An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment of land at Manor Farm, Holywell, Cambridgeshire Andrew Hall Cambridge Archaeological Unit University of Cambridge March 2002 Report No. 473 Summary This Archaeological Desk Based Assessment was commissioned by Ashwell Developments Limited. It relates to an area of 0.33 hectares to the north of Conger Lane, Holywell, Cambridgeshire. The plot lies within the property of Manor Farm, centred on TL337/709. The study reveals potential for archaeology spanning several periods. The nature of the local topography of Holywell, in a prominent position above the Ouse floodplain, with access to a range of natural resources including a documented fresh water spring, would have made this a favoured place to settle from the prehistoric period onwards. Although no known archaeology is recorded within the Development site itself, the proximity of other findspots and sites, notably Roman and its position within the Medieval village, suggest potential for archaeological remains to be encountered. Introduction The purpose of this report is to collate and summarise the known and potential archaeology of this proposed development area and a surrounding study zone of 1 km, as defined by Figure 2. Gazetteer entries are listed within the catalogue and plotted on Figure 2. They appear within parenthesis throughout the report. This facilitates an assessment of the likely character, extent, quality and preservation of the archaeological resource. The plot of land is currently a farmyard containing various ancillary farm structures and with areas of hard standing. CAMBRIDGE Peterborough March ELY Huntingdon Holywell Figure 1 Location 1 Sources In order to produce this assessment, a broad range of sources was consulted, the most important being The Sites and Monuments Record, which for Cambridgeshire stands as a well-maintained and comprehensive resource. To understand the more recent history of the area, the Cambridgeshire Collection and County Records Office were both researched, especially with regard to cartographic evidence. The principle maps consulted were the Ordnance Survey series from 1886 through to the present day. Finally, in order to assess existing and recent land use, a site visit was carried out on March 19th 2002. Recent work by the Cambridge Archaeological Unit (CAU) within the wider area has provided valuable background information for this report. Topography The nature of the local topography is important for understanding past land exploitation and management. The development area is situated at the western end of Holywell village on the northern side of Conger Lane, at a height of approximately 12m OD. The natural geology of the local subsoil is third terrace river gravels. To the immediate south of Holywell the land drops steeply down into the floodplain of the River Great Ouse, the present course of which runs east to west some 600m to the south of the development area. The course of the river appears to have changed over time. The Victoria County History notes that in the Medieval period it crossed the flood plain in much closer proximity to the village, just below the church (VCH. 1974). The changing course is supported by the identification of a broad palaeochannel, possibly representing an earlier course or a side channel, traversing Holywell Fen from south west to north east, during the 1995 CAU excavations at Meadow Lane quarry (Pollard. 1995&1996). The development site would therefore have occupied a prominent position, overlooking the river, on the raised ground of the Holywell-Needingworth ridge. Effectively it would have been a peninsula without drainage or flood control. Previous Archaeological Work within the Area Within recent decades, the gravel terraces of the Ouse have been recognised as a significant archaeological landscape. Until now, large scale quarrying for gravel has led to the destruction without record of numerous sites throughout the area. Attempts at rescue excavation were made during the 1950s and 60s by local archaeologists such as the Hunts Archaeological Field Group. Several sites were recorded and large assemblages of finds retrieved (17&25); (Green. 