A series of six small test pits was excavated in an area of car parking immediately to the south of 89 The Mount in an attempt to establish the nature and depth of the archaeological deposits. The sequence of deposits was consistent across the site. No evidence of in situ or disturbed human remains was found. The material assemblages indicated use of the area in the Roman, Medieval and post Medieval periods though its Roman nature could not be characterised.
Consultant archaeologists Mike Griffiths and Associates were commissioned by Shepherd Homes Ltd to undertake a preliminary archaeological evaluation on land immediately adjacent to their offices at 89 The Mount, York (SE 59535118). The proposed building work, the subject of a current planning application, will consist of an extension on the south side of the current office building. The nature of the ground requires that any new building is founded on a system of piles and after discussion with the structural engineer it was agreed that the construction of any pile caps and ground beams could be contained within a depth of 750mm below the present ground level. Since it was assumed that the site would contain the remains of a Roman cemetery the degree of ground disturbance was minimised and a Burial Licence was obtained from the Home Office.
The limited archaeological and engineering objectives were agreed with John Oxley, York City Council's Principal Archaeologist, by Mike Griffiths. The specification called for a series of 6 small test pits to examine the character of the archaeological deposits within a depth of 1 metre from the ground surface. The particular aim of the evaluation was to establish the presence or absence of intact Roman burials iii this top 1 metre within the area proposed for development.
The archaeological knowledge of the present site is dominated by the Roman period. It lies adjacent to the main Roman road running from York to Tadcaster. The main civilian town, or Colonia, lies inside the current city walls to the south-west of the Ouse, with the Legionary fortress on the opposite bank.
Roman law forbade burials within towns (de la Bedoyere 1992, 116), and cemeteries and other funerary monuments tended to line roads just outside the built up area (Salway 1981, 694). The main Roman cemeteries at York have been identified outside the city at Bootham, under the railway station, Clementhorpe and on either side of The Mount and Blossom Street (Jones 1984).
During the Roman period the power, status and affluence of an individual in life was often expressed through the form of their burial. Sites nearest a road, preferably a main road, were obviously going to be seen by more people than those further away, and so these were preferred by the most prestigious. It would be reasonable to expect a pattern, in an area like The Mount. The shrines, mausolea, tombs, gravestones and other indicators of the higher status burials would have been closest to the road and nearest to the Colonia, with the more ordinary graves and cemeteries set further back from, or out along, the road.
There is some evidence for this pattern around the development site. Tombstones have been found either side of the road, as well as a vaulted tomb and stone coffin still in existence under 104 The Mount, directly opposite the present site (RCHME 1962). Many burials and cremations from this period have also been seen in the area. The excavation of part of a cemetery in the 1950s, at nearby Trentholme Drive, is the most detailed publication of such a site (Wenham 1968). In addition there is an unpublished work by the York Archaeological Trust at 35-41 Blossom Street (Hall, 1996).
These, together with casual observations over the years, confirm that the area was one of York's main burial grounds, and was in use for many years. The fact that so much of York's Roman cemeteries have been removed by building works without archaeological record, especially in the area of the railway station, means that the preservation of those remaining is a priority.
Excavations in another part of the 89 The Mount site (York Archaeological Trust 1991) found a series of ditches and a structure, showing intensive Roman use of the site in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The excavation also found some residual pottery from the Anglian and Anglo-Scandinavian periods, as well as evidence of rubbish dumping in medieval times. It did not, however, show any trace of human burials.
Six test pits were located, each on the probable site of a pile cap. In each case the tarmac was removed by mechanical means, and then all the underlying deposits were removed by hand excavation to a depth of lm, where possible. This hand excavation proceeded in plan in order to allow recognition of intact human remains or structural evidence. All deposits were intensively examined for archaeological remains, and all archaeological material noted was recovered and retained for later examination. See Plan 1 for location of test pits.
The pottery was examined by Alan Vince, the bone by Marlin Holst, the metalwork by The York Archaeological Trust, and the tile by Sandra Garside-Neville. Since no intact human or structural remains identified, the excavation ceased at 1 metre below ground level, and the south section of each trench was drawn and photographed. No environmental samples were taken.
