|
whittlewoodproject Akeley: Shovel Test Pits
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archaeology subdirectory __________________ General website directory
|
During July and August 2001, twenty-four shovel test pits were sunk in and around Akeley. The difficulties of investigating living villages are clear: archaeologists want access to the very places where people still live. In order to minimize disruption, but to maximize the archaeological evidence for the origins and development of the village, 1 x 1m trenches were dug throughout the village where permission was granted. These were on verges and in peoples' back gardens. The results of the shovel test pits are reported here. The decision has been taken, however, not to locate the STPs precisely in order to protect the properties of the owners who so kindly granted permission for the work to take place from any unwanted attention. AK
STP 1: (Millers
Close, 1794 Enclosure Map):
Medieval
ploughsoil, clearly disturbed by modern gardening.
No features. Subsequent
to our work, more building has taken place at the back of the house.
This has necessitated the removal of material. Much of this was looked at and artefacts recovered.
These were shown to the author who identified them as Saxo-Norman
and developed medieval wares. Their
unabraded state and their quantity suggest that the Leckhampstead Road
frontage might indeed have been occupied in the middle ages.
It is possible that Millers Close defines the original extent of
the house plots backing onto the open fields of Akeley. If so, this
strengthens the argument that there was a settlement node focused upon
the Manor House. AK
STP 2: (New
Close, 1794 Enclosure Map):
Modern
disturbed ground possibly associated with the landscaping of the school
grounds after the construction of the building.
The presence of a single sherd of medieval pottery might suggest
that this was formally part of the Akeley field system.
No evidence for occupation on Church Hill in the medieval period.
The exposed but unexcavated deposits contained chalk, so it is
unlikely that this STP was completely excavated to natural, and it
remains possible that medieval and earlier deposits remained unexplored.
AK
STP 3 (New
Close, 1794 Enclosure Map):
Modern
disturbed ground comparable to AK STP 2.
Similarly this STP is likely to have been abandoned before
natural was exposed so the possibilities of earlier unseen deposits
remains high. AK
STP 4 (New
Close, 1794 Enclosure Map):
Modern
turfline overlay natural undisturbed deposits indicative of the area
never having been occupied on tilled. It is possible that this indicates an area of pasture/meadow
in the heart of the medieval village. AK
STP 5 (New
Close, 1794 Enclosure Map):
This STP
comparable with STP 4 although topsoil deposits were thicker here.
This may be the result of soil creep or solifluction downslope.
Little evidence, once again for the site ever being occupied or
farmed and should perhaps be interpreted once again as medieval pasture
or meadow. Both STP 4 and
STP 5 were located below what appears to be a medieval headland behind
which there is levelled but visible ridge and furrow.
This may represent the extent of the medieval field.
AK
STP 6
No medieval
or earlier material. Quantity of artefacts, presence of charcoal throughout, and
depth of deposits suggests that this was a C19 domestic dump, probably
associated with the public house or one of the neighbouring buildings.
AK
STP 7
One sherd of
medieval pottery. F1 is
certainly a modern cut, possible associated with the burial of dogs in
the backgarden of the pub (pers. comm. visitor to excavations).
No evidence for intense medieval occupation or agriculture. AK
STP 8 (Webbs
Leys, 1794 Enclosure Map):
The
first three spits can be interpreted as modern ploughsoil, explaining
the mix of artefacts from different period.
This ploughing clearly has disturbed medieval plough deposits.
The field was last ploughed about fifteen years ago (pers. comm.
John Taylor (Farmer)). The fourth spit is more difficult to interpret:
the first explanation may be in-situ medieval ploughsoil, however, the
quantity of medieval pottery is suggestive either of occupation, along
the Leckhampstead Road, or proximity to occupation.
Further work will need to be undertaken to establish which of
these interpretations is correct. AK
STP 9 (Webbs
Leys, 1794 Enclosure Map):
STP 9 was
situated 5m from STP 8. The stratigraphic sequence is comparable.
Again more medieval pottery was recovered from the lowest spit,
but not in such significant quantities.
Interpretation as STP 8. No
explanation can be given for the depression F1 but may relate to
primitive draining of the field. AK
STP 10 (Webbs
Leys, 1794 Enclosure Map):
Interpretation
as STPs 8 and 9. AK
STP 11 (Webbs
Leys, 1794 Enclosure Map):
Interpretation
as STPs 8, 9 and 10. AK
STP 12 (Webbs
Leys, 1794 Enclosure Map):
Spits
1-3 can be interpreted as STPs 8, 9, 10, and 11.
F1 appears to be a shallow gully of post-medieval date.
Its orientation is not the same as the field drains which are
known in the field, nor does it align with the ridge and furrow evidence
visible on aerial photographs. The
function of the gully remains unknown but it may be associated with
earlier drainage of the field. STP
12 lies furthest from the Leckhampstead Road.
It is noticeable in this sequence of STPs that the quantity of
medieval pottery declines with distance from this artery. AK
STP 13 (Millers
Close, 1794 Enclosure Map):
The sequence
of deposits here is reminiscent of STP 1, only two houses away.
Again the deposits suggest medieval ploughsoil rather than
occupation. AK
STP 14
This STP
lies back from the Square. Whilst several sherds of medieval pottery were recovered from
the excavation, it is difficult to understand the processes by which
they might have arrived there. More
medieval sherds were recovered from Spit 6 than from all the other
spits, where the artefactual evidence was mixed.
This might indicate that Spit 6 has been less disturbed than
other deposits, particularly those at the top of the sequence since the
area had been used recently as a vegetable patch.
The quantity of medieval sherds might suggest proximity to
occupation.
