|
© BARG
| |
Peasemore Landscape
Archaeology Project
The Peasemore Enclosure
The following short paper by Dr Steve Clark presents a summary to date of the results of
BARG field investigations into the Peasemore enclosure, and some initial thoughts on its
function and date. The two main theories considered are the idea that the enclosure is a
prehistoric feature and the alternative theory that the enclosure is a late Anglo-Saxon
‘arable oval’. For a full copy of the paper send an email to mail@barg-online.org
Background: An ‘Iron Age enclosure’?
The Peasemore ‘enclosure’ referred to in this paper is an irregular circular
area of approximately 28 hectares (70 acres) defined by three lanes – Princes Lane to
the west, Mud Lane (formerly Males Lane) to the south and to the east a lane that leads
from the centre of Peasemore village to a junction with Mud Lane and the road formerly
known as the ‘Wildway’ which leads towards Chieveley (see fig 1). The area of land within the enclosure
slopes from higher ground in the north and west to lower ground in the south east, where
the enclosure takes in part of the western side of a dry valley.
Fig. 1 The Peasemore enclosure from the 1st edn 6 inch OS
map
Image produced from the www.old-maps.co.uk service with permission of Landmark Information Group Ltd. and Ordnance Survey
The feature is recorded on the West Berkshire Site and Monuments Record (SMR) as a
possible enclosure. The SMR notes that the site has been suggested as a possible Iron Age
enclosure by various antiquarians and modern investigators including Don Lindsay, a BARG
member and historian of the parish of Peasemore. Don has suggested the site may have
been a cattle enclosure. The ‘Iron Age enclosure’ interpretation by antiquarians
was based on comparisons with the Iron Age earthworks around Silchester and a site at Lambourn
Place.
The author is also aware that comparison has been made, based on the ‘polygonal’
shape of the enclosure, with Segsbury Camp hillfort.
Prehistoric Comparisons and the Earthwork survey at Peasemore
However these comparisons with other Iron Age sites have their problems, in that the
Peasemore enclosure does not directly resemble any of them. Most Iron Age enclosures
associated with settlements are very much smaller than the Peasemore enclosure. Similarly,
Iron Age hillforts in Berkshire are generally significantly smaller than the Peasemore
enclosure,
which in any case does not occupy an obviously defensive position. Moreover, the
earthworks surrounding the Peasemore enclosure are less substantial than those typically
surrounding hillforts or the oppidum at
Silchester. BARG has conducted a rudimentary survey of the earthworks at Peasemore via
visual inspection from the surrounding lanes (see fig.
2).
Fig. 2 BARG Earthwork survey of the Peasemore Enclosure
The surrounding bank on the western and most of the southern sides does not exceed 4 feet
(1.2m) and is less than 2 feet (0.6m) for much of these lengths – these earthworks
may simply be normal roadside ‘hedgebanks’. On the eastern side and the south
eastern corner the banks are more impressive, reaching a maximum height of 9 feet (2.75m)
and rarely dipping below 5 feet (1.5m). Such banks would compare in height to the first
phase of earthworks at Uffington Castle, but at Peasemore the banks are not accompanied by
significant ditches.
However before prehistoric comparisons are rejected too hastily on the grounds of
enclosure size and earthworks it is worth mentioning a site such as Casterley Camp in
Wiltshire. This hillfort (possibly late Bronze Age in origin) encloses an area of approx.
27.5 ha and is notable for the slightness of its banks, “in places no more than 1m
high”.
BARG Fieldwork on the Peasemore Enclosure
In order to further investigate the age and function of the Peasemore enclosure BARG has
instigated a programme of fieldwork since 2003, the initial results of which are presented
below.
Hedgerow Survey
A survey was carried out to record the tree and shrub species in the surviving hedgerows
(including a height and structure survey) and the evidence for ‘wood relic
flora’ amongst the ground herbs in the hedgebanks. The results of the species survey
carried out in 2003 can be found in the hedgerow section of the
website, setting out the data which shows the hedges either side of the eastern lane are
consistently rich in species. As predicted in that interim paper, however, the species
richness of the hedges surrounding the enclosure may be linked to a potential origin as
‘wood relic hedges’. The record of ‘wood relic’ flora set out
in fig. 3 shows that
these plants were found to a greater or lesser extent in all the enclosure lane hedges.
Dog’s mercury was particularly abundant on the western and southern sides of the
enclosure, and bluebells were most noticeable along the southern side of Mud Lane. This
may correspond with the record of former woodland shown on John Rocque’s 1761 map of Berkshire,
where Prior’s Wood extended much further north, almost as far as Mud Lane. Finally it
is also worth noting, given arguments presented later in this paper, that although the
hedgerows marking out the fields inside the Peasemore enclosure have not been surveyed,
they appear to be straight, thin hedges normally characteristic of late enclosure.
