| HOME | ABOUT US | NEWS | GALLERY | PRESS | REPORTS | CONTACT | LINKS | MEMBERS | SAVE ROMAN SOUTHWELL |
REPORTS
CAREFUL CUSTODIANS - THE VISIONCAREFUL CUSTODIANS OR CULTURAL VANDALS?
The Save Roman Southwell petition has now been signed by more than 2500 people, clearly showing that there is a high level of support and public feeling for saving Southwell’s heritage for this and future generations. This is important not just for Southwell, but for the whole East Midlands and indeed the country.
Our cultural heritage is a finite and diminishing resource and there is a need for constant vigilance.
The Save Roman Southwell (SRS) campaigners are warning that Southwell’s unique assemblage of Roman, Saxon and Norman heritage will be ruined if housing is allowed on the majority of the former Minster school site. The SRS campaign has put forward an exciting proposal for a Roman Heritage Park to replace the current proposals for dealing with the archaeology, which would mean burying much of it under housing development.
According to Southwell Heritage Trust member Trevor Wight “This groundswell of opinion puts the responsibility on all of us - officials, politicians and the community - to make sure the mistakes of the past, when important heritage was destroyed, are not repeated.”
Destroyed by bulldozer- errors of the past
There is anecdotal evidence that during various phases of building of the former Minster School on Church Street, valuable heritage, including mosaics, were destroyed. Even worse, in 1971, tesserae, wall plaster and sherds of Roman pottery, along with 225 skeletons were bulldozed away when an extension was built.
Archaeological and building experts agree that any future development would inevitably detrimentally affect the setting of the existing Scheduled Ancient Monument and could not avoid adversely affecting the rest of the site.
A Roman Heritage Park - a once in a lifetime opportunity
SRS argues, with considerable support from experts, that this site should be developed as an educational asset and a heritage tourism resource. On-going archaeological investigation of the site could form a valuable heritage attraction for Southwell and the surrounding economy.
In the government’s latest policy statement on UK tourism (Government Tourism Policy, John Penrose, Department of Culture, Media and Support, March 2011) the Prime Minister states that he wants “to take tourism in Britain to a whole new level and harness the huge potential this area holds to grow our economy”. Preserving the Church Street site as it stands could be the first step towards creating a major visitor attraction here, providing jobs and boosting revenue for local businesses. (For an example of how this might work, consider the enormous success of the Jorvik Centre in York over the last 20 years)
We have here in Southwell a once in a lifetime opportunity to create a unique educational and tourist site, which together with the Minster, the ruins of the Bishop’s Palace, the Prebendal houses and the history of early Christianity would create a truly remarkable Outstanding Heritage Area for Southwell. [See MAP at foot of the page]
This opportunity cannot be allowed to slip through our fingers and be destroyed or at best buried for several more lifetimes, or indeed for ever.
The campaign to ‘Save Roman Southwell’ is not only about stopping further development in the centre of this historic town. It is about creating an opportunity to develop an educational and tourism resource of national importance that will have economic benefits for the region as a whole. It would also remove the label, given by local historian R.M. Butler, more than 50 years ago, of Nottinghamshire being an ‘archaeological black-spot’.
As a demonstration of the commitment to the Roman site, the Town Council, with financial support from the Southwell Community Archaeology Group, Civic Society, and Southwell and District Local History Society, have purchased land adjoining the site, which is known to contain some Roman artefacts including the mosaics discovered in 1959.
The vision
The vision is to take the site into community ownership and to landscape it with information boards in the first instance. The site would then be available for systematic archaeological excavation over the years, so that we may discover the link between the Roman era and the Saxon beginnings of the Church which eventually became the Minster.
Nationally, heritage tourism now directly contributes £7.4 billion to GDP annually, generates £20.6 billion of GDP annually (once economic multipliers are added), and directly supports 195,000 jobs – figures which decision-makers overlook at their peril.
The tourism sector is the fifth largest industry in the country by the most recent estimate. Tourism also makes a significant contribution to our collective well-being, through its social and cultural value.
Not just a local issue
For far too long this issue of development on a key site close to a Roman villa and Southwell Minster has been dealt with on a purely parochial basis, as if it was merely another planning application for housing. In our view it never should have been only a local matter. The argument is now unanswerable that this is a site of national importance.
