langford south 2

Langford Quarry South archaeologica ltd

Page 1

a r c h a e o logica

HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

DESK -

BASED ASSESSMENT

at

LANGFORD SOUTH HOLME - NORTH MUSKHAM

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

Grid Ref SK 81420 59400

3223/3

In connection with a mineral extraction proposal On behalf of :

Lafarge Tarmac

Granite House Watermead Business Park

Syston, Leicestershire

LE7 1WA by

Isabel M G Lisboa BA PhD

July 2015

© Archaeologica Ltd 2015


Page 2

CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Planning background 1.3 Legal and Policy Context 1.4 Professional Standards 1.5 The Commission 1.6 Aims and Objectives 1.7 The Proposed Development 1.8 Walkover Survey 2.0 THE SITE 2.1 Location 2.2 Geology and topography 2.3 Current and past land use 2.4 Existing impacts 3.0 HISTORICAL AND PALAEOGEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND 3.1 Palaeogeography of the Site 3.2 Hydrology 3.3 Documentary background 3.4 Map Regression 4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 4.1 Sources of archaeological information 4.2 Known Archaeology of the Site 4.3 Known Archaeology of the Surrounds of the Site 4.4 Designated Heritage Assets Adjacent to the Site 5.0 IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND MITIGATION 5.1 Impact of the Development on the Buried Archaeology 5.2 Impact on the Designated Assets 5.3 Impact on Designed Historic Assets 5.4 Mitigation


Page 3

ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 Location of the site of Application Site (1:50000) Figure 2 Cropmarks in the Application Site and its surrounds Figure 3 Known Archaeology and Designated Assets of the Site and its surrounds Figure 4 The Site on the North Muskham, Holme and Bathley Enclosure Plan 1773 Figure 5 The Site on the 1st Edition OS Map - 1881-86 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 HER Data - Archaeology APPENDIX 2 Designated Heritage Asset Data


Page 4

1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 Archaeologica Ltd is a limited company providing archaeological consulting services.

It is committed to ensuring that the client receives an effective service while maintaining the highest professional standards.

1.1.2 It follows the guidelines set out by the Institute of Archaeologists Codes of Conduct

and Standards and Guidance documents, the National Planning Policy Framework, National Planning Practice Guidance and English Heritage's guidance on Heritage Protection.

1.1.3 This Desktop Heritage Assessment has been prepared by Dr Isabel Lisboa of

Archaeologica Ltd on behalf of Lafarge Tarmac. 1.1.4 Isabel M G Lisboa holds a BA and a PhD in Archaeology from the University of

Cambridge. She was a Fellow in Archaeology at the University of London. Dr Lisboa worked full-time for four years as Consultant and Project Manager with Tempvs Reparatvm prior to forming Archaeologica seventeen years ago. She has carried out numerous archaeological, excavation and research projects in the UK, Portugal and Spain.

1.2 Planning background 2.1 Lafarge Tarmac is intending to submit an extension to the Permitted Quarry at

Langford. 1.2.2 The present document forms part of the scoping documents to be submitted as part of

the early consultations 1.3 Legal and Policy Context Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 1.3.1 The 1979 Act gives statutory protection to buildings or archaeological remains

considered to be of particular historic or archaeological interest and regulates the activities which affect such areas. The monuments in the list are under the Protection of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whose Department (DCMS) acts on the advice of English Heritage.

Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 1.3.2 Buildings of Special Architectural or Historical Interest are covered by separate

legislation, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Section 66 states that preservation of the setting of a listed building, as well as the building itself, is of material cons ideration.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 1.3.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) (NPPF) sets out the

Government’s policy framework and replaces the previous document Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5 (now redundant)). The English Heritage guidance “The Setting of Heritage Assets” (2011) also provides guidance for dealing with the impact of


Page 5

development on Designated Assets, including Scheduled Monuments, with regards to their setting.

1.3.4 Section 12 of the NPPF deals with the conservation and enhancement of the historic

environment. Paragraph 128 states that: “in determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any Heritage Assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting” with footnote 29 stating that the principles and policies set out in this section apply to the heritage-related consent regimes for which local planning authorities are responsible under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990 such as Designated Heritage Assets, as well as to plan-making and decision-taking. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.

1.3.5 Paragraph 65 of the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should not refuse

planning permission for buildings or infrastructure which promote high levels of sustainability because of concerns about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if those concerns have been mitigated by good design (unless the concern relates to a Designated Heritage Asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits).

1.3.6 Paragraph 113 states that Local Planning Authorities should set criteria -based policies

against which proposals for any development on or affecting protected sites or landscape areas will be judged. Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites and that protection is commensurate with their status.

1.3.7 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that: “When considering the impact of a proposed

development on the significance of a Designated Heritage Asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be”. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the Heritage Asset or development within its setting. As Heritage Assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to, or loss of, a Grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of Designated Heritage Assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, Grade I and II* Listed Buildings, Grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

1.3.8 Paragraph 133 states that “where a proposed development will lead to substantial

harm to or total loss of significance of a Designated Heritage Asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.”

1.3.9 Paragraph 135 of the NPPF deals with non-designated Heritage Assets and states that:

“the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated Heritage Asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated Heritage Assets, a balanced judgment is required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the Heritage Asset”. Paragraph 139 states that non-designated Heritage Assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments should be considered subject to the policies as for designated Heritage Assets.


Page 6

1.3.10 The NPPF urges that LPAs should design their policies to maximise renewable and

low carbon energy development, while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts.

1.3.11 The NPPF does not contain an express presumption in favour of the conservation of

Designated Heritage Assets, but the presumption in favour of sustainable development is argued to meet the objectives and policies of the NPPF, which has, as one of its twelve core principles, the conservation of heritage assets (paragraph 17). It does state that ‘great weight’ should be given to the objective of conserving designated heritage assets (paragraph 132).

1.3.12 Conservation Areas, Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings are Designated

Heritage Assets, so great weight should be given to their conservation. The NPPF states that the loss of a grade II building should be exceptional and grade I and II* buildings and loss of other highly valued designated heritage assets should be wholly exceptional (paragraph 132). The total loss of a Designated Heritage Asset or substantial harm to it (physical harm or harm through development within the setting), can be justified either on the grounds that the harm is necessary to deliver public benefits that outweigh that harm, or because the asset is demonstrably non-viable and it is better to free-up the site than keep the asset (paragraph 133). Less than substantial harm (physical harm or harm through development within the setting) should be weighed against public benefits (paragraph 134).

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 1.3.13 The Planning Practice Guidance (2014) reiterates the NPPF guidelines and states that:

“In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any Heritage Assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the Heritage Assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include Heritage Assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.”

1.3.14 Under ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ the Planning Practice

Guidance states that: “being able to properly assess the nature, extent and importance of the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting, is very important to understanding the potential impact of a development potentially affecting a significant heritage asset”.

1.3.15 Given the overall conservation objective of the NPPF, the PPG states that significance

derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. It also states substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. Therefore the assessment of the potential harm of a development requires the assessment of its impact on the setting as well as the asset itself

The Setting Of Heritage Assets: English Heritage Guidance (2011) 1.3. 16 The NPPF and PPG state that the impact of development is a material consideration in

the consideration of planning applications and in relation to all Listed Building and Conservation Area Consent applications, both in terms of direct impact and the impact on the setting of those heritage assets. The general principles set out in “The


Page 7

Setting Of Heritage Assets: English Heritage Guidance” (2011) provides further guidance on setting and its assessment. Its definition of setting has been adopted in the NPFF which defines setting as “The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.”

Good Practice Advice in Planning: 1-3 1.3.176 The documents Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic

Environment Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 1-3 were published in March 2015. These guides provide information on good practice to assist local authorities, planning and other consultants, owners, applicants and other interested parties in implementing historic environment policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the related guidance given in the National Planning Practice Guide (PPG).

Local Development Plan 1.3.18 Within Nottinghamshire, the relevant County Council’s local policy is covered within

the Minerals Local Plans (MLP) adopted December 2005. It has a plan period extending to March 2015 when the new plan will be adopted (Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan-update No.1 February 2013). The New Minerals Local Plan to cover provision up to 2030 is still under the process of public consultation.