1959). Although a valiant attempt, it is clear only a small proportion of the archaeology was recorded. In recent decades, following changes in planning legislation, archaeological research and fieldwork is carried out to assess the nature and value of the threatened archaeological resource. One such assessment is the survey of the Ouse River gravels (French and Wait 1982) 2 0 kilometres 1 Holywell Fen Holywell Needingworth Site Proposed Development Area TL 327700 TL 348700 TL348721TL 327721 Sites or Findspots listed in the Gazetteer 110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 44 45 43 42 41 Based on the Ordnance Survey 1:25000 maap With the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office Crown Copyright. University of Cambridge Licence No.AL 550833 © Figure 2 Archaeology within the Study Area Gazetteer of Sites Period SMR NGR Description Reference Undated 1 8271 TL 343713 Subrectangular enclosures (cropmarks) French & Wait 1988 2 8274 TL 344711 Rectangular enclosures, possible settlement (cropmarks) French & Wait 1988 3 9178 TL 346709 Enclosures (cropmarks) 4 11887 TL 34107130 Undated findspot Prehistoric 5 TL 33137030 Palaeolithic flint findspot 6 1498 TL 335703 Bronze Age axe, pottery, animal bone and stone 7 1675 TL 339707 Palaeolithic axe findspot 8 1799 TL 338709 Neolithic hammerstone 9 1794 TL 338709 Neolithic to Late Bronze Age flint scatter 10 1701 TL 335713 Early Neolithic to Late Bronze Age flint scatter 11 1782 TL 338709 Findspot of Iron Age pottery 12 3608 TL 32907070 Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery, Palaeolithic Axe Pollard 1995 13 3647 TL 335703 Findspot of Iron Age pottery Phillips 1970 14 8273 TL 350710 Group of three ringditches (identified via Aerial Photography) French & Wait 1988 15 TL 32937042 Findspot of socketed Bronze Age spearhead Pollard 1996 16 TL 328 707 Iron Age pit alignment and later Roman ditches alongside palaeochannel; excavated in 1994 by CAU Pollard 1996 Roman 17 519 TL 32707072 Rectilinear enclosures, settlement evidence; cremations and inhumations. Rescue excavation in 1958 Pollard 1996 18 880 TL 34037184 Coin findspot CHAS 6, p.48 19 12011 TL 334713 Metal detector finds: Roman brooches, coins etc. 20 1426 TL 337702 Pottery 21 1495 TL 342705 Pottery 22 2002 TL 344705 Pottery Phillips 1970 23 2004 TL 344704 Pottery 24 3643 TL 342703 Pottery Phillips 1970 25 3730 TL 336700 Large collection of Roman pottery recovered during quarrying Green 1959 26 3766 TL 33637073 Pottery 27 3767 TL 335708 Pottery and coins 28 3768 TL 337709 Pottery and coin 4 29 3769 TL 332704 Pottery and coin 30 3770 TL 332702 Pottery and coin 31 3771 TL 338701 Pottery 32 3772 TL 334710 Artefact findspot Phillips 1970 33 3773 TL 338711 Artefact findspot Phillips 1970 34 3774 TL 33707080 Coin findspot CHAS 6, p.48 35 3775 TL 33757074 Coin findspot Medieval 36 3641 TL 33417025 Saxo- Norman pottery findspot 37 3928 TL 34227079 Moyne's Hall; moated site, earthworks, architectural fragments and pottery. 38 8271a TL 343713 Traces of ridge and furrow 39 10350 TL 33657082 St John the Baptist Church, Holywell 40 11713 TL 34587175 Ridge and Furrow identified from Aerial Photography. Excavation 1995; no significant archaeology encountered Heawood 1995 41 12011 TL 334713 Metal detector finds: Medieval finds, strapends, buckles etc. Post Medieval 42 626 TL 340714 Post Medieval or possibly Medieval windmill (From documentary evidence) Newell 1991 43 3764 TL 33657078 The Holywell structure 44 3928a TL 34227079 Moyne's Hall; farmhouse, barn, house and wall Newell 1991 45 11888 TL 33957082 Post Medieval quarrying part of a wider study of river gravels throughout Cambridgeshire. This addressed the importance of the archaeology within the river valley, including the study area, and the threat posed by future quarrying. This has been followed in recent years by large scale landscape projects carried out by the CAU at Barleycroft (Evans and Knight. 2000 & 2001), 1.5 km to the north east of the proposed development site, and also at Meadow Lane quarry 0.9 km to the south west (Pollard. 1996). The work at Barleycroft, over several years, revealed a largely intact prehistoric landscape, with monuments, field system and settlement dating to the Neolithic and Bronze Age, and later Romano-British fieldsystem (Evans and Knight. 2000 & 2001). The Meadow Lane site revealed activity dating to the Neolithic and an Iron Age pit alignment running alongside a former river channel. Roman ditches followed this earlier boundary (Pollard. 1996). To the south of the River Ouse, several excavations have been carried out by the CAU within the Fen Drayton quarries. These have revealed Neolithic activity, with later prehistoric and Roman settlement (Wait. 1992). A further excavation was carried out by the County Council Archaeological Field Unit at Ashton Close, Needingworth with largely negative results (Heawood. 1995). 