We have to be able to face future generations with a clear conscience knowing we have done everything possible to preserve our past and hand it on in good shape. After all, we are merely temporary custodians of our heritage and future generations will not forgive us if we are seen as having stood by while an invaluable part of our Nation’s heritage was destroyed.
Professor Warwick Rodwell, Archaeologist and Architectural Historian to Westminster Abbey and other major cathedrals, considers that to allow building on the site would be “an act of cultural vandalism”.
We must ensure that we do not make the mistakes of the past, and allow this precious resource to disappear. The success of our petition has demonstrated a strong public feeling in support of the campaign and the message is clear - DON’T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN.
Notes on Meeting between SRS, English Heritage and Notts C C
10th June 2011
Present
Jon Humble, Inspector of Ancient Monuments, English Heritage (JH)
Ursilla Spence, Senior Archaeological Officer, Notts C C (US)
SRS – Mike Kirton, Roger Dobson, Stewart Todd, Will Bowden, Kate Sartain, Trevor Wight, John Lock, Peter Kent, Nigel Nice, Mike Struggles, Brian Smith
The meeting took the form of a question and answer session:
Q1 Could you clarify your roles in the planning process?
US confirmed that her primary role was, to ensure that any impact of development on archaeology was minimised without standing in the way of that development rather than to promote archaeology itself.
JH confirmed that EH had been called in to advise NSDC on the implementation of planning policies as they applied to archaeology and the historic environment. This was necessary for proposals covering over 1000 square metres in a Conservation Area. Notts CC took the lead on archaeology and EH’s primary consideration was the built environment.
Q2 Do you accept what SRS has been told by independent experts, with no previous involvement in this planning process, that the whole site is of national importance because it is part of the Roman villa/Minster assemblage?
US introduced the concept of a “development site” within a wider “Roman site” and said that a clear distinction between them was necessary. The “Roman site” was undoubtedly of national importance, and according to JH this was established by law. The “development site” was part of the “Roman site”but she did not consider that many of its remains were of such importance as to be worthy of preservation in situ even though many of them were obviously associated with the Roman villa. She took it “as read” that this was a brownfield site blighted by a lapsed planning permission and was concerned that if she recommended refusal and the application were refused she would lose the argument at any subsequent appeal.
JH respected the views of the symposium experts but could not accept that there was evidence that the whole “development site” was of national importance. Evaluation had been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate planning policies.
Q3 If there was no planning application would you accept our vision of a Roman Heritage Park?
US thought the vision was “absolutely brilliant” but the core of the “Roman site” was under the Dean’s garden not in the “development site”. In her opinion it was not worth expending a lot of energy preserving something where there was not a lot left apart from the wall. She did not think the impact of new housing on the development site would be more damaging than the original building of the prebendal houses. If we were concerned about that we should accept that “they really shouldn’t have built the prebendal houses”.
JH considered that if it was said there should be no development on the “development site” then there should be no development in the rest of the “Roman site”.
Q4 Have you considered the educational and tourism potential of this site?
US would have no argument with its promotion as a heritage/educational resource but thought that apart from the wall it was not particularly exciting. Although the Evaluation Report had stated that truncation was not as great as expected it was still significant and she compared the archaeology of the development site to that of a ploughed field.
Q5 Dr Impey’s letter to Patrick Mercer refers to one third of the site “remaining undeveloped”:
Does this mean that one third would be free from any disturbance – ie no service trenches etc.?
Would the footpath be in that one third and wouldn’t that involve a reduction in levels with a real risk of hitting archaeology?
JH confirmed that the one third was an approximation and included all land (the “strip” and other areas that were without buildings including those never intended for building). Not all would be accessible to the public.
US confirmed that the strip included the footpath and this was one area where she was unhappy with the proposed mitigation strategy. She was anxious to ensure there was no disturbance in the area of the wall.
Q6 Do you know exactly where the service trenches would be?
US confirmed that she had seen no drawings of services and unless she received full details including precise positions of sewage and other services together with detailed mitigation specifications she would recommend refusal.
Q7 Would there be piling?