1.3.19 The following summary and policy regarding archaeology is contained in the

Minerals Local Plan (adopted December 2005): There are over 8500 archaeological sites and historic features in Nottinghamshire currently registered on the County Sites and Monuments Record. Archaeological sites or remains also include ancient river channels (palaeochannels) and alluvial (river borne) or colluvial (surface wash, downhill slope movement) deposits. The preserved organic remains and geomorphological structures within these deposits provide critical evidence about the context and effects of post-human settlement and land use. It is unlikely that the known archaeological resource will be the limit and there is a high probability that proposals for mineral extraction will affect known archaeological sites or areas of archaeological potential. PPG 16 sets out the national approach to archaeology. The first part of this is to preserve Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their settings. Mineral extraction will not normally be permitted at such sites. In addition the CBI’s revised Code of Practice for mineral operators on archaeological investigations provides advice on how mineral operators should consult archaeological interests in formulating planning applications.

1.3.20 The need for preservation in situ of other sites and remains will be assessed upon

their importance and the impact that their loss would have upon the overall archaeological resource in the County. Although preservation of archaeological sites is a primary objective, it is clearly impractical to preserve them all. Equally sites should not be destroyed without careful consideration and treatment. The second part of this approach is to ensure that, where preservation in-situ is not feasible, sites are surveyed, excavated or otherwise appropriately recorded. These provisions can only be assessed after the archaeological characteristics of proposed sites have been evaluated. An appropriate scheme of treatment must then be agreed, with the County Council.


Page 8

1.3.21 It follows that archaeological constraints must be identified and addressed at the earliest possible opportunity, and ideally well before the planning application stage, if delays are to be avoided. With full prior discussion, a scheme of treatment covering all issues can be submitted as part of a planning application to be secured through simple conditions and/ or a legal agreement with the minimum of delay. Arrangements for funding may need to be incorporated into planning obligations.

Policy M3.24 Archaeology

1.3.22 Planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which would destroy or degrade nationally important archaeological remains and their settings, whether scheduled or not. Planning permission will only be granted for development which would affect archaeological remains of less than national importance where it can be demonstrated that the importance of the development outweighs the regional or local significance of the remains and where appropriate provision is made for the excavation and recording of the remains.

1.4 Professional Standards 1.4.1 All projects are managed in accordance with, and in the light of, English Heritage’s

MoRPHE Project Managers Guide (English Heritage 2006), and the recommendations of the Institute of Archaeologists.

1.4.2 The present report draws on The Institute for Archaeologists “Standards and

Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment” (IfA 2008, revised 2012).

1.4.3 In accordance with government guidance and professional guidance, this assessment

draws together the available archaeological, topographic and land use information in order to clarify the archaeological potential of the Site.

1.4.4 The guidelines set in English Heritage Good Practice Advice On Setting And

Decision-Taking, and the NPPG, and associated Practice Guides have been followed in considering the impact of the development on Heritage Assets.

1.5 The Commission 1.5.1 Mr Martin Clayton of Geoplan commissioned this work on behalf of Lafarge Tarmac. 1.6 Aims and Objectives 1.6.1 The purpose of this desk-based assessment is to gain information about the known or

potential archaeological resource within a given area or site, (including its presence or absence, character and extent, date, integrity, state of preservation and relative quality of the potential archaeological resource) in order to make an assessment of its merit in context leading to the formulation of a strategy for further investigation.


Page 9

1.7 The Proposed Development 1.8.1 The proposed development consists of sand and gravel extraction. 1.8 Walkover Survey 1.8.1 A walkover survey was undertaken on 26th May in sunny conditions. Contemporary

notes and photographs were taken. 2.0 THE SITE 2.1 Location 2.1.1 The Site consists of an area covering 27.1 ha to the south of present Langford Quarry,

to the north of Newark in Nottinghamshire. The Site falls within the parish of Holme. It is centred at SK 81420 59400 (Fig 1). It is located 1.5 km NW of the village of Langford and Fosse Way and 1 km east of the village of Holme.

2.1.2 A drain runs around the western boundary of the Site but the remainder of the

boundaries consist of field boundaries. 2.2 Geology and topography Geology and soils 2.2.1 The Site is set within the lower part of the Middle Trent Valley There is an intimate

relationship between the topography and the geology of the Site. It is set on undifferentiated floodplain alluvium. The survey area was relatively flat, with little topographic variation.

2.2.2 The BGS Solid and Drift Survey Sheet 113 describes the basal geology as Mercia

Mudstone overlain by undifferentiated Flandrian alluvium comprising clay silt sand and gravel.

2.2.3 The soils of the Site shows that the land comprises stoneless clayey soils of the

Fladbury series which are affected by groundwater. 2.2.4 The soil profile within the Site is described as: 0.0-0.3m dark brown stoneless clay

topsoil overlying the uppermost subsoil, greyish brown stoneless clay mottled strong brown (7.5 YR 5/8)-0.25m thick (0.3-0.55m bgl), over grey clay mottled yellowish red (5YE 5/8) which extends to at least 1m bgl. In some areas a sandy lower subsoil was encountered.

2.2.5 No detailed information borehole is available for the Site. A publicly available BGS

borehole from the easternmost field of the Site (SK481420, 359400) –see Fig 2,


Page 10

brown dot for location –shows the geology to consist of topsoil over light brown clay, alluvium (1.10m deep), over 0.2m silty sand, over sandy gravel.

Topography 2.2.6 The land close is generally flat rising slightly to the south-west and is around 7-8m

OD. 2.3 Current and past land use 2.3.1 The land is currently in arable use planted with winter cereals. 2.4 Existing impacts 2.4.1 There are no known impacts on the buried archaeology. 3.0 HISTORICAL AND PALAEOGEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND 3.1 Palaeogeography of the Site 3.1.1 The Trent has changed its course numerous times through history (Large and Petts

1996). Its meandering habits, abandoning old channels and cutting new channels, have produced a plethora of relict palaeochannels. The Trent was described by Smith (1912) as characterised by a large number of old and deserted meandering channels and dying pools on the floodplain. Salisbury et al (1984) also referred to the active nature of the Trent describing it as powerful and unstable. It has been suggested that its old name, Trisantona meaning trespasser, refers to the frequent flooding of the river in historical time. The Trent is highly mobile and prone to meander, braid and avulse.

3.1.2 Smith (1912) first suggested the Fleet, to the east of the Site, represents one of the

former courses of the Trent. This does not indicate that at the time no watercourse ran along the approximate present course of the Trent, or that the river moved westwards. Rather on the contrary, historical evidence from Saxon times indicates a river in the area: the description of North Muskham in Domesday indicates a riverside environment with expanses of meadows and extensive riverside industrial sites (mills, weirs and a fishery). The extent of relict palaeochannels in the surrounds of the Site was catalogued and illustrated in Baker’s assessment of the Trent and they have been transcribed in Figs 2 and 3. The palaeogeography is characterised by a large number of old and deserted meandering channels and dying pools on the floodplain Salisbury et al (1984), Baker (2003), Knight and Howard (2004)).

3.2 Hydrology


Page 11

3.2.1 In the lower part of the Middle Trent the channels are in general broader and longer than those in the upper middle valley, and cover a greater percentage area. The record in this part of the valley appears to reflect periods of channel stability interrupted by a smaller number of major channel-shifting events (anabranching, avulsion, meander cut-off), with recorded high-energy episodes like those attested at the existing quarry at Langford (Howard et 1999, Knight and Howard 2004).

3.2.2 Baker (2003) mapped the palaeochannels of the Trent based on a number of factors

including LiDAR, aerial photographs (cropmarks, soils marks and upstanding earthworks) and historic parish boundaries including the Site. They have been transcribed in Fig 3.

3.2.3 Although it has been assumed that modern meandering channels decoupled from its

floodplain is an artefact of modern canalisation, recent work on the Trent demonstrated that aggrading and braiding tendencies occurred during Late Neolithic – at Langford Quarry (Howard et al 1999, Howard and Knight 2004) and also during the late Roman and medieval periods , relating to land clearance, the medieval climatic optimum and climatic deterioration during the Little Ice Age. Changes have been accelerated since then by embanking and bank protection works.

3.2.3 Excavation at the Permitted Langford Quarry has shown that the floodplain gravels

contain braided channels dating between 5330 and 3420 BP. These occur in the floodplain gravels and appear to have been part of a dense floodplain forest . Channel migration is recorded historically and archaeologically into the 16th century. Numerous uprooted large tree remains embedded within the valley floor sand and gravels suggest lateral channel mobility within a high energy system starting in the Bronze Age (Knight and Howard 2004).

