriate sections below. 7.2 Summary of the archaeological findings Following the end of the assessment it is clear that no substantial prehistoric structures survived in the area which was investigated. The large circular anomaly identified by Woods (2015) was sampled and has been definitively dated to the post-medieval period through the presence of ceramics of this date in the lower fills. The fill of this feature contained intensely burnt deposits including lime. This feature is interpreted as part of a lime-kiln of postmedieval date. Other features in the evaluation area included a steep sided linear feature which post-dates the lime kiln, and a group of four apparently related postholes. The latter features may have an earlier date, but no dating evidence was recovered. The most significant finds from the evaluation are a small assemblage of worked chert and flint, some fragments of burnt daub, and a broken whetstone – all of which are likely to be residual from various phases of the prehistoric use of the site. With the possible exception of the postholes discussed above there are no likely prehistoric features in the evaluation area. 7.3 Educational outputs After the completion of the field based assessed elements of the taught modules, students were required to complete formal written reports. For level 5 students (2nd year undergraduates) the report assessed their ability to record and interpret archaeological contexts and construct appropriate matrices; to integrate different types of archaeological data; and to undertake basic processing and recording of finds and samples. For level 6 students (3rd year undergraduates) the report additionally assessed their ability to evaluate how their work contributes to the wider research aims of the project; to apply and evaluate archaeological sampling strategies; and to explain archaeological procedures and reflect on their own practice. For level 7 students (master’s students) the report assessed their ability to record archaeological information in a structured way and to report it in a systematic and logical fashion. The report had to conform to one of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists guidelines and standards documents and took the form of a partial updated project design dealing with one element of the archive. Elements of these level 7 reports have been integrated into this document in section 6.1 and 6.4 above. 23 7.4 Community dissemination Project updates were posted to the UCLan Archaeology and Anthropology and Pendle Hill Landscape Partnership twitter feeds during the field evaluation. After the end of the fieldwork a talk was presented at a PHLP online event on Wednesday 28th September 2022. A popular summary report will be produced, alongside the updated project design, for dissemination through the PHLP Community Archaeology Forum. Alongside an illustrated PDF, which will be downloadable from the Community Archaeology Forum web pages, the project team will also produce a blog post to be hosted on the PHLP pages. 7.5 Formal publication Plans for formal publication have been reviewed as part of the assessment phase of the postexcavation process. The results of the evaluation will be offered as note to the Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society. 24 8 Bibliography Al Qahtani, S.J., Hector, M.P. and Liversidge, H.M. 2010. Brief communication: The London atlas of human tooth development and eruption. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 142/3, 481–490. Andrefsky, W. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis (Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barrowclough, D. 2008. Prehistoric Lancashire. The History Press: Gloucester. Beswick, P. and Coombs, D.G. 1986. Excavations at Portfield Hillfort 1960, 1970 & 1972; in TG Manby & P Turnbull (eds) Archaeology in the Pennines. British Archaeological Report 158. Oxford: BAR, 137-179. Blundell, J & Longworth, I. 1967. A Bronze Age Hoard from Portfield Farm, Whalley, Lancashire. In. The British Museum Quarterly, Vol. 32, No 1-2. The British Museum: London. Pp 8-14 CIfA 2014a Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Excavation. Reading: Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. Available at https://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/CIfAS%26GExcavation_2.pdf (accessed March 2022) CIfA 2014b Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluation. Reading: Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. Available at https://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/CIfAS%26GFieldevaluation_3.pdf (accessed March 2022) Cook, O., Miller, I. and Rowe, S. 2018. Post-excavation Assessment: Cuerden Strategic Site, Cuerden Green, South Ribble, Lancashire. Centre for Applied Archaeology, University of Salford. Unpublished Client Report. Available at https://lancsarchaeologicalsociety.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/cuerden-strategic-site_postexcavation-assessment-report.pdf (accessed July 2023) Draper, J. 2001. Post-medieval pottery 1650-1800. Princes Risborough: Shire Publications. Green, J.M. 1989. Portfield hill fort, Whalley. Unpublished draft report. Haselgrove, C. 1996. The Iron Age. In R. Newman (ed) The Archaeology of Lancashire: present state and future priorities. Lancaster: Lancaster University Archaeological Unit, 61-74. Orton, C., Tyres, P. & Vince, A. 1993. Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pendle Hill Landscape Partnership 2022. Archaeology. Available at https://www.pendlehillproject.com/project/archaeology (accessed June 2022) Peterson, R. and Walsh, S. 2022. Archaeological Evaluation at Portfield Hillfort, Whalley: Lancashire: project research design and written scheme of investigations. University of Central Lancashire: Unpublished Report. 25 Prehistoric Ceramic Research Group 2010. The Study of Prehistoric Pottery: General Policies and Guidelines for Analysis and Publication. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology. Schmid, E. 1972. Atlas of Animal Bones: For Prehistorians, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. London: Elsevier. Woods, M. 2015. Review of potential community archaeology research projects within the Pendle Hill portion of the Forest of Bowland AONB. Unpublished report for the Forest of Bowland AONB. Woodward, A., Hunter, J., Ixer, R., Maltby, M., Potts, P.J., Webb, P.C., Watson, J.S. and Jones, M.C., 2005. Ritual in some early Bronze Age grave goods. Archaeological Journal, 162(1) 31-64. 26 9 Appendices 9.1 Appendix 1 Vertebrate skeletal remains SF Context Weight (g) Size (cm) SF001 2 0.17 <1 SF006 3 0.2 <1 SF007 2 0.72 2 SF008 2 0.15 <1 SF009 2 0.5 <1 SF010 2 0.48 1 SF011 2 0.1 <1 SF012 2 0.46 <1 SF013 2 0.12 <1 SF014 2 0.77 2 SF015 2 0.52 2 SF017 2 0.11 <1 SF018 2 0.18 1 SF021 2 0.33 2 SF022 2 0.54 2 SF023 2 0.1 <1 SF024 2 0.57 3 SF025 2 0.24 2 SF026 2 0.21 <1 SF027 2 3.05 2 SF027 2 0.89 2 SF034 2 0.28 1 SF036 2 0.53 2 SF041 2 0.31 2 SF043 2 0.23 <1 SF052 2 0.1 <1 SF058 2 0.1 <1 SF062 4 0.1 <1 SF065 4 2.65 3 SF068 5 0.3 <1 SF070 5 0.77 2 SF071 5 0.1 <1 SF093 14 0.1 <1 SF095 6 0.13 2 SF108 5 0.1 <1 SF113 5 0.25 1 SF116 5 0.1 <1 SF122 4 0.2 <1 SF125 5 0.76 2 SF130 25 0.1 <1 27 SF132 25 0.1 <1 SF135 25 0.89 <1 SF143 25 0.1 <1 2 0.42 1 N/A 9.2 Appendix 2 Ceramic Material SF Context Object Material FG SF039 2 Frags CBM 6 SF056 2 Sherd Ceramic 2 2 Sherd Ceramic 2 SF072 4 Frags SF080 4 Frags Burnt Daub CBM SF082 4 Frags