Trench 1 could not be extended to its full depth in the whole of the trench, as the plinth of an adjacent concrete drain prevented this. The first layers encountered were the tarmac and yellow chalk gravel, clearly associated with the present use of the site as a car park. These extended to 0.305m below ground level. Below this, a dark brown mixed garden soil was encountered, extending 0.48m further down. This was followed by 0.16m of subsoil, which consisted of a slightly clayey sand, light/mid brown in colour, with much more stony material in the matrix. Under this, the only layer encountered before reaching 1 m was a very sandy matrix of much the same colour.
Trench 1 was the subject of considerable root disturbance from nearby trees, but the soil was not particularly desiccated. No structural remains or intact burials were seen during the excavation.
Trench 2 had 0.38m of tarmac and gravel, over 0.36m of the same dark mixed garden soil seen in trench 1. Below this was a layer of very compact gravel/sand material about 0.2m deep, with most of the pieces being l cm or less, but with some larger chunks also present. Beneath this, and extending to the base of the trench, was the same coarse sand seen in trench 1.
The first deposit seen was 0.34m of tarmac and gravel, with 0.53m of the same garden soil seen in the other trenches below this. Beneath this was a layer of cobble-like material, and at the very base of the trench, a coarse sandy layer. This change from garden soil to cobbles to sand was very difficult to see in plan and even in section seemed much less clear cut than in the other trenches. It was more a change in the texture of the deposit than a distinct change in the constituents of the layer.
Tarmac and gravel hardcore extending 0.365m below ground level was present in this trench. This overlay 0.48m of mixed garden soil. The lowest 0.lm of the garden soil gradually became more compact, with lots of small and medium cobbles. Below this was a very compact mid/light brown sand, fairly sterile in nature. The matrix of this trench was very dry and desiccated, probably due to root action.
This trench had 0.35m of modem tarmac and gravel, over 0.34m of mixed garden soil. Below this, the matrix gradually became lighter in colour, more sandy, and had more stones in it. At 1m below ground level, lots of stones and cobbles were present. As in trench 4, the matrix had been quite desiccated by roots.
Modem tarmac and gravel was again present in this trench, to a depth of 0.435m below ground level, with 0.58m of the same mixed garden soil seen in all the other trenches. Below this, the matrix became slightly clayey with more stones.
The material recovered during the excavation was clearly mixed and suggested use of the area from the Roman period onwards. Relatively large quantities of pottery, tile, bone and corroded metal were recovered. These were submitted to a number of specialists for further analysis.
Of the pottery recovered, eighty-five sherds were of Roman date. Some of these pieces were fresh, while others were small and abraded. The fresh sherds were not later than the late 2nd century, including some 1st century types (Monaghan's period CP2b and earlier), while the abraded assemblage included some 3rd century Nene Valley wares (Monaghan's period CP3a-b).
Twenty-nine sherds of medieval pottery were recovered. Some of these may be as early as the late 12th century. Little late medieval pottery was recovered, with the bulk dating to the 13th and 14th centuries.
Nine post-medieval and modem sherds were recovered. These range in date from the 16th/17th centuries to the 19th century, and are typical of garden soil assemblages.
All the material from the different periods was found mixed together and unstratified. There is no obvious difference between the assemblages recovered from the different trenches, with all the material being a mixture of 2nd/3rd century Roman material with a gap then until the 12th to 14th centuries. There is then another gap, before the post-medieval and modem pottery appears in the record.
All the material from the 3rd century onwards is small and abraded, and has clearly been in the active soil for some time. However, the earlier material seems much fresher, and it is suggested that this material may have been deposited, and then immediately buried below the active soil. This indicates that this material may have been recovered from interface between the undisturbed sandy soil and the garden soil horizon, but has been attributed to the upper layer (Vince et al, 1999). It also is consistent with this material being brought from elsewhere and dumped, perhaps during extensive remodelling works in the Colonia in the 3d century.
All the trenches produced a quantity of tile and brick. In all trenches except trench 1, small quantities of Roman material were present. This consisted of brick and fragments of roof tile. The material shows that there was some Roman activity on the site, or in the nearby area. However, the majority of the material is from the medieval period or possibly a little later, dating to between the 13th and 16th centuries. One fragment has what may be some sort of graffiti on it, but the majority of the material is very typical of York at this time (Garside-Neville 1999).