3.2.4 As it flowed to flowed westwards, the Fleet bifurcated to the NE of the Site and its

western arm, Slough Dyke , in an E-W direction, delineating an arc to the north of the Site, and defining the boundary of the NW of the Site, entering the waterway on the approximate course of the present Trent at Cromwell Lock, where there is archaeological evidence for an 8th century bridge. The presence of Slough Dyke as a palaeochannel was also confirmed by the excavations in the existing Langford Quarry where a substantial palaeochannel was partly recorded along the gravel terrace edge during archaeological excavations in 2010/11 (Elliott & Webb 2011). The presence of bog oaks in its fill dating to the late Neolithic and Bronze Age shows it was flowing then, and it is still marked as a river in the maps of 1773, 1774 and 1886. Its course is indicated by hollows on the ground. Slough Dyke is a relict watercourse, now marked by late 19th century flood defence earthworks which follow the route of the earlier palaeochannel

3.2.5 Baker (2003) suggests that the vicinity of the Trent there is a high degree of

correspondence between parish boundaries (with potential origins in the Anglo-Saxon period) and water-courses. The parish boundary between the historical parish North Muskham (including Holme and Batheley) and Langford follows Slough Dyke strongly suggesting it was an important watercourse in the early medieval period.

3.2.6 In all probability there was a channel along the southern part of Fleet Mere in the

early medieval time. There is almost unanswerable evidence that an arm of the river already existed between North Muskham and Holme. Slough Dyke and its course ending at Cromwell Dock were probably still flowing in Roman times. The presence of a bridge of Saxon date at Cromwell Dock confirms there was a major water channel in existence at this time and place.


Page 12

3.2.7 The picture of the palaeogeogrpahy of the area is that of multiple meandering watercourses, some probably flowing contemporaneously which have in turn shifted, as the Trent moved westwards, resulting in a multiplicity of palaeochannels and relict islands.

3.2.8 The Site sits in the loop of a palaeochannel which flows to the south and joint the

Slough Dyke palaeochannel in the NW of the Site. The palaeochannel of Slough Dyke sits to the north. The Site thus sits between two palaeochannels: Slough Dyke flows to the north which is was flowing from prehistoric times, as shown by the presence of bog oaks in its gravel fill. To the south runs another palaeochannel which was probably extant in the Roman period, as a Roman temporary camp (marching camp) sits in one of its bends, in what would have been a suitable defensive position.

3.3 Documentary background

3.3.1 The Site lies within the historical parish of North Muskham, Holme and Batheley. Holme. Holme has no reference within the Domesday survey although its place name means of an Anglo-Scandinavian origin meaning ‘island’ (Ekwall 1960). Holme was a township within the parish. In contrast North Muskham appears in six entries in Domesday as ‘Muscham -Nord Uscaga’ covering 46 households and total tax assessed: 6.5 geld unit. It is likely that Holme is subsumed under the description of North Muskham. Though separated by the Trent, with most of North Muskham lying to the west, part of the parish of North Muskham sits to the east of the Trent, just north of the parish of Holme which sits wholly on the eastern bank of the river. Muskham appears as Muscmao And Muschamep in 1150 and 1300 respectively. The name Muskham refers to the Ham or Village of Musca a Saxon name presumably early Saxon. Holme was a parochial chapelry under the jurisdiction of the Peculiar Court of Southwell first built in the mid 12th century.

3.3.3 Thoroton (1796) states that the channel between Holme and North Muksham was formed about 1600 and suggests that the Trent deserted the Fleet Mere between 10th and 16th centuries. However Saxton map of 1576 shows Holme in the east of the river and no trace of vestigia l channel. The Fleet appears as a vestigial channel. In 1576-1600 village of Holme has been suggested to have been cut off to form a large island (Large and Petts 1996), and it is likely to have been an island in the early medieval period when it acquired its name.

3.3.4 The Fleet, thought to be a relic t channel of the Trent, seems to have formed a

different channel altogether from the channel flowing along the course of the present Trent (cf Thoroton 1796): the Fleet palaeochannel runs to the west of Langford village north to Collingham and Girton. An intermediate later course seems to have run along the present Slough Dyke, dated by the presence of bog oaks in its gravel fill to as early as the Late Neolithic, to join the present course of the Trent south of Cromwell Lock, with a major water course flowing in the area of the present Trent.

3.4 Map Regression 3.4.1 The earliest large scale depiction of the Site is in the Award map (1773) Fig 3. It

shows the western half of the Site divided into 4 fields. Though the eastern Site does


Page 13

not show any division this is probably the result of the function of the map: as this land was assigned to Tithe Prebend, it was not mapped in detail as the land was not affected by the Award. The lack of field boundaries within this area is probably the result of mapping, and not necessarily the absence of smaller fields within the area.

3.4.2 The 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of 1886 (Fig 5) shows that the Site consists of

small regularly shaped fields defined by straight, laid out in a very regular pattern and bordered by a straight road, certainly planned enclosure.. The fields in the west of the Site are as depicted a century earlier and are consistent in shape and size with those of early enclosures.

3.3.4 Slough Dyke appears as a watercourse from the earliest maps, Saxton and the detailed

Award map of 1773. 3.3.5 The boundary between Holme and North Muskham appears in the Award map of

1773 as a division – not parish boundary. Its shape, a broken line, seems to indicate that it followed a watercourse or some other barrier then in existence. By the time the 1st edition OS large scale map was drafted (1881-1886) the parishes had been separated officially.

4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 4.1 Sources of archaeological information 4.1.1 Information relevant to landscape history and development were consulted. In the

first instance the archaeological grey and published literature resource was used as a starting point for further reading. The Historic Environment Record for Nottinghamshire was consulted, as well as historical maps at the Nottinghamshire Records Office.

4.1.2 The main source of information for the archaeology of the Site of Proposed

Extraction and its surrounds is the Historic Environment Record held by Nottinghamshire County Council. The Trent Valley Palaeochannel database mapped from aerial photographs was also consulted as part of the assessment (Baker 2003). The cropmark maps and the ridge and furrow map were provided by the English Heritage National Mapping Programme.

4.1.3 The Historic Environment Record contains information on the known and reported

archaeology (Appendix 1). The absence of sites from that record does not signify the absence of sites but may indicate the lack of fieldwork or the lack of reporting or post-depositional factors such as alluvium or colluvium.

4.1.4 Aerial photography within the study area has been assessed as part of the National

Mapping Programme (NMP). The NMP is a comprehensive review by specialist investigators of all aerial photographs held by the National Monuments Record. Repeating this work by examining NMR aerial photography collections was not considered to be necessary. Sites identified during the NMP projects were added to the National Monuments Record and are therefore included within the other baseline data searches. Transcriptions of the NMP results were obtained from the National Monuments Record. In addition to the NMP transcriptions, modern aerial imagery


Page 14

has been made available for the study area. The cropmark plots were obtained from both English Heritage and Derbyshire County Council. LiDAR DTM data was obtained from the Environment Agency.

4.1.5 The tentative dating of cropmarks affects the interpretation of the archaeology of the

surrounds of the Site of Proposed Extraction. Many of the identified remains are necessarily of unidentified date, since there is substantial degree of continuity in the morphology of settlements and landscape features between the late Iron Age and the Roman periods.

4.1.6 The cropmarks themselves appear to hug the gravel terraces (Fig 2) and are

essentially absent from areas where fine grained alluvial sediments provide significant cover. This demonstrates the complexity of archaeological visibility with respect to the local geology and the potential for alluvium to seal archaeological deposits and features.

4.1.8 Palaeochannels are also visible on aerial photographs. This section of the Trent valley

underwent an extensive mapping programme under the auspices of the Trent Valley Geoarchaeology Group, which produced a map and database of the palaeochannels as identified by aerial photography (Baker, 2003) showing a complex pattern of palaeochannels and confirming fieldwork evidence for the instability of the Trent.

4.2 Known Archaeology of the Site 4.2.1 Apart from the excavations at the Permitted Langford to the north of the Site, the

main source of information on the archaeology of the area stems from aerial photographs (e.g. Deegan 1999) as the areas has been flown by specialist aerial photographers (St Joseph, Riley, Pickering,). The importance cropmarks of the this area of the Middle Trent were first recognised and published by St Joseph (1966), by the RCHM (1960) and more recently , again by the RCHM (Deegan 1999).

4.2.2 The HER has one entry for the Site referring to the earthwork of the Flood Bank at

Slough Dyke at Langford and Collingham (L3745) map depiction of well L3597 (a mismapped barrow cemetery), while the HER entry L3747 refers to the flood defences of modern date and L3713 to a sluice.