5 Known Archaeology within the Study Area (Refer to gazetteer and Figure 2) There are no known archaeological sites or findspots within the Proposed Development area (PDA) itself, however, Figure 2 illustrates a large number of entries clustered within the 1 km study area. Within the immediate surrounding area (within 250m of the PDA) there are 13 findspots or sites listed. Undated Within this category are three cropmark groups approximately 0.7 km to the north- west and west of the PDA (1,2,3). All three have been identified via aerial photography and are plotted within the River Gravel Survey volume (French and Wait. 1982). Sites 1 and 2 are situated on the raised ground of the Needingworth and Holywell ridge. Both include subrectangular enclosures with group 1 apparently truncated by medieval ridge and furrow. With this in mind, both may well represent an earlier field system, possibly dating to the Roman period. A further undated findspot is also listed 0.5 km to the north west (4). Prehistoric The earliest recorded finds within the study area are stray finds of Palaeolithic flints, one from the banks of the Ouse 1.0 km to the south west (5), and a handaxe (7), found within the village. A review of Palaeolithic material within the Ouse valley can be found within Reynolds 2000. A Neolithic presence is also evidenced by findspots of flints within the field adjacent to the east (9), a hammerstone found within the same field, and a further scatter 300m to the north west (10), which includes Bronze Age elements. A significant Bronze Age site (6) was recorded within the quarry workings 800 metres to the south. The records note the discovery of pottery, animal bone, and an axe, suggestive of a small scale settlement. Within the wider environs of the Ouse Valley, numerous barrow or ring ditches have been recorded. A group of three such monuments are located on the fringes of the study area, to the east of Holywell (14). Finally, a bronze spearhead dating to this period (15) was found within former lake deposits 1.0 km to the south west. Evidence for Iron Age activity is restricted to finds of pottery within the field adjacent to the east (11), and the large scale excavation of the double pit alignment carried out by the CAU, to the west (12&16). Roman The gazetteer includes numerous entries for the Roman period within the study area. There does appear to be two distinct groups of sites and findspots. Within the southern half of the study zone there are several examples (from east to west, 22, 21, 23, 24, 31, 20, 25, 30, 29, 16 & 17). The majority of these are single findspots or scatters of pottery indicating sites running down the river valley. Of these, only 16 and 17 have been subject to detailed excavation and recording. These both relate to a 6 small scale settlement and the continuation of an earlier Iron Age boundary mentioned above. Of the remaining entries, the large volume of pottery collected from a quarry site (25), is suggestive of another firm candidate for settlement. Of perhaps greater significance, due to the proximity to the development site, is the group of gazetteer entries clustered around the western end of Holywell village. Immediately to the south of the PDA is a findspot of pottery and a coin (28), with three further findspots of pottery and coins further to the south, within and around the churchyard of St. John the Baptist parish church and the Holywell spring site. This immediately implies some form of focus on the spring head which will be discussed in greater detail later on in the report. A further artefact findspot is recorded within the adjacent field to the east (33), and a group of metal detector finds, including brooches and coins originate from the large field to the north (19). The PDA does appear to lie within the core of this known distribution of Roman material at the western end of the village. Medieval Although the majority of the buildings within the present village of Holywell date form the 17th century and later, the presence of the Medieval Church of St John the Baptist (39), the moated site at Moynes Hall (37 & 47) in combination with documentary evidence, all point towards a much earlier foundation for the settlement. This is supported by historical references to Haliewelle in 1007 AD, recording a transfer of lands between Alfwara and the Abbey at Ramsey (VCH. 1974). In Doomsday (1086AD) there is a further reference: 'Within Halliewelle, The Abbey of Ramsey held nine hides, land for nine ploughs, 30 acres of meadow and one league of woodland for pannage.' Of greater significance is the recording of a church and a priest (VCH. 1974). This suggests there was an earlier church preceding the 13th century and later parish church of St. John the Baptist (39). During the site visit, the reuse of earlier architectural fragments and tile was noted within the chancel walls, with further fragments stored around the porch. Although not conclusive, this tends to support the argument for an earlier structure within the immediate vicinity. The origins of the settlement at Holywell stretch back well into the pre-Conquest period, although no concrete archaeological evidence has so far been presented. The cartographic evidence, especially the old series Ordnance Survey map of 1840 (Figure 3) clearly illustrates a series of thin rectangular plots set out at right angles to the main streets, throughout Holywell and Needingworth. The shape of these plots is reminiscent of much earlier land allotment during the medieval period, notably "crofts and tofts." The development site itself is positioned within one such strip plot, towards the street frontage. Moyne's Hall (47) is situated 500 metres to the east of the development site. The moated manor is first recorded in 1286, again due to its transfer to Ramsey Abbey by Emma le Moyne (Newell. 1991). Finds of pottery, and architectural fragments confirm the presence of the earlier structure (37). In addition to these two structures, the other gazetteer entries refer to ridge and furrow on the higher ground towards Needingworth (38 & 40). Clear ridge and furrow was 7 Figure 3 1840 Ordnance Survey Old Series Figure 4 1887 Ordnance Survey: sheet XXIII:I 8 Figure 5 Ordnance Survey 1900: sheet XXIII:I Figure 6 Ordnance Survey 1924: sheet XXIII:I 9 also identified within the field immediately to the east of the PDA during the site visit. A spread of metal detector finds (41) is also recorded from the field to the immediate north. A further site is located 700 metres to the south west, on the opposite side of the Ouse. Finds of Saxo-Norman pottery (36) within the quarry site, were probably associated with a small scale settlement such as a farmstead. It is clear from the early references to Halliewelle or Holie-well, that the spring head within the vicinity of the church, has been of great importance and a pivotal factor in the development and naming of the settlement. Post-Medieval and Current Land use The majority of information for this period is gained from the cartographic evidence and the site visit. The gazetteer lists four entries for this period, including a mill (42) situated half way between Holywell and Needingworth. Documentary evidence implies this may have had a Medieval precursor (Newell. 1991). In addition, the structure at Moynes Hall (44) and the mid 19th century arched spring cover within the churchyard (43) are included. The final listing has potentially greater implications for the preservation of earlier archaeological remains. Gravel quarrying has been demonstrated on an industrial scale throughout the river valley in recent decades, however, quarrying on a smaller scale appears to have been carried out on the higher ground around Holywell and Needingworth in the past. This is illustrated on the Ordnance Survey map series (Figures 3-6). A quarry is represented within the neighbouring field to the east, appearing at some point after 1887 and expanding throughout the early 20th century. A further area of quarrying is listed within the gazetteer (45) further to the east. Within the PDA the early map evidence shows various structures present from at least the second half of the 19th century, with others added over the first half of the 20th century. The size and layout of these buildings suggests these were ancillary farm structures such as barns or sheds. Just outside the area is a dwelling to the immediate south and a further larger house immediately to the west. The site visit confirmed the addition of a twentieth century house between the two later 19th century dwellings. Farm buildings within the open yard, areas of concrete hard standing, general wasteland and large quantities of abandoned farm machinery and equipment were also noted. An area of orchard is shown within the PDA on the 1924 map, (Figure 6).This is no longer present today. Statement of Potential Having reviewed the current state of knowledge concerning the known archaeology within the vicinity of the PDA, several key points become apparent. The topography of Holywell, its prominent south facing position overlooking the Ouse river valley, and the presence of a well documented spring head demonstrate that this would have been an attractive place to settle throughout the prehistoric and historic periods. The position above the flood level would have facilitated the exploitation of both the wet 10 and drier upland environments and would have