SF087 4 SF089 Vessel No Thickness (mm) 10 Sherds 2 2 2 6 1 1 2 7 1 5 24 16 16 6 17 2 2 5 15 1 1 Frags Burnt Daub CBM 6 30 24 24 4 Frags CBM 6 12 1 1 SF090 4 Frags CBM 6 15 13 13 SF092 4 Frags CBM 6 10 2 2 SF094 4 Frags CBM 6 14 1 1 SF104 4 Sherd Ceramic 2 2 9 1 SF111 4 Sherd Ceramic 3 3 5 2 2 4 Frags CBM 6 14 3 3 SF078 5 Frags CBM 6 11 1 1 SF129 18 Frags Burnt Daub 4 23 6 6 24 Sherd Ceramic 1 3 1 1 28 Rim Base Body 1 Surface glazed post-medieval CBM Frags medieval/postmedieval redware medieval/postmedieval green glazed redware possible burnt daub post-medieval CBM Frags probable burnt daub 1 1 Notes glazed post-medieval CBM Frags post-medieval CBM Frags post-medieval CBM Frags post-medieval CBM Frags post-medieval CBM Frags medieval/postmedieval redware medieval/postmedieval redware post-medieval CBM Frags post-medieval CBM Frags concave grooves as surfaces - probably burnt daub Staffordshire Slipware cup? 9.3 Appendix 3 Worked stone 9.3.1 Tool types found per context Context Core Blade Flake Burin Gunflint Whetstone AS* 2 0 4 7 0 1 0 11 23 4 0 2 0 1 0 0 6 9 5 0 1 4 0 0 0 14 19 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 14 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 4 15 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 28 1 0 2 0 0 0 4 7 8 14 1 1 1 43 69 Total 1 *AS = Angular shatter 9.3.2 Full list of lithic artefacts SF Context Category Material 3 2 blade flint 4 2 flake flint 20 2 angular shatter flint 30 2 flake flint 40 2 flake chert 42 2 angular shatter flint 44 2 gunflint? flint 45 2 flake chert 46 2 blade flint 47 2 blade flint 48 2 flake chert 49 2 flake flint 50 2 angular shatter flint 55 2 blade flint 61 4 burin chert 63 4 blade chert 64 5 flake flint 67 4 angular shatter chert 69 4 angular shatter flint 81 14 blade flint 83 14 flake flint 84 4 angular shatter chert 85 14 angular shatter chert 86 4 angular shatter chert 88 14 angular shatter flint Total 96 2 angular shatter chert 97 2 angular shatter flint 98 2 angular shatter flint 99 2 flake flint 100 2 angular shatter chert 101 15 whetstone mud stone 102 6 angular shatter flint 103 5 angular shatter chert 105 5 angular shatter chert 106 5 blade chert 106 5 angular shatter chert 107 15 angular shatter chert 109 5 flake chert 110 4 angular shatter chert 110 4 angular shatter chert 112 5 angular shatter chert 114 5 angular shatter chert 114 5 angular shatter chert 114 5 angular shatter chert 114 5 angular shatter chert 114 5 angular shatter chert 114 5 angular shatter chert 115 5 angular shatter chert 115 5 angular shatter chert 118 5 angular shatter chert 119 4 blade flint 120 2 angular shatter flint 121 2 angular shatter flint 123 2 angular shatter flint 124 5 flake chert 127 22 angular shatter chert 133 25 angular shatter flint 134 25 angular shatter chert 136 28 flake chert 137 28 core unknown lithology 138 28 angular shatter flint 139 28 angular shatter chert 140 28 flake chert 141 25 angular shatter chert 144 2 angular shatter chert 148 28 angular shatter chert 150 5 angular shatter chert 150 5 flake chert 151 28 angular shatter chert 2 9.4 Archive Contents 9.4.1 Drawn Record Plan Number 1 Contexts/Description Scale Initials Date Pre-excavation southern half of trench 1:20 KL 16/08/2022 2 pre-excavation northern half of trench 1:20 TW 16/08/2022 3 plan of postholes 1:5 KF 17/08/2022 4 posthole cross section 1:5 KF 17/08/2022 5 posthole cross section 1:5 KL 17/08/2022 6 posthole cross section 1:5 TW 18/08/2022 7 posthole cross section 1:5 TW 19/08/2022 8 void 9 void 10 burnt patch (017) within context (015) 1:20 KB 19/08/2022 11 possible 5th posthole within PH [012] 1:5 TW 19/08/2022 12 section of deposit (017) in context (015) in south eastern corner of trench 1:5 KB 22/08/2022 13 