4.2.3 On the edge of the Site at L3598 is an undated earthwork boundary sitting on the edge

of Slough Dyke. Although the HER entry speculates as to a possible medieval date, no evidence is give to support the identification, and the feature remains undated

4.2.4 Within the Site entry HER (L3597) refers to cropmarks of a barrow cemetery in the

north of the Site. This entry is suspected to represent a possible confusion with a cropmark complex of ring ditches (L4351) to the north of the Site, north of Slough Dyke. This area has been quarried and there are no reports of the finding of this cemetery. It is noted that neither cropmark complex is shown in the EH cropmark plot or referred to in the National Mapping Programme (NMP) for Nottinghamshire undertaken on behalf of the then RCHM (Deegan 1999). The area was monitored prior to extraction but no features were found suggesting that the cropmarks were not of archaeological origin.

4.2.5 Given the history of 19th century flooding and depth of the alluvial deposits known to

the north of the Site it is not surprising that the entries in the HER are of post-


Page 15

medieval data and relate to flood control. It would be surprising that cropmarks of a barrow cemetery show up given that to the north of the Site there is alluvial cover. However the Roman camp (L3600) to the south shows up as cropmarks and in LiDAR in spite of being shown in the area of undifferentiated alluvium in the geological map. The camp is mapped in the NMP volume (Deegan 1999).

4.3 Known Archaeology of the Surrounds of the Site (Fig 3) Prehistoric 4.3.2 Large scale archaeological excavation in 2010/2011 in the Permitted Quarry in the

site of the find spot (L8523), c.700m to the north-east of the Site yielded prehistoric material. It revealed the presence of several flint scatters and individual findspots (totalling several thousand flints provisionally dated to the Mesolithic to Bronze Age) extending into the area. Some of this was found in association with Neolithic to Bronze Age pottery. These remains are of national importance.

4.3.3 Within the fill of a palaeochannel, also in the Permitted Langford Quarry, deposits of

human skeletal remains and cut logs of Neolithic date, in addition to significant faunal remains of later prehistoric date (L11252, L11251, L11248, and L5899) were found. These finds were interpreted as a part of the ritual excarnation of human remains placed on the edges of a channel prior to their burial in barrows or their cremation in pits, and the associated deposition of animal bones. The human and animal remains were possibly swept up by a high energy flooding event of the palaeochannel.

4.3.4 In addition, the excavation in the Permitted Quarry in 2010/2011, to the north of

cropmarks L8533 and L3736, revealed a Bronze Age ring ditch and pit confirming the presence of a ritual landscape in this part of the landscape where the ground sits slightly higher and the monumental landscape is set on the higher sitting gravels. These remains are of national importance.

4.3.5 Adjacent to the NW corner of the Site, there is a cropmark complex showing over ten

ring-ditches/ barrows in what seems to be an extensive early Bronze Age cemetery (L4351) – but this apparent cropmark does not seem to relate to buried deposits - see 4.2.4.

Iron Age and Roman 4.3.6 This area of the Trent is notable for the cropmark landscape which is predominantly

but not solely of late Iron Age and Roman date indicating dense activity sited on the elevated gravel terraces >10m OD above the floodplain which predominate on the west of the Trent. The landscape includes trackways and ditched enclosures some of which contain roundhouses. To the west of the Trent the area of slightly higher gravel terraces of North Muskham/ Cromwell became a focus for later settlement – as shown by the overlapping, multi-period enclosures and trackways some of Late Iron Age, some of Roman date, with a high status vial, very near the location of a rare and very high status Iron Age cemetery. Location, one the higher gravels, overlooking the floodplain seems to provide the common denominator.

4.3.7 Following Roman conquest, the pattern of settlement changed in a fundamental

respect with the superimposition of an elaborate network of roads and fortifications aimed primarily at expediting the military conquest of the province, the founding of


Page 16

local centres responsible for implementing policies and the growth of a complex system of closely interlinked small towns, high villa complexes, nucleated agricultural settlements and enclosed farmsteads. Fosse Way, one of the main roads built for the conquest of Britain , runs 3 km to the east of the Site as it heads towards Lincoln.

4.3.8 Though there is a continuation of settlement loci between the Iron Age and the

Roman periods, the settlement hierarchy became more complex following the Roman Conquest, with the introduction of high status rural estates and villas, such as that at Cromwell on the western bank of the Trent, and the appearance of towns such as Crocolana, now a Scheduled Monument, sited on the Fosse Way, c 3km to the SE of the Site. Nucleated settlements, villages such as that at Langford Quarry formed the next tier of settlement in terms of complexity, with farmsteads spread along trackway as the next rank and single farmsteads within an enclosure as the smallest unit

4.3.9 Excavations in the Permitted Quarry c 800 metres to the NE of the Site have revealed

a late prehistoric trackway, enclosures and settlement of Roman date on slightly elevated ground parallel to a river, where the modern landscape is now covered by a blanket of alluvium. Though a few cropmarks corresponding to the buried features were apparent (L8533 and L373), these were only a small portion of the features revealed by the subsoil stripping. This area had been known from findspots an Iron Age gold coin (L7350) was recorded in the same area as an enclosure (L8533) to the west of a trackway of prehistoric date. A small number of pits were found in proximity with the trackway. Nearby extensive remains of a Roman settlement were found which included enclosure ditches, field ditches, pits, curvilinear roundhouse and stack stand gullies as well as various pits, largely of Iron Age date/ Romano-British date. They represent the substantial remains of a nucleated, densely occupied, Romano-British settlement with extensive assemblages of associated artefacts (including pottery L11968). Present amongst the latter site were numerous stone-lined wells, corn-dryers and small inhumation cemeteries. Ongoing excavations have revealed further wells , pits, ditches and field boundaries.

4.3.10 Cropmark ditched enclosures/settlement features and trackways (L10601, L3599) are

visible 200 metres to the south of the Site. They are, a couple of hundred metres west of the Roman camp (L3600) heading north towards the palaeochannel which forms the southern boundary of the Site. They sit on the Holme Pierrepont gravel terrace. The internal detail of the suggested Roman marching camp (L3600) also contains cropmarks /pasture marks, over 800 to the SE of the Site, consistent with an earlier phase of enclosures and could suggest late Iron Age settlement.

4.3.11 The Roman camp at Holme is interpreted on the basis of size and shape as a marching

or campaign camp. Most marching or campaign camps were only temporary overnight bases and few were used for longer periods and therefore would have had only a temporary occupation with very few internal features. The whole point of these structures were that they were highly portable with even the palisade posts carried from camp to camp according to historic accounts. The construction of these camps/forts appears to have been abandoned after the 70s AD as the Roman Province was expanded northwards. The camp/fort is of national importance and it is classified as a Scheduled Monument. A second temporary camp is known to the south, halfway between the Holme camp and Newark (Deegan 1999).

4.3.12 Apart from roads, the Roman Conquest brought with it new military sites. The

Roman marching camp, known just under 100m to the south of the Site, across a palaeochannel which forms the southern boundary of the Site of Proposed Extraction, was first identified from cropmarks by St Joseph in the 1950’s (St Joseph 1961) in


Page 17

spite of a likely alluvial cover. Measuring approximately 410m on its long east-west axis, the enclosure picks out an area of slightly higher (and drier) ground and it appears to be bounded on two sides by a former channel of the Trent. Although the southern limits of the enclosure are unclear, it has been argued on the basis of size and form (playing-card shape) to represent a temporary, Roman marching camp (St Joseph 1961, Welfare and Swan 1995), and is probably of Conquest date. The camp is bounded by a single earthen rampart and outer ditch with straight-sides and rounded corners. Normally they have between one and four entrances, although they can have more entrances. They were normally delineated by a wooden palisade. The Holme Roman camp is sited c 2.5 km to the west of the Fosse Way and is separated by a similar distance from the current course of the Trent and may relate to a crossing point close to Holme (Welfare and Swan 1995). It stands within a bend of the southern tributary of Slough Dyke on a palaeochannel, which delimits it along the north and east. The slightly odd angle of the eastern boundary of the fort is suggested to have been the result of wet ground to the east, where the ground drops slightly towards the palaeochannel (Welfare and Swan 1995). Cropmark features are apparent within the eastern part of the fort, and these may be earlier features or could represent internal features of the camp, suggesting that it was in use for sometime, and was not just a marching camp. The area was subject to LiDAR FP DSM , FP intensity and Earth Resistance (Challis et al 2008). Both the FP and LP intensity images defined a pasture mark as a lighter band curving through the survey grid but no other features were apparent. The LiDAR data sets did not display a visual correlation to the soil organic and soil moisture surfaces. These results suggest that topographic variation may be a more robust predictive indicator of organic preservation and waterlogged deposits than LiDAR intensity data.