All the trenches produced a quantity of bone, and this was examined for characteristic markers to try to establish whether they were human or animal in origin. All the bone and bone fragments could be identified, and they were classed as being non-human. It was thought that the bones derive from large (cattle or horse) and medium mammals (sheep, goat or pigs). A small amount of material which was initially identified as cremated bone during excavation, turned out to be fragments of oyster shell. Some pieces of the animal bone also had butchery marks on them (Holst 1999).
The lack of stratification means that it is not possible to attribute this material to any particular period. In light of this it is felt unnecessary to examine the bone further.
Several pieces of corroded ironwork were recovered from the site, together with several larger pieces of what appeared to be slag. Jim Spriggs of the York Archaeological Trust Conservation Labs examined these. All the objects and some pieces of slag were then x rayed. This confirmed that the objects from trench 3 (C. 5003) were handmade nails. The piece from trench 6 (C. 6003), was an unidentifiable fragment, perhaps part of another nail, as was the piece from trench 3 (C. 3003). The larger pieces recovered from trench 3 (C. 3003) were also confirmed as slag. During the cleaning of these pieces, 3 small, abraded sherds of pottery were found to have adhered to the slag. These were very similar to the other Roman pottery recovered from the site.
Apart from the fact that the nails appear to be handmade, no further information was gleaned by the x-ray analysis of the iron objects. This and the fact that they are unstratified, makes further analysis of these objects unnecessary.
Below the clearly modem car park surfaces, all the trenches featured a layer of garden soil. This garden activity seems to have disturbed the ground down to quite a depth, certainly disturbing Roman layers and destroying all stratigraphy in any later material. The analysis of the finds is consistent with this, showing Roman, medieval and post-medieval material mixed together, and unstratified.
This mixed nature makes it impossible to attribute the probable domestic detritus shown by the bones and the oyster/mussel shell seen in trench 5, to any specific period. No structural remains or ditches like those found during the earlier excavations were seen and, more specifically, no intact human burials were observed or evidence for disturbed burials. Therefore, it is unlikely that intact archaeological deposits will be present in this top 1m.
The presence of disturbed Roman material does not mean that intact remains, possibly including burials, are not present below this upper 1m zone. At the nearby Trentholme Drive cemetery inhumation and cremation burials survived below a layer of light sandy soil, and in one place below a layer of cobbles. Similar sandy and stony material seen in all the test pits could, in theory, seal the remains of a cemetery or represent the natural deposits into which they are cut.
The Roman material may represent the remains of votive deposits around an area of larger monuments, the dumping of rubbish outside the Colonia, or perhaps Roman material excavated during pit digging in the medieval period and dumped outside the city walls. The lack of stratigraphy on the site makes it impossible to distinguish between these possibilities. Also, the excavations at Blossom Street by the Y.A.T. found no trace of human remains in a series of trial trenches, but a considerable cemetery, partially truncated, in area excavation.
It would be surprising, however, if a partially truncated Roman burial ground was present at this site since no fragment of human bone has been recovered from any of the site evaluations. In the Blossom Street excavations, human bone was present, albeit in limited quantities, in the upper more disturbed material.
Therefore, although 'The Mount' area is almost certainly within a Roman cemetery area, the current results, together with the previous excavations on the site (York Archaeological Trust 1991), suggest that this specific site was not used as a place of burial in the Roman period.
The excavations have shown that the top lm below ground level at this site is likely to produce only unstratified archaeological remains.
Mike Collins for Mike Griffiths and Associates: April 1999
De la Bedoyere G. 1992. Roman Towns in Britain.
Garside-Neville S. 1999. Ceramic Building Materials from The Mount, York (Unpublished report for Mike Griffiths and Associates).
Hall R. 1996. York
Holst M. 1999. Animal Bone from 89 The Mount, York (Unpublished report for Mike Griffiths and Associates).
Jones R F J. 1984. The Cemeteries of Roman York in Addyman, P and Black, V (Eds.) Archaeological Papers from York Presented to M.W. Barley
RCHM(E). 1962. An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York 1: Eboracum, Roman York.
Salway P. 1981. Roman Britain .
Vince A, Precious, B, and Young, J. 1999. Roman and Later Pottery from The Mount, York (Unpublished report for Mike Griffiths and Associates)
Wenham L P. 1968. The Romano British Cemetery at Trentholme Drive, York.
York Archaeological Trust. 1991. Report on Archaeological Evaluation at 89 The Mount York (Unpublished report for Shepherd Homes).
There are six medium bags, one each from the six trenches. This is a small sample, and the ceramic building material is quite fragmentary in nature.
There are a few fragments of Roman material. These consist of small pieces which can only be identified as Roman by the fabric. These are classified as Roman brick and could be fragments of roof tile, or parts of brick used in walls and flooring. There are pieces, which judging by their thickness, are probably body fragments from tegula (Roman roof tile). There are two fragments of imbrex (Roman roof tile). One of the fragments has a thickness of just 14mm, however the fabric does appear to be Roman.
The bulk of the sample is medieval, or possibly a little later, in date. Medieval material comprises plain medieval roof tile. In York there are two types of plain tile - peg tile and nib tile. Peg tile is the most common, and is represented on this site. However, most of the fragments are unfeatured sherds. Most of the fabrics are typical York products and probably belong to peg tile, rather than nib. There is at least one example of a fabric associated with the 14th century or later. One plain fragment has what appears to be some sort of combed markings on its unsanded surface. This type of marking is not common on plain tile, but may be some sort of graffiti. There is a possibility that this fragment is Roman combed flue tile, however the thickness of the piece is generally too thin for York flue tile. The fabric is , this case , undiagnostic.
There is one fragment of plain ridge tile.
This sample shows that there is some Roman activity on the site or nearby. The medieval material is very typical of York, being unglazed and plain. This sample should be retained for further study at which point it should be recorded and analysed to fit in with the existing fabric samples. After full recording by a recognised Ceramic Building Materials specialised most of the sample could be dispersed.
| Context | Form | Date range | Spot date |
|---|---|---|---|
| TR1 | Plain, Peg, Plain (14 th+), ?Pot (+slip) | 13-16th | 14-16th |
| TR2 | Plain, ?Plain (T13, ?comb marks, possibly Roman) | ?Roman-16th | 13-16th |
| TR3 | Plain, Ridge, Tegula (T19), Tegula (T25), Amphora | Roman-16th | 13-16th |
| TR4 | Plain, Imbrex, Roman brick | Roman-16th | 13-16th |
| TR5 | Plain, Roman brick, Imbrex (T14) | Roman-16th | 13-16th |
| TR6 | Plain, Samian | Roman-16th | 13-16th |
25/1/1999
The intention of the analysis of the skeletal material from 89, The Mount, was to identify whether these bones were animal or human skeletal remains.
Every complete bone, bone fragment and tooth was examined for characteristic markers suggesting whether they were human or not. All of the bones could be identified as being non-human. Evidence for butchery marks could be found on a number of the skeletal remains.
A number of tiny white fragments, initially thought to be cremated bone are thought to be fragments of oyster shell. Unfortunately, the material was very brittle and it was therefore difficult to clean them properly for analysis.
Although the zooarchaeological experience of the author is limited, it is thought that all the bones derive from either large mammals (such as cattle or horse) and medium sized mammals (such as sheep/goat and pigs). Some of the teeth were definitely anterior pig teeth.
It is recommended that the skeletal material is analysed by a zooarchaeologist in order to determine more specifically, which animals are represented on site, interpret this data and to analyse the techniques with which these animals were butchered at the time. This would aid in interpreting the archaeological evidence gathered from the features and artefacts from the site and gathering more information about life in York in the past.
| Trench | Number | Type of bone | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5
2 |
Animal Bone fragments
Animal Teeth |
40g |
| 2 | 13
1 |
Animal Bone Fragments
Animal Tooth |
60g |
| 3 | 20
4 Several tiny frags. |
Animal Bone fragments
Animal teeth Oyster shell |
130g |
| 4 | 10
2 |
Animal Bone fragments
Animal teeth |
60g |
| 5 | 3 | Animal Bone fragments | 90g |
| 6 | 14
1 |
Animal Bone fragments
Pig tooth |
90g |
| Total | 75 | Animal Bone and Teeth | 510g |