south-west portion of burnt ring and cut 1:20 TW 22/08/2022 14 deep post-pipe section drawing (023) 1:5 KL 23/08/2022 15 post pipe (016) plan 1:5 KL 23/08/2022 16 section drawing of west facing section 1:10 TW 25/08/2022 17 08 ditch - both sections 1:10 SRH 25/08/2022 18 08 ditch plan 1:20 SRH 26/08/2022 19 north facing section plan of cut [014] 1:10 TW 26/08/2022 20 plan of south-western burnt rign cut [019] 1:20 TW 26/08/2022 21 plan and section of south eastern area of burnt circle 1:20 LJ 30/08/2022 9.4.2 Photographic Record Photo Number 623 Date Description Direction Conditions Photographer 16/08/2022 pre-excavation round feature S 624 16/08/2022 pre-excavation round feature S 625 16/08/2022 pre-excavation round feature N 626 16/08/2022 N 627 16/08/2022 628 16/08/2022 629 17/08/2022 pre-excavation burnt ring east part dark linear feature north facing east part dark linear feature north facing east part NW facing PH (007) SE Fine KF 630 17/08/2022 631 17/08/2022 NW facing PH (007) SE Fine KF NW facing PH (007) Above Fine KF 632 17/08/2022 NW facing PH (007) Above Fine KF 633 17/08/2022 N facing section PH (008) S Fine KL 3 N W 634 17/08/2022 N facing section PH (008) S Fine KL 635 17/08/2022 N facing section PH (008) Above Fine KL 636 18/08/2022 Above cloudy SRH 637 19/08/2022 south facing linear feature working photo post socket SE cloudy LW 638 19/08/2022 post socket Above cloudy LW 639 19/08/2022 posthole S cloudy LW 640 19/08/2022 posthole Above cloudy LW 641 19/08/2022 S sunny KB 642 19/08/2022 S sunny KB 643 19/08/2022 burnt patch (017) within context (015) burnt patch (017) within context (015) burnt patch (017) within context (015) N sunny KB 644 645 646 22/08/2022 south western portion of burnt ring west facing section E rain TW 647 22/08/2022 south western portion of burnt ring west facing section E rain TW 648 22/08/2022 N rain TW 649 22/08/2022 south western portion of burnt ring south western portion of burnt ring north facing section S rain TW 650 22/08/2022 south western portion of burnt ring north facing section S rain TW 651 22/08/2022 south western portion of burnt ring north facing section S rain TW 652 22/08/2022 south western portion of burnt ring north facing section S rain TW 653 22/08/2022 south western portion of burnt ring east facing section W rain TW 654 22/08/2022 south western portion of burnt ring east facing section W rain TW 655 24/08/2022 S overcast AD 656 24/08/2022 south facing section of post pipe (016) and posthole post pipe (016) Above overcast AD 657 25/08/2022 north section of ditch N Wet KA 658 25/08/2022 south section of ditch S Wet KA 661 25/08/2022 N slightly sunny LJ 662 25/08/2022 N slightly sunny LJ 663 25/08/2022 N slightly sunny LJ 664 25/08/2022 North section of pit showing contexts (025) and (022) North section of pit showing contexts (025) and (022) South section of pit showing contexts (025) and (022) South section of pit showing contexts (025) and (022) N slightly sunny LJ 659 660 4 665 25/08/2022 N slightly sunny LJ 25/08/2022 South section of pit showing contexts (025) and (022) west facing section cut [019] 666 E Sunny GH 667 25/08/2022 west facing section cut [019] E Sunny GH 668 25/08/2022 north facing section cut [019] S Sunny GH 669 25/08/2022 north facing section cut [019] S Sunny GH 670 25/08/2022 plan view of [019] Above Sunny GH 671 25/08/2022 plan view of [019] Above Sunny GH 672 25/08/2022 plan view of [019] Above Sunny GH 674 25/08/2022 N sunny KL 675 31/08/2022 square intervention into context (028) front view of whetstone post-ex indoor AD 676 31/08/2022 back view of whetstone post-ex indoor AD 677 31/08/2022 left view of whetstone post-ex indoor AD 678 31/08/2022 right view of whetstone post-ex indoor AD 673 5