Main Contents Page

Next Page

Archaeology Review Home Page

Essex Cropmark enclosures
Shoebury Barracks, Essex
Great Chesterford, Essex
West Acre Priory, Norfolk
Dunwich Greyfriars, Suffolk
Flixton, Suffolk
Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk
Tintagel, Cornwall
Meare Fish House, Somerset

The majority of English Heritage's statutory and advisory work is carried out by the multi-disciplinary regional teams. These are made up of archaeologists, architects, planners, architectural historians, and administrators. Primary responsibility for archaeological casework by these teams rests with the Inspectors of Ancient Monuments. Reporting to them are the Field Monument Wardens, who are out-stationed archaeological staff responsible for monitoring the condition of scheduled monument through a rolling programme of site visits.

The range of archaeological work undertaken by the regional teams is highly varied but can be divided into five main categories:

· casework on scheduled monuments (scheduled monument consent, repair grants, management agreements, validating MPP schedulings, and routine monitoring) and World Heritage Sites;

· advice to statutory agencies, government departments (such as commenting on planning applications, Countryside Stewardship Agreements and Environmental Assessments), local authorities, land owners, and members of the public; · contributions to the initiation, assessment, management, and monitoring of archaeology projects, supported through the Archaeology Commissions budget;

· participation in the development of corporate archaeological policy by specific policy initiatives and projects;

· casework resulting from English Heritage's role as a principal adviser to the Heritage Lottery Fund on requests for their grant aid - archaeological issues feature heavily in a number of lottery cases, particularly those involving the repair and/or re-use of scheduled or listed buildings.

Inspectors are required to liase with other members of their regional teams to ensure that the archaeological component of the historic environment is adequately taken into account, for example in decisions affecting the development of a historic building or a site within a historic area. Archaeological casework can be complex and often requires liaison with specialist colleagues outside of the regional team. This includes the staff of Archaeology Division and English Heritage engineers, legal advisers, conservators, and quantity surveyors. Inspectors also work closely with the Monument Protection Programme to consider how best to protect archaeological sites. When a monument becomes scheduled, it is the regional team that becomes responsible for monitoring its condition and handling casework arising from the site's status.

The advisory work of Inspectors requires frequent contact with a wide range of other bodies including local government archaeological services, archaeological units, local planning authorities, and national agencies, such as English Nature, the Countryside Commission, and the Environment Agency, as well as Government Departments. For the latter the main point of contact is the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, who are responsible for scheduled monument matters, including consent, but also with departments that are responsible for major issues affecting the historic environment, notably those responsible for environment, transport, defence, and agriculture. Close liaison is also maintained with other statutory bodies, university departments, and the voluntary sector; indeed the range of such contacts is almost unlimited. The breadth of people with whom English Heritage must liaise, and the diversity of the archaeological issues facing Inspectors is seen as an indication that progress continues to be made towards an integrated approach for the protection and management of all aspects of the historic environment.

The regional teams also contribute to archaeological policy initiatives and have an essential role in bringing to bear the knowledge gained through casework and the contacts they have established through this, to the development of policy. Inspectors have continued to contribute significantly to initiatives arising from the survey of England's coastal and maritime heritage. They also have an important role in the Urban Archaeology Programme under which both intensive and extensive surveys of key historic towns and cities are gathering pace.

Geoff Wainwright was a strong supporter of all archaeologists within English Heritage and the Regional Inspectors of Ancient Monuments (IAMs) were no exception to this rule. He had an open door policy and always made time to discuss a particularly tricky piece of casework, and to suggest the best way forward. Having worked for many years within English Heritage and its predecessors, he had excellent political skills and his advice - although sometimes unorthodox - almost invariably proved correct. Without a doubt, the most important piece of policy work which he drove forward and which impinges on the work of the Regional Teams everyday (and on archaeology generally) was the introduction of Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 entitled Archaeology and Planning (November 1990). This freed the Inspectors of Ancient Monuments from spending a great deal of time in negotiating with developers, either in an attempt to save nationally important archaeological sites from destruction (often too late in the planning process), or trying to extract money for the excavation and post-excavation of the such sites. This process is now dealt with properly within the planning process and very rarely cause such problems.

As the professional head of the IAMs, Geoff was concerned with their continued professional development and encouraged individual academic endeavour. He organised archaeological seminars and workshops at leading Universities for them and other archaeological staff within English Heritage, which proved of great benefit in keeping the IAMs abreast of their profession and in touch with other archaeologists within the organisation.

Geoff had a strategic vision of how archaeology should be in England, but his great strength was in being able to implement that vision and still deal with individual important cases, such as Boxgrove Palaeolithic site in West Sussex, and support regional staff at events such as Public Inquiries. Above all, he was great fun to work with, and we miss him.

The following examples drawn from casework by the East of England and South West regional teams serves to illustrate the nature and variety of the work carried out.

Essex Cropmark enclosures

The Essex Cropmark enclosures project has been principally concerned with examining a number a circular enclosures which have previously been assumed to share a broadly common ritual/funerary prehistoric origin since many are located in the context of Neolithic/ Bronze Age funerary complexes. Trial trenching, however, has established that in some instances they prove to be medieval windmill mounds with distinct characteristics which will aid future assessment of the cropmark evidence.

Shoebury Barracks, Essex

The proposed Ministry of Defence disposal of Shoebury Barracks triggered a full archaeological evaluation, primarily due to the presence of a scheduled earthwork enclosure known as the Danish Camp. Trial trenching showed it enclosed dense and well preserved evidence for a middle Iron Age settlement. English Heritage funded additional excavation to allow investigation of the earthwork defences which produced middle and late Bronze Age pottery in association with the rampart.