Fieldwalking
In October 2003 BARG conducted a fieldwalking exercise in the eastern field of the
Peasemore enclosure with members of the group and local volunteers helping to collect
material. The field was walked using an 8% sample (except in the far east where a 4%
sample was walked) consisting of 2m strips spaced 25m apart, with finds bagged every 25m
along these strips. The overwhelming majority of finds from this exercise were worked
flint, both tools and debitage. In total more than 2500 pieces of worked flint were
collected, representing a very high density of finds. The flint has been analysed for
typology and where possible date. Material appears to be present from the Mesolithic,
Neolithic and Bronze Age; maps of the datable finds will shortly be posted in the fieldwalking section. Over half the dateable finds are Bronze Age
with a high proportion of scrapers, cores, core/tools, blades/knifes and multi-purpose
tools amongst these finds (see the fieldwalking web page). The
distribution of finds from each period show varying degrees of concentration in the
south-eastern corner of the field, which might be attributable, to some extent, to
soilcreep down the slope which runs from NW to SE. Relatively little pottery was recovered
from the fieldwalking, the majority being 18th or 19th century in
date, with one sherd being possibly medieval. However other finds from gardens within the
northern part of the enclosure and just to the north of the enclosure have produced
pottery finds which appear to date from the Iron Age, Roman, Anglo-Saxon and medieval
periods. Fieldwalking in the western part of the enclosure in 1977 and in other fields
surrounding the enclosure have also produced Romano-British sherds, plus some medieval
sherds and 1 sherd of Bronze Age pottery.
CBM was also collected from the BARG fieldwalking exercise, and although yet to be
analysed, the majority seems to have been found in the north eastern part of the eastern
field. In 2005 BARG conducted a further fieldwalking exercise in a field to the south east
of the enclosure (i.e. north west of Gidley Farm) in an attempt to see if a high
concentration of flint artefacts continued beyond the enclosure. The results of this
exercise are still being analysed.
Resistivity Surveys
A geophysical survey was carried out in the paddock to the east of Widows farm within the
enclosure using a RM4 twin probe resistivity meter and taking recordings at 0.5m
intervals. The aim of this work was to look for any clear signs of past occupation or
activity in an area of the enclosure now down to permanent grass. The resultant resistance
plot (see the geophysics web page) does not show any clear
features, although there is one noticeable area of higher resistivity towards the north of
the paddock, in an area of the field that is slightly raised. Whilst it is not obvious
what this feature is, John Rocque’s map of the Berkshire does show settlement
extending further down this part of the enclosure. However, this may simply be an
inaccuracy of an early map, and even if the area of high resistivity is a building, it
appears as if the historic footprint of the village did not extend much further south
eastwards based on the evidence of this plot.
A further resistivity exercise was also carried out in the thin central pasture strip of
the enclosure. Five transects were surveyed, the aim being to look for any evidence that
the two roads which approach the enclosure from the east and west once continued on a path
through what is now the enclosure rather than being ‘diverted’ around Mud Lane.
In fact the resistivity survey (see geophysics page) produced
no evidence for a former road in this area, suggesting that the pattern of lanes has
always respected (or itself defined) the enclosure.
Building Surveying
BARG has made a start on surveying the oldest buildings in Peasemore, both for the
intrinsic value of such a survey and to see if it offers any clues to the morphology of
the village. The listing details for buildings in Peasemore seem to have been compiled
from external surveys only, so there is a prospect that new information will be revealed. To date initial visits have been made to two buildings –
one at the northern edge of the enclosure and one on the east side of the main north-south
street. In both cases initial evidence from internal inspections appears to correspond
with the dates suggested by the listing details. At this early stage in our research it is
perhaps simply worth noting that the two oldest buildings in Peasemore, according to the
listing details, are located at the edge of the Peasemore enclosure.
An Alternative Theory for the function of the Peasemore Enclosure
Bearing in mind the above interim results of BARG fieldwork, and the doubts about whether
the enclosure is a prehistoric monument, are there any alternative explanations for this
curious pattern?
‘Arable Ovals’
One possible alternative can be found in the work presented in chapter 4 of Roberts and
Wrathmell’s “Region and Place”, a nationwide study of rural settlement
published by English Heritage in 2002.