JH was confident that piling would not damage any in situ remains.
Q8 Could you explain what is meant by the developed two thirds being “archaeologically excavated and recorded in advance of re-development”?
US referred to the zones used in the PCA Specification for Archaeological Works.
Zones 1 and 2 would be covered with all remains left undisturbed in situ. US would require detailed proposals for landscaping the area where bodies were bulldozed in 1971.
Zone 3 priority would be to remove all bodies by excavating by hand.
Zone 4 US would like a complete archaeological excavation of the roadway area with the rest of the zone untouched. In her opinion Beckingham Prebend had not been in this area.
Zone 5 would have the overburden removed down to archaeological features over the whole zone which would then be sample excavated until the entire plan of the Roman features was revealed and recorded.
Zone 6 gave the most uncertainty as the depth of fill was greatest and percentage investigation lowest. A watching brief (archaeologically controlled supervision) was proposed.
US emphasised that she thought she was pushing the bounds of what could reasonably be asked. JH was concerned that if there were a Public Inquiry following refusal of the planning application the landowner may question the reasonableness of any mitigation strategy so far agreed and any subsequent developer may not be as co-operative as the landowner had been.
JH considered that the professionalism and expertise of commercial archaeological contractors and curators (local authorities) had improved significantly since PPG 16 was introduced in 1990 and were as good as universities. They also had more experience and better resources. He considered that those who spoke at the symposium had an outdated view of developer-funded archaeology.
Q9 Would the final full mitigation strategy be a necessary part of the application and be publicised?
US stated that she had two options and would be comfortable with either general conditions attached to a planning consent or a full specification which would be part of the planning application and therefore available to the public.
(This seems to contradict the answer given to Q6)
Q10 Should you not be taking a holistic view and considering the site in its wider context rather than in isolation?
Neither JH nor US considered this was part of their brief but the responsibility of NSDC.
US thought such considerations were moving away from the reality of the archaeological information to more of a “mental construct”. Her main concern was to get the best of the archaeological story out of the development site. Although the site contained some extremely rare remains she considered it analogous to the demolished outbuildings of a major country house and “a bit of a dead duck archaeologically”.
Q11 How can Dr Impey’s statement that ”the quality and survival of archaeological remains across the site are insufficient to warrant an outright refusal” be reconciled with the acknowledgement that the un-evaluated parts of the site may yet hold some surprises”?
US considered that the iterative evaluation trenches had revealed most of the important archaeology and anything else of importance would be protected by the mitigation specification. If features like the wall had been found across the site she would be recommending refusal.
Q12 How can Dr Impey’s statement that “it was NOT assumed in 2003 that no significant remains would have survived” be reconciled with Jon Humble’s statement that the 2002 evaluation “demonstrated conclusively that impacts would be negligible”?
JH clarified that he had been referring to the area of the SAM and not the whole site.
US stated that she had not accepted John Samuel’s conclusions and had recommended more archaeological evaluation than either he or NSDC wanted. She believed she was being pushed and in 2003 there was no way any refusal of that planning application would have been considered on the basis of her recommendation.
JH acknowledged that his previous reference to the 2005 outline planning permission was an error – only detailed applications could be considered in a Conservation Area.
Q13 Why did EH withdraw their 2003 recommendation that a decision be deferred pending a revised site appraisal and what sort of appraisal had been requested?
JH could not remember.
Q14 Why did EH advise in 2002 that townscape considerations outweighed archaeological ones and it was more important to produce a new street frontage than to protect a known Roman bathhouse?
This question was not answered.
Q15 Why was no SAM consent necessary for building over the bathhouse?
JH stated that evaluation work had demonstrated that the single pile proposed would have only slight impact and would therefore be acceptable without the need for an application.
Q16 Why has this SAM not been put on the Heritage at Risk Register like Osmanthorpe and the camp at Farnsfield?
JH stated he had been responsible for designing the register and he did not consider this SAM to be at risk. US agreed that unless the Dean was planning a swimming pool in his garden this was the case.
Q17 Could you explain your references to misleading statements in the media?
JH was unhappy about references on websites to the effective destruction of the Roman villa and SAM and that the largest villa in the East Midlands was on the “development site”. He agreed to send details of these and any other errors so they could be corrected.