4.3.13 To the south-east of the study area an extensive and multi-phase cropmark complex

has also been recorded on the western edge of the Terrace edge, 900 metres to the SW of the Site(L 8473-4,8475) with similar detached examples further to the south (L 3603, 3604, 3605).

Saxon and Medieval 4.2.23 The landscape described in Domesday is of a mixture of arable but extensive

meadows, a large number of mills and some woodland (52 acres). Though there is some arable much of the area seems to have been meadows: Domesday records 106 acres of meadows, six mills and a fishery, suggesting a waterside location for much of the parish.

4.2.24 An Anglo-Saxon loomweight is recorded on the Nottinghamshire HER as a findspot

in the Permitted Langford Quarry. Archaeological excavation in 2010/2011 on the field containing the loomweight findspots (L 3706) revealed extensive remains of Anglo-Saxon settlement (6th to 7th century AD in date). This included several sunken floored buildings, pits and postholes. A wide range of artefacts was also recovered including pottery, metalwork (e.g. brooches), glass beads, animal bone, slag etc. Ongoing excavations have revealed a further dozen grubbenhause to the south.

4.2.25 Purported handmade Anglo-Saxon vessel found on the south edge of Langford village

(HER 3707) may be suggestive of a dispersed pattern of early Anglo-Saxon settlement along the terrace edge, as demonstrated in excavations at nearby Brough (Jones 2002).

4.2.26 An Anglo-Saxon loomweight was recorded on the Nottinghamshire HER (L 3706) as

a findspot to the north of the Site in the Permitted Quarry (HER 3706). Archaeological excavation in 2010/2011 in that field revealed extensive remains of Anglo-Saxon settlement (c.6th to 7th century AD in date). The remains included


Page 18

several sunken floored buildings, pits and postholes. A wide range of artefacts was also recovered including pottery, metalwork (e.g. brooches), glass beads, animal bone, slag etc. Ongoing excavations have revealed a further four grubbenhause to the south.

4.2.27 The excavations to the east at Langford Quarry show there is a degree of continuity

between the Roman and the Early Anglo Saxon settlement, even if there is a slight settlement shift. Fosseway continued to be relevant as shown by location of Saxon cemeteries. By later Saxon period the importance of Roman and river transport is indicated by Domesday. In the 8th century a (Saxon) bridge was constructed at Cromwell Lock (L 4286) across the northern edge of the Site. Bridges at key river crossings of the Trent were significant allowing for trade as well as fords and ferries. Place name evidence indicates (6581) the presence of fords such as at Langford.

4.2.28 The HER lists an undated earthwork to the south of the Site (L3598). Although the

HER entry speculates as to a possible medieval date, no evidence is give to support the identification, and the feature remains undated.

4.2.29 The excavations to the east at Langford Quarry show there is a degree of continuity

between the Roman and the Early Anglo Saxon settlement, even if there is a slight settlement shit. The continued relevance of Fosseway is shown by location of Saxon cemeteries, sited along its margins.

4.2.30 Purported handmade Anglo-Saxon vessel found on the south edge of Langford village

(HER 3707) may be suggestive of a dispersed pattern of early Anglo-Saxon settlement along the terrace edge, as demonstrated in excavations at nearby Brough (Jones 2002).

4.2.31 By later Saxon period the importance of Roman and river transport is indicated by

Domesday. Construction of an 8th century (Saxon) bridge at Cromwell Lock, across the northern edge of the Site. Bridges at key river crossings of the Trent were significant allowing for trade as well as fords and ferries. Place name evidence indicates (6581) the presence of fords such as at Langford.

4.2.32 The later medieval landscape consisted of nucleated settlements, villages such as Holme to the west of the Site. Medieval villages were organised agricultural communities sited at the centre of a parish or township, that shared resources such as arable land, meadow and woodland. Within the parish of the Site the main settlements was at North Muskham, with two townships Holme, to the west of the Sit and Batheley to the west of the Trent. Holme church was first built in the mid 12th century and enlarged in the late 15th century by John Barton, of Holme, by Newark, merchant of the staple of Calais, in whose will he directs his body to be buried "in my new tomb in the chapel newly constructed by me in Holme.

Post- medieval 4.2.33 No archaeological sites for this period are recorded on the Nottinghamshire HER

within the study area. The entries for this period consist largely of earthworks to the north and northwest of the area situated along Slough Dyke. Both comprise flood embankments (HER6527/3742) indicative of the recorded major incursions of the post-medieval period (Smith 1912). The undated earthwork listed in the HER as 3598 toward the south-west of area A is of unknown date.


Page 19

4.4 Designated Heritage Assets Adjacent to the Site (Fig 4)

4.4.1 There are no Designated Heritage Assets in the Site. There are two Heritage assets of the highest significance in the surrounds of the Site. The marching camp to the south of the Site (L3600) is also Scheduled Ancient Monument (1018123 ). Its cultural value is likely to be enhanced given the potential for the preservation of organic materials in the adjacent palaeochannel. As a temporary, campaign camp it is likely to have few internal features though the external ditch and it is not certain that the palisade would have remained in place. However the site is only known on the basis of an incomplete circuit visible as cropmarks and is not understood.

4.4.2 The Scheduling data states that: “The monument includes the below ground remains

of a large part of Holme Roman camp. The site is situated on level ground between two tributaries of Slough Dyke, a minor arm of the River Trent. The location affords commanding views of the surrounding landscape. No upstanding remains survive but the buried remains of the monument show clearly as crop marks on aerial photographs. The camp, which is sub- rectangular in shape, is defined by a ditch which encloses an area of at least 9.3ha. The north, east and west sides of the camp are visible but no entrances can be identified with certainty. The southern ditch has been obscured by the relative ly modern road from Holme to Langford and by medieval ridge and furrow which is evident in fields to the south of the road. Only that section of the camp to the north of this road is included in the scheduling although this does represent the majority of the monument. The north and west sides of the Camp lie at right angles to each other but the north east angle is slightly acute with the eastern ditch having been deflected slightly westwards. This may have been necessary to avoid wetter ground to the east. The corners of the camp are characteristically rounded and a number of crop mark features are evident in the interior, particularly in the eastern half.” The monument has the potential to enhance our understanding of the Roman occupation of the area and the impact it had on the wider landscape

4.4.3 To the SE of the Site sits another Scheduled Monument (1017739). The monument

includes the buried and earthwork remains of the abandoned areas of Langford medieval village, a moat and a sample of the associated open field system. It is too far from the Site to be affected by extraction either directly or indirectly.

4.4.4 Other items in the National List consist of Listed Buildings and are concentrated

essentially but not solely in the villages. There are no listed buildings in the Site. The nearest Listed Buildings are Holme, to the South of the Site where with the exception of the church they are Grade II listed. There are also largely Grade II listed buildings in North Muskham on the western bank of the Trent and Langford to the east, on Fosse Way.

4.5 Archaeological potential

4.5.1 The superficial geology of the Site consists of alluvium of Flandrian date overlying

sand and gravel, in contrast with the areas west of the river Trent where the gravel is near the surface. Though thick blankets of alluvium mask underlying features from showing as cropmarks, areas of alluvium do reveal archaeology, as was the case with the western part of the Permitted Langford Quarry. The cropmarks showing on alluviun are generally close to the area of exposed gravel islands or where the alluvium contains re-worked gravel, as is the case of many of the palaeochannels


Page 20

identified by Baker (2003). The latter may be the case with the Roman camp to the south of the Site. No cropmarks are known from the Site and this may be the results of a combination of thicker alluvium associated with a lower topographic setting.

4.5.2. No archaeological remains other than post-medieval water management features are

known, as the mapped barrow cemetery within the Site is thought to be mis-mapped. 4.5.3 In their conclusions of the analysis of new remote sensing techniques including the

area south of the Site, Challis et al (2008) concluded that aerial photography was the best technique to identify buried archaeological features, and secondly topography was the best predictor of archaeological potential.

4.5.4 There is no available evidence on the buried gravel topography of the Site, but if the

topography is low, as it is likely to be, the archaeological potential will be lower. Where there are islands, areas of raised gravel, the archaeological potential is higher, as seems to be the case with the Roman Camp to the south, where its eastern boundary is suggested to have been hemmed in by the lower wet ground to the east (Welfare and Swan 1995). Once the geo-technical data becomes available a more precise assessment of the archaeological potential of the Site can be drawn. The extensive cropmarks of pot alignments and later Iron Age settlement, trackways and associated enclosures in the North and South Muskham area are set on the elevated gravel terrace at >10m OD with just 0.4m of topsoil over the gravel. Even in the lower area, as is the case with the Permitted Quarry, the Late Iron Age-Saxon settlements tend to be in the same areas, and on slightly raised areas near watercourses. Their topographic and geological setting is different from that of the Site which seems to be on the floodplain at a lower height. There is no geotechnical data so it is not known whether there are areas of raised ground within the Site.