There the authors give numerous examples of core ‘arable ovals’ in dispersed
settlement areas which have remained stable over long periods. These are typically
associated with the primary settlement of a hall/church at the edge of the oval enclosure,
with a few other farmsteads scattered around the edge. This sort of pattern can date from
the Roman period, or perhaps even before, but in many cases is probably Anglo-Saxon or
later. These arable ovals, which need not be perfectly oval, can range from 20 to 90 ha in
size based on the examples supplied by Roberts and Wrathmell. Often the ovals are defined
by surviving lanes or a ‘ring fence’ patterns of field boundaries. The
‘oval’ shape seems to derive from unhindered clearance of woodland or rough
pasture for arable.
When viewed against these examples from elsewhere in the country the situation of the
Peasemore enclosure matches a number of the facets identified by Roberts and Wrathmell.
Peasemore has evidence for significant former woodland in areas outside of the enclosure,
in places abutting against it. In addition to the evidence of wood relic flora mentioned
above, an analysis of the 1838 tithe award and map shows that significant sections of the
parish are covered by fields bearing names related to former woods or heaths outside the
enclosure area (see fig. 4).
Figure 5 shows the pattern of modern tarmac roads in the
vicinity of the Peasemore enclosure and the site of the church and oldest extant manor
house in the village. The pattern of modern roads can of course sometimes be misleading,
so fig. 6 also plots
all those tracks, bridleways and footpaths shown on the 1838 tithe map. Fig. 6 also includes
the record of settlement shown on the tithe map. It is clear that even when the wider
network of tracks and paths is considered, the Peasemore enclosure was still a significant
feature in the communications network rather than a quirk of those roads that have been
surfaced with tarmac. In addition to the church and manor house, settlement also appears
to have clustered around the edge of the enclosure, perhaps first consisting of dispersed
farms, and later beginning to look more like a nucleated village (a process also attested
by Roberts and Wrathmell at Whittlesford in Cambridgeshire and Stanfield in Norfolk).
Evidence from Neighbouring villages
If the pattern displayed by Peasemore seems to have features in common with examples
elsewhere in the country, can these characteristics be found in any of Peasemore’s
neighbouring villages? Figures 7-10 show the communications
network and 19th century settlement as shown on the 1st edition 6
inch OS maps for four neighbouring villages – Brightwalton, Chaddleworth, Chieveley
and Leckhampstead. In each of these cases it is possible to identify areas, defined by
modern lanes, which could themselves also be candidates for ‘arable ovals’
(again these need not be strictly oval in shape) with church, manor house, and other
dwellings scattered around the edge.
In the majority of cases these possible arable areas defined by surrounding lanes remained
largely undivided by other tracks and paths. In the case of Chieveley the suggested
‘oval’ is recorded as a ‘common field’ on Rocque’s 1761 map, and
much of the area, known as East Field, is allotted in the 1812 enclosure map for the
parish.
In Chaddleworth’s case the triangular shaped enclosure seems to have been enclosed
before the parliamentary enclosure of 1813.
In the cases of Chaddleworth, Brightwalton and Leckhampstead these parishes, like
Peasemore, have significant place names indicating former woodland located outside the
possible ‘arable areas’. It should
be stressed that the tithe maps for these other four parishes have not been checked in
drawing up this paper, nor has any fieldwork been conducted in these areas by BARG, so it
is possible that former greens or areas of common pasture have been mistaken for former
common arable areas. Nevertheless these tentative examples serve a purpose, to demonstrate
that there is possibly a local pattern which the Peasemore enclosure could fit within,
even if Peasemore remains the most clear cut example of a potential ‘core
arable’ area.
Conclusion
If the alternative theory for the Peasemore enclosure is accepted as a plausible
hypothesis, what date might we ascribe to it? There may be one clue in the documentary
records, which tell us that a church was built at Peasemore, probably on the site of the
current church at the edge of the enclosure, sometime between 1078 and 1097. Thus it may
be that the enclosure was in existence by this time, and the construction of the church
may have acted as a stimulus for further settlement around the northern part of the
enclosure, perhaps even helping to define the enclosure in this area. Clearly the question
of the function and date of the enclosure cannot be settled without further fieldwork, and
BARG plans a programme of resistivity and magnetomerty surveys, further fieldwalking and
test pits within back gardens in order to discover more about the enclosure and its
relationship with the settlement of Peasemore. Clearly however the enclosure has played a
significant role in the morphology of the village and should be regarded as an important
feature of village’s heritage, whether it proves to be a prehistoric cattle
enclosure, a late Anglo-Saxon arable enclosure or something else altogether.
Steve Clark
Acknowledgements
The results presented in this paper are the product of fieldwork and research carried out
by many BARG members too numerous to mention individually, but particular thanks ought to
go to Don Lindsay for access to his documentary archive (including an annotated copy of
the Peasemore tithe map) and to Graham Johnson for producing the graphs of flint
distribution. The theories expounded here are of course, solely those of the author.
|