Q18 Are you happy that this application satisfies the national guidelines on development in an area of “outstanding heritage”?
US repeated that she could only advise on the basis of the archaeology of the “development site” and her ability to defend that advice at any appeal.
Q19 How much weight does the heritage value placed on the site by the local community have (PPS 5/government localism ideas) and how can SRS groups help preserve the site?
JH suggested the need to persuade others of the correctness of the SRS view of the significance of the archaeology (which differed from his). He emphasised the importance of presenting the argument accurately and objectively and warned that there could be accusations that heritage was being used to oppose change.
US did not think that she or JH should be the SRS targets.
JH respected what SRS had done and made the following points:
The green corridor had been accepted.
The campaign carried the risk of upsetting the deal already on the table.
Future letters should be redirected to NSDC – EH would not change their position.
There was concern about the groups’ websites.
He would like to see the enthusiasm generated redirected to more ambitious projects.
“The Archbishop’s Palace at Southwell”: SCAG talk 12th March 2011
On 12th March 2011 Caroline Butler spoke to an audience of SCAG, Southwell Local History Society and Civic Society members in the Great Hall at Southwell and included a brief visit to the ruins of the adjacent Archbishop’s Palace.
The talk related to the topic of her MSc dissertation which focussed on the challenges that the Church of England faces in owning numerous “non-ecclesiastical historic buildings”. That is, those buildings which are listed or scheduled and which are not churches. This includes things like Bishop’s houses, rectories, and agricultural land containing scheduled ancient monuments (SAMs).
The Church of England has a complicated structure and many different groups can own property including Cathedral Chapters, Church Commissioners and Dioceses. There is no central list of such properties but it is estimated that, between the different groups nationwide, there may be around 613 listed buildings and 91 SAMs. The Church Commissioners and Cathedral Chapters carry a greater burden with proportionally more of their properties designated in some way.
Caroline had chosen this topic for her dissertation as she was concerned that this group of buildings seemed to be slipping under the radar, being overlooked within the archaeological community by both the wider archaeological community and those specialising in ‘church archaeology’. She also wanted to raise their profile within the Church as they seemed to be marginalised because they were not churches. The complex at Southwell containing the grade I listed Bishop’s Manor and Great Hall and the SAM of the Archbishop’s Palace, all within a conservation area, worked well as a case study illustrating many of the challenges facing the Church in owning these properties. There is also surprisingly little written about it.
Four key areas of challenge were looked at: legal structure, upkeep, funding and public involvement.
Various secular laws limit and regulate what can be done with listed buildings and SAMs. This includes the requirement for listed building, SAM and/or Conservation Area consents in addition to planning permission. There is some indirectly applicable ecclesiastical legislation, primarily dealing with who has responsibility for maintaining buildings. There is no real policy statement on church historic properties. There are also few restrictions on the sale of property, and many historic properties have been sold off in the past due to high upkeep costs, being overly large or just surplus to requirements.
The property at Southwell has had a convoluted ownership history. The first Archbishop’s property at Southwell was possibly started around 960. The remains visible today were started around 1360-1380 and completed around 1436. During the Civil War it was used as military quarters and Charles I surrendered here in 1646. After this time it quickly became uninhabitable , though the Great Hall remained intact. In the 18th century a house was built incorporating the Great Hall and the building was used as a house, girls school and magistrates chambers at various points. By the 1840s the Ecclesiastical Commissioners owned all the buildings on the site. Edward Trollope bought the remains in 1880 in order to restore them to form part of an endowment for the new Diocese of Southwell. Despite the improvements not being deemed adequate for Bishop's accommodation the Diocese of Southwell was formed in 1884 and, on Trollope's death in 1893, the property returned to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Construction work on the current Bishop's Manor started in 1905 and incorporated some of the ruins, the 18th century house and Great Hall. In December 2009 the whole property was sold to Southwell Minster Chapter, with part being leased back to the Church Commissioners to serve as the Bishop's House.