4.5.5 The wetland environment of the valley floor provided a rich resource for the

Neolithic communities permitting exploitation of a wide range of subsistence sources as well as fish and wildfowl. It also provided convenient route of communication facilitating trace exchange. The river also developed as focus for a ceremonial landscape, especially at the confluences but there is no evidence of such cemeteries in the Site.

4.5.6 The north-western part of the Site is located adjacent to Slough Dyke, in the

floodplain. Due to its presence within the floodplain archaeological remains within the Site are thought to be limited and confined to what may be present within the palaeochannel along the line of Slough Dyke (e.g. cultural finds, faunal remains, riverine structures and palaeoenvironmental evidence). There is limited potential for peripheral features sometimes found in low-lying areas to be present e.g. Prehistoric/Romano-British field/boundary ditches, burnt mounds or buried land surfaces masked below the alluvium (their presence depends on the date of the alluvial deposition).

4.5.7 Within the Trent Valley, palaeochannels have a demonstrated potential to preserve

organic and faunal remains, and riverine structures (e.g. fish weirs, staging, bank supports etc). They also provide a valuable source of palaeoenvironmental data (pollen, plant and beetle remains) for past land-use (Knight and Howard 2004). The greater depths of alluvial infill on their margins can also provide circumstances for the enhanced preservation of archaeological remains, including palaeosols, preserving them from truncation by modern ploughing. Within previous phases of Langford Quarry this has also included Neolithic human remains and Bronze Age metalwork.


Page 21

4.5.8 The present area of the quarry has yielded bog oaks within the re-worked gravels of the palaeochannel in the area of the old Slough Dyke palaeochannel. Similar bog oak finds are likely within the floodplain deposits in the NW of the Site, in the area adjacent to Slough Dyke.

4.5.9 Potential Archaeological remains can be summarised as:

• Palaeochannel of possible prehistoric to medieval date (potentially containing cultural finds, faunal remains, riverine structures and palaeoenvironmental evidence)

• Prehistoric Bog Oaks with possible cuts ends? • Earlier land surfaces (with palaeosols) buried under alluvium. • Peripheral prehistoric features e.g. boundary ditches, burnt mound. • Post-Medieval field ditches Less probably but depending on the topography – settlement of late Iron Age/Roman date.

5.0 IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND MITIGATION 5.1 Impact of the Development on the Buried Archaeology 5.1.1 Any activities involving topsoil stripping, whether for soil storage or directly for

extraction will negatively impact buried archaeological deposits and upstanding historical landscape.

5.1.2 Where no topsoil is removed physical preservation ensues. Where significant

waterlogged deposits are present these may be affected by desiccation. It is likely given its flood plain setting that organic deposits are well preserved, especially in deep cut features, as has been shown for example in the materials within the soft and gravel fills of palaeochannels in the present quarry.

5.2 Impact on the Designated Assets 5.2.1 The Scheduled Monuments are shown in Fig 4 outlined in orange. There are no

Scheduled Monuments in the Site. The northernmost cropmarks of the Roman marching camp (L3600) sit 70 metres to the south of the Site are of national importance and have been designated a Scheduled Monument (1018123). The cropmarks for the Roman remains overly an earlier phase of enclosures which seems to represent earlier settlement. Marching camps were temporary structures designed to be highly portable (even palisade post were supposed to be carried after the camp was dismantled) so few cut features are likely to be present internally. The features that could be present are likely to have been well preserved and organic materials within its fill are likely to be well preserved because of the subsequent alluvial cover. Extraction could lead to the desiccation of the features relating to the marching camp, principally the fill of the card shaped ditch and the relatively small number of internal cut features. In the case where the palisade posts were not removed, as was the rule, these would also be likely to be well preserved.


Page 22

5.2.4 The Roman marching or campaign camp to the south of the Site is also a Scheduled Ancient Monument. It is known from cropmarks. Some internal cropmarks are known in the eastern part of the camp. They may represent earlier phase of enclosures or internal features. Leslie (1995) suggested that one factor that separated temporary camps from permanent camps is the presence of gates (as well as barracks, granaries and other permanent structures). There is no information available on the presence/absence of gates in the Holme Camp. Marching or campaign camps were temporary, structures designed to be highly portable (even palisade post were supposed to be carried away after the camp was dismantled) with tented accommodation so few cut features would be likely to be present internally. The few cut features of this period that could be present are likely to have been well preserved and organic materials within its fill are likely to be well preserved because of the subsequent alluvial cover. More permanent camps would have barracks, granaries etc. There are no indications on the available evidence of these standardised internal structures. If the camp was a campaign camp, with tented accommodation and few permanent internal features, the information that would be available to excavate in the future would be limited to few cut features (e.g latrine pits) and the palaeoenvironmental data in the ditch, which is likely to be similar to that of the nearby Slough Dyke , which is in the course of being investigated as part of the Permitted Southern Extension of Langford Quarry. Contemporary written accounts suggest the posts of the palisade were moved from campaign camp to camp by the soldiers. If the palisade wood was not removed, it would have the potential to provide data on wood working and species and dating of the wood. If the camp was a campaign camp and used only temporary, few archaeological features may survive and thus the information that can be drawn would be relatively limited. It has been suggested that one of the factors determining whether a camp was used temporarily or more permanently is the presence of gates as well as internal features. There is no evidence for either type of features showing as cropmarks, but not whole of the Site is visible and the Site is under alluvium which may mask features slighter than the large involving fort ditch.

5.2.5 The recent excavations in the Permitted Quarry have shown good preservation of

organic materials within deep cut features, including wood in wells, with palaeochannels also showing good preservation of organics, macro as well as pollen. Even if the internal features were of an earlier phase, and there may be a ring –ditch among them, they would form part of the history of the Site and would be well preserved in terms of structure and organic preservation.

5.2.6 The cropmarks in the area of the Roman Camp (L3600) indicate an earlier phase of

enclosures and a ring ditch which may represent late Iron Age settlement. These features are likely to exhibit a good degree of preservation given they are buried under a blanket of alluvium which elsewhere in the area has been shown to have enhanced the preservation of organics There could also be a negative impact on the desiccation of palaeochannel with which it was associated but this site is too far to be affected by possible desiccation resulting from mineral extraction in the Site

5.2.7 As the Scheduling data makes clear the significance of the remains of the Roman

Camp at Holme lies primarily in the information contained in the buried features and the relation of the camp to the landscape –set on a slight rise in the ground in the bend of a palaeochannel controlling access to this watercourse and access to water courses to the west. Its significance lies in its buried features. Extraction could have an indirect impact on these buried features through desiccation and it could lead to the loss of palaeoenvironmental and organic (e.g wood) information. So while the impact of the proposed extraction on the buried archaeological remains in the area of the marching camp (L3600) could be adverse, not directly (ie not through the removal of


Page 23

the buried features) but indirectly, as desiccation is likely to lead to the loss of palaeo-environmental information within those, probably waterlogged, deposits.

5.2.8 Langford medieval village is another Scheduled Monument in the surrounds of the

Site (1017739). This Designated Asset is located 700 metres to the SE of the Site of Proposed Extraction. The monument includes the buried and earthwork remains of the abandoned areas of Langford medieval village, a moat and a sample of the associated open field system many of which survive as earthworks. The significance of the Site consists mainly of the information provided by the largely buried remains as well as the surviving earthworks. The proposed extraction would have no adverse impact, direct or indirect, on this Designated Asset. There is no intervisibility between the two areas either.

5.2.9 Over 1 km to the west of the Site lies the Scheduled Monument 1003492 Rectangular barrows at North Muskham Newark and Sherwood, Nottinghamshire. The buried features relate to Iron Age barrows and the Roman villa which overlies the earlier late Iron Age nucleated settlement. The significance of these heritage assets lies in the information that would be provided by the buried features. The significance of these heritage assets lies in the information that the buried features contain. Development proposals in the Site would have no impact on the significance of that Scheduled Monument directly or indirectly.

5.2.10 Other items in the National Listing consist of Listed Buildings are concentrated

essentially but not solely in the villages. There are no listed buildings in the Site. The nearest Listed Buildings are Holme, to the South of the Site where with the exception of the church they are Grade II listed. There are also largely Grade II listed buildings in North Muskham on the western bank of the Trent and Langford to the east, on Fosse Way.