Essex County Council has been undertaking a desk top assessment of the very considerable amount of past archaeological work in Great Chesterford. This early Roman fort, superseded by a small town, walled in the fourth century, attracted both antiquarian interest and the work of an active local archaeological society. The assessment will produce options for future analytical work and publication, set out future management prescriptions for the scheduled monument and also further inform the archaeological development control process.

West Acre Priory, Norfolk

Survey and building analysis of the ruined west claustral range was carried out by the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England. This work was done to inform the proposed re-use of part of the structure.

Essex Cropmark enclosures
Shoebury Barracks, Essex
Great Chesterford, Essex
West Acre Priory, Norfolk
Dunwich Greyfriars, Suffolk
Flixton, Suffolk
Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk
Tintagel, Cornwall
Meare Fish House, Somerset

This scheduled [what is it actually?], was evaluated through trial trenching and other survey work to assess management options in the face of coastline erosion.

Essex Cropmark enclosures
Shoebury Barracks, Essex
Great Chesterford, Essex
West Acre Priory, Norfolk
Dunwich Greyfriars, Suffolk
Flixton, Suffolk
Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk
Tintagel, Cornwall
Meare Fish House, Somerset

A developer-funded evaluation at Flixton had failed to identify an important early Anglo-Saxon inhumation cemetery. English Heritage assistance enabled the excavation of forty-six graves with good artefact assemblages. Most of the rest of the cemetery should be recoverable through archaeological recording related to a new planning application.

Essex Cropmark enclosures
Shoebury Barracks, Essex
Great Chesterford, Essex
West Acre Priory, Norfolk
Dunwich Greyfriars, Suffolk
Flixton, Suffolk
Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk
Tintagel, Cornwall
Meare Fish House, Somerset

Evaluation in advance of housing development at Bloodmoor Hill, in close proximity to a 6th and 7th century cemetery, including a princely barrow burial, known from antiquarian finds and metal-detecting, revealed an almost complete early/middle Anglo-Saxon settlement plan. Such sites are still very rare, and only a handful have been investigated on a large scale since the mid 1970s. This is especially true for the early medieval period in East Anglia where, in contrast, cemeteries of the period are well represented. The opportunity to excavate was given a high priority nationally, and English Heritage funded additional field evaluation and excavation.

As well as a 2nd/3rd century Roman site, apparently associated with a ditched field and track system, excavation revealed results of national importance: a 6th and 7th century settlement with a small 7th century cemetery. This comprised 30 sunken feature buildings, many pits (a very unusual occurrence on settlements of this period), at least 10 post-built 'halls', and a small cemetery of 26 graves. Evidence of ferrous metalworking on a considerable scale was particularly significant, given the rarity of such production activity. Both dumps and a possible workshop area were recorded.

Bone preservation in the acidic soil was generally poor, but there were significant finds of iron and copper alloy objects, including girdle hangers, box fittings, shears and knives. The Anglo-Saxon pottery assemblage was of hand-made plain wares amongst which six major fabric groups were identified. Less than 2% of the assemblage had stamped and incised decoration (typically late 5th/6th century).

The rare pits are but one aspect of an unparalleled opportunity at Bloodmoor Hill to investigate the development and continuity of an Anglo-Saxon settlement through a period of major social and economic change. English Heritage gave added impetus to this opportunity by funding a training excavation in the summer of 1999 on other threatened parts of the site. This provided intensive training for graduates intending to be professional archaeologists.

Essex Cropmark enclosures
Shoebury Barracks, Essex
Great Chesterford, Essex
West Acre Priory, Norfolk
Dunwich Greyfriars, Suffolk
Flixton, Suffolk
Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk
Tintagel, Cornwall
Meare Fish House, Somerset

Tintagel, Cornwall

At Tintagel, the continuing programme of field work designed to provide a consistent and credible interpretation of the site by re- assessing Radford's work had a successful season with unexpectedly important discoveries. The re-examination of an area excavated and displayed by Radford in [date?] produced amongst the more usual imported pottery from the Mediterranean region, twelve pieces of glass that appear to come from a single vessel with close parallels with glassware from the Malaga region of Spain, confirming trading links along the route between the Mediterranean and Tintagel. Even more important was the discovery, re-used as a drain cover in a sealed 6th century AD context, of a slate with Latin graffiti on it, including the name 'Arthnou' (Arthogonou). The crude Latin nevertheless demonstrates the continuing 'frmanitas' ...

[is this right? In my ignorance I've never heard of this word! I assume it should be romanitas but you'd better check!- AO]

...in what must have always been a remote comer of England. While the glass vessel confirms the high status of the site, even if its use were symbolic, to indicate continuing connections with the font of civilisation, the latter suggests grass-roots access to that romanitas. The far reaching implications of these finds are being studied and have given renewed impetus to the completion of the present programme of field work in 1999/00.

Essex Cropmark enclosures
Shoebury Barracks, Essex
Great Chesterford, Essex
West Acre Priory, Norfolk
Dunwich Greyfriars, Suffolk
Flixton, Suffolk
Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk
Tintagel, Cornwall
Meare Fish House, Somerset

Repairs at Meare Fish House, a small first floor hall closely associated with the magnificent manor house at Meare, provided the opportunity for a closer examination of the fabric with the location of evidence for a lean-to, which may have functioned as an open covered store for boats, as reported by Leland. This structure, which was one of the Abbot of Glastonbury's summer residences, will long continue to puzzle historians because of its appearance as a 'secret house' or retreat associated with the Abbot of Glastonbury's Summer palace at Meare Manor close by. This small piece of recording work has helped increase our understanding at least of the fabric of the building, if not its function.