Upkeep and maintenance present a range of challenges, both physical and attitudinal, many of which can be seen at Southwell. Physical issues can be things like height preventing access; vegetation growth damaging structures or causing damp; erosion, loss or fracturing of masonry; damage to timber. Issues of attitude can include things like changing social expectations in regards to accessibility, warmth and hygiene as well as climate change. It can be difficult to balance these desires with caring for historic fabric.
Funding is a big issue. Repairs to historic buildings cost on average 4.7 x that of equivalent repairs to non-historic buildings. Costs have risen due to increased VAT and material costs. At the same time funding has decreased. The Church is funded predominantly through the charitable giving of its worshippers. Non-ecclesiastical historic buildings are a low priority for receiving this funding. External sources such as the Heritage Lottery Fund and private trusts often impose conditions on work, or may even refuse to give the Church money as it is a religious body.
Caroline was quite clear that if heritage is for all the people then the public should be involved in these buildings and monuments. There are many advantages to this as they can be an educational resource and community focus, help with regeneration, give a sense of place, provide some income etc. However, there are also a number of difficulties especially as many of these buildings are private residences. Some would be of little interest to the majority of people. Disability discrimination legislation can also be a disincentive to opening up properties due to the time and cost of making suitable alterations. However, there is considerable potential for public involvement which can be in a variety of ways such as Open Gardens, Heritage Open Days, printed leaflets, guided tours, local interest groups doing research etc.
Overall the Church faces many challenges with owning so many historic non-ecclesiastical buildings and monuments, but they remain a significant resource. They are a valuable but undervalued group of buildings potentially at risk from further marginalisation especially if the wider society is not prepared to assist the Church in their upkeep. It would be a great loss to all if they were not maintained for this and future generations.
The Southwell Villa and the development site
A symposium of archaeological experts spoke to a capacity audience of more than 250 people at Southwell Methodist Church on Tuesday 29 April about the importance of the remains on the former site of the Minster School.
Below is a brief note of the contributions made by those experts
• Brief outline of the archaeology (Dr Will Bowden, University of Nottingham)
It was long recognised that Roman remains lay beneath Vicars Court and the Dean’s Residence. In November 1787, a Major Rook noted remains including painted stucco, mosaic tesserae (the little cubes that make up mosaics), stone and Roman tile, in the garden of the Reverend Mr Bristow. In 1793 an area of tessellated pavement was discovered in probably around the same area, while making a garden for one of the clergy to the east of the Archbishop’s Palace. In around 1870, a workman came across an area of tessellated pavement with two north-south orientated skeletons lying on it. In 1901 a further substantial area of mosaic, together with a wall, was discovered in the garden to the south of the Residence.
These findings showed that a substantial Roman complex lay to the east of the Minster beneath Vicars’ Court and the Residence and their gardens. Consequently when it was proposed that the new Minster School be constructed in this location, the Ministry of Works proposed that trial excavations should be carried out. These happened in the early summer of 1959 (probably after construction of the school had started).
Daniels excavated two areas. The trench on the eastern wing uncovered a quite complex sequence of building phases, the most impressive element of which was part of the villa bath-house. The cold plunge bath measured 24 x 15ft 6”, with walls decorated with splendid painted plaster, much of which was found face down on the bottom of the bath. The surviving sections, depicting an unusual cupid in a cloak in a marine scene are the ones that you can see on the wall of the Minster. This eastern wing extends into the development area, although is now outside the main area of proposed housing.
Daniels’ trench to the south revealed extensive traces of mosaic pavement with a number of skeletons lying on them. He eventually partially revealed the remains of 6 rooms of which 4 contained the remains of mosaics. Stylistically the mosaics are likely to date to around the 3rd -4th century.
In 2004, when ground works just in front of Normanton Prebend revealed a section of probable Roman wall and the remains of a possible mosaic pavement. If this is part of the same complex it suggests that we are looking at a very substantial set of buildings indeed, with a north south measurement of some 90 m. This would potentially rival some of the major villa complexes of Britain, even more so if it is accepted (as many now suggest) that the tessellated pavement in the south transept of the Minster is an original Roman mosaic rather than representing Anglo-Saxon reuse of Roman tesserae.
