Site Event/Activity record ECH6497 - Proposed Alterations at The Old Palace, The Groves, Chester: An Archaeological Evaluation

Six trial trenches were excavated. The results have demonstrated that, amongst later disturbances related to both quarrying activities and service trench cutting, intact archaeology, dating to both the Roman and post-medieval periods, survives. On the west side of the Old Palace, islands of Roman archaeology remain intact at a shallow level between deep, modern disturbances and, in the central part of the site on the south side, there are clear indications that Roman deposits and the remains of significant structures survive, beneath a non-archaeological overburden of varying thickness. In the south-east part of the Palace’s grounds, below-ground post-medieval remains associated with structures and the layout of the formal gardens, were identified; no earlier archaeology was observed in this general location. In the area of the proposed extension on the west side of the Palace, the results from trench 1 have demonstrated clearly that deposits and possibly structural remains dating to the Roman period – the dating suggests early 2nd-century activity - survive. However, the archaeology has evidently been severely disturbed by modern intrusions, including service trenches and related features. Whilst it remains quite possible that additional islands of intact and stratified Roman archaeology do survive beyond the confines of the excavated evaluation trench, these too are likely to have been similarly disturbed. It is important to note that this may be particularly so within the area of any construction trenches associated with the foundations of the 19th century extended west wing to the Old Palace building and, additionally, in the location of a stairway that once led into the site from Souter’s Lane below. The entrance to this stairway, or perhaps tunnel, remains visible within the elevation of the brickwork to the retaining wall (see Plates 20 & 22 below) located on the east side of Souter’s Lane beneath the Old Palace. Both trenches 3 and 4B contained deposits that produced ceramic finds solely of the Roman period. Additionally, at depths of between c. 0.80m (trench 3) and c. 2.60m (trench 4A), structural remains in the form of sandstone masonry walls or foundations were encountered; in both circumstances the structural remains were sealed by deposits containing exclusively Roman finds. In trench 3 the structural remains (309) represent part of a wall or foundation – whether internal or external could not be established – to a building or other structure aligned north-east to south-west. These remains appear to have utilised both roughly-squared blocks of sandstone along with flatter, dressed masonry; the latter possibly representing reused floor slabs. The variations in masonry used implies a structure of lower status, or perhaps one that developed over a period of time, as suggested by the apparent junction between the larger, coarse blocks of masonry and the more finely dressed elements. Unfortunately, owing to the depth at which the remains were encountered, the sandstone masonry wall or foundation (406) recorded in trench 4A could only be partially exposed during the exercise. This masonry, seemingly aligned north-west to south-east, incorporated Roman-period brick within its construction, although probably reused. The current evidence for these structural remains, albeit limited and not fully understood, becomes more significant when considered alongside the results of a watching brief undertaken during the excavation of a test-pit during 1989 (CHER 8589) – imprecisely located, but clearly hereabouts - in which a concrete and brick structure of postulated Roman date was observed at a similar depth. These remains have been interpreted as a possible riverside bath-building positioned here for the use of those attending activities at the nearby amphitheatre (Mason 2001, 107; and above). As a footnote, it is entirely possible that the recent intrusion noted towards the south-west end of trench 3 may have been a similarly excavated test-pit, if not the actual test-pit in which the remains were recorded. Trench 2, the western element/arm of trench 5, and trench 6, all revealed little of archaeological significance and it is clear that in these locations the deposition of soils and sandstone rubble during the post-medieval period was extensive. Whilst it remains uncertain as to the derivation of the sandstone rubble, it is certainly a possibility that this material was deposited as waste from quarrying activities hereabouts. Indeed, since the Roman period, the cliff face south of the Roman legionary fortress of Deva (Chester) facilitated quarrying of the local sandstone and evidence of Roman quarrying operations has been found at various locations in this area (Mason 2001, 107; Earthworks 2007); similar quarrying must have undoubtedly taken place throughout the subsequent historic periods. The eastern part of trench 5 contained wall features and a stone and brick culvert (506) associated with the later post-medieval development of the site. The north-west to south-east aligned sandstone wall (507) can be related with some confidence to a garden wall shown in some detail on cartographic sources, including Samuel Neele’s Plan of Chester 1810 (CRO PM 15/2) and John Wood’s Map of Chester of 1833 (CRO PM 18/5); these walls persisted into the late 19th century and are depicted on the Ordnance Survey Town Plan of Chester of 1875 (surveyed 1874). The small stretch of brick wall (305) represents the partially-surviving foundations to a small outbuilding or similar structure abutting onto the more substantial garden wall. Although demonstrably late in date and of limited archaeological merit, these structural remains represent surviving garden-related archaeology associated with the late post-medieval development of the site. In conclusion, the archaeological trenching has demonstrated that the site contains deposits and structural remains dating to the Roman and post-medieval periods. No Saxon or medieval remains were observed and no residual finds were recovered to suggest nearby activity relating to these broad periods. Depending on location, the archaeology survives beneath varying depths of non-significant overburden across the site (see Table in report). The vulnerability of the remains identified during any future development will depend upon the extent, depth and nature of any proposed ground disturbance.