Site Event/Activity record ECH4757 - Land off Holmes Chapel Road, Congleton, Cheshire: Archaeological Evaluation

Further geophysical survey, evaluation trenching, and environmental sampling carried out on the site of the mound adjacent to the Loach Brook, south of the Holmes Chapel Road, Congleton. The mound has been identified as a Neolithic long barrow and is designated as a Scheduled Monument (SM 13499). The work was carried out under class consent as part of a programme of work required by English heritage in connection with proposals for housing development in the area. The GPR data profiles support the interpretation that the mound material is different to the surrounding natural subsoils, at least in its stone content. The anomalously high resistance values of the mound material do not appear to structural. The radar transects support this interpretation; no reflections consistent with interpretations of structural features or voids were identified. A linear high resistance anomaly has been detected approximately Sm to the west of the mound, which is not likely to reflect a stone revetment or kerb. The previous phase of geomagnetic surveys detected tentative evidence for a possible stone kerb or revetment along the east edge of the mound, however, no data supporting possible stone revetments or kerbs has been detected in the present surveys. It is considered unlikely that a stone revetment or kerb is present on either side of the mound. The linear high resistance anomaly detected on the west side of the mound is likely to be an area of drier ground, possibly associated with animal burrows and/or tree roots noted on the ground. At the west of the mound, a linear band of anomalously low resistance data has been detected. This has been detected over 5m from the mound and could reflect a soil-fi lled feature, such as a ditch. However, the anomaly has been detected in an area of lower ground between the berm surrounding the mound and the natural slope of the land to the west. In this depression the ground was noted as being wetter and boggy, which would account for this anomaly. All the GPR transects have detected reflections that would be consistent with a ditch feature in this area: an open drainage ditch containing a length of plastic pipe is present to the north of this anomaly. It is considered likely that the possible ditch detected in the resistance survey and GPR data is likely to be a continuation of this modern drainage ditch. The evidence from the trench evaluation is inconclusive as to the nature of the mounds formation. It is possible that it is of natural origin, being a pre-existing elongated sand ridge, and further materia l may have been deliberately built up. However, it is also possible that the mound is a glacial deposit. All other anomalies identified in the previous geophysical survey which were investigated as possible archaeological features were determined to have natura l origins. A few tiny fragments of 19th-century pottery were recovered. No environmental material suitable for providing an absolute date was recovered during excavation or sample processing and assessment. The pollen assemblage is compatible with a prehistoric or more modern date. In short, there is no unambiguous evidence for a Neolithic date; a prehisto ric date is possible, but equally a much more recent date is also possible.