5.3 Mitigation 5.3.1 The direct impact of Area A on any palaeochannel deposits surviving along the line

of Slough Dyke will potentially be partly mitigated by extraction being offset c.10m from the Dyke. As a result significant deposits may remain unexposed under and to the north of Slough Dyke.

5.3.2 In the absence of data on the depth of alluvium it is not clear whether conventional

evaluation techniques such as geophysics and trenching would work on some or the whole of the Site. Where the alluvium blankets is in the order of 1 metre or greater conventional techniques are not practical. If the top of the gravel is low lying it is probable that the area would have sat in the floodplain and would been too wet for settlement.

Bibliography Baker, S. 2003 The Trent Valley: Palaeochannel Mapping from Aerial Photographs, Trent


Page 24

Valley 2002: Advancing the Agenda in Archaeology and Alluvium (Component 2a) , Brown A , Carey C , Challis C,. Howard A Kincey M., Tetlow E. &. Cooper L 2007 Predictive Modelling Of Multi-Period Geoarchaeological Resources At A River Confluence Phase II Report (PNUM 3357) Challis K CareyC KinceyM , Howard A, 2008 Analysis of the Effectiveness of Airborne Lidar Intensity for Predicting Organic Preservation Potential of Waterlogged Deposits Deegan A 1999 The Nottinghamshire Mapping Project A report for the National Mapping Programme Ekwall E 1960 The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names Elliott, L. & Webb, P. 2011. Langford, South Lowfields. Trans. Thoroton Soc. Nottinghamshire 115, 24-27 Gower J , Mawer A and Stenton F 1940 The place names of Nottinghamshire Hemingway G 1973 The History Of North Muskham With Bathley And Holme

.Howard, A.J., Smith, D.N., Garton, D., Hillam, J. and Pearce, M. 1999 'Middle to Late Holocene environments in the Middle to Lower Trent Valley' in A.G. Brown and T.A. Quine (eds) Fluvial Process and Environmental Change (Wiley), 165-78.

Jones, H. 2002 ‘Brough, Glebe Farm’, Trans. Thoroton Soc. Nottinghamshire 106, 147-8 Knight D and Howard A 2004 Trent Valley Landscapes: the archaeology of 500,000 years of change Morris, J 1975 Nottingham Domesday Book: Nottinghamshire Large A Petts G 1996 Historical channel-floodplain dynamics along the River Trent Implications for river rehabilitation Applied Geography, Vol. 16, No. 3, Landscape and Reclamation Team Communities Department, Nottinghamshire County Council nd Nottinghamshire County Landscape Character Assessment The Trent Washlands Chapter Leslie Alan 1995 Roman Temporary Camps In Britain. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/789/1/1995lesliephd.pdf RCHM 1960 A matter of time: an archaeological survey of the river gravels of England Salisbury, C, 1995, An 8th-century Mercian bridge over the Trent at Cromwell, Nottinghamshire, England. Antiquity, 69, 1015–1018 Salisbury, C R (1992) ‘The archaeological evidence for palaeochannels in the Trent valley’, in Needham, S and Macklin, M G (eds) Alluvial Archaeology in Britain, 155-168 Smith, B. 1912 ‘The Ancient and Modern Trent’ in Guilford, E.L. ed. Memorials of Old Nottinghamshire, 88-105 (London). Smith, D Howard, A 2003 Identifying changing fluvial conditions in low gradient alluvial archaeological landscapes: can Coleoptera provide insights into changing discharge rates and floodplain evolution? Journal of Archaeological Science, vol 31, 109-120., St Joseph, K 1966. ‘Air reconnaissance: recent results 6’. Antiquity 40, 58-59 Thoroton R 1796 The History of Nottinghamshire: Volume 3, Watts, V., Insley, J. and Gelling, M. 2004 The Cambridge Dictionary of English Place- Names


Page 25

Whimster, R. 1989 The Emerging Past, Air Photography and the Buried Landscape, Maps consulted 1735 A map of the Lordship of North Muskham surveyed for the Rt. Honourable Thomas Lord Fauconberg, Viscount Henknowle and Baron of Yarum by William Jones. 1735. (Nottinghamshire Archives: NM 1 R) 1773 North Muskham, Holme and Bathley Enclosure Award and Plan (Nottinghamshire Archives: EA 68/4) 1774 Chapman’s Map of Nottinghamshire, reprinted 2003 for Nottinghamshire County Council 1782 Plan of the River Trent from Gainsborough to Cavendish Bridge from A survey taken in August and September 1782 by William Jessop, Engineer (Nottinghamshire Archives: XW 2 L) n.d. (Late 18th/Early 19th C?) Plan of Langford parish (Nottinghamshire Archives: LF 1 R) 1835 George Sanderson’s Map of the Country Twenty Miles Round Mansfield, 1846 Langford Tithe Award and Plan (Nottinghamshire Archives: AT 78/1a) 1892 Plans of property at Newark, North Muskham, Cromwell and Holme belonging to the Duke of Newcastle (Nottinghamshire Archives: NE 6 R) 1913 The Cromwell, Holme and North Muskham Estates … outlying and detached portions of the Nottinghamshire Estates of His Grace the Duke of Newcastle (Nottinghamshire Archives: DD E 24/1) 1884 Ordnance Survey, 1: 10,560 Nottinghamshire Sheet SK30 NE 1900 Ordnance Survey, 1: 10,560 Nottinghamshire Sheet SK30 NE 1921 Ordnance Survey, 1: 10,560 Nottinghamshire Sheet SK30 NE 1955 Ordnance Survey, 1: 10,000 SK85NW 1955 Ordnance Survey, 1: 10,000 SK86SW 1964 Ordnance Survey, 1: 10,000 SK86SW

FIGURES

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

DESIGNATED ASSETS IN THE SURROUNDS OF THE SITE

Name: Rectangular barrows at North Muskham Newark and Sherwood, Nottinghamshire

List entry Number: 1003492

UID: NT 167

National Grid Reference: SK 80426 60672

Name: Roman camp 750m east of Church Cottages Holme Newark and Sherwood Nottinghamshire


UID: 29929

Reasons for Designation

Roman camps are rectangular or sub-rectangular enclosures which were constructed and used by Roman soldiers either when out on campaign or as practice camps; most campaign camps were only temporary overnight bases and few were used for longer periods. They were bounded by a single earthen rampart and outer ditch and in plan are always straight-sided with rounded corners. Normally they have between one and four entrances, although as many as eleven have been recorded. Such entrances were usually centrally placed in the sides of the camp and were often protected by additional defensive outworks. Roman camps are found throughout much of England, although most known examples lie in the midlands and north. Around 140 examples have been identified and, as one of the various types of defensive enclosure built by the Roman Army, particularly in hostile upland and frontier areas, they provide an important insight into Roman military strategy and organisation. All well-preserved examples are identified as being of national importance. Despite the lack of upstanding earthworks Holme Roman camp remains clearly identifiable in aerial photographs. The monument will cons iderably enhance our understanding of the Roman occupation of the area and the impact it had on the wider landscape.

Details

The monument includes the below ground remains of a large part of Holme Roman camp. The site is situated on level ground between two tributaries of Slough Dyke, a minor arm of the River Trent. The location affords commanding views of the surrounding landscape. No upstanding remains survive but the buried remains of the monument show clearly as crop marks on aerial photographs. The camp, which is sub- rectangular in shape, is defined by a ditch which encloses an area of at least 9.3ha. The north, east and west sides of the camp are visible but no entrances can be identified with certainty. The southern ditch has been obscured by the relatively modern road from Holme to Langford and by medieval ridge and furrow which is evident in fields to the south of the road. Only that section of the camp to the north of this road is included in the scheduling although this does represent the majority of the monument. The north and west sides lie at right angles to each other but the north east angle is slightly acute with the eastern ditch having been deflected slightly westwards. This may

have been necessary to avoid wetter ground to the east. The corners of the camp are characteristically rounded and a number of crop mark features are evident in the interior, particularly in the eastern half. All modern fences are excluded from the scheduling, although the ground beneath is included. Selected Sources

Sources

Welfare, H, Swan, V, Roman Camps in England: The Field Evidence, (1995), 148-149

National Grid Reference: SK8106659152

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Langford medieval village, including moat and open field system, 450m north west of Elmtree Farm, Holme and Langford ,Newark and Sherwood, Nottinghamshire