The archaeological evaluation trenches on the development area in 2008-9 revealed a wall made with massive sandstone blocks which has been traced for some considerable length. It is very unusual in a British villa. The nature of it recalls major public building, or military building. The date of it is unfortunately unclear. Carbon 14 dates of an associated piece of possible wooden scaffolding gave a date of AD 73, plus or minus 32 years. Three other scaffolding poles have not been carbon dated. A wall of this style and of this date is a truly extraordinary construction and it is recognised by English Heritage as being of national importance.
Previously we have had no evidence of Christian activity on the site prior to the foundation of the Minster by Bishop Oskytel in 956. This is where the lack of dating for the burials uncovered by Daniels is so problematic, not to mention the destruction of 225 undated graves with little recording when the Minster School was extended in 1971. However, 5 burials were revealed by the recent excavations, one of which has been dated by carbon 14 to AD 688 plus or minus 34 years. The importance of this cannot be overstated, providing part of the missing link in the story of the origins of Southwell. The single femur that was removed from these graves and that has been carbon dated suggests that these bodies represent the remains of the population that was here prior to Oskytel’s foundation. The distance of these bodies from the Minster could suggest an earlier church associated with these remains.
These bodies in particular represent a fragile and extremely finite resource but tell a vital part of the story of this important but still enigmatic site. 22 of the 24 evaluation trenches excavated in 2008-9 revealed Roman and Medieval deposits that must be considered as part of the archaeological assemblage of the villa and Minster and consequently treated with the same level of respect and attention that should be accorded to any part of this historic area.
• Comment (1) (Revd. Prof. Martin Henig, University of Oxford)
The villa is of considerable importance by virtue of its size and complexity and state of preservation, to judge from mosaics, the massive wall recently exposed and other evidence. Additionally it is on a site later occupied in ‘Anglo-Saxon’ times by an Ecclesiastical Building of enormous significance. The way the site developed between Roman times and the Middle Ages may hold the clue as to whether it is possible to see continuity between Romano-British Christianity and the Church as it developed after the Augustinian Mission.
In Eastern Britain this has been surmised for St Albans, on the site of a Roman cemetery outside Verulamium and it is possible that St Paul in the Bail at Lincoln began in very late Roman times. In addition both St Martin’s, Canterbury and St Martin in the Fields, Canterbury seem to be on Roman sites but they seem to be funerary sites like St Albans.
The development of a very large villa into an ecclesiastical centre is possible at Castor, Cambridgeshire but that provides the only real parallel in the East of Britain. In Western Britain the villa at Bradford on Avon near Bath does have a late Christian phase with a baptistery being constructed on a mosaic but no church remains on the site. One hypothesizes that it was abandoned for a more sheltered site down the hill.
At Southwell, with its superb wall-painting and mosaics, a significant part of the site is in the area being considered at the moment. It is unfortunate that Charles Daniels ‘ report is not better known and it really does show that we have a major site of National Importance with good preservation. With very wide and growing interest in our early history, this could be a five star educational and tourist resource for the town.
My own feeling is that we probably do have a major villa which evolved into an ecclesiastical centre here comparable in some ways to the villa of Cassiodorus called Vivarium because of its fishponds. With the stream once a bigger river contiguous to the site (I gather it showed its potential to be quite a mighty river in reclaiming its flood plain only a few years ago), do we have fishponds here too? And of course the fact that there are it seems springs at a higher level adds to the likelihood of water features.
The nature of the Anglo-Saxon settlement needs further exploration. Some scholars recently have given reason to believe that a Germanic language or languages was spoken in Eastern England by such tribes as the Cantii, Iceni and Corieltauvi, so even the Saxon graves may indicate continuity of population at what at the very least continued to be an Estate centre with the likelihood that the Roman villa (which is large enough to be the residence of an important official) controlled the same lands as Southwell controlled in later times.
One hesitates to use the word ‘unique’ too freely. and I suppose Castor may have a similar history and relationship of Roman villa to a large church, but the potential at Southwell, seems to be better in terms of potential for exploration and direct connection with the Church. I incline to agree with Neal and Cosh (Roman Mosaics of Britain 1. Northern Britain (Society of Antiquaries 2002) pp.276-279) that the mosaic in the South Transept is Roman in style and may point to part of the villa being used in the building of the early Church. If we lose Southwell we cannot easily replace such evidence as lies buried here, which is of the very first importance.