AK
STP 15
This STP was
located much closer to The Square, in an area of possible medieval
occupation. The artefactual
evidence did not point to immediate settlement in the Middle Ages.
Once again most of the spits included some medieval material, but
this was mixed with modern artefacts throughout.
The quantity of finds was not indicative of settlement.
Together with STP 15, the impression gained from these twin pits
is of an area that was not intensively occupied.
This is perhaps surprising given the proximity to the church, and
what is now the village centre. This
negative evidence, associated with STPs 2-12, strengthens the argument
that there were two settlement foci, with open fields between.
It also suggests that the focus of the village around the church
has shifted, initially to the north of the church and in Duck End, later
to move to The Square. AK
STP 16
Medieval
pottery was found in low frequencies in all the deposits.
Clearly the cutting of the trench had disturbed medieval layers
and introduced more recent material.
The garden soil, too, appears to have been much disturbed
offering no opportunities to excavate in situ medieval deposits.
Once again, in an area where medieval occupation might be
anticipated, the quantity of medieval pottery did not match expectation,
leading to the conclusion that this area was not intensively occupied.
The STP lies back from The Square, on the opposite side of the
main road from the church. This
is a further indication of the restricted area of occupation during the
middle ages, and suggests significant post-medieval expansion as shown
on the 1794 Enclosure Map. AK
STP 17
This STP
does not help elucidate the major research questions posed.
The mixture of medieval and modern artefacts suggests that no
undisturbed deposits were recovered.
The slight dipping of the strata from the churchyard bound were
initially thought to represent the foot of the bank, however, this
depression was shown to be too shallow to allow such an interpretation
and the presence of modern material precludes it from being an early
feature. It cannot be
established whether this was a man-made cut or whether this undulating
surface had formed naturally. AK
STP 18
Once again,
this STP does not help answer the central research questions.
However, it does reveal a sequence of garden features, including
a path and the mortar layer whose function remains unknown.
The mix of artefacts suggests high levels of disturbance in the
post-medieval period probably associated with garden landscaping (the
STP lay close to a garden terrace).
Perhaps the most significant discovery, however, was early
medieval pottery which might suggest activity in this area well before
the conquest. Whilst it is
impossible to say how this material arrived in this area, proximity to
the churchyard boundary may be significant. AK
STP 19
This is one
of the most interesting of the STPs dug during the season.
Located on the foot of the current churchyard bank, it has helped
understand the construction and date for this important village element.
Clearly the churchyard was delimited by a stone bank.
This may have been timber revetted since the depression F2 can
only be interpreted as a posthole.
This bank appears to have eroded forming its current profile,
possible aided by the removal or collapse of any retaining timbers.
The discovery of grogged pottery at the base of this posthole
argues for a pre-medieval establishment date.
So too does the suggested construction technique.
We might begin to see an oval enclosure, marked by a stone bank
and revetment, constructed either in the Roman or early medieval period.
Its prominent position with outstanding views to west, north and east
might suggest a defensive location.
Is it the case, therefore, that a pre-Christian site was later
Christianized by the establishment of a church within its bounds?
Does the presence of this early enclosure act as the focus for
the later village? AK
STP 20
The discovery
of a field drain explains the presence of post-medieval material
throughout the deposits. In fact no medieval artefacts were recovered from this
excavation. It is clear
from the stratigraphy that the field drain had been lain before the
construction of the cobbled surface.
The back lane appears on the 1794 Enclosure Map.
Unfortunately, the STP provided no further evidence for the
origins of this routeway. AK
STP 21
The hardness
of the deposits in this STP was surprising.
So too the well-sorted nature of the clay loam which contained
very few inclusions with the exception of artefacts.
Almost no intrusive modern material was recovered suggesting that
the deposits were indeed in situ. The
STP was located at the bottom of a slight slope which still preserved
remnants of ridge and furrow. It
is likely that STP 21 and 22 were located on the medieval headland,
hence the type of deposit and its depth.
This is interesting, since Chapel Hill and the back road to
Lillingstone Lovell lie only 50m from the STP locations.
Why was the headland here and not on the road line?
One possible explanation is that there was occupation along the
Lillingstone Road at the time the field was established.
Planning applications have been made for this area between the
road and headland. It must
be hoped that archaeological work in advance of building will reveal how
this area was used at this period.
The discovery of earlier material might also indicate that the
field was laid out at an early date, although the possibility that this
material is residual cannot be discounted. AK
STP 22
The
conclusions to be drawn from STP 22 must be the same as STP 21 due to
the similarity of deposit and its component assemblage. AK
STP 23
This
STP produced more medieval pottery than any other STP in Akeley.
It would appear that the back of plots running back from the
Lillingstone Road is still preserved within the orchard at the back of
The Roses. The STP was
located within the plot. The
quantity of pottery is witness to old and intensive occupation during
the middle ages, and might result from the deposition of domestic refuse
in the plot itself. A
second STP outside earthwork on what might be field or meadow would be
useful. However, it is clear that there was settlement on the
opposite side of the road from the church in this area, possible focused
around the T junction with Chapel Hill.
This might be thought of as an early settlement focus, rather
than the area around The Square where STPs failed to reveal such
quantities of medieval pottery. AK
STP 24:
The discovery of material related to tile and brick production at Pottery Farm could be predicted. It is likely that these deposits were general spreads of waste from this small industrial site. The farm does not appear on the 1794 Enclosure Map which can therefore be taken as the terminus post quem for production here. Interestingly, despite the proximity to surviving ridge and furrow, no medieval artefacts were recovered. The STP was located very close to the Lovell Road, and it is quite possible that it always lay outside the ploughed zone, possibly on the verge bordering the road. |