UID: 29910

Reasons for Designation

Medieval rural settlements in England were marked by great regional diversity in form, size and type, and the protection of their archaeological remains needs to take these differences into account. To do this, England has been divided into three broad Provinces on the basis of each area's distinctive mixture of nucleated and dispersed settlements. These can be further divided into sub-Provinces and local regions, possessing characteristics which have gradually evolved during the last 1500 years or more. This monument lies in the Trent sub-Province of the Central Province, where the broad Trent valley swings in a great arc across midland England. Underlain by heavy clays, it is given variety by superficial glacial and alluvial deposits. Although treated as a single sub-Province, it has many subtle variations. Generally, it is characterised by a great number of villages and hamlets which cluster thickly along scarp-foot and scarp-tail zones, locations suitable for exploiting the contrasting terrains. Throughout the sub-Province there are very low and extremely low densitie s of dispersed farmsteads, some of which are ancient, but most of which are 18th-century and later movement of farms out of earlier villages. Medieval villages were organised agricultural communities sited at the centre of a parish or township, that shared resources such as arable land, meadow and woodland. Village plans varied enormously, but when they survive as earthworks their most distinguishing features include roads and minor tracks, platforms on which stood houses and other buildings such as barns, enclosed crofts and small enclosed paddocks. They frequently included the parish church within their boundaries, and as part of the manorial system most villages included one or more manorial centres which may also survive as visible remains as well as below ground deposits. In the central province of England, villages were the most distinctive aspect of medieval life, and their archaeological remains are one of the most important sources of understanding about rural life in the five or more centruies following the Norman Conquest. Medieval villages were supported by a communal system of agriculture based on large, unenclosed open arable fields. These large fields were subdivided into strips (known as lands) which were allocated to individual tenants. The cultivation of these strips with heavy ploughs pulled by oxen-teams produced long, wide ridges, and the resultant ridge and furrow where it

survives is the most obvious physical indication of the open field system. Individual strips or lands were laid out in groups known as furlongs defined by terminal headlands at the plough turning points and lateral grass balks. Furlongs were in turn grouped into large open fields. Well preserved ridge and furrow, especially in its original context adjacent to village earthworks, is both an important source of information about medieval agrarian life and a distinctive contribution to the character of the historic landscape. It is usually now covered by the hedges or walls of subsequent field enclosure. Moated sites consist of wide ditches, often or seasonally water filled, partly or completely enclosing one or more islands of dry ground on which stood domestic or religious buildings. In some cases the platforms were used for horticulture or as safe areas for the management of wildfowl. The majority of moated sites served as prestigious aristocratic and seigneurial residences with the provision of a moat intended as a status symbol rather than a practical military defence. Moated sites were built throughout the medieval period, are widely scattered throughout England and exhibit a high level of diversity in their forms and sizes. They form a significant class of medieval monument and are important for the understanding of the distribution of wealth and status in the countryside. The earthwork remains of the abandoned areas of Langford medieval settlement are particularly well preserved and retain significant archaeological deposits. The earthworks provide a clear picture of the village layout and how it fitted within the wider agricultural landscape. The historical documentation provides evidence of the status of the settlement and clues to its abandonment. Taken as a whole Langford medieval settlement will add greatly to our knowledge and understanding of the development of medieval settlement in the area.

Details

The monument includes the buried and earthwork remains of the abandoned areas of Langford medieval village, a moat and a sample of the associated open field system. The site is situated approximately 450m north west of Elmtree Farm on a low, flat terrace to the east of The Fleet (an old course of the River Trent) which runs along the length of the monument on the western side. Langford is first documented in the Domesday Book of 1086 where it is recorded that the village, at that time called Landeforde, was owned by Geoffrey de Wirce. It is documented that the village had a church, resident priest, two mills, a fishery and 100 acres of meadow in total valued at four pounds. The population was in the region of 150 people. Early in the 12th century Henry I granted the land to Nigel de Albany, an ancestor of the Mowbrays and from him the Langford estate passed to the influential family of D'Auville. In the mid- 13th century Richard de Grey took possession of most of the village and this part remained within the same family until the 15th century. Since 1316 another part of the village had been in the possession of the Pierpoint family but in 1550 was purchased by Sir Francis Leek. Not long after this the whole of the lordship was bought by the Earl of Shrewsbury. A statement of church property dated to 1593 records that a Mr Philpott, the munificent alderman of Newark, once held the parsonage of Langford but the lord of the manor Sir Francis Leek quarrelled with him about tithes. The result was that Leek made the property of so little value by `dispeopling the town' that Philpott was glad to give in to his opponent. This event may account for the small number of houses in the village today and the large abandoned area between the church and the surviving village. The monument survives as a series of earthworks and buried remains. The layout of the village is based on at least four sunken trackways running east to west, three of which terminate at The Fleet. The fourth trackway forms the northern boundary of the monument and crosses the river to the west of the church. This road, now called Holme Lane, is still in use and separates the church from the main village earthworks. The other three trackways survive as gullies between 3m and 5m wide and up to 2m deep. The name of the village suggests that one or more of these sunken tracks would have led to a ford across The Fleet. The southernmost trackway, located to the west of Fleet Cottage, turns south at its eastern end but cannot be traced beyond the southern boundary of Eliza Cottage and the northern boundary of the adjacent property. The second

trackway to the north west of Little Farm Cottage leads to an enclosure at its eastern end. The enclosure measures approximately 35m square and is defined by low banks. A low bank runs from the north east corner of the enclosure in a northerly direction, parallel to the existing road, for approximately 175m. The north west corner of the enclosure marks the beginning of a shallow gully which runs in a westerly direction for approximately 175m until it meets with The Fleet. This gulley forms the southern arm of a moat which surrounds a roughly square platform. The moat is not a discreet monument; it is fed and drained by a network of gulleys which run from each of the four corners in different directions, linking the moat to various other archaeologically important earthwork features. The platform itself is approximately 28m square with a narrow lip extending from the north west corner. The enclosing ditches are of varying widths. The north and west arms of the moat are wide and survive to a depth of approximately 1m. The northern arm narrows towards the eastern end before linking to the eastern arm of the moat. The northern arm continues west for approximately 25m beyond the western arm of the moat before turning south for a short distance and narrowing in width. Here it is linked to a narrow gulley which runs to the west until it meets with The Fleet. The eastern arm of the moat continues north for approximately 65m beyond the platform, leading to more village earthwork features. Another narrow gully meets this approximately 25m north of the moat and runs west again until it meets with The Fleet. It is possible the moat relates to the fishery documented in the Domesday Book; the varying widths of the ditch would have created ponds in which fish could be managed. Although dry it is evident from the vegetation in the bottom of the ditches that there is some sub surface waterlogging. This will have facilitated the preservation of important environmental evidence. The central platform may have been the site of a homestead. No remains are visible on the surface but evidence will survive beneath the surface. The enclosures created by the various gullies running off to the north, east and west are quite regular in size and form. Most are roughly square, measuring between 28m and 35m with flat central platforms. These are possibly the sites of other medieval homesteads. The third sunken trackway, again running east to west, terminates at The Fleet approximately 115m south of The Old Hall (Manor House on the Ordnance Survey 1:10000 map). At the east end, the northern bank of the trackway terminates leaving a wide, open area. A gulley runs north from the north east corner of this opening. The southern bank of the track turns south linking to the low bank which runs parallel to the existing road. Earthworks along the road side have been degraded by later quarrying but a rectangular platform is evident in the north east corner of this field, south of the cattle grid. Various other important archaeological features are visible between the sunken trackway and the existing driveway leading to The Old Hall. Approximately 125m north east of The Old Hall is a short stretch of a sunken track running north west to south east. The northern end of the trackway is truncated by Holme Lane but the line of the track continues north of Holme Lane and provides access to the church. The southern end of the track widens out into an open flat area bounded on the east by a large pond. East of the pond and south of the open area are the well preserved remains of the open field system of agriculture associated with the medieval village. The remains of the open field system cover most of the area between the driveway to The Old Hall and Holme Lane. The surviving remains are visible as parts of six medieval furlongs (groups of lands) marked by headlands. The cultivation strips form ridge and furrow. The ridge and furrow is curved in the shape of an elongated reverse `S'. The remains survive to a height of approximately 0.5m. All modern fences, gates, metalled surfaces, telegraph poles and drains are excluded from the scheduling, although the ground beneath these features are included.

Sources

The Victoria History of the County of Nottinghamshire: Volume I, (1906), 282 Leake, E G, History of Collingham, (1867), 82-96 Page, W (ed), The Victoria History of the County of Nottinghamshire, (1906), 282

Name: Rectangular barrows at North Muskham Newark and Sherwood, Nottinghamshire


UID: NT 167

National Grid Reference: SK 80426 60672

langford south 2

Documents