• Comment (2) (Bryn Walters – Director, the Association for Roman Archaeology)
What is happening at Southwell is commercial opportunism of the worst kind. Ever since the excavations at the end of the 1950s, east of the great Minster church, there has been a growing realisation that there may be considerably more archaeological data present on the site, which could prove to be of great significance.
More recent discoveries, in particular the massive block-built wall, have accelerated academic and more significantly local enthusiasm to preserve the site currently threatened with redevelopment. It is very possible that the archaeological area, including the Heritage Zone around the Minster, is unique in the whole of Great Britain, as it may contain the unbroken chain of sacred ritual, originating with the pagan pantheon and local deities of ancient Rome, through the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons, on though the medieval period up to the present day.
Such a site is of paramount importance in British history and consequently of incredible national significance. The present application for housing development must be rejected and the citizens of Southwell given the time and opportunity to develop the area as a National Historic Centre. The contested area is not large as housing developments go, and the commercial gain for its owners is minimal, compared to the incalculable value of the site’s heritage and importance to the nation.
• There followed an extensive question and answer session where it was clear that the overwhelming number of the public present expressed opposition to the villa site being developed for speculative housing.
Preliminary Report
2010 Osmanthorpe Fieldwalking
 Calcined flint knife showing the retouched edge |
 BERTH wasters, bases stuck together by glaze, as mentioned in the interim document |
We are indebted to landowner, Tim Farr and Notts CC Archaeology staff, David Budge, Emily Gillott and Andy Gaunt for facilitating a fieldwalk adjacent to the suspected course of the Roman road from Ad Pontem to Osmanthorpe camp. This was done over two days in early September 2010 and although the conditions of the field were not perfect due to extensive cover from a self set crop, results were good.
Methodology
An experimental non-collection method was employed, sampling 20% of the land. SCAG members positioned large flags 10 metres apart along opposite edges of the field and then walked along the line between corresponding flags, searching one metre either side of that line. All finds were marked with small flags for identification by the experts. They were then photographed and recorded together with transect number and tape-measured distance from the edge of the field. Finds needing further investigation were removed for further study after which they will be returned to the original spot.
Preliminary Results
The north eastern part of the field (where we did 11 transects) showed slight traces of prehistoric occupation. This was indicated by a burnt flint knife, of later Neolithic or Bronze Age date. There were also a number of fire cracked pebbles which probably indicate prehistoric cooking activities here. Following this limited prehistoric activity it would appear that this bit of land was never occupied again and was used for agriculture or was waste up to the present time.
There was a light 'background' scatter of Romano-British material (including a plain samian body sherd which possibly came from a Dragendorff form 27 plain cup, 50 - 150AD) and indication of a small amount of manuring in the 13th to 14th centuries (Nottingham reduced green glazed pottery) and the post medieval period (Midland Purple, Midland Yellow, Midland Black and Cistercian Ware). These abraded pieces of pottery suggest small scale manuring of arable land, probably at some distance from a settlement.
Towards the end of the post medieval period there appears to have been a dramatic increase in the quantity of material being deposited in the field. The majority of this was an orange or red earthenware with a dark brown or black glaze. Most of the forms were large bowls (probably pancheons), which were everyday kitchen or dairy wares. This might have been rubbish spread from the nearby farmhouse (which was probably built following enclosure). However, the presence of a number of wasters (ruined pots broken or damaged during firing) along with over-fired tiles with spots and drips of glaze which could have been part of a kiln structure, along with a record in the Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record (HER) of a nearby kiln (to the north east of the railway line) suggest that this could all result from the spreading of waste from a pottery kiln.
The kiln is recorded on the HER as 18th or 19th century and was claimed to have been producing ‘brown salt glazed pottery’. Salt glazing is only possible at stoneware temperatures and the famous brown salt glazed stoneware made in Nottingham in the 18th to 20th centuries is a good example of this type of pottery. Nottingham stoneware was made into a variety of fine table wares along with heavier duty kitchen wares and was traded quite widely. The mention of brown salt glazing in the HER record therefore implies that the kiln was producing this type of pottery which would probably have been traded quite widely. The results from the fieldwalking are important as they suggest the kiln was actually producing coarse brown glazed earthenware for the local market. When the report on the fieldwalking is submitted to the HER then the record can be updated with this new information, which is important not just for understanding the archaeology of the kiln (the technology for producing stoneware is different to that for producing earthenwares) but is also important for studying patterns of trade and industry in the late post medieval and early modern periods.
