106 



THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 



defences allude to a relatively short duration as an 

 open topographic feature, which possibly explains 

 the historical ambiguity attached to the second 

 bailey. 



Methodology 



The requirement for an archaeological watching 

 brief during the major groundworks associated 

 with this development project has been justified 

 by the results obtained. In addition to recovering 

 significant archaeological data pertaining to the 

 development of the castle and the earlier medieval 

 settlement, the disparity between the results of the 

 evaluation and the subsequent watching brief 

 remind us of the inherent fallibility of the 

 techniques currently available for field evaluation. 

 In this instance, relocation of the evaluation 

 trenches to avoid known live services and active 

 thoroughfares, inadvertently avoided significant 

 archaeological deposits, the identification of which 

 would have had a significant affect on determination 

 of planning permission. A wider scatter of shorter 

 trenches might have uncovered the larger 

 archaeological features, but there remains even 

 amongst the rich seam of archaeology exposed in 

 the watching brief a great deal of blank ground into 

 which shorter trenches could as easily have fitted. 

 If there is a conclusion to be drawn, it is that 

 consideration of archaeological evaluations should 

 be based on artefactual as well as stratigraphic 

 results irrespective of any apparent lack of 

 relationship between the two data sets; the large 

 unabraded pottery sherds recovered in the 

 evaluation, though undoubtedly residual in the 

 overburden layers, were correctly interpreted by 



the County Archaeological Service as indicating 

 proximate in situ deposits. 



References 



ASI 1999, Marlborough College Pool: Archaeological 



Evaluation, December 1999. Non-publication 



planning report No. ASI 3106 

 BRADLEY, A.G, CHAMPREYS, A.C., BAINES, J.W., 



1923, A History of Marlborough College. London: 



John Murray 

 CREIGHTON, O.H., 2000, Early Casdes in the Medieval 



Landscape of Wiltshire. WANHM 93, 105-19 

 FIELD, D„ BROWN, G. and CROCKETT, A., 2001, 



The Marlborough Mount revisited. WANHM 94, 



195-204 

 HASLAM, J., 1976, Wiltshire Towns: the archaeological 



potential. Devizes: WANHS 

 MEPHAM, L., 2000, 'Enborne Street and Wheadands 



Lane: medieval pottery', in M.J.Allen era./., Technical 



Reports supporting V. Birbeck, Archaeological 



Investigations on the A34 Newbury Bypass, 



Berkshire/Hampshire, 1991-7, 52-66. Wessex 



Archaeology 

 MEPHAM, L. and HEATON, M., 1995, A medieval 



pottery kiln at Ashampstead, Berkshire. Medieval 



Ceramics 19, 29-43 

 MUSTY, J., ALGAR, D.J. and EWENCE, P.F., 1969, 



The medieval pottery kilns at Laverstock, near 



Salisbury, Wiltshire. Archaeologia 102, 83-150 

 SCHOFIELD, J. and VINCE, A., 1995, MedievalTowns. 



Leicester UP 

 VTNCE, A.G., 1997, 'Excavations at 143-5 Bartholomew 



Street, 1979', in A.GVince, S.J. Lobb, J.C. Richards 



and L. Mepham, Excavations in Newbury 1979- 



1990, 6-85. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology 

 VCH 1986. Victoria County History ofWiltshire,Vol. XII, 



The Borough of Marlborough. London 