offered a position of control over an important communications route. The second key point is that in many ways this is supported in part by the known archaeology. Palaeolithic stray finds are recorded within the study area, as such, the possibility of encountering further finds of this period cannot be ruled out. A Neolithic presence is certainly attested by a distribution of finds in close proximity to the PDA. There is therefore potential to encounter features of this period such as pit groups during excavation, similar to those discovered during the nearby Barleycroft excavation. Several known sites and flint scatters are sited within similar 'edge' environments, on the margins of fen, river valleys and higher ground. One possible explanation is that the river valleys would have acted as communication routes (Pollard. 2000). The Ouse valley would have been a suitable corridor for seasonal movement into the rich environment of the fen, from the higher land to the west. For the Bronze Age, again the presence of material indicates activity, with possible settlement to the south of the present river course. Within this localised landscape, the marginal zones such as fen edge or floodplain again seem to have been favoured as settlement sites. This is demonstrated by the results of large scale open excavations at Barleycroft, Whittlesey, and Over. The former site also highlights the importance of monuments, such as barrows within this landscape, and their relationship with field systems. However, it would be a mistake to conclude that settlement and monuments were restricted to low lying zones. It is recent commercial gravel extraction on a massive scale within this zone that has exposed this archaeology and necessitated excavation and recording. In addition alluvial cover has ensured excellent preservation, protecting archaeology from later agricultural practice. Therefore, one cannot rule out the presence of settlement and possibly monuments on the slightly higher ground of the Needingworth-Holywell ridge. With known flint scatters in the study area, and the attractive nature of the topography, there is the potential for encountering elements of fieldsystem or possibly settlement. Within the Iron Age the same arguments can be applied. The important double pit alignment within Holywell Fen in close association with the river, provides evidence for a similar focus of activity within this river floodplain (Pollard. 1996). Finds within the adjacent field to the east may represent small scale settlement, elements of which may extend into the development area. The known archaeology of the Roman period presents the clearest pattern of potential. The development area lies within the core of finds scatters distributed throughout the western end of Holywell village. The focus for these findspots seems likely be the springhead within the churchyard. This spring may well have provided a focus for settlement or perhaps even ritual activity possibly dating back into the pre- Roman period. The importance of such springs within the context of Romano-British and Iron Age ritual activity is well documented. Within Cambridgeshire, there are several shrine sites associated with springs, for example at Bottisham, Wilbraham, Foxton, and Outwell (Taylor. 2000). The undated fieldsystems (1, 2 & 3) between Holywell and Needingworth may well be of this period. The river again appears to have played an important role as a communications route with several findspots and small scale settlements plotted along its path (Phillips. 1972). From the known evidence, there is clear potential for Roman archaeology to be found within the PDA. The proximity to 11 the spring head with its associated finds alone implies a likelihood of encountering further finds of this period. There is also potential for encountering Medieval archaeology. The origins of Holywell village predate the Norman conquest, with documentary evidence recording an early church (VCH. 1974). The reuse of architectural fragments within the present day parish church does seem to support this although not conclusively. If the early Medieval, possibly Saxon settlement was located within the area of the church, early Medieval evidence may well be encountered within the development area. Topographically this would have been an ideal site to control and gain access to the river which at this date ran just below the churchyard. The thin rectangular plot within which the PDA sits is reminiscent of Medieval land allotment. The position of the site at the frontage of this plot indicates the possibility, although by no means conclusive, for the presence of an earlier structure, if not within the PDA, then within the immediate vicinity. During the post-Medieval period, known activity relates to this area functioning as a farmyard with associated structures. It is the impact of this on earlier archaeology which is of greatest significance. Gravel extraction is shown to be occurring within the adjacent field and may have been taking place on a smaller scale throughout the Medieval and post-Medieval periods and potentially within the PDA. The current structures on the site, including barns and sheds appear to have had little impact on any potential underlying archaeology due to the nature of their construction. To conclude, this development area has the potential to yield archaeology of Prehistoric Roman and later periods. The highest potential is for the discovery of features of the Roman and Medieval periods. The siting of the plot, on and just set back from the street frontage, suggests this may have been 'back yard/farmyard' throughout recent centuries, thus escaping the damaging action of the plough. Although damage through gravel pitting is a possibility, the earlier underlying archaeology may well be in a good state of preservation. 12 Acknowledgements The staff at The Cambridgeshire SMR, The Cambridgeshire Collection, and The County Records Office, all helped with the documentary and cartographic research. I would also like to thank Chris Evans and Richard Mortimer for their comments of the text. All illustrations are by the author Bibliography Boast, R. 1991. Archaeological Investigations at Meadow Lane Quarry, St. Ives, Cambridgeshire. Cambridge Archaeological Unit. Report No. 25 Evans, C. and Knight. M. 2000. A Fenland Delta: Later Prehistoric Land-use in the Lower Ouse Reaches. In M. Dawson (ed.) Prehistoric, Roman and Saxon Landscape Studies in the Great Ouse Valley, 89-106. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 119 Evans, C. and Knight. M. 2001. The 'community of builders' :The Barleycroft Post Alignments. In J Bruck (ed.) Bronze Age Landscapes. Tradition and Transformation, 83-98. Oxford French, C. and Wait, G. 1988. An Archaeological Survey of the Cambridgeshire River Gravels. Cambridge. Cambridgeshire County Council Green, H. J. M. 1959. A Romano-British Farm at St. Ives. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society. Vol. 52. pp. 23-9 Heawood, R. 1995. An Archaeological Evaluation at Ashton Close Needingworth. Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field Unit. Report No. A57 Newell, J. 1991. The Holywell Story. Cambridge. Graham Cameron Publishing Phillips, C. W. (ed.) 1970. The Fenland in Roman Times. London. Royal Geographical Society Pollard, J. 1995. The Excavation of Two Later Prehistoric Pit Alignments and Roman Riverside Features at Meadow Lane St. Ives, Cambridgeshire. Cambridge Archaeological Unit. Report No. 131 Pollard, J. 1996. Iron Age Riverside Pit Alignments at St. Ives, Cambridgeshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Vol 62. pp. 93-115 Pollard, J. 2000. The Neolithic In T. Kirby and S. Oosthuizen (eds), An Atlas of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire History. Anglia Polytechnic University Taylor, A. 2000. Roman Religion. In T. Kirby and S. Oosthuizen (eds), An Atlas of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire History. Anglia Polytechnic University VCH. 1974. A History of the County of Huntingdonshire. Vol 1 & 2. London. Transactions of the Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire Archaeological Society. Vol 6. 1947. pp. 153 Wait, G. 1992. Archaeological Investigations at Fen Drayton Reservoir. Fen Drayton. Cambridge Archaeological Unit. Report No. 73 13 Summary This Archaeological Desk Based Assessment was commissioned by Ashwell Developments Limited. It relates to an area of 0.33 hectares to the north of Conger Lane, Holywell, Cambridgeshire. The plot lies within the property of Manor Farm, centred on TL337/709. The study reveals potential for archaeology spanning several periods. The nature of the local topography of Holywell, in a prominent position above the Ouse floodplain, with access to a range of natural resources including a documented fresh water spring, would have made this a favoured place to settle from the prehistoric period onwards. Although no known archaeology is recorded within the Development site itself, the proximity of other findspots and sites, notably Roman and its position within the Medieval village, suggest potential for archaeological remains to be encountered. Topography holywellmaps2.pdf Page 1 holywellmaps1.pdf Page 1 holywellgaz.pdf Page 1