Following this, in the modern period, there was again a small input of material (creamwares, pearlwares, transfer printed earthenware, glass, etc, very late 18th through to 20th century) to the field, probably again relating to waste disposal or manuring, possibly from the nearby farmhouse.
In the western part of the field, due to the extensive crop growth here, it was only possible to walk one transect. This was beside the suspected course of the Roman road from Ad Pontem to Osmundthorpe camp. This transect yielded a large quantity of Romano-British material, including coarse wares (mostly greyware, some black burnished ware, possibly a few bits of Derbyshire ware) and fine wares (plain samian, colour coated ware, possibly some flagons). The samian forms are undiagnostic and as full analysis has not yet taken place it is not possible to comment further on the date ranges present.
It is not clear whether this concentration of pottery represents a settlement along the road outside the gates of the camp, a civilian settlement which grew up in the vicinity after the camp went out of use, manuring of the fields near the camp or something else. When the distribution plots are completed and the finds have been analysed it may become more obvious, but it is likely that further fieldwork will be required to define the extent of the scatter before it can be understood.
Overall Conclusions
The project has demonstrated that non-collection fieldwalking works and can produce almost as much information as traditional surveys which collect the finds. It has the advantage that expensive and time consuming finds processing is not necessary and does not distort or damage the archaeological record by removing artifacts from the field. It also avoids the very serious problem of the storage and curation of a large assemblage of artifacts, the County’s museums are currently in crisis with very little storage space left, most are full or close to full and are not able to accept large fieldwalked assemblages. This is a major problem and this project was very important in demonstrating that fieldwalking surveys can be carried out which do not contribute to this problem, without having to compromise on the levels of information retrieved.
As a result of the success of this trial project, non-collection fieldwalking will be strongly advocated by the County Archaeologist and is likely to become regularly used in Nottinghamshire and, with English Heritage interested in the results and the museum storage crisis only getting worse, potentially much more widely!
SCAG Fieldwalk
(Wednesday 2nd December 2009 10am – 12.30pm)
The group’s first experience of field-walking, a non-destructive survey method, was led by Community Archaeologists Emily Gillott and Chris Robinson.
Emily in foreground with SCAG members
The walk took place on a newly ploughed field with the kind permission of the landowner and tenant farmer. Although attendance was good the field was very large therefore the exercise was restricted to the south-east corner marked by the hedge boundary. A non-collection method of survey had been suggested with items identified flagged for recording.
When fieldwalking the area selected may be defined by lines or grids to ensure the ground is inspected evenly. For this ‘taster’ session group members lined up at arms length from each other along the lower field boundary, towards the ridge of the field. Initially it was planned to record every item but it soon became clear that a large part of the debris was fragments of modern brick therefore these were excluded. All other items were flagged and recorded but retrospectively it may have also been useful to exclude fragments of land-drain which we soon learned to recognise. However a number of Victorian items, for example fragments of clay pipes, were identified together with two small shards of medieval pottery.
Medieval shard
By 11.30am about 200 items had been accurately marked therefore one group numbered and recorded each item with description while another plotted the positions using an Electronic Distance Measurer (EDM) and ranging pole.
Lining the EDM up with ranging pole
Close-up view of EDM
The exercise allowed the group to gain some experience of systematically fieldwalking a sample area from which it would be possible to extrapolate some results for the field. Although finds were relatively few, there have been items previously recovered and the aim of the project was to explore the process in readiness for future events which could possibly yield more. Individuals varied in their ability to identify certain objects and further practice can only improve that ability.
Invariably consideration of artefacts will use a variety of techniques, non-destructive always being the first line of enquiry. Consideration of the artefact within its context may answer the required question, particularly within assemblages.
It is hoped to hold another walk during 2010 in the Osmanthorpe area. Although initial discussions have taken place with the landowner much will depend on the weather and plans for sowing his crop.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |