HOLME CULTRAM ABBEY (GHTL14 HCA-A)
FINAL REPORT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS AT HOLME CULTRAM ABBEY SUMMER SEASON 2014 NGR: NY1774 5075 Scheduled Monument No. SM CU 302, HA1007164; SMC Ref: S00085110; County Historic Environment Record No. 3604; 370 OASIS id: 1-270996
Contact: MARK GRAHAM Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd PATRICIA SHAW Ashgill, Threapland, JOANNE STAMPER Wigton, Cumbria, CA7 2EL JAN WALKER HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES…………….…………………………………………………….……………………………………….……..……….……2 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...... ……..3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... …………………………………………………..4 SUMMARY...……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………..……….5
INTRODUCTION …………………………………..………………………………………..……… …………………..…………..…………6 1.1 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………..….………..…….….6 1.2 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT…………………………………………….. . ……….………..6 2. METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………..………………………………………………… . …..……………....7 2.1 PROJECT DESIGN………………………………………………………………….…………………………………… . ………………..7 2.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION - INTRODUCTION……………………..……………………………..… …..…………7 2.3 HOLME CULTRAM EXCAVATION……………………………………………………...………………………………...... …7 2.4 ARCHIVE…………………………………………………………………………….………………………………..…..… …………...….8 3. BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………. .………….…..8 3.1 LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY………………………………………..……………………………………..……… ….……..….8 3.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND…………………………….……….……………………………………………..……… …..……....8 3.3 HISTORICAL PERIODS OF OCCUPATION…..………………………………………………………….………… .. …..……...8 3.4 HOLME CULTRAM ABBEY………………………………………………..…………………………………………..… .. ………….8 3.5 DEFINITIVE SITE BACKGROUND TO HOLME CULTRAM ABBEY………………………………………...…… .. .…….8 4 EXCAVATIONS RESULTS FOR HOLME CULTRAM ABBEY……………………………………………………...…… …….12 4.1 TRENCH 1……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………. ………..12 4.2 TRENCH 2………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………….………… ………..16 4.3 TRENCH 3…………………………………………………………………………………..………………………..…………… ……….19 5 FINDS METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………..…………………………………………………… .…….28 5.1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………. ……….28 5.2 FINDS RECOVERED………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………… ……...28 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS………..………………………………… ………………………………………..29 6.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL AND FURTHER WORK……….…….. . ………………………………………………..29 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………..………………………..………… …………………………………………...... 30
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….33 CONTEXT INDEX……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..APPENDIX I SMALL FINDS INDEX……………………………………………………………………………………………………….APPENDIX II ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE INDEX…………………………………………………………………………………..APPENDIX III HOLME CULTRAM MEDIEVAL POTTERY REPORT SUE THOMPSON…………………………….……APPENDIX IV MEDIEVAL POTTERY TABLE……………………………………………………………………………………….……APPENDIX V FLORR TILE REPORT DR JENNIE STOPFORD……………………………………………………………….……APPENDIX VI ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF INSECT REMAINS DR LYNDA HOWARD…………………………APPENDIX VII PALAEOENVIRONMENTAL REMAINS LYNNE GARDINER………………………………………………….APPENDIX VIII REPORT ON WINDOW GLASS DR RACHEL TYSON………………………………………………………..….APPENDIX IX REPORT ON GLASS FRAGMENTS AGNESE BENZONELLI IAN FREESTONE………………………….APPENDIX X LEAD TOKEN TABLE KATE RENNICKS………………………………………………………………………….……APPENDIX XI
1
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
FIGURES: APPENDIX XII…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………124
FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION PLAN
FIGURE 2 TRENCH LOCATION PLAN
FIGURE 3 TRENCH 1 PLAN 1
FIGURE 4 TRENCH 1 PLAN 7
FIGURE 5 TRENCH 1 PLAN 11
FIGURE 6 TRENCH 2 PLAN 4
FIGURE 7 TRENCH 2 PLAN 8
FIGURE 8 TRENCH 3 PLAN 2
FIGURE 9 TRENCH 3 PLAN 12
FIGURE 10 HCA – A COMPLETE FINAL PLAN
FIGURE 11 TRENCH 1 SECTIONS 2, 7 & 8
FIGURE 12 TRENCH 1 SECTIONS 11, 12 & 14
FIGURE 13 TRENCH 2 SECTION 22
FIGURE 14 TRENCH 3 SECTIONS 3 & 9
FIGURE 15 TRENCH 3 SECTIONS 6, 16, & 19
FIGURE 16 TRENCH 3 SECTIOSN 21 & 25
FIGURE 17 TRENCH 3 SECTIONS 24 & 26
2
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
ILLUSTRATIONS
PAGE
Plate 1: Looking south. The drain (107) in Trench 1 with reused capitals.………………………………………..14 Plate 2: Looking north. Trench 1 with capped drain (107) running north-south………………………….……15 Plates 3 & 4: Showing the chess piece (SF 29) and the three reused arcade capitals (107) found in Trench 1……..…………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15 Plate 5: Facing south showing the south refectory wall (103)………………….…………………………………..….16 Plate 6: Facing south showing robbed out east kitchen wall (171)…………………………………………………..17 Plate 7: Facing west showing the heat affected clay (177) and granite foundation (174) in the foreground.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………...18 Plate 8: Facing west Trench 2 cleaned…………………………….……………………………………………………………….19 Plate 9: The east-west drain seen next to the ranging rod, with the arch for the cistern…….……………20 Plate 10: Trench 3 Plan 9 looking vertically down with the north wall of the drain (235) on the right and the two sluice slots; the timber beam (228) can be seen in the base………………………………..21 Plate 11: The excavated cistern showing the flagged floor (232), the walls and the roof. The two inlets can be seen at the left and right at the bottom of the back wall (325)………………….….23 Plate 12: East end of main drain showing the end of the minor drain [129] where a slot has been put in the settling tank, where the dark fill can be seen……………………..…………………….………24 Plate 13: North end of the west section in Trench 3. The dark deposit where the ranging rods cross is context (133)…………………….…….………………………………………………………………………….……….25 Plate 14: The large east/west drain and cistern seen at the top. Other minor drains, of different phases, can be seen defined by ranging rods (302), (304), (328). At the top left an inlet to the main drain is visible (300)………………………………..………………………………………………………26 Plate 15; Trench 3 extension shows the room/building seen in Figure 10. The arched cistern can be seen top right; the structural walls are defined by the ranging rod and steps…………..….....…..27 Plate 16: Trench 3 showing the main drain, arch and the extension…………………………………………………27 Plate 17: An almost complete Medieval jug (SF# 33) recovered by apprentice Hayley Graham……….28
Drawing 1: Three dimensional drawing of the cistern in Trench 3, showing the north and south walls, and the back wall. (Marilyn Leech, each grid square is 15cm)………………………..…………….18
3
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Grampus Heritage and Training would like to thank the Heritage Lottery Funded Solway Wetlands Project for funding this research and the staff of the Solway Wetlands Project and Solway Coast AONB for their support throughout. The Reverend David Tembey and the members of St Mary’s Parish Church have been continually supportive and have allowed us use of the facilities on site. Thanks also to the farmer Kevin McDonagh for allowing us free rein. Many thanks to the members of West Cumbria Archaeological Group for their tremendous help and to Hayley Graham our archaeology apprentice, thanks also to our new recruits to the cause, all of whom have contributed to pot and bone washing, finds sorting, archive research, attending workshops, as well as excavating on site and all that it entails. We would also like to thank Alan James for metal detecting throughout the excavation.
The report was compiled by Mark Graham of Grampus Heritage and Training Limited as site director, Joanne Stamper, Patricia Shaw and Jan Walker, site director. Mark Graham undertook the initial geophysics survey and report. Joanne Stamper must be thanked for coordinating personnel and finds, particularly post excavation work and workshops. Don O’Meara compiled the mammal and bird bone assessment and Dr Brian Irving compiled the fish bone assessment. Workshops were run by Patricia Shaw, Don O’Meara, and Tim Padley of Tullie House Museum. Thanks to Marilyn Leech who produced the impressive three dimensional image of the cistern.
Grateful thanks go mainly to the unstinting dedication of the volunteers who have turned up, come rain, shine, and even snow, to partake in excavation, post excavation processing and recording and the workshops. We have all learned much along the way.
4
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
SUMMARY
This report was produced to define the second-year phase of a three-year project. It seeks, as part of the Solway Wetlands Landscape Partnership Scheme, to add to the knowledge of the landscape heritage surrounding the peat bogs of the Solway Plain Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The area considered takes in the North West corner of Cumbria. This is a partnership project formed of the Solway Coast AONB, Natural England, the Environment Agency, RSPB, Cumbria Wildlife Trust, West Cumbria Tourism, Tullie House Museum and Art Gallery Trust, and the Diocese of Carlisle on the Steering Group. It is hosted by Allerdale Borough Council and funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund. This strand deals with the Hidden Heritage archaeological work programme.
This project concentrates the heritage research on the Medieval period, to enable us to extend our knowledge of the significant impact the Cistercian monks began by establishing the Abbey of Holme Cultram in 1150. The research achieved during the Hidden Heritage Project sought to increase our understanding of the influence the Cistercian monks had on the Solway Plain landscape, by investigating the Abbey as well as the associated industry, granges and chapels. Achieved by engaging local volunteers and members of the West Cumbria Archaeological Society (WCAS), several of whom are trained archaeologists, as well as trained staff from Grampus Heritage and Training Limited the aim was to provide training to support volunteers with a view to engaging local people in the required roles. This report deals with the excavation at Holme Cultram Abbey in the summer of 2014.
5
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROJECT 1.1.1 Allerdale, a non-metropolitan district of Cumbria, England, has borough status. To the north west of this quadrant of Cumbria the area has the unspoilt boundary of the Solway Firth; whilst to the south and east a third of Allerdale lies within the Lake District National Park boundary. The mainly pastoral nature of the area incorporates the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) to the north. In January 2013, Allerdale Borough Council (2013) invited Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd to tender for Hidden Heritage - Archaeology Services, as part of the Solway Wetlands Landscape Partnership Scheme.
1.2 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT 1.2.1 The Solway Wetlands Landscape Partnership Scheme (LPS) is a 3 year project on the Solway Plain in North Cumbria sponsored predominantly by the Heritage Lottery Fund. It focuses mainly on the landscape heritage surrounding the peat bogs of the Solway Plain AONB. The project area extends from Allonby to Wigton, to Finglandrigg Wood, down to Orton Moss and up to the Solway Coast. This report addresses the second year of the project.
1.2.2 The partnership project comprises the Solway Coast AONB, Natural England, the Environment Agency, RSPB, Cumbria Wildlife Trust, West Cumbria Tourism, Tullie House Museum and Art Gallery Trust and the Diocese of Carlisle on the Steering Group. It is hosted by Allerdale Borough Council. Of the four varying programmes associated with the project, Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd was invited to tender for the provision of archaeological services for Hidden Heritage. This is an element of the Solway Wetlands Landscape Partnership Scheme (LPS).
1.2.3 Hidden Heritage forms the archaeological survey work programme. It was decided to concentrate the heritage research on the Medieval Period so as to extend our knowledge of the significant impact the Cistercian monks began by establishing the Abbey of Holme Cultram in Abbeytown in 1150. The environment and economy was changed by the monks over a period of almost 400 years. Following the Dissolution in 1538, Holme Cultram Abbey survived only partially as the nave of the Parish Church of St Mary.
1.2.4 The research achieved during the Hidden Heritage Project seeks to increase the understanding of the influence of the Cistercian monks on the Solway Plain landscape by investigating the abbey, as well as the associated industry, granges and chapels. Over a 3 year period the scheme seeks to research through the disciplines of: • geophysical survey • excavation • walkover Survey • archive research
1.2.5 This was achieved by engaging local people in fieldwork and by working with volunteers from the West Cumbria Archaeology Society (WCAS), who have a successful track record in excavation at the abbey and other survey work. A further aspect of this project was to provide funding for the employment of a student in the heritage field for ten weeks throughout each season.
6
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 PROJECT DESIGN 2.1.1 A Project Design (Graham & Walker 2011) was submitted by Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd, in response to a tender put out by Allerdale Borough Council for Archaeology Services, with regard to the Hidden Heritage section of the Solway Wetlands Landscape Partnership Scheme (LPS). The scheme is a three year project, of which this work is in Year 2, on the Solway Plain in North Cumbria. Sponsored predominantly by the Heritage Lottery Fund, it focuses on the landscape heritage of the Solway Plain AONB.
2.1.2 Following acceptance of the Project Design by Allerdale Borough Council, Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd were commissioned to undertake the work. The fieldwork season for 2014 aimed to locate the south wall of the refectory and the kitchen, clarifying the arrangement of buildings to the south of the cloister.
2.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION - INTRODUCTION 2.2.1 This phase of the project was undertaken in two different areas, building on knowledge gained through previous fieldwork. It was agreed that more investigation was needed to elucidate the refectory, kitchen and lay brothers buildings. Environmental sampling on a large scale was undertaken to try and understand more of the diet and therefore the farming practises of the monks.
2.2.2 The main objectives of excavation were:
• To clarify the arrangement of buildings to the south of the cloister (refectory and kitchen) • to establish the character and state of preservation of those features (extent of post-medieval demolition and robbing) • to recover artefactual material, especially where useful for dating purposes; • to recover palaeoenvironmental material where it survived in order to further understand diet, subsistence, agriculture and land use associated with the monastery; • to assess how the presence/absence, of archaeological remains relates to the geophysical results; • to gain knowledge to link with the aims of the Hidden Heritage project and the North West Archaeology Framework (Brennand et al 2006, 2007).
2.3 HOLME CULTRAM ABBEY EXCAVATION 2.3.1 Excavation in the field lying to the south of Holme Cultram Abbey took the form of three large trenches that were interlinked. Trench 1 lay to the most north-easterly area of the excavation, and measured approximately 11.5m x 6.5m. Trench 2 lay to the most north-westerly area of the excavation, and measured approximately 10m x 4.5m. Trench 3 lay at the most southerly extreme of the excavation area, and measured approximately 12m x 6.5m.
2.3.2 The area to be excavated was opened by a mini digger. Topsoil was removed using a 360° mechanical mini-digger excavator fitted with a toothless ditching bucket. The soil was then removed to an area for storage. Machine excavation under archaeological supervision continued until archaeological remains were detected. Once archaeological features had been identified, the trench areas were cleaned by hand to define the archaeology. The area and all visible features were then cleaned and excavated by hand and then recorded following best archaeological practice. A total of three interlinked trenches were opened up (see below). All identified archaeological features within
7
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 the stripped areas were excavated by hand to the depth of their cuts wherever possible, to determine the nature and extent of the archaeology.
2.3.3 A detailed record of the stratigraphic sequence was then made following English Heritage (EH) guidelines (EH 2006). Archaeological deposits and features were sampled systematically in accordance with EH standard environmental sampling practice (EH 2011). Plans and sections were drawn on water resistant permatrace. Plans were drawn at a scale of 1:20 and sections at 1:10. The captured data was then digitised using CAD software. All finds were initially taken to the premises of Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd for processing and assessment. Following initial assessment and recording they were then sent to the relevant specialist for further recording and analysis. A trench location plan can be seen in figure 2 (appendix XII).
2.4 ARCHIVE
2.4.1 A full professional archive has been compiled in accordance with the project design for the full report, in accordance with current English Heritage guidelines (1991). The archive will be deposited within an appropriate repository, and a copy of the report given to the Cumbria County Historic Environment Record, where viewing will be available on request.
2.4.2 The archive can be accessed under the unique project identifier GHTL14 HCA-A
3. BACKGROUND 3.0.1 This project sought to build on the research carried out by the West Cumbria Archaeological Society (WCAS) on Holme Cultram Abbey, Abbeytown, Cumbria (NY 1774 5079). Initially begun in 2006 as unfunded research, the Society successfully applied for a Your Heritage lottery grant in 2009-11. Further funding through the Heritage Lottery Scheme was successfully sought for the years 2013-15, of which this phase is a part.
3.1 LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY 3.1.1 The area known as the Holm, in which Holm Cultram Abbey sits, is defined as the outlying part of north-western Cumbria, formerly Cumberland. Bounded by the sea to the west and the Solway estuary to the north, the river Waver forms a natural boundary to the east. The region is currently mainly under rough pasture.
3.1.2 The Holm area differs from that of the rest of Cumbria in that it lacks stone or rocks. In this region, the bedrock lies deep in the Carlisle Basin as St. Bees sandstone, with none of the ruggedness of the fells of the Lake District. The region of the Holm then is flattish with only occasional glacial erratics. Layers of sand, clay and gravel lie within the built-up stratigraphy of the Holm, as well as relict beaches. (Davis 1979; Grainger & Collingwood 1929: 107; Housman 1800).
3.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 3.2.1 The historical background that follows is mainly taken from Grainger & Collingwood’s The Records of Holm Cultram (1929). Other references are included where applicable. General reference was made to Doubleday (1901), Embleton & Graham (1984), Garmonsway (1954) and Gilbanks (1899). Further historical and archaeological information can be found in Walker and Graham ‘St. Mary’s Abbey Holme Cultram Abbeytown Cumbria’ Research Report no. 4 CWAAS.
3.3 HISTORICAL PERIODS OF OCCUPATION 3.3.1 The Prehistoric Period shows little evidence of actual occupation in the Holm. Mention is made of three ‘British settlements’ at West Newton close to the southern border of the Holm, but no extant evidence remains. British place-names are also absent in the area. Artefacts from the period have 8
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 however been recovered, some mentioned by Ferguson (1908), and range in type from stone implements as celts, hammers and adze, to a copper alloy spear head.
3.3.2 The Roman Period left the important fort site at Beckfoot, Mawbray. A Roman Cemetery and a mile-fortlet have also since been discovered (Healey 2007). Building debris and cobbling from the Roman period were discovered at the fort site in the nineteenth century. Other artefacts recovered were an altar to Diana, querns, coins, copper beads, iron and copper fragments and pottery. The pottery ranged from Samian and storage vessels to ordinary cooking pots and mortaria. Other later finds recovered included a silver ring, carved stone and floor tiles. This is the only fort within the area known as the Holm, although other Roman coins and an altar found at Cotebank may suggest another nearer to Skinburness, evidence of which though remains elusive. A Roman road was also reputed to run from the Holm to the west in the direction of Maryport. This is not so unlikely, as there was a fort at Maryport. At the northern edge of the Holm, to the western end of Hadrian’s Wall, the village of Bowness-on-Solway was the location of the Roman fort Maia that guarded the approach from the Solway. Roman stones can be seen in the local buildings including the Norman church of St. Michael, as these were built on the site of the fort (Breeze & Collingwood 2006).
3.3.3 The Anglian or Early Medieval Period followed the period of the rule of the Roman government. Romano-British peoples would still have inhabited many areas of Cumbria. No traces remain in the Holm though, possibly resulting from the exposed nature of the area and the increased likelihood of attack from the Scots to the north and the Irish to the west. Anglian settlement probably occurred as a result of migration from the east in Yorkshire, visible by the alteration of some, but not all the place- names along the way. The time of the Anglian settlement is unclear, although it is well recorded that there was already a monastery founded in Carlisle in AD685, giving the city much importance. The date when Cumberland was added to the main realm of Anglian Northumbria, is still unclear, possibly occurring in 593-617 by Aethelfrith. The Angles settled on the coast before St Cuthbert’s visit of 685.
3.3.4 Their presence in the Holm is learned from Symeon of Durham (Arnold 1885) in 854 when he mentions places belonging to the Bishopric of Lindisfarne as ‘Lugubalia, that is Luel, now called Carleil’, going on to say ‘these mansions, Carnham (Carham) and Culterham..’. It is possible then that (Holm) Cultram (or Culterham) was an estate that already belonged to the see of Lindisfarne, as did Cartmel; not monasteries but possessions of the Bishopric. The name Culterham may derive from an Angle name, originally the homestead of the family. The land of the Holm though had no agriculture, being wooded and rough, although small areas may have been cleared to allow for a homestead.
3.3.5 The Viking Period saw the Norse peoples of Northumbria settling earlier in the east region. In the west of Cumbria raids began in the ninth century, evidenced by recovery of a fibula brooch from Brayton, and a chieftain burial near Aspatria. The Vikings only became settlers though in the early tenth century. Evidence lies around the Holm of their existence but none is found within it. Here they were of Norse origin but subsequently diversified by their association with the Gaelic Celts from Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Hebrides. Their language though remained Old Norse, leaving many place names as evidence. The twelfth century saw the language and people mixed with English, and the Cumberland dialect became evident in the names of the Holm.
3.4 HOLME CULTRAM ABBEY 3.4.1 The name Holm or Holme that prefaces Cultram derives from the Old Norse word holmr. Frequent in Scandinavia it occurs both independently and in place-names with two main senses: 1) a (small) island or 2) raised land, often surrounded by watercourses, ditches, marshland or the like. The related English word holm is only recorded in the senses of sea, ocean, or wave (Sinclair 1999). The component holmr in place-names in England and Scotland is certain to be of Scandinavian origin. Its survival in English in the form holme is now used as of the small grassy islands of the Northern Isles 9
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 and (as a foreign word) of islands in Scandinavia, and in both Scotland and the north of England of a piece of flat low-lying ground by a river or stream, sub-merged or surrounded in time of flood. In England it is most common for the applicability of a place-name holmr or holm to be a piece of land that is almost surrounded by water or alternatively areas of higher dry ground in a marshy area. (Fellows-Jensen 2015). In relation to Holme Cultram either definition could be applicable. As to the Abbey lands, the area could be deemed as being almost surrounded by water as the sea, the estuary, the associated rivers and the marsh – Arlosh said to have been a waterlogged district in 1185. The Abbey buildings, then as now, still sit on a raised area, possibly defining it as an area of higher dry ground in a marshy area. The Holm region of Cumberland is generally defined as a westerly extension of the plain of Carlisle to the Solway.
3.4.2 It is not known how the invasion of the Scots affected the transference of former ownership of the Holm from the Bishopric of the see of Lindisfarne to its becoming a monastery founded by the Scots from Melrose Abbey, the mother house of Holm Cultram. When Holm Cultram was founded and given to the monks as ‘Holmcultria’, the name was already acknowledged. The land was said to be wild forest and hunting ground, not cultivated at all. The charter mentions this in relation to both ‘Holmcoltria’ and ‘Rabi’ (Raby). Within 25 years the monks had established granges bearing names suggesting earlier settlement at Mawbray, Skinburg (Skinburness), Rabi (Raby) and Grange de Ternis at Tarns.
3.4.3 The Abbey of Holme Cultram was founded by the monks of the mother house, Melrose Abbey, in AD1150. It was at its most prosperous in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and was famous for its salt production and exports of wool. It was a Cistercian Abbey dedicated to St. Mary and the largest monastic house in Cumberland. Attacks by the Scots led to extensive rebuilding in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. When it was dissolved by Henry VIII in 1538, the Monastery consisted of 24 monks and an Abbot. When the dissolution was complete, the records show a total acreage in the hands of the abbey of over 1600 statute acres. A record of stone from the Abbey being sold in 1561 is listed. The place then became derelict, except for part of the nave which continued to serve as the Parish Church of St Mary. (Gilbanks 1899; Hyde & Pevsner 2010).
3.4.4 A detailed history of the Abbey can be found in Grainger, F. and Collingwood, W.G. 1929 The Register and Records of Holm Cultram CWAAS Record Series Vol. VII Kendal: T. Wilson and Son, and Walker, J.F. and M. Graham 2013 St. Mary’s Abbey Holme Cultram, Abbeytown, Cumbria: Archaeological and Historical Investigations CWAAS Research Report no.4 Bowness on Windermere Badger Press.
3.5 DEFINITIVE SITE BACKGROUND OF HOLME CULTRAM ABBEY 3.5.1 The existing plan of the church was formed around 1730 when the east wall was moved westwards as part of a phase of restoration work. The Abbey was founded in 1150 by King David I of Scotland and his son Earl Henry, when some of the monks from Melrose Abbey transferred there to establish it. It has experienced extremely turbulent times owing to its close proximity to the Scottish border.
3.5.2 A guide to the Abbey, produced by the Reverend David Tembey and people of the parish, was used in the following and is available at http://www.holmecultramabbey.org.uk/. Since its founding, the Abbey has undergone great change. The site of the Abbey complex is a scheduled monument which includes the footprint of the standing church, previously the nave, i.e. the floor inside and extending under the walls to just outside. The field to the south of the church is included in the scheduled area. Any excavation taking place in this area requires Scheduled Monument Consent. The Parish church is formed from the six western bays of the pre-Reformation Abbey nave of originally
10
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 nine bays. The church as it stands is Grade I listed. The shop and library building and the churchyard wall are Grade II listed.
3.5.3 Following the dissolution, transfer of the abbey to a church was granted by Thomas Cromwell. Unfortunately the Parish found it difficult to care for the large building and eventually the central tower collapsed towards the end of the 16th century. Extensive damage would have been caused at that time, and it is also recorded that a fire occurred immediately following the completion of repairs. Evidence that the infirmary still stood as late as 1600 comes from the following quote in Grainger & Collingwood (1929: 158). ‘In 1557 it was ordered that the officer in charge of the domains may “lie” there, and in 1593 John Synhous (Senhouse of Netherall) as steward was commanded to be resident. The building so left was the Infirmary (le Sekeman House), probably rebuilt in 1472 and still existing).
3.5.4 Bishop Nicholson of Carlisle expressed his dismay at the shameful state of the abbey in the year of 1703. A Trust was set up in 1724 to ensure the parts of the building that were still in use were put into a solid state of repair. This involved the enclosing of the six bays, providing a roof and plaster ceiling, and at the same time galleries were added. This formed the main basis of the current Parish Church of St Mary as seen today.
3.5.5 The arcades of the original nave were filled with two levels of windows, the upper course serving to light the gallery. In about 1723 the east window, thought to be from approximately 1604, was moved westwards to its present location. The view of 1723 from the east can be seen in Some Records of a Cistercian Abbey (Gilbanks 1899). Major restoration again followed in 1883-85, when the internal galleries were removed, as well as the three-decker pulpit. The scars of the galleries on the Nave piers are still visible today. The year 1885 saw the north transept extension added to house the vestry and organ. The plaster ceiling that dated back to the 1730s was removed in 1912/13 to expose the tie- beam roof. At the same time corbels and braces were added to enhance its design. This work was paid for by the family of Sir Walter Scott, a then local industrialist and inventor.
3.5.6 The following chronology concerning archaeological work formerly carried out at the site of Holme Cultram Abbey and its environs is taken from Walker & Graham (2013). Investigation into Holme Cultram Abbey by the West Cumbria Archaeological Society (WCAS) began in 2006. Unfunded research in 2006 was carried out as a Magnetometry survey of a field to the south of the present Parish Church of St Mary, formed from parts of the original abbey building. Unfortunately an arson attack on June 9th of the same year caused considerable damage to the building; the Medieval documents, an extremely important part of the archive of the abbey, were lost during the fire.
3.5.7 Excavations from 2008- 2011 by WCAS and funded by the National Heritage Lottery fund discovered the refectory building and warming room. They established the southern, eastern and western sides of the cloister and the south western corner with foundations of the cloister walk and the inner wall. A western range of buildings was exposed and the position of eastern range established. The southern end of the eastern range was arched and evidence of water management was investigated. A substantial drain was found to the south of the buildings. Evaluation trenches discovered walls in the area of the chapter house and also cobbling and post pads representing initial habitation of the site in the northern part of the cloisters. Evidence of initial habitation also came from the western range. Finds included a quantity of medieval pottery, a gold angel coin 1471-1483 AD and a copper alloy weight, possibly a salt weight. Two burials were discovered in the eastern cloister walk but were left in situ. Environmental samples largely yielded oyster shell. The cleaning of a trench first dug in 1906 saw evidence of tiles preserved in the base of the collapsed tower and a doorway. The cleaning and re-excavation of the 1906 trench at the south side of the graveyard saw the east wall of the south transept located, with a doorway and possible staircase to the upper dorter floor level.
11
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
3.5.8 The excavations proved that the layout of the monastic buildings and cloister were following a far more conventional symmetric plan than that published in 1925 by Martindale. With the invaluable resource of Heritage Lottery Funding, the seasons 2014-16 sought to investigate the broader picture associated with the abbey, as well as adding to the knowledge already gained from the immediate area surrounding it. In 2014 permission was obtained from the Reverend David Tembey and the Department of Culture Media and Sport for GHTL and WCAS to excavate at the scheduled monument of Holme Cultram Abbey. Excavation on site was preceded by a magnetometry survey undertaken by GHTL of the field south of the abbey. This indicated the survival of some foundations and other anomalies within the designated investigation area. The aims of the main excavation in 2014 were to further establish the arrangement of the refectory, and possibly to locate its south wall. A further aim was to try and locate the kitchen area to determine its position in relation to the refectory.
3.5.9 Three interlinking trenches were subsequently opened. The purpose was to recover evidence of relict structures, surfaces and other features associated with the former abbey. Dating of any remnant structures, and sampling to identify any former practices that had been carried out in the area, were also significant goals. Soil samples obtained would further inform us about the diet of the occupants, possible agricultural activities, medicinal practices, and the state of the surrounding landscape. We would thus hope to increase our knowledge of the agricultural and economic activities associated with the abbey.
4. EXCAVATION RESULTS HOLME CULTRAM ABBEY 4.0.1 Excavation at Holme Cultram Abbey was carried out between the 2nd June and the 8th August 2014. All trench locations are depicted in Figure 2; detailed plans and sections are depicted in Figures 3 – 17 in append10 of this report. In the discussion below context numbers will appear in brackets e. g. (100). Cuts for features will appear in square brackets e. g. [119]. The topsoil is context (100) and the natural substrate is context (101).
4.1 TRENCH 1 4.1.1 Trench 1 was aligned north to south and was the northernmost trench of the site, on a slight slope. Trench 1 measured 11.5m x 6.5m. The archaeological features and deposits encountered in Trench 1 are shown in figures 3,4 and 5 (plans) and figures 11 and 12 (sections). Discussion of Trench 1 below relates to these figures.
4.1.2 An east west aligned wall was encountered throughout the northern half of trench 1. This is interpreted as the south wall of the refectory building within the south cloister range. The wall has been substantially robbed, though the cut for the wall [119] was clearly visible. This cut was backfilled with post-dissolution robbing material consisting of mortar, rubble and sandstone fragments (103). The foundation for the wall had not been completely removed, surviving sporadically as large sandstone blocks (113) and (114) with faced edges abutting the wall cut.
4.1.3 To the north of the wall, lying within the area of the refectory, is a roughly rectangular platform of sandstone slabs (111). It abuts the north side of the refectory wall cut [119] at the north east end of the trench. The most westerly stone has a depression carved in it. This aligns with a north south aligned drain (107) immediately south of the wall. Context (111) is interpreted as a remnant of the interior flagged floor surface of the refectory, with the carved depression in the stone serving as an access point to the drain, which would have run through the robbed-out wall. The northern extreme of the plan shows context (115), a compacted matrix of red ash, sandstone, gravel, small stones and degraded sandstone. This matrix runs under context (112), another small remnant of sandstone flagging, which may be a complete shattered flagstone, as the fragments appear to conjoin. Context 12
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
(115) may relate to the demolition of the refectory wall or may be a levelling layer for the interior slabs. No dateable artefacts were recovered from this context.
4.1.4 On the north side of the refectory wall at the eastern end, partially in section, was a shallow pit [130]. The fill (128) was a compact dark grey brown matrix with few inclusions. The pit appears to have been truncated as it is at the same level as the remains of the wall. No dateable artefacts were found associated with this feature.
4.1.5 Associated with the south side of the refectory wall, towards the eastern end, can be seen a capped drain that extends to the southern section and carries on into it. The open section of the drain was previously encountered in the 2008 excavations (Graham & Walker 2013. Fig 12, p22). Sandstone upright slabs (106) line the sides of the drain and the remaining parts of the drain, not excavated in 2008, were capped by stone slabs (107). The section abutting the south side of the refectory wall sees the reuse of three double arcade capitals as drain caps. The double capitals sealing the drain suggest they originated in the cloister, possibly placed on the drain after the open draughty cloisters were restructured with solid walls and windows, the capitals then becoming obsolete. The caps of the drain (107) were removed for the exposed length and the contexts excavated and sampled. Two contexts were identified within the drain. The upper fill of the drain (173) was a loose mid-brown sandy silt with frequent bone and shell. Context (173) also contained 4 sherds of pottery, 1 dated 12th to 13th century and 3 dated 14th to 17th century. This overlay context (178) which was a dark brown loose silt containing occasional bone and shell. This primary fill (178) overlay the stone slabs at the base of the drain (105). The character of the drain changes significantly midway between the wall and south section. To the north of cuts [168] and [164] the drain sits on a built up foundation until it reaches the wall to the north [119]. Cuts [168] and [164] pre-date this section of the drain and may represent a remodelling of the refectory or be an earlier cut feature pre-dating the construction of the drain and refectory. Deposit (149) was a loose mortary silty sand within cut [164] to the east of the north south drain (107). This context included 5 sherds of medieval pottery, one dated 12th/13th century and four dated 14th/17th century.
4.1.6 The cut of the trench from the 2008 evaluation (Graham and Walker 2013) can be seen in the south eastern corner of this trench. It was excavated on a north-east to south-west alignment and abutted the drain. Covering the capstones of the drain (107), a midden deposit consisting of mainly bone and shell in a fine mid-grey matrix (121) continued across to the west side of the drain and overlay context (134). This midden deposit was sampled (Environmental sample index appendix III). Context (134) was also sampled and comprised a rubble layer in a grey matrix, similar to (121) but with fewer bone and shell inclusions. This context included 21 sherds of pottery with a date range for the assemblage from 12th to 17th centuries. Contexts (121) and (134) can be interpreted as being contemporary with use of the refectory as the material overlay the drain caps (107). To the south of trench 1 was a burnt deposit (104) abutting the drain and the south section. The burnt deposit (104), when excavated, varied in consistency from loose to compact and from dark brown to black in colour. The matrix appeared to be a burnt sandy silt and had frequent inclusions of iron nails, charcoal, occasional shell and bone fragments, and pottery. Stones were also present with molten pieces of lead, as well as pieces of window came. A substantial amount of painted Medieval window glass was recovered as fragments from this context. Context (104) was only encountered to the south and west of cuts [168] and [164]. Fragments of heat affected blue glass from context (104) were analysed and the results given in Appendix X. Several fragments of painted medieval glass from (104) are included in the glass report by Dr Rachel Tyson in Appendix IX. Twelve pottery fragments with a date range of 14h to 17th century were also recovered from this context and one sherd dated 12th to 14th century. The burning, nails, molten lead and glass suggest that context (104) results from demolition activity, possibly during a phase of remodelling in the south range during the 14th century. Context (104) was cut by [164] and [168] over which the northern part of drain (107) was constructed. Alternatively, 13
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 context (104) may be respecting a building occupying cuts [164] and [168] which was later removed. Either way, this favours context (104) arising from a period of remodelling rather than post-dissolution demolition as the only reason to continue the drain (107) to the north would be to serve a still functioning building (refectory).
4.1.7 To the north of the east west refectory wall a sequence of sondages were excavated to investigate levels below the refectory floor and search for evidence of earlier activity. The deposits encountered (310) and (311) below (115) can all be interpreted as levelling layers and redeposited natural. Context (242) overlay (115) and consisted of mortar and rubble. A bone chess piece (SF29) was also found in this context. Context (101) was a hard orange clay in this area.
4.1.8 Two cut features were recorded close to the western extent of trench 1. The northernmost of these was a sub-circular shallow pit [181] measuring 1.5m diameter and 0.4m deep. The fill of this pit (180) was a compacted medium brown loam with small pebbles, fragmented sandstone, sandy lenses, bone and shell. The fill of the pit was sampled as possible midden material though no dateable material was recovered from this feature.
4.1.9 Cut [316] was excavated in the far south west corner of trench 1. This sub-rectangular pit with rounded corners was 15cm deep and 1.1m across. The feature had two fills. The upper fill (288) consisted of loose red sandstone fragments with a lower fill (310) of loose dark brown/black silty clay. This may have contained organic material and was sampled. No dateable material was recovered from this feature.
4.1.10 Archaeological finds retrieved from this trench consisted of floor tiles, worked stone, copper alloy and iron objects (mostly handmade nails), fragments of lead and window came, Medieval pottery, painted Medieval window glass, Medieval glazed floor tile, painted wall plaster, a copper alloy token, a strap end or book clasp (SF 1), a possible lead boss and a chess piece (SF 23).
Plate 1: Looking south. The drain (107) in Trench 1 with reused capitals, the burnt deposit (104), the robbed out south refectory wall (103) and the remnant interior floor surface (111) abutting it can be seen in the foreground. 14
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Plate 2: Looking north. Trench 1 with capped drain (107) running north-south.
Plates 3 & 4 showing the chess piece (SF 29) and the three reused arcade capitals (107) found in Trench 1.
15
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Plate 5: Facing south showing the south refectory wall (103) running east west along the centre of the photograph.
4.2 TRENCH 2 4.2.1 Trench 2 was aligned west to east and was located to the south west of trench 1 on a slight slope. Trench 2 measured 10m in length by 4.5m in width. The archaeological features in trench 2 are shown in figures 6 and 7 (plans) and figure 13 (section). Discussion of Trench 2 below relates to these figures. The north-east corner of this trench meets the south western extent of Trench 1. At the south-east corner the trench continues south as a narrow strip, 2 metres wide, to join with Trench 3 at the southern end.
4.2.2 The trench was extended south as a narrow strip when a small drain was observed in the eastern side. Running in a southerly in direction the whole length of this drain [129], (221), (220), (219) was exposed. Extension of the area at the south end of the drain led to the excavation of Trench 3. This crude, narrow drain was only partially capped along its length by small flagstones (221), many of which had been robbed out or dislodged. No dateable finds were recovered from the fill of the drain. The sides were mainly lined with small flagstones. The cut for the drain was [129]. The fill at this most northerly end of the drain was (220). At this position the drain abuts a wide robbed out wall cut [170] towards the eastern side of Trench 2, interpreted as the east wall of the kitchen. The wall cut continues under both the north and the south section. All that remains of the wall is (171), a loosely compacted deposit of fine building rubble, comprised of degraded sandstone and fine sandstone fragments. A small extension was dug to the west of the narrow north south extension where the robbed east wall of the kitchen [170], (171) was again encountered.
16
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Plate 6: Facing south showing robbed out east kitchen wall (171)
4.2.3 In the north-west corner of Trench 2 was a small depression containing deposits (214) overlying (249). Context (214) was a very dark grey moist matrix with inclusions of rounded stones and pebbles. Close to this feature, about 2 metres from the west section, a red area of degraded sandstone (175) was recorded filling rectilinear cut [176]. On excavation, the fill (175) was seen to be degraded sandstone and fragments, as well as some rectilinear sandstone pieces measuring about 30x20x5 cm. After removal of the fill, depressions in the natural substrate (101) matching the removed sandstone pieces could be seen, indicating the stones had been under pressure from above. Once the cut [176] was cleaned of the sandstone, the basal clay showed up very cleanly with the depressions of the stones in the bottom. This feature may have been the base for a column.
4.2.4 To the south of the above feature was a dumped matrix of sandstone with some soil (205). No feature was discerned here and it was surmised that this area was a redeposited matrix from elsewhere, possibly relating to the dereliction of the monastery. A total of 7 pottery fragments dated 12th to 14th century were recovered from context (205).
4.2.5 A rectilinear cut feature was recorded in the south west corner of Trench 2, measuring about 4 metres from the west section by 1.5 metres wide from the south section. Excavation of (174) revealed many large granite boulders in a cut in the natural [206]. Cleaning of the granite foundation (174) recovered 6 sherds of pottery with five dating 12th/13th century and one 13th/14th century. In the corner of the west and north sections a layer of clay tiles could be seen; above these was a layer of burnt clay, with a darker, more organic burning above this all referred to as context (177). The above appeared to be one feature. The size of the boulders suggests support for a large structure. The remainder of the trench showed no other true structural indicators or features, although stonework and a possible shallow pit were observed centralised north of the trench. Striations in the clay could be observed running east west across the trench, despite the very dry conditions, which may represent natural clay redeposited in overlapping layers to form the kitchen floor. A likely interpretation for the feature mentioned above would be a Medieval hearth and oven. This type of construction tended to
17
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 have an oven to one side, possibly that seen in the section, and a large area adjacent to it for a fire, above which spits and cauldrons could be hung for cooking. A solid arch would be constructed to support the weight of the cooking equipment and oven. Two handmade bricks were also found in context (177). These are unusual at Holme Cultram, where the main building material is red sandstone, and may be associated with a hearth or oven. The area of trench 2 has been extensively robbed. Though difficult to interpret, the burning and heat affected clay recorded in feature (177), the granite foundation (174) in the south section and the presence of handmade bricks suggest that an oven or hearth structure lies to the southwest of the trench extent.
Plate 7: Facing west showing the heat affected clay (177) and granite foundation (174) in the foreground
18
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Plate 8: Facing west Trench 2 cleaned
4.3 TRENCH 3 4.3.1 Trench 3 was aligned east to west and was located on the southern side of the site, on a slight slope. Trench 3 measured 12m x 6.5m. An extension to the south west was added measuring 5m x 4m, again on an east to west alignment. The main archaeological deposits recorded in Plans 2 and 12 can be seen in Figures 8 and 9 (Appendix XII). Discussion of Trench 3 below relates mainly to these plans.
4.3.2 The drain [129] running from Trench 2 culminated in the north-east corner of Trench 3. The fill here was (124) which contained pottery fragments dating from the 12th to 14th centuries. This deposit (124) had accumulated in the south end of the stone lined part of the drain in what appeared to be a small sump [339] which was filled with an orange clay deposit (274) overlying (333), a red orange silty sand that could be redeposited natural and (327), a black deposit possibly created by run off from the drain.
4.3.3 The major feature in Trench 3 was a vaulted cistern with a substantial drain running west to east from it. The vault (138) was made up of stone slabs set on edge springing from well constructed side walls of the structure, forming a stone barrel-vault. A curved sandstone block (143), reused from a door arch, had been placed as a filler between the arch forming the east side of the vault and the caps on the main drain. Context (142) consisted of packing stones used to level and support the reused door arch. The capstones of the drain (144) ran from the east of the re-used door arch for the full length of the east/west drain in trench 3 to the eastern extent of excavation.
19
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Plate 9: The east-west drain seen next to the ranging rod, with the arch (138) for the cistern.
4.3.4 The first four capstones to the east of the cistern were removed to assess the vault and the drain. The fills were systematically removed and sampled until a flagged floor was reached at the base of the drain. In Section 3, Figure 14, the curve of the vaulted roof (138) of the structure can be seen. There was a void between the arch (138) and the upper fills of the cistern. The fills drawn in section 3 lie at the interface between the drain outflow and the cistern, where sluice slots were recorded in side walls (234 and (235). The fills were re numbered to enable environmental samples to be more closely linked to their position within the water management system. Section 3, Figure 14 shows the fills identified at the eastern extent of the cistern and their corresponding numbers to the east and west of section 6, which was drawn at the mid-point of the cistern interior.
4.3.5 Four fills in total were recorded at the cistern outflow (section 3). The primary fill at this point was (197), a loosely compacted deposit of orangey yellow sand. Within the matrix was a black organic silt, animal and fish bone, and occasional inclusions of Medieval pottery. This context is equivalent to (227) to the east of section 6 and (278) to the west of section 6. Pottery recovered from this primary fill had a date range of 12th to 17th century, suggesting that material has entered the water system over a significant period. The secondary fill (275) yielded no dateable artefacts and consisted of a lense of dark brown loose sand. Above this lay (196), equivalent to (238) and (272) , which was a dark grey- brown, compacted, silty clay soil, and was very moist. This context contained pottery dated to the 13th/14th centuries. Above this context, the upper fill of the drain (190), equivalent to (222) and (270) was a dark grey brown sandy soil with inclusions of small stones and gravel. This upper fill contained a large quantity of oats (Palaeoenvironment report, appendix VIII) and pottery fragments dating from the 12th to 17th centuries.
4.3.6 Below the cap stones (144) the south facing Section 9 (Figure 14, appendix XII), shows the construction of the north wall (235) of the drain at its interface with the vaulted cistern. The blocks are of red sandstone, and the flagged floor of the drain (231) can be seen here running beneath the 20
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 wall. Just left of centre a slot carved in the stones can be seen running from top to bottom of the wall. This was the position of the first sluice for flushing the drain out with water that had collected in the cistern. To the west of this an area of redesigning can be seen using uneven sandstone blocks and culminating with a tall slotted block, above which is aligned another slotted sandstone block. This forms the slot for the second sluice to flush out the drain. Beneath this, running between the two walls of the main drain, set in a bed of clay and small stones (230), was a timber (228). The timber was sampled and sent for dendrochronology dating but this was not successful. Beneath the clay and stone bed was a stone slab (229). When lowered, the sluice gate would have abutted against the timber to stop the waterflow.
4.3.7 The entrance to the vault is wider than the outflow drain, and two large rectilinear stone pillars stand at the interface of drain and cistern. By their extended width they served to bridge the gap of the wider vault. The following discusses features and contexts within the vaulted cistern.
Plate 10: Trench 3 Plan 9 looking vertically down with the north wall of the drain (235) on the right and the two sluice slots; the timber beam (228) can be seen in the base.
4.3.8 Once the vault had been fully excavated it was evident that it had a stone flagged base (232). The walls were constructed onto these flags. The back wall (325) rose up to meet the arch of the pitched stone roof (section 16, figure 15). The walls were all made of rectilinear dressed red sandstone blocks. The stones of the roof sprung from the side walls. Two inlets could be seen at the back of the structure. In west side of the north wall, almost at the base, a rectilinear inlet with associated fills could be seen. The primary fill (324) was a sandy grey matrix with inclusions of fine fish and mammal bone. The secondary fill (323) showed a lot of fine fish bones within it, and was a very dark grey-black mainly organic residue with few inclusions of Medieval pottery (13th to 17th century). Above this lay context (322) which was a soily dark grey matrix with inclusions of bone and charcoal. A second water inlet lay in the south corner of the rear wall of the cistern (325) as shown in Figure 15, section 16. The primary deposit in this inlet was (278) comprising loose light grey silty sand. Above this was context (272) which was a loose dark grey silty sand containing pottery dating to 13th/14th centuries. Context (271) lay over this and consisted of loose light yellow medium course sand. The upper fill of the inlet 21
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 was context (270) which was loose dark reddish brown clay and silt and contained no dateable material.
Drawing 1: Three dimensional drawing of the cistern in Trench 3, showing the north and south walls, and the back wall. (Marilyn Leech (each grid square is 15cm).
22
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Plate 11: The excavated cistern showing the flagged floor (232), the walls and the roof. The two inlets can be seen at the left and right at the bottom of the back wall (325).
4.3.9 At the east end of the Trench 3, north of the east/west drain, was a cut for a settling tank [339]. This appeared to be related to the end of drain [129] that ran from Trench 2. The matrix within the sump seemed to be the same as that in the end of the drain, but a firm connection could not be made here as the sump filled up with water making an inlet hard to detect. Adjacent to this to the west was a clay levelling layer (182).
23
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Plate 12: East end of main drain showing the end of the minor drain [129] where a slot has been put in the settling tank, where the dark fill can be seen.
4.3.10 Adjacent to the west section at the northern end, and spread across to the drain and the cistern, was context (133). Rich in organic material, this dark brown layer had lenses of shell within it and large amounts of bone were hand recovered. At least 30 litres of this midden was sampled for recovery of bone, fish bone, pottery and possibly plant material. This and other build up layers of various matrices can be seen in the section below. Context (133) is interpreted as a midden layer of material associated with the kitchen to the north of the excavated area.
24
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Plate 13: North end of the west section in Trench 3. The dark deposit where the ranging rods cross is context (133).
4.3.11 Discussion of Trench 3 below relates mainly to Figure 9, Plan 12. This is the final plan of Trench 3, with the southern extension shown. Upon further excavation, the area beneath the kitchen midden (133) revealed a series of small drains which ran from the northern extent of excavation to the large east/west aligned drain flowing from the cistern. Running south from the north section, towards the main drain, can be seen a cut [306] for a minor drain. The base is stone lined (304), as well as the sides (302). This early drain appears to be running from the area of the kitchen to the north of the trench and pre-dates the cistern as the end of the drain is cut off by the north cistern wall. The fill of this feature (303) included ceramics dated from 14th to 17th century. Other minor drains can be seen in this area (see Plate 13 below). Overlying the minor drain [306] was a section of intact stone lined and capped drain on a similar alignment. The sandstone caps (328) were removed to enable excavation and sampling of the feature. The drain contained 2 fills (331 sample 62) and (332 sample 63) which yielded no organic remains. The last drain in the sequence is shown by cut [301] and is contemporary with the main east west drain with a well-constructed aperture (300) into the north drain wall (235). Although most of the stone has been robbed, a small section of side stones remain on the east side where this drain meets the north wall (235) of the main east/west drain.
25
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Plate 14: The large east/west drain and cistern seen at the top. Other minor drains, of different phases, can be seen defined by ranging rods (302), (304), (328). At the top left an inlet to the east-west drain is visible (300)
4.3.12 The southern extension was excavated as the edge of wall (162) to the south, had been detected when revealing the full extent of the vaulted roof of the cistern. Wall (162) included a lower ‘step’ (185) alongside the cistern, though the function of this is not understood. At the eastern most extent of this area was a buttress wall (161) that abutted (160); reuse of carved stone was seen in the structural remains here. Feature (160) lay within the north east corner of the exposed building and is interpreted as a latrine, linked to an aperture in the south wall of the drain close to the outflow of the cistern.
4.3.13 To the south of this feature, another wall (158), running north-south, could be seen on a level with (160). Removal of the soil between these defined a step (159), indicating the entrance to this building or room. The infill between these walls, in the south-west corner of the extended trench, is a compacted rubble with inclusions of sandstone and soil, and is a possible demolition matrix (156). Context (157), overlying step (159), is very similar in make up and could be the same deposit.
26
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Plate 15; Trench 3 extension shows the room/building seen in Figure 10. The arch (138) for the cistern can be seen top right; the structural walls (158) are defined by the ranging rod and steps (159).
Plate 16: Trench 3 showing the east-west drain, arch (138) and the extension. 27
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
5. FINDS METHODOLOGY 5.1 INTRODUCTION 5.1.1 The archaeological finds assemblage recovered from Holme Cultram Abbey consisted mainly of material from the Medieval period. However some artefacts from later periods were recovered from un-stratified and cleaning contexts in the upper strata. Finds were cleaned, dried, bagged and labelled on site, according to English Heritage guidelines (1991, 2006). Medieval glass was boxed immediately without washing. Iron objects were thoroughly dried to prevent further corrosion and then bagged and labelled by context. Large stones were brushed clean before recording.
5.2 FINDS RECOVERED 5.2.1 Finds occurred as several different types. Larger finds occurred as carved stone from structural parts of the abbey. Roof tile was found in some numbers, as well as glazed and unglazed floor tiles. These have been assessed and recorded, reported by Dr Jennie Stopford in appendix VI. A total of 340 sherds of Medieval pottery were recovered during the 2014 excavations. These are reported by Sue Thompson in appendix IV. It is unfortunate that closer dating of medieval ceramics is not possible for the material assessed and has resulted in broad context date ranges spanning several centuries in most cases.
5.2.2 Medieval painted glass was sent to Dr Rachel Tyson, the report and drawings in appendix IX. Lead window came was also recovered. Handmade iron nails were found in varying condition and have been quantified.
5.2.3 Thirty four small finds (see Appendix II) were recovered including a strap end or book clasp, a token, a coin, a metal fitting, the lobe from a capital, a metal pot repair, painted wall plaster, a worked flint, a chess piece and a small jug and handle.
Plate 17: An almost complete Medieval jug (SF# 33) recovered by apprentice Hayley Graham.
28
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Forth coming reports in HCA-B HCA-C: Fish bone Analysis Dr Brian Irving, Masonry and architectural report Richard Wilson, Mammal and Bird Bone Don O’Meara.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.0.1 The three trenches excavated during the 2014 season achieved several key objectives and brought significant new archaeological remains to light associated with the monastic complex at Holme Cultram.
6.0.2 Trench 1 successfully located the south wall of the refectory building and clarified the alignment and position of this building within the south cloister range. The refectory wall had been extensively robbed of stone to foundation level and below, leaving only the construction cuts and areas of foundation intact. Nevertheless, this information is sufficient to determine that the final phase of the refectory was aligned east/west on its long access and did not project southwards from the south cloister range. Modifications to the associated drain running from the interior of the refectory to the south, perhaps associated with a basin within the refectory, suggest that an earlier phase of the refectory projected further to the south or had an outbuilding.
6.0.3 Trench 2 sought to locate the position of the kitchen to the west of the refectory. This trench revealed a completely robbed wall aligned north/south which is interpreted as the east wall of the kitchen. Although no intact surfaces remained, a heavy stone foundation and evidence of burning along with two handmade bricks suggest that trench 2 was located in the north eastern extent of a north/south aligned kitchen.
6.0.4 Trench 3 provided further evidence of the kitchen in the form of an extensive midden deposit (133) rich in bones and food waste. This would have been immediately to the south of the kitchen and overlay a sequence of drains running south from the building. Also in trench 3, excavation revealed a large intact and capped drain issuing from a substantial vaulted cistern. This cistern served to store and release water through a sluice to wash out latrine waste from a building located immediately south of the structure. In stark contrast to the heavy stone robbing encountered in trenches 1 and 2, and through previous excavations at Holme Cultram, the cistern, drain and corner of building were largely intact below the topsoil. The excellent preservation of the remains, combined with a significant amount of early post-medieval pottery from upper associated contexts, suggest that this building and associated drain and cistern continued to stand beyond the dissolution. This building was further investigated during the 2015 HCA-C excavations (report forthcoming).
6.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL AND FURTHER WORK 6.1.1 The HCA-A excavations in trench three have proven that the monastery extended further to the south than previously known. Furthermore, the excellent preservation in this southern extent of the field proves that some structures associated with the monastery survived the extensive stone robbing activity and may have continued in use beyond the dissolution. Further investigation is recommended in the southern part of the field to fully understand the building located in trench 3 and to search for other associated structures and features which could shed light on monastic activity beyond the cloister.
29
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allaby, M. 1994. Oxford dictionary of ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Allerdale Borough Council (ABC). 2013. Invitation to Tender for Hidden Heritage Archaeology Services. Unpublished Report from Allerdale Borough Council, Allerdale House, Workington, Cumbria, CA14 3YJ.
Anderberg, A-L. 1994. Atlas of Seeds and Small Fruits of Northwest-European Plant Species, with Morphological Descriptions. Part 4: Resedaceae-Umbelliferae. Stockholm: Swedish Museum of Natural History.
Arnold, T. 1885. Symeonis Monachi Opera Omni Rolls Series. Volumes I & II. London: Longman.
Berggren, G. 1969. Atlas of Seeds and Small Fruits of Northwest-European Plant Species, with Morphological Descriptions, Part 2: Cyperaceae. Stockholm: Swedish Museum of Natural History.
Berggren, G. 1981. Atlas of Seeds and Small Fruits of Northwest-European Plant Species, with Morphological Descriptions, Part 3: Salicaceae-Crucifera. Stockholm: Swedish Museum of Natural History.
Breeze, D. J. & B. J. Collingwood. 2006. Handbook to the Roman Wall 14th Revised edition. Newcastle upon Tyne : Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Brennand, M., G. Chitty & M. Nevell (Eds). 2006. The Archaeology of North West England: an Archaeological Research Framework for North West England Volume 1 Resource Assessment. Manchester: Association for Local Government Archaeological Officers and English Heritage with the Council for British Archaeology North West. Archaeology North West Volume 8 (Issue 18, for 2006).
Brennand, M., G. Chitty & M. Nevell (Eds). 2007. Archaeology in North West England: an Archaeological Research Framework for North West England Volume 2 Research Agenda and Strategy. Manchester: Association for Local Government Archaeological Officers North West and English Heritage with the Council for British Archaeology North West. Archaeology North West Volume 9 (Issue 19, for 2007).
Chitty, G. & M. Brennand. 2007. An Archaeological Research Framework for the North West Region: Research Agenda Introduction. In Brennand et al: 7-30.
Davis, R. V. 1979. Geology of Cumbria: Lakeland’s Rocks and Minerals Explained. North Yorkshire: Dalesman.
Doubleday, H. A. 1901. The Victoria History of the County of Cumberland. Sussex: Boydell & Brewer.
Embleton, R. & F. Graham. 1984. Hadrian’s Wall in the Days of the Romans. Newcastle: Frank Graham. 311-316.
English Heritage. 1991. Management of Archaeological Projects (MAP 2) 2nd Edition. London: English Heritage.
English Heritage. 2006. Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment. London: English Heritage. 30
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
English Heritage. 2011. Environmental Archaeology: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Methods, From Sampling and Recovery to Post-Excavation. 2nd Edition. London: English Heritage.
English Heritage. 2014. Animal Bones and Archaeology: Guidelines for Best Practice. Swindon: English Heritage.
Ferguson, R. S. 1908. Adenda Antiquaria. Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society. New Series 8: 382-5.
Gardiner, M. 1998. The exploitation of sea-mammals in medieval England: bones and their social context. Archaeological Journal 154: 173-195.
Garmonsway, G. N. (editor and translator). 1954. The Anglo Saxon Chronicle. London: Dent.
Gilbanks, G. E. 1899. Some Records of a Cistercian Abbey Holm Cultram, Cumberland. London: Walter Scott, Limited.
Graham, M. & J. Walker. 2011. Sule Wath – Archaeology Project Design: ‘Sule Wath’ Landscape Partnership Scheme Heritage Steering Group. Unpublished Report from Grampus Heritage & Training Limited, Cumbria.
Grainger, F. & W. G. Collingwood (Eds.). 1929. The Register and Records of Holm Cultram. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. Record Series, Volume VII. Kendal: T. Wilson & Son.
Grieve, M. 1977. A Modern Herbal. England: Penguin Books Limited.
Healey, C. 2007. Beckfoot Roman Cemetery and Milefortlet, Cumbria. Unpublished report for English Heritage.
Housman, J. 1800. A Topographical Description of Cumberland. Carlisle: F. Jollie.
Hyde, M. & N. Pevsner. 2010. The Buildings of England. Cumbria: Cumberland, Westmorland and Furness 87-90.
Newman, C. 2006a. The Mediaeval Period Resource Assessment in the North West. In Brennand, M. et al: 115-144.
Newman, R. 2006b. The Early Mediaeval Period Resource Assessment. In Brennand, M. et al: 91-114.
Newman, C. & R. Newman. 2007. The Mediaeval Period Research Agenda. In Brennand, M. et al: 95- 114.
Newman, R. & M. Brennand. 2007. The Early Mediaeval Period Research Agenda. In Brennand, M. et al: 73-94.
Outram, A.K. 2001. A new Approach to Identifying Bone Marrow and Grease Exploitation: Why the Indeterminate Fragments should not the ignored. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 401-410.
31
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Shaw, P. 2008. Method Statement: Sampling Strategies and Environmental Sampling Protocol for Archaeological Sites Excavated by North Pennines Archaeology Limited. Unpublished Report from North Pennines Archaeology Limited, Cumbria.
Sinclair, J. M. (Ed.) 1999. Collins English Dictionary. England: Harper Collins.
Stace, C. 1997. New Flora of the British Isles. 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stallibrass, S. 2011. Fit for purpose aims and objectives: a fishy tale from Chester that matches aims, methods and site. In English Heritage. 2011. Environmental Archaeology: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Methods, From Sampling and Recovery to Post-Excavation. 2nd Edition. London: English Heritage.
Walker, J. & M. Graham. 2013. St. Mary’s Abbey, Holme Cultram, Abbeytown, Cumbria: Archaeological and Historical Investigations. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. Cumbria Archaeological Research Reports No. 4. Bowness on Windermere: Badger Press.
ELECTRONIC RESOURCES Fellows-Jensen, G. (Dr). 25/01/2015. http://www.ramsdale.org/dalr.htm#T2 On dalr and holmr in the place-names of Britain.
32
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
APPENDIX I: CONTEXT INDEX
CONTEXT INDEX
HCA-A GHTL 14
CONTEXT TRENCH TYPE BRIEF DESCRIPTION ABOVE BELOW NO
100 ALL DEPOSIT TOPSOIL
101 ALL NATURAL NATURAL
102 ALL CLEANING CLEANING LAYER COVERS ALL TRENCHES 101
103 1 DEPOSIT ABOVE FOUNDS OF REF WALL. MORTAR & SS FRAGS 102
104 1 DEPOSIT ABUTTING DRAIN IN TR 1 194 134
105 1 FILL FILL OF DRAIN TR 1 107
106 1 STRUCTURAL DRAIN SIDES RETAINING STONES 107
107 1 STRUCTURAL CAPSTONES OF DRAIN 105 106 105 106 102 121
108 1 CUT FROM OLD TRENCH? 109
109 1 FILL BACK FILL FROM OLD TRENCH? 102 108
110 1 CUT FOR SHELL/BONE MIDDEN 118
111 1 DEPOSIT FLAGGED AREA INSIDE REFECTORY 254 102
112 1 DEPOSIT FLAGGED AREA ABUTTING (111) 115 102
113 1 DEPOSIT FOUNDATION WALL CONTEMPORARY WITH (114) 102
114 1 DEPOSIT FOUNDATION WALL CONTEMPORARY WITH (113) 102
115 1 DEPOSIT RED ASHY LAYER WITH BURNING 102
116 1 CUT OF POSSIBLE PIT 117
117 1 FILL OF POSSIBLE PIT 102 118
118 1 FILL SHELL & BONE MIDDEN 135 102
119 1 CUT FOR SOUTH SIDE OF REF WALL 103 113 114
120 1 CUT FOR NORTH SIDE OF REF WALL 103 113 114
121 1 DEPOSIT EAST SIDE OF DRAIN 107 134 102
122 1 DEPOSIT BASE OF FOUNDATION REFECTORY 103 113 114
123 3 FILL OF [127] ROBBED OUT WALL OF RANGE 179 102
33
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
124 3 DEPOSIT EAST SIDE OF DRAIN IN TR 3 129 102
125 3 CUT ROBBED OUT WALL? 126
126 3 FILL OF [125] ROBBED OUT WALL? 125 102
127 3 CUT FOR (123) ROBBED OUT WALL? 123
128 1 DEPOSIT FILL POST ROBBER TRENCH 103 115 102
129 1 CUT FOR (124) 101 124 252
130 1 CUT FOR (128) 128
131 3 FILL MATRIX BETWEEN MASONRY OF THE RCH 102
132 3 DEPOSIT SHELL SPOT FIND 133 102
133 3 DEPOSIT NORTH WEST CORNER OF TRENCH 102 132 153
134 1 DEPOSIT RUBBLE LAYER TR 1 WEST OF DRAIN 149 172 121
135 1 DEPOSIT RUBBLE LAYER EAST OF DRAIN 118
136 1 STRUCTURAL CRUSHED DEBRIS SANDSTONE 101 B/FILL
137 3 DEPOSIT ROBBED OUT WALL 102
138 3 STRUCTURAL ARCH OVER MAIN DRAIN 102 154
139 3 STRUCTURAL LARGE ROOF TILE RE-USED 140 131
140 3 STRUCTURAL BENEATH ROOF TILE (139) 139
141 3 STRUCTURAL ABUTS (142) EDGE OF ARCHED AREA 133
142 3 STRUCTURAL ABUTS (141) TO SOUTH ACROSS ARCHED AREA 140 133
143 3 STRUCTURAL ABUTS (142) TO EAST OF SMALL CAPSTONE 133
144 3 STRUCTURAL CAPSTONES RUNNING E-W ACROSS DRAIN 102 155
145 3 CUT FOR (144) CAPSTONES SOUTH SIDE OF OF DRAIN 144
146 3 CUT FOR (144) CAPSTONES NORTH SIDE OF OF DRAIN 144
147 3 CUT FOR WALL SOUTH SIDE OF (144) 137
148 1 TRENCH DARK BROWN SOIL ABUTTING (103) TO SOUTH 241 165 134
149 1 TRENCH ABUTTING WEST SIDE OF DRAIN NEW BUILD 172 134
150 1 EXTENSION OF (148) ON EAST SIDE 101 135
151 1 TRENCH ABUTTING EAST SIDE OF DRAIN NEW BUILD 166 189 135
152 1 DEPOSIT CLAY PAD 237 135
34
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
153 3 DEPOSIT ORANGE SPREAD WITH BLACK/BROWN AT EDGE 133 133
154 3 RUBBLE SOUTH SIDE OF ARCH (138) BETWEEN ARCH AND WALL 138
155 3 DEPOSIT CLAY SEALING SOME OF (144) CAPSTONES 144 203
156 3 DEPOSIT RUBBLE IN SOUTH WEST CORNER OF TRENCH EXT 102
157 3 DEPOSIT RUBBLE IN SE END OF TR 3 EXT 102
158 3 STRUCTURAL WALL AT SE END OF TR 3 EXT 102
159 3 STRUCTURAL STEP STONE ABUTTING N END OF (!58) 102
160 3 STRUCTURAL WALL AT NE END OF TR 3 EXT 102
161 3 STRUCTURAL BUTTRESS E SIDE OF EXT 102
162 3 STRUCTURAL WALL SW END OF TR EXT 279 102
163 2 DEPOSIT TR 2 NORTH SIDE OF STONE DEPOSIT
164 1 CUT FOR (149) 149
165 1 CUT SOUTH WEST OF (149) CUT FOR (148) 148
166 1 CUT EAST OF (151) CUT FOR (151) 151
167 1 CUT SOUTH OF (150) CUT FOR (150) 101 135 150
168 1 EAST OF DRAIN INTERFACE CUT ASS. WITH [164]?
169 1 CUT INTERFACE OF (152) & OLD TRENCH. CUT FOR OT 102
170 2 CUT FOR WALL 171
171 2 WALL ROBBED OUT 170 102
172 1 DEPOSIT RUBBLE DEPOSIT BELOW (149) 101 149
173 1 DEPOSIT FILL OF DRAIN (107) 178 107
174 2 DEPOSIT BLACK SPLODGE N OF HEARTH 102
175 2 LAYER DEGRADED SANDSTONE PLINTH 176 102
176 2 CUT FOR (175) 175
177 2 DEPOSIT FIRED ORANGE CLAY OF HEARTH 251 102
178 1 DEPOSIT SILT LAYER OF 2ND FILL OF [ ] UNDER (173) 173
179 3 CUT FOR (123) WEST SIDE NEAR SECTION 123
180 1 FILL FILL OF PIT IN W SIDE OF MIDDEN CUT BY [148] 148 181 102
181 1 CUT FOR (180) CUT OF PIT W SIDE OF MIDDEN CUT BY [148] 148 241 180
35
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
182 3 DEPOSIT CLAY LAYER TO SE OF TR 183
183 3 DEPOSIT GRAVELLY LAYER SE OF TR OVER (182) 182 102
184 3 DEPOSIT UPPER FILL IN ENTRANCE TO VAULT
185 3 STRUCTURAL STEP BETWEEN (160), (162) 153 160 162
186 3 STRUCTURAL CAPSTONE BENEATH (139) 234 235 139
187 VOID
188 VOID
189 1 DEPOSIT SILT LAYER BOTTOM OF 2008 EXCAVATION 101 109 208
190 3 DEPOSIT FILL OF DRAIN UNDER (144) 196 144
191 VOID SEE (234) & (235)
192 3 WITHIN (160) 202
193 VOID
194 1 DEPOSIT ORANGE CLAY BENEATH (104) (DEMOLITION LAYER) 226 253 104 164 165 202
195 2 DEPOSIT ADJACENT TO W SIDE OF WALL CUT CLAY IN TR 101 194 123 205
206 251
196 3 DEPOSIT FILL OF DRAIN BELOW FILL (190) 197 190
197 3 DEPOSIT FILL OF DRAIN BELOW FILL (196) 231 196
198 2 DEPOSIT WEST OF TRENCH DARK AREA (174) 203 102 174
199 1 STRUCTURAL BEAM SLOT? NORTH OF REFECTORY WALL 102
200 1 CUT CUT FOR (199) 101 199
201 1 WEST OF DRAIN AT LOWER HALF 202 102
202 1 CUT CUT FOR (201) WEST OF DRAIN AT LOWER HALF 201
203 2 DEPOSIT CLAY BELOW [176] POSS CUT FOR PILLAR OR OTHER FEAT UE 176
204 3 FILL BELOW (192) IN (160) TR 3 263 192
205 2 FILL ROBBED DRAIN? SLOT IN E/W OF TR 2 101 100
206 2 CUT CUT FOR (174) FIRE PLACE 101 174
207 1 SONDAGE TRENCH 1 EAST SIDE NORTH CORNER 115 242
208 1 DEPOSIT SANDY CLAY LAYER IN 2008 SECTION [169] 189 210 211
209 2 DEPOSIT BASE LAYER OF HEARTH BELOW (177) 177
36
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
210 1 CUT FOR (211) POSS CUT FOR SMALL PIT 189 135 208 211
211 1 FILL FOR [210] FILL OF SMALL PIT 210 135
212 1 DEPOSIT MIDDEN IN SONDAGE (207) 102
213 3 DEPOSIT WITHIN DRAIN TR 3 N/S CUT [129] UNCAPPED 129 202
214 2 DEPOSIT PIT? IN TR 2 NORTH WEST CORNER ADJACENT TO (205) 249 202
215 1 DEPOSIT IN TRENCH 1 FAR NE OF TRENCH 242 102
216 3 STRUCTURAL ABUTTING (138) ARCH BENEATH (142) 234 235 139 142
217 VOID SEE (234) & (235)
218 VOID SEE (234) & (235)
219 3 FILL (LONG MINOR DRAIN) OF DRAIN ABUTS (213) TO S SIDE 269 102
220 3 FILL OF MINOR DRAIN AT N END WHERE IT IS CAPPED 221
221 3 STRUCTURAL CAPSTONES OF LONG MINOR DRAIN IN TR 3 [129] 308 102
222 3 DEPOSIT DEPOSIT UNDER ARCH (138) ASSO WITH (190) 223 138
223 3 DEPOSIT BENEATH (222) JUST OUTSIDE OF ARCH 232 222
224 3 DEPOSIT DEPOSIT BELOW (157) ADJ TO (158), (159), (160) & (161) UE 157
225 1 SONDAGE UNDER [181] 241 226 181
250 233
226 1 PATCH UNDER [181] (225) 250 233 194 225
227 3 DEPOSIT GRITTY SILTY DEPOSIT IN (138) FRONT S CORNER GOING 232 222 BACK
228 3 STRUCTURAL TIMBER - WOOD IN SITU BOTTOM OF SLUICE 230 223
229 3 STRUCTURAL STONE LINED BASE FOR TIMBER UE 230
230 3 DEPOSIT CLAY BENEATH TIMBER ABOVE FLAG 229 228
231 3 STRUCTURAL DRAIN FLAGS AT BASE UE 197 234 235
232 3 STRUCTURAL UNDER ARCH FLAGS AT BASE UE 223
233 1 DEPOSIT BUT BY 226, THIN LAYER OF CLAY 250 225
234 3 STRUCTURAL WALL OF DRAIN ON S SIDE ARCH ON TOP OF FLAGS 231 138
235 3 STRUCTURAL WALL OF DRAIN ON N SIDE OF ARCH TOP OF FLAGS 231 138
236 3 STRUCTURAL PART OF ARCH BENEATH (142) ABOVE (235) 235 142
237 1 DEPOSIT THIN LAYER OF SANDY CLAY SAME AS 233 136 152
37
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
238 3 DEPOSIT BENEATH ARCH 227 222
239 VOID SEE (230)
240 STRUCTURAL STONES PACKED IN CLAY BELOW 239 PCKING TIMBER 228 230 228 230
241 1 STRUCTURAL BUTTRESS? RED SANDSTONE UNDER (165) 114 194 148 253
242 1 DEPOSIT BLACK SPLODGE 115 100
243 1 CUT SMALL PIT 149 104/244
244 1 FILL FILL OF [243] 243 104
245 3 DEPOSIT EQUAL TO (156) ASS WITH (160), (159) ETC IN SW CORNER 246 279
246 3 DEPOSIT CLAY BELOW (245) 245 279 156
247 3 DEPOSIT EARTH BETWEEN TREE AND WALL/LOO 100
248 2 DEPOSIT REDEPOSITED NATURAL CLAY 101 100
249 2 DEPOSIT SHALLOW DIP IN NW CORNER 248 101 100
250 1 DEPOSIT CRUSHED RED SANDSTONE (SAME AS 136?) 226 233 253
251 2 CUT CUT FOR (177) 101 177
252 3 DEPOSIT PATH OF DRAIN 129 S END 129 101
253 1 DEPOSIT GREY BROWN CLAY UNDER DEMOLITION LAYER (194) 250 241 194
254 1 DEPOSIT GREYISH BROWN CLAY 101 150/151
255 1 DEPOSIT ORANGE RED CLAY 115 111
256 1 DEPOSIT GREYISH BROWN CLAY 136 151
257 1 DEPOSIT LUMP OF MORTAR IN NE CORNER OF TR 242 215
258 1 DEPOSIT DARK GREY CLAY 101 259
259 1 DEPOSIT RED BROWN SILTY SAND AND CRUSHED SANDSTONE 258 194
260 1 DEPOSIT LIGHT BROWNISH GREY SILTY SAND 258 259
261 1 DEPOSIT SONDAGE NE CORNER L ORANGE YELLOW SAND 277 257
262 1 DEPOSIT RED SANDSTONE NE CORNER 261 255
263 3 STRUCTURAL FLAGSTONES BASE OF (160) (192) (204) UE 204
264 1 CUT A CUT INTO NATURAL FILLED BY 136 101 136/150/151
265 2 CUT FOR (214) , (249) UE 249
266 1 DEPOSIT STONES IN SONDAGE NE CORNER OF TRENCH ABUTS 267 UE 262
38
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
267 1 DEPOSIT CLAY IN SONDAGE NE CORNER ABUTS 266 UE 262
268 1 DEPOSIT SW END OF SONDAGE REFECTORY WALL ON W SIDE UE 102
269 2&3 DEPOSIT NATURAL? CLAY LINING MINOR DRAIN IN TRENCH 3 UE 124 219 220
270 3 DEPOSIT UPPER FILL VAULT 271
271 3 DEPOSIT SECOND FILL OF VAULT 272 270
272 3 DEPOSIT 3RD ORGANIC FILL OF VAULT 278 271
273 3 CUT CUT BETWEEN MAIN DRAIN AND (124) E SIDE OF TR 3 293
274 3 DEPOSIT FILL OF CUT [273] E SID EOF TRENCH 335 102
275 3 DEPOSIT GRAVELLY MATERIAL NR WEST DRAIN AT VAULT 278 270
276 3 DEPOSIT VERY BLACK SANDY ORGANIC LAYER 289 278
277 1 DEPOSIT GREY CLAY DEPOSIT PROB SAME AS (258) (254) 101 194
278 3 DEPOSIT LOWEST VAULT LAYER 276 272
279 3 DEPOSIT BELOW (156) IN BUILDING (160) (158) (162) (185) 245 246
280 1 DEPOSIT GREY CLAY 115
281 VOID
282 1 CUT CUT FOR REBUILDING/SUPPORTING REFECOTRY WALL 101 277
283 1 DEPOSIT DEPOSIT/FILL OF [282] COARSE SAND ABUTS [282] 101 194
284 1 DEPOSIT CLAY & RUBBLE FILL SW END 277 194
285 1 DEPOSIT CLAY STONES & RUBBLE REINFORCING REFECTORY WALL 101 149
286 VOID
287 1 DEPOSIT 4 SANDSTONE SLABS NW CORNER 288 194
288 1 DEPOSIT CRUSHED SANDSTONE NW CORNER 277 310 287 316
289 3 DEPOSIT SETTING LAYER OF VAULT 276
290 1 DEPOSIT MORTAR LAYER BELOW HEAD OF DRAIN (111) IN REFEC 255 111
291 1 DEPOSIT GREYISH BROWN CLAY AND SILTY SAND 250 277 194 288
292 1 CUT CUT FOR SANDSTONE (250) 101 250
293 VOID
294 VOID
39
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
295 3 DEPOSIT CLAY INFILL OF E-W DRAIN FROM VAULT 296
296 3 DEPOSIT DARK SANDY INFILL OF DRAIN WITH FISH BONE 297 295
297 3 DEPOSIT YELLOW SANDY INFILL OF E-W DRAIN 298 296
298 3 DEPOSIT LOWEST FILL OF E-W DRAIN 297
299 2&3 STRUCTURAL SIDE STONES OF MINOR DRAIN 129 269 219 220
300 3 STRUCTURAL STONE APERTURE INFLOW TO MAIN DRAIN 337 235
301 3 CUT INTO NATURAL FOR DRAIN FLOW INTO MAIN DRAIN 101 133
302 3 STRUCTURAL NW SIDE OF DRAIN, SIDE STONES UPPERMOST DRAIN 303 133
303 3 STRUCTURAL BASE OF (302) 101 302
304 3 STRUCTURAL SMALL DRAIN AT TOP ON WEST SIDE EARLIER PHASE 306 305
305 3 STRUCTURAL STONES ASS WITH SLIGHTLY LOWER DRAIN 340 133
306 3 CUT CUT FOR LOWER DRAIN 101 304
307 3 DEPOSIT RUBBLE LAYER ABOVE (133) 133 102
308 VOID (SEE 299)
309 3 CUT FOR (294) IN TR 3 CLOSE TO [127] 101 294
310 1 DEPOSIT BLACK ORGANIC MATERIAL UNDER SANDSTONE (288) 277 291 288
311 1 DEPOSIT DARK GREY CLAY IN EXC SECT TO N OF TR 1 101 312
312 1 DEPOSIT ORANGE BROWN SANDY CLAY W/ STONE AND RUBBLE INC 311 280/242/313
313 1 DEPOSIT GREY BROWN DEPOSIT AT SLOPING ANGLE AGAINST (242) 242 314 (314)
314 1 DEPOSIT " ANGLE AGAINST 313 AND S REFECTORY WALL 313 102
315 1 STRUCTURAL BELOW FOUND COARSE OF REFECTORY, ROUGH STONE 311 113/114
316 1 CUT FOR (287) & (288) SW CORNER OF TRENCH 101 288
317 1 DEPOSIT GREY YELLOW CLAY 310 318
318 1 DEPOSIT THIN LAYER OF RED SANDSTONE 310/31 311 7
319 3 DEPOSIT STONE WITH SLOT FOR SLUICE IN S SIDE OF DRAIN WALL 234 144
320 3 DEPOSIT LOWER DRAIN UNDER 133 TOWARDS MAIN DRAIN 343 133
321 1 DEPOSIT VERY BLACK THIN BURNT ORGANIC LAYER IN (318) 318/31 318 1
40
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
322 3 DEPOSIT TOP OF INLET INTO VAULT S SIDE 323 325
323 3 DEPOSIT MIDDLE FILL OF INLET INTO S SIDE OF VAULT - VERY BLACK 324 322
324 3 DEPOSIT BOTTOM FILL OF S INLET BASE OF BACK WALL FACING EAST 232 323
325 3 STRUCTURAL BACK WALL OF VAULT FACING E CONTAINS 2 INLETS AT BASE 232 138
326 2 DEPOSIT BLACK LAYER NE CORNER OF TR 194
327 DEPOSIT BLACK DEPOSIT IN THE SETTLING TANK 101 274
328 3 STRUCTURAL CAPSTONES. MINOR DRAIN BELOW UPPER DRAIN BELOW 329 306 (133)
329 3 STRUCTURAL SIDE STONES MINOR DRAIN BELOW UPPER DRAIN BELOW 330 133 (133)
330 3 DEPOSIT CLAY BASE OF MINOR DRAIN BELOW (133) UE 329
331 3 DEPOSIT BELOW (133) UPPER FILL OF DRAIN 332 328
332 DEPOSIT PRIMARY FILL OF DRAIN BELOW OTHER 331
333 3 DEPOSIT ORANGE DEPOSIT IN WHICH 327 CUTS TR 3 SE 334
335 3 DEPOSIT BLACK BURNT LAYER RUNNING THORUGHH 274 274
334 3 DEPOSIT DEPOSIT FILL OF SANDSTONE RUBBLE 274 333
337 3 CUT CUT TO MAKE ROOM TO LAY DRAIN IN SECTION 274 336
338 3 CUT CUT TO ALLOW MATERIAL TO DRAIN INTO SETTLING TANK 274
339 3 CUT CUT OF SETTLING TANK 274
336 3 DEPOSIT DEPOSIT FILL OF FOOD WASTE DRAIN & RUBBLE FILL FOR 274 102
CUT DRAIN
340 3 STRUCTURAL SMALL FLAGSTONES LINING BASE OF APERTURE (300) UE 133/144
341 1 DEPOSIT CLAY PAD 277 194
342 2 DEPOSIT IN SECTION NORTH TR 2 SHELLY DEPOSIT 101 100
343 3 CUT FOR DRAIN (320) 101 320
41
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
APPENDIX II: SMALL FINDS INDEX
GHTL14 HCA-A SMALL FINDS INDEX
CONTE TREN XT CH SMALL NUMB NUM FINDS No. ER BER OBJECT MATERIAL COMMENT
1 US 1 STRAP END/BOOK CLASP CU ALLOY GOOD CONDITION
2 US 1 NUREMBURG TOKEN? CU ALLOY
3 US 1 BOSS? LEAD?
4 US 1 FITTING? LEAD? GOOD CONDITION
5 US 1 MED GLAZED FLOOR TILE CERAMIC COMPLETE OBLONG
6 US 1 MED GLAZED FLOOR TILE CERAMIC COMPLETE TRIANGULAR
7 US 1 MED GLAZED FLOOR TILE CERAMIC COMPLETE RECTANGULAR
8 US 1 WORKED STONE STONE PART OF WINDOW MULLION?
9 US 1 WORKED STONE STONE
10 US 1 WORKED STONE STONE
11 US 1 WORKED STONE STONE COLUMNAR?
12 US 1 STRAP END CU ALLOY GOOD CONDITION
13 US 1 STAINED GLASS GLASS FRIABLE
14 US 1 MED TILE TREFOIL DESIGN CERAMIC TREFOIL DESIGN FLOWER
15 US 3 COIN SILVER? GOOD CONDITION
16 US 1 MED GLAZED TILE CERAMIC COMPLETE OBLONG
17 US 1 MED GLAZED TILE CERAMIC COMPLETE
18 US 1 WINDOW GLASS GLASS FRIABLE
19 US 1 MED GLAZED TILE CERAMIC COMPLETE
20 3 MED BOOK STRAP? CU ALLOY 3 PUNCHED HOLES W END
21 123 3 LOBE OFF CAPITAL STONE RUBBLE IN ROBBED WALL 93CM DEPTH
22 US POT REPAIR LEAD POT WITH LEAD REPAIR
23 184 3 PAINTED WALL PLASTER PLASTER UPPER FILL OF ENTRANCE TO VAULT
24 133 3 LEAD OK
25 177 2 FLOOR TILE CAT PRINT CERAMIC FLOOR TILE RE-USED IN HEARTH BASE
26 174 2 SCRAPER? (WORKED FLINT) FLINT LARGE WORKED FLINT
27 156 3 METAL OBJECT CU & FE
28 194 1 PAINTED WALL PLASTER PLASTER PAINTED WALL PLASTER
29 242 1 CHESS PIECE BONE? CHESS PIECE
30 222 3 POTTERY FRAGMENT CERAMIC IMPORTED
42
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
31 173 1 METAL OBJECT CU ALLOY
32 222 3 TRANSLUCENT OBJECT GLASS
33 279 3 SMALL JUG AND HANDLE POTTERY 0.4M FROM W SECTION 0.75M FROM (162)
34 156 3 MULLION SANDSTONE WORKED SANDSTONE
A small finds report covering excavations HCA-A, HCA-B and HCA-C by Tim Padley is forthcoming. This will be included in the HCA-B 2015 final excavation report.
43
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
APPENDIX III: ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE INDEX
GHTL14 HCA-A ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX GHTL14 HCA-A ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX
SAMP CONT TYPE NUNBER INITIAL DATE SAMP CONT TYPE NUNBER INITIAL DATE LE EXT OF OF BAGS S LE EXT OF OF BAGS S NUMB NUMB SAMP NUMB NUMB SAMP ER ER LE ER ER LE
1 128 BULK 3 7.6.14 34 278 BULK 4 TUBS D OM 12.7.14
2 132 BULK 20 L FG 8.6.14 35 270 BULK 6 TUBS D OM 13.7.14
3 108 BULK 100 L D OM 8.6.14 36 271 BULK 9 TUBS D OM 13.7.14
4 108 BULK 80 L D OM 8.6.14 37 272 BULK 3 TUBS D OM 13.7.14
5 108 BULK 60 L D OM 8.6.14 38 278 BULK 4 TUBS D OM
6 121 BULK 50 L D OM 8.6.14 39 278 BULK 6 TUBS D OM
7 104 BULK 17 TUBS ML 13.6.14 40 278 BULK 30 L D OM 15.7.14
8 133 BULK 3 TUBS PS 13.6.14 41 276 BULK 30 L D OM 15.7.14
9 135 BULK 2 TUBS D OM 11.6.14 42 289 BULK 50 L D OM 15.7.14
10 134 BULK 2 TUBS D OM 11.6.14 43 178 BULK 50 L D OM 15.7.14
11 153 BULK 2 BAGS PS 19.6.14 44 178 BULK 30 L D OM 15.7.14
12 133 BULK 28 BAGS PS 19.6.14 45 178 BULK 40 L D OM 15.7.14
13 180 BULK 9 TUBS KR 22.6.14 46 173 BULK 50 L D OM 16.7.14
14 190 BULK 2 BAGS PS 24.6.14 47 296 BULK 40 L D OM 16.7.14
15 196 BULK 1 BAG PS 24.6.14 48 297 BULK 40 L D OM 16.7.14
16 197 BULK 1 BAG PS 24.6.14 49 298 BULK 50 L D OM 17.7.14
17 190 BULK 3 BAGS PS 25.6.14 50 270 BULK 10 L D OM 17.7.14
18 177 BULK PS 25.6.14 51 276 BULK 20 L D OM 17.7.14
19 196 BULK 3 BAGS PS 25.6.14 52 296 BULK 20 L D OM 17.7.14
44
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
20 197 BULK 8 BAGS PS 25.6.14 53 297 BULK 20 L D OM 17.7.14
21 190 BULK 3 BAGS PS 25.6.14 54 298 BULK 20 L D OM 17.7.14
22 174 BULK 2 BAGS PS 26.6.14 55 296 BULK 20 L D OM 17.7.14
23 209 BULK 1 BAG PS 26.6.14 56 297 BULK 30 L D OM 17.7.14
24 211 BULK 2 BAGS PS 26.6.14 57 298 BULK 25 L D OM 17.7.14
25 223 BULK 2 TUBS PS 30.6.14 58 310 BULK 1 BAG ML 18.7.14
26 227 BULK 4 TUBS PS 30.6.14 59 323 BULK 3 TUBS PS 21.7.14
27 244 BULK 2 TUB HG 2.7.14 60 234 BULK 3 TUBS PS 21.7.14
28 219 BULK 2 TUBS PH 3.7.14 61 327 BULK 8 TUBS PS 22.7.14
29 220 BULK 2 TUBS ML 7.7.14 62 331 BULK 1 TUB PS 22.7.14
30 270 BULK 5 TUBS D OM 12.7.14 63 332 BULK 1 TUB PS 22.7.14
31 271 BULK 1 TUB D OM 12.7.17 64 326 BULK 3 TUBS MM 22.7.14
32 272 BULK 4 TUBS D OM 12.7.14 65 279 BULK 10 TUBS HG 24.7.14
33 279 BULK 4 TUBS D OM 12.7.14
45
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
APPENDIX IV
HOLME CULTRAM THE MEDIEVAL POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE – ASSESSMENT REPORT BY SUE THOMPSON
HCA-A AND HCA-B
Introduction
A total of 689 sherds of medieval pottery, weighing 13557g, was recovered from excavations at St. Mary’s Abbey, Holme Cultram in 2014 and 2015. The sherds varied in size but were for the main part in good condition, with little post depositional wear or discolouration. In addition to the main sites HCA-A and HCA-B, pottery from three other areas was also assessed; FRG-A, SCC-A and WHF-A. The results from these smaller areas are also included here.
The medieval ceramics were initially sorted by fabric group based on the existing fabric series created for Holme Cultram (Greenlane 2011). The pottery was then quantified and weighed, and vessel fragments were noted, e.g. bases, rims, handles etc. Sherds were also examined for any decoration or residues which may be present.
Methods
The medieval pottery was assessed and recorded using guidelines published by the Medieval Pottery Research Group (MRPG 2001) and Orton et al (1993). In addition to the Holme Cultram pottery series, fabric descriptions from other local sites were also considered, although it has not yet been possible to see the physical Carlisle medieval pottery reference series.
Results
The assemblage was collected in roughly equal quantities in each of the two years of excavation, with 340 sherds (49%) recovered from HCA-A, and 349 from HCA-B (51%), with weights also fairly evenly split 6393g (47%) and 1764g (53%). A total of 71 sherds (10%) were from unstratified contexts.
The same fabrics as seen in earlier phases of work continued to be retrieved, with sandy fine wares and later reduced wares making up the assemblage. Lightly Gritted/ Sandy and fine wares accounts for 19% of the medieval pottery assemblage. It has been noted (Greenlane 2011, 17) that the Partially Reduced Grey ware may relate closely to some of the Sandy fabrics, however, during this assessment it has been considered that this group most closely resembles the Reduced fabric groups. A small number of Red Gritty ware sherds (19 sherds) are similar to the fabrics that dominate medieval assemblages in Carlisle in the 12th – 14th centuries (Bradley and Miller 2014). These very small fragments account for less than 3% of the total sherd count, and for the purposes of this assessment have been included with the Lightly Gritted/ Sandy wares. The majority of the pottery recovered comprised Partially Reduced Grey ware or Late Medieval Reduced ware (81% sherds and 89% weight).
The Holme Cultram fabric series created by Greenlane Archaeology (2011) recorded eight Lightly Gritted/ Sandy and fine wares. Sherds tend to be small, with few diagnostic fragments. Of these, Sandy Fabric 2 was the most common followed by Sandy Fabric 6 - this small group may represent imports from outside the area and has possible links with the coastal tradition seen in west Cumbria (Greenlane 2011, 14). A date range of 12th – 14th centuries are suggested for this group.
A single Partially Reduced Grey ware group and three Late Medieval Reduced Grey wares are recorded in the Holme Cultram Fabric series. The Partially Reduced Grey ware has similarities with both the 46
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Sandy Fabrics of 12th – 14th centuries and the later Reduced wares. A date of 13th – 14th centuries is considered likely (Mace and Dawson 2011) The Late Medieval Reduced wares form part of the widespread Northern Greenware tradition and spans the 14th -17th centuries (Brooks 2000, 89).
Vessel types in Partially Reduced Greyware and Reduced Greyware include jugs and cisterns. Only one pinched spout was seen, along with two fragments of bungholes. Handles tend to be straps. Rims are simple in form and bases are flat or sagging. An almost-complete small jug was recovered from (276) SF 33. This has a slightly sagging base and strap handle. There are also two possible fragments of curfew. Curfews are a more unusual form of medieval ceramic, a large pottery dome used to cover domestic fires overnight to avoid the risk of sparks.
Identifiable Sandy and Sandy and PRGW PRGW % Reduced Reduced wares Vessel Fragment finewares finewares % Count wares % Count
Body 80 12 71 10 311 45
Rim 6 1 15 2 17 2
Base 15 2 8 1 26 4
Shoulder 9 1 10 1 39 6
Handle 6 1 13 2 17 2
Spout 0 0 2 0.2 1 0.1
Table 1: Count and percentages of identifiable vessel fragments by fabric types HCA-A and HCA-B
Sixteen rim and base sherds accounting for 2% of the total assemblage have firing scars showing evidence of vessels being stacked in the kiln. Additionally, three sherds show signs of possible over- firing, and one sherd from context (222) had glaze on broken section edges indicating failure during firing. One possible waster was recovered from (270). While not necessarily an indication of a pottery kiln on site, these vessel would certainly not have been considered to be of the highest quality, and it is likely that they were locally produced (Miller 2014).
Very few of the sherds within this assemblage had signs of soot marks or accretions. A single sherd from (173) and one from (150) had post depositional residue, and only two sherds (both from context (133)) showed signs of soot marks; one sherd with external sooting and one internally.
The HCA-A AND HCA-B medieval pottery assemblage appears to consist of fairly plain, utilitarian vessels as is common in Cumbria. While a wide range of glazes and colours was seen, only 23 sherds show any sign of decoration or embellishment (Table 2).
Forty-two sherds of post medieval pottery was also recovered weighing 353g, of these only eight were unstratified. Twelve sherds are possible Cistercian ware which is rare in Cumbria; this is likely to be late 15th – 16th century in date (McCarthy and Brooks 1992, 36). Eleven early stoneware sherds are also present, including three fragments of a light grey glazed stoneware which may come from Raeren in Belgium, dating to the early 16th century (Hurst et al 1986). Small Find 89 from (205) is a fragment of Bellarmine stoneware and likely to date to the 16th – 17th century (Blenkinship pers comm). Bellarmine jugs were produced in Frechen, Germany, becoming the main German stoneware imported into Britain by the second half of the 16th century.
47
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Further Work
It is possible that conjoining sherds and cross context joins exist which may be seen during further work – this may help to identify further vessel types.
Diagnostic vessel fragments such as rims, bases and handles, and in particular the more unusual types such as curfew, should be drawn. Due to their scarcity, any decorated fragments should also be illustrated.
References
1.
Bradley, J & Miller (2014), Medieval Pottery, In Railton, M et al. (2014), Petergate, Cumwhinton: archaeological investigation of a medieval rural site, Transactions C&WAAS CW3, xiv, pp63-102
2. Bradley, J, & Miller, I (2009), The Medieval and Post-medieval Pottery, in CLE Howard- Davis (ed), The Carlisle Millennium Project: Excavations in Carlisle, 1998-2001. Volume 2: The Finds, Lancaster Imprints, 15, Lancaster, pp660-78
3. Brooks, C.M. (2000), in The Southern Lanes, Carlisle: Publication of Existing Unpublished Fascicules: Fascicule 3 Oxford Archaeology North
4. Medieval Pottery Research Group (MPRG) (2001), Minimum Standards for the Processing, Recording, Analysis and Publication of Post-Roman Ceramics, Occasional Paper No. 2
5.
Greenlane Archaeology (2011), Holm Cultram Abbey, Abbeytown, Cumbria: Pottery and Clay Tobacco Pipe Analysis. Unpublished Report
Hurst, J.G., Neal, D.S. and van Beuningen, H.J.E. (1986) Pottery Produced and Traded in North- West Europe 1350-1650 Rotterdam Papers 6
Mace, T. and Dawson, J. 2013, The Pottery, In Walker, J. and Graham, M. St. Mary’s Abbey, Holme Cultram, Abbeytown, Cumbria Cumbria Archaeological Research Reports No 4. pp70-87
McCarthy, M.R. and Brooks, C.M. (1992) Medieval Pottery in Cumbria, in Everyday and Exotic Pottery from Europe Oxbow Books pp21 - 37
Orton et al. (1993), Pottery in Archaeology Cambridge University Press
6.
Other Sources
Pers. Comm. Blenkinship, B (2015), Consultation on early post-medieval pottery, WAA Cumwhinton
48
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
APPENDIX V
Medieval Pottery Table HCA-A
Site Fabric Wgt Code Context Tr # type Qty (g) Date Base Rim Body Shoulder Handle Spout Sooting? Glaze? Decoration? Notes
Firing scars seen on HCA-A 102 1 PRGW 1 111 13th - 14th 1 1 rim
Reduced Firing scars seen on HCA-A 102 1 1 3 114 14th - 17th 1 2 3 base
Reduced HCA-A 102 1 2 4 71 14th - 17th 4 4
HCA-A 102 2 PRGW 1 31 13th - 14th 1 1
Bright green glaze HCA-A 102 2 Sandy 6 1 6 12th - 14th 1 1 white fabric
Reduced HCA-A 102 3 1 3 44 14th - 17th 3 3
Reduced HCA-A 102 3 2 3 257 14th - 17th 2 1 1 3 Firing scar on rim
Reduced HCA-A 102 3 3 1 11 14th - 17th 1 1
Sandy HCA-A 102 3 2a? 1 6 12th - 13th 1 7 1
HCA-A 102 3 Sandy 6 1 4 12th - 14th 1 1
Reduced HCA-A 103 1 2 3 78 14th - 17th 3 3
HCA-A 103 1 Sandy 2 1 6 12th - 13th 1 7 1
Reduced HCA-A 103 2 2 1 6 14th - 17th 1 1
49
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Sagging base, suggestion of thumb decoration. Raised linear Reduced decoration on one HCA-A 104 1 2 7 158 14th - 17th 1 6 7 2 body sherd
HCA-A 104 11 Sandy 6 1 2 12th - 14th 1
Reduced HCA-A 104 2 5 122 14th - 17th 5 5 From Sample 7
Reduced HCA-A 121 1 1 1 15 14th - 17th 1 1 Flaking glaze
Raised line around neck on 2 sherds. Firing scar on rim and one base. Reduced Flaking glaze on one HCA-A 121 1 2 13 313 14th - 17th 2 1 6 3 1 13 2 base
HCA-A 121 1 Sandy 2 1 23 12th - 13th 1 2 24 3 Flaking glaze
Reduced HCA-A 123 3 2 5 84 14th - 17th 2 5
13th - HCA-A 123 3 Sandy 5 2 39 14th 2 2 Drippy glaze
Dark green flaking HCA-A 124 3 Sandy 6? 1 12 12th - 14th 1 1 glaze
Possible thumbnail decoration on 1 body sherd, Linear HCA-A 133 3 PRGW 8 67 13th - 14th 1 3 8 2 on 1 body sherd
Red Clear external Gritty ridges. Conjoining HCA-A 133 3 Ware? 2 17 12th - 14th 1 1 2 sherds
50
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Reduced HCA-A 133 3 1? 9 181 14th - 17th 9 9 Very shiny glaze
Reduced Sooting interior of HCA-A 133 3 2 4 50 14th - 17th 4 1 4 small hollow vessel
Reduced HCA-A 133 3 3 1 4 14th - 17th 1 1
HCA-A 133 3 Sandy 2 1 2 12th - 13th 1 3 1 Sooting on exterior
HCA-A 133 3 Sandy 3 2 27 12th - 14th 1 1 29
Criss cross border HCA-A 133 3 Sandy 6 5 38 12th - 14th 1 5 1 on 1 body sherd
HCA-A 133 PRGW 2 18 13th - 14th 2 From Sample 12
HCA-A 134 1 PRGW 1 51 13th - 14th 1 1 1 Bunghole
Reduced HCA-A 134 1 1 3 81 14th - 17th 3 3
Reduced HCA-A 134 1 2 8 98 14th - 17th 8 8 Some flaking glaze
HCA-A 134 1 Sandy 2 7 80 12th - 13th 3 4 87 7
HCA-A 134 1 Sandy 7 1 7 12th - 14th 1 1
Reduced HCA-A 134 2 2 1 20 14th - 17th 1 1
Reduced HCA-A 135 1 2 1 9 14th - 17th 1 1
Reduced One sherd HCA-A 149 1 2 4 46 14th - 17th 4 4 overfired?
HCA-A 149 1 Sandy 2 1 16 12th - 13th 1 17 1 Flaking glaze
Raised line around Reduced neck on 2 sherds HCA-A 150 1 2 4 69 14th - 17th 2 2 2 2 2 (Refitting). Overfiring/Burning 51
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
on 1 sherd . Post depositional burning on 1 sherd
HCA-A 153 3 PRGW 1 7 13th - 14th 1 1
Red Gritty Speckled and HCA-A 154 3 Ware? 1 2 12th - 14th 1 1 mottled glaze
Reduced HCA-A 154 3 2? 1 59 14th - 17th 1 1
HCA-A 156 3 PRGW 1 27 13th - 14th 1 1
Thumb print decoration on Reduced handle. Firing scars HCA-A 156 3 2 5 177 14th - 17th 4 1 5 1 on body
Reduced Conjoining sherds. HCA-A 156 3 3? 2 58 14th - 17th 2 2 Firing scars on rim
Reduced HCA-A 157 3 2 1 7 14th - 17th 1 1
HCA-A 159 3 PRGW 1 46 13th - 14th 1 1
Firing scar on rim. Reduced Thumb print for HCA-A 159 3 2 1 23 14th - 17th 1 1 handle
HCA-A 159 3 Sandy 5 1 8 13th - 14th 1 1
Very small sherds HCA-A 163 2 Sandy 6 8 11 12th - 14th 8 from fine vessel
Post depositional Reduced residue seen on HCA-A 173 1 2 3 42 14th - 17th 1 2 3 base sherd
Likely rim sherd. HCA-A 173 1 Sandy 2 1 5 12th - 13th 1 6 1 Bright glaze
52
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
HCA-A 174 2 PRGW 1 10 13th - 14th 1
Body sherd possible tile? 3 refitting fragments part of HCA-A 174 2 Sandy 2 5 88 12th - 13th 2 3 93 4 strap handle
Reduced HCA-A 190 2 1 5 14th - 17th 1 1 From Sample 21
From Sample 20. Reduced Tiny fragments of HCA-A 197 2? 7 2 14th - 17th glaze
Red Gritty HCA-A 198 2 Ware? 3 20 12th - 14th 1 1 1 3
2 sherds refit. Reduced outer HCA-A 198 2 Sandy 6? 3 19 12th - 14th 3 margin
Reduced HCA-A 204 3 2 1 15 14th - 17th 1 1
Red Gritty HCA-A 205 2 Ware? 5 23 12th - 14th 2 3 Base sherds refit
Glazed sherd with HCA-A 205 2 Sandy 6? 2 8 12th - 14th 2 1 reduced core
Reduced HCA-A 215 1 2 2 35 14th - 17th 1 1 2
Orange glaze internal and HCA-A 215 1 Sandy 2a 1 2 12th - 13th 1 3 1 external
HCA-A 222 3 PRGW 1 6 13th - 14th 1 1
Reduced HCA-A 222 3 1 1 11 14th - 17th 1 1
53
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Reduced HCA-A 222 3 2 11 89 14th - 17th 1 1 9 11
HCA-A 222 3 Sandy 6? 1 2 12th - 14th 1
From Sample 25. Reduced Tiny fragments of HCA-A 223 2? 4 1 14th - 17th glaze
Reduced HCA-A 227 3 2 3 60 14th - 17th 3 3
HCA-A 227 3 Sandy 2 1 21 12th - 13th 1 22 1
Reduced From Sample HCA-A 227 2 6 2 14th - 17th 6 5 26.Tiny Fragments
From Fragments HCA-A 227 Sandy 2? 3 2 12th - 13th 3 5 26Tiny Fragments
Reduced HCA-A 242 1 1 1 4 14th - 17th 1 1
Reduced HCA-A 242 1 2 1 14 14th - 17th 1 1
HCA-A 272 PRGW? 1 13th - 14th 1 1 From Sample 38
HCA-A 276 3 Sandy 2 1 4 12th - 13th 1 5 1
HCA-A 276 PRGW? 1 3 13th - 14th 1 From Sample 41
From Sample 41Raised linear Reduced decoration on HCA-A 276 1? 3 13 14th - 17th 2 1 2 1 shoulder
From Sample 41. Sagging base. Reduced Thumb decoration HCA-A 276 2 14 254 14th - 17th 1 1 11 14 2 on likely curfew. Firing scars and
54
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
raised line decoration on rim
Strap handle. Tumb base of handle on base 1 body sherd. Small Find 33 - almost complete HCA-A 279 3 PRGW 16 411 13th - 14th 14 2 12 small jug
Thumb print Reduced decoration - base of HCA-A 279 3 2 6 43 14th - 17th 1 4 1 5 handle?
HCA-A 279 3 Sandy 2 1 12 12th - 13th 1 13 1
From Sample 65. Same as HCA-B HCA-A 279 Reduced 1 8 14th - 17th 1 1 (225)
From Sample 65. Same as HCA-B HCA-A 279 Sandy 6 2 8 12th - 14th 2 1 (225)
HCA-A 280 1 PRGW 1 33 13th - 14th 1 1 Pipkin handle?
Reduced HCA-A 289 1 1 2 14th - 17th 1 1 From Sample 42
Reduced HCA-A 289 2 5 47 14th - 17th 5 5 From Sample 42
HCA-A 293 3 Sandy 6 1 12 12th - 14th 1
HCA-A 294 3 Sandy 2 1 7 12th - 13th 1 8
Reduced Raised linear HCA-A 319 3 2 1 9 14th - 17th 1 1 1 around neck
HCA-A 320 3 Sandy 2 1 3 12th - 13th 1 4 1 Orange glaze
Coarse fabric. No HCA-A 320 3 Sandy 3? 1 32 12th - 14th 1 glaze
55
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
HCA-A 190/196 3 PRGW 1 8 13th - 14th 1 1 Very shiny glaze
HCA-A 299? 2 PRGW 1 54 13th - 14th 1 1
Reduced HCA-A 299? 2 2 2 12 14th - 17th 2 2
HCA-A 299? 2 Sandy 2 1 7 12th - 13th 1 8
Reduced HCA-A 323/324 ? 1 1 3 14th - 17th 1 1
Reduced HCA-A 323/324 ? 2 4 91 14th - 17th 3 1 4 Strap handle
Reduced Firing scar on rim. HCA-A 323/324 2 4 28 14th - 17th 1 3 4 From sample
Perforated base - cheese strainer? HCA-A U/S 1 PRGW 3 233 13th - 14th 1 2 2 Large strap handles
Base of handle on shoulder. Raised Reduced linear decorations HCA-A U/S 1 1 15 513 14th - 17th 2 11 2 14 on shoulder
Scar for handle on rim sherd. Firing Reduced scar on second rim HCA-A U/S 1 2 26 1032 14th - 17th 1 2 23 26 sherd
Reduced HCA-A U/S 1 3 1 8 14th - 17th 1 1
HCA-A U/S 1 Sandy 7? 2 17 12th - 14th 2 2
Reduced HCA-A U/S 2 1 1 106 14th - 17th 1 2 3 Sagging base
Reduced HCA-A U/S 2 2 1 18 14th - 17th 1 1
56
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
HCA-A U/S 2 Sandy 2 1 3 12th - 13th 1 4 1
HCA-A U/S 3 PRGW 1 34 13th - 14th 1 1
Reduced HCA-A U/S 3 2 1 20 14th - 17th 1 1
Total 340 6393
57
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
APPENDIX VI
Floor tile report – Holme Cultram Abbey By Dr Jennie Stopford
Studies of previous floor tile assemblages from Holme Cultram Abbey allocated the material to four different tile groups, two of them only known from drawings published by Gilbanks and Oldfield in 1900 (Stopford 2005, 189-192, 250 and 302, Figs 17.1-17.5 and 24.4; Tile Groups 12, 13, 14 and 28, with Groups 12 and 14 known solely from the antiquarian drawings). Excavations between 2006 and 2010 then found a tile of one of the antiquarian designs assigned to Tile Group 12. The manufacturing characteristics of this tile showed that it had in fact been made by the same workshop that produced the tiles of Group 13 and, as a result, the two groups were amalgamated as Group 13 (Holme Cultram decorated mosaic; Stopford 2013, 51-5 and Figs 29-30).
The 2014-2015 excavations recovered a total of 443 medieval floor tiles (mainly fragments), representing the largest extant assemblage of floor tiles from the site to date. Most were found in demolition dumping over the chapter house floor, with the remainder from south of the refectory, particularly the main drain and kitchen area. All the tiles with diagnostic characteristics belong to Tile Group 13. They include fragments of four new designs (13.11, 13.12, 13.13, 13.14; Figure 1). At least two other new designs were also represented but these were either too worn or too poorly made for the designs to be clearly identifiable. In addition, some fragments elucidated designs known from previous excavations but which had been insufficiently clear to be drawn for publication (13.10; Figure 2). This larger assemblage of Tile Group 13 provides a good deal of new information about the manufacturing processes adopted by these tilers but raises questions about their likely date.
There were no examples of Tile Group 14 in the assemblage and the line impressed products of this workshop are still only attributed to Holme Cultram on the basis of the drawing published by Gilbanks and Oldfield. However, in 2007, excavations by Oxford Archaeology North at Brunel Court, Preston, Lancashire, found one tile of the line impressed design in the centre of the Gilbanks and Oldfield drawing, together with other line impressed designs of similar type (Plate 1; design 14.1; Stopford 2013). This confirms the existence of the workshop and its operation supplying sites in north-west England. However, while Gilbanks and Oldfield’s drawing shows this as a circular tile in a mosaic arrangement, the extant fragment did not confirm this. It had no external edges and the other line-impressed tiles were all squares.
Tile Group 13 – Holme Cultram decorated mosaic The manufacturing characteristics of the Group 13 tiles were set out in the 2013 publication but the current larger assemblage provides further information about the layout of the paving and the making of the tiles. Medieval mosaic tiles are those that were put together to form a pattern through their differing shapes. The simplest mosaic pavements were made using straight sided tiles, these being quicker to make and easier to lay. To date, all the mosaic tiles of Group 13 known from Holme Cultram had been straight-sided but the new assemblage included a single plain-glazed fragment with curved sides (possibly a ‘petal’ shape; Eames 1980, II, 132). The curved sides of this tile had been trimmed with a knife to make the curve, rather than being made in a mould or similar. This shape and the method of forming the tile were reminiscent of the big Plain Mosaic tile workshop supplying many of the Cistercian and
58
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Augustinian abbeys in the north-east of England and south-east of Scotland in the thirteenth century (Stopford 2005, 14-23 and 91-128). The Plain Mosaic tilers used similarly shaped tiles in an elaborate roundel arrangement (M.65; various versions of this are shown in Stopford 1980, Figs 2.1, 2.2, 10.18). The Holme Cultram tile could have been used in a much less complex arrangement but it does nonetheless show that Tile Group 13 included mosaic arrangements with curved shapes which were relatively complex and time consuming both to make and to lay in a floor.
Medieval mosaic pavements almost invariably also included the use of square tiles in less elaborate sections of paving. At Holme Cultram some of both the shaped and the square tiles of Group 13 were decorated. The tilers used two decorative techniques, both usually associated with 13th century floor tile production. The most common method (known as inlay) involved making a wooden stamp with the design cut out in relief, which was pressed into the clay body. The resulting indent was filled with white clay, the surface was coated with a lead glaze and the tiles were fired to give a yellow design on a dark brown or dark olive background. Much less common was a related technique known as reverse inlay, which enabled the tilers to use the same design stamp to make the same pattern but with the colours reversed. The whole of the upper surface of the tile body was coated with a layer of white clay, the design stamp was pressed into this layer and the indent was then filled with an iron-rich (red) clay before glazing and firing. This produced a tile with the design showing dark brown or green on a yellow background (see, for example, Stopford 2005, Fig 10.19a-b). As shown in Plates 2 & 3, examples of designs 13.3 and 13.11 were found in both colour- ways at Holme Cultram. Reverse inlay was also a method occasionally adopted by the Plain Mosaic tilers operating in the north-east.
In other respects, however, the Group 13 tiles differ from those of the Plain Mosaic workshop. The quality of many of the Group 13 tiles was not on a par with that of the Plain Mosaic workshop. Unlike the tilers making Plain Mosaic, those supplying Holme Cultram were often unsuccessful in differentiating between the colours on the design and on the background on the finished tiles, with the designs blurred or smeared on unworn fragments in many cases. The layer of white clay was often applied unevenly, varying in depth between up to 7mm and 1mm on a single tile (Plate 4). The design stamps were also crudely cut when compared to their counterparts in the north-east. The tiles were, however, generally fired successfully, usually giving a reduced (grey) core plus part of the upper surface, with other surfaces oxidized red. Only two pieces in the assemblage showed signs of over-firing, both still being usable.
In addition, some of the shaped tiles from Holme Cultram were not present in the enormous sample of extant Plain Mosaic tiles, in particular the elongated hexagonal tiles decorated with design 13.3 (Plate 2). This shape, but not with this design, is known from inlaid tiles in the midlands, for example from the Cistercian Abbey at Bordesley, near Redditch (Hirst, Walsh and Wright 1983, 151-2, Figs 53-4, nos. 46b and 77). It may have been used in a continuous repeating mosaic, with four of these tiles forming a surround to a square tile (see, for example, Eames 1980, II, XLV).
Other features of Tile Group 13 at Holme Cultram were quite different from 13th century Plain Mosaic tile manufacture in the north-east and, on typological grounds, would suggest a later date for their manufacture. The new assemblage included several tiles with nail-holes in their upper surfaces (Shown in Plates 4 & 5) It is generally agreed that such nail-holes result from using a board with nails protruding on one side to either hold the clay while the tile was cut 59
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 out or to move the tile quarries about on the workbench. This feature has been much discussed in the literature because it is found on later 14th and 15th-century plain-glazed yellow or dark green square tiles thought to be imports from the Netherlands (for example Norton 1976; Eames 1980, I, 18-19 and 273-5). The survey of all the tiles in the north of England looked at this issue in some detail and concluded that the imports, which concentrated along the seaboard, had 5 nail-holes, one in each corner and one in the middle of their upper surfaces (Stopford 2005, 46-53 and 213-22). The nail-holes had a smooth outline, usually rectangular but sometimes square. The holes were made before the yellow tiles were coated with a liquid white slip and glazed, with the slip often filling and obscuring the nail-holes on the yellow tiles. On the dark green examples, where no slip was applied, the glaze would melt in firing and run down into the holes, distinguishing them from a hole made by burnt out organics. At Holme Cultram, however, the nail-holes on the Group 13 tiles were made after a thick white clay had been applied to the clay body and were consequently clearly visible on some of the yellow tiles. There were no examples with holes on two adjacent corners or in the middle of any of the larger fragments and it is possible that there were only ever nail-holes in two opposing corners. Most unusually, however, a single nail- hole is present in the centre of several of the c.53mm sized square tiles (see Plate 5).
Nail-holes have been found on English-made tiles with heraldic designs of the later 15th and earlier 16th centuries (Eames 1980, I, 117-23; Stopford 2005, 234-5 and 244-5). In north-east England this, together with other changes in production, was thought partly to be a consequence of continental tilers working in England. This seems unlikely to have been the case at Holme Cultram and, in any event, it is clear that quite different manufacturing processes and sequences resulted in the nail-holes on the Group 13 tiles.
All of this throws up questions about the date of the Holme Cultram tiles. On typological grounds the mosaic shapes, tile designs, their substantial sizes, partial reduction in firing and the decorative techniques employed all compare with material from the 13th century, while, at first sight, the presence of nail-holes would be thought more typical of a later medieval date. Since closer study showed that the nail-holes on the Holme Cultram tiles did not compare directly with later medieval material, solely on typological grounds an earlier date still seems more likely.
As noted in the 2013 report, none of the Holme Cultram tiles had keys cut into their lower surfaces (unlike the square tiles of the Plain Mosaic workshop). However, contrary to the evidence from the previous assemblage, some of the newly found triangular tiles had been made from scored and split square tiles, rather than being shaped as triangles at the outset. In these cases, square tiles were scored (or cut) from corner to corner about half way through the clay body before firing (i.e. while the clay was soft). After firing, where triangles were needed, the squares would be split (broken) along the scored lines. At Holme Cultram, four triangles were made in this way from a 115mm square. This technique is well known for producing triangular tiles to fit with diagonally-set square tile arrangements.
More unusually, among the Holme Cultram tiles, were three rectangular fragments that had been scored but not split into rather uneven and very small squares (25-30mm) and rectangles (c.17mm across). Some of these fragments had themselves been scored and split, from a square or larger rectangle. The use of such small fillers might suggest a high standard of workmanship in the laying of the pavement, with tight joints in the finished floor. None of the three fragments had mortar on their sides or bases, but they were not necessarily wasters. At Byland Abbey, in Yorkshire, a large number of square tiles scored 60
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 diagonally to make triangles were set in the church floor as squares but were (and still are) located in the choir aisles, particularly the north choir aisle, one of the darkest areas of the church where the scoring marks would barely have been seen.
References
E S Eames, 1980, Catalogue of medieval lead-glazed tiles earthenware tiles in the Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities (British Museum) 2 volumes.
G E Gilbanks and F H Oldfield, 1900, Some records of a Cistercian Abbey: Holm Cultram, Cumberland (London).
S M Hirst, D A Walsh, S M Wright, 1983, Bordesley Abbey II. Second report on excavations at Bordesley Abbey, Redditch, Hereford-Worcestershire BAR British series 111 (Oxford).
E C Norton, 1976, ‘The medieval paving tiles of Winchester College’, Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 31, 23-42.
J Stopford, 1990, Recording medieval floor tile (CBA Practical Handbook 10).
J Stopford, 2005, Medieval floor tiles of northern England. Pattern and purpose: production between the 13th and 16th centuries (Oxbow).
J Stopford, 2009, unpublished, ‘Medieval floor tiles’ in Excavations at Brunel Court, Preston (Oxford Archaeology North).
Figure 1 13.11 13.12
61
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
13.13 13.14
Figure 2
13.10
Plate 1: Tile of 14.1 from Brunel Court, Preston, Lancashire.
62
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Plate 2: Fragments of hexagonal design 13.3 in reversed colours. This can be seen most easily by looking at the trefoils at the point of the hexagons. On the top example this is yellow on a brown background. On the second example it is brown on what would have been a yellow background when the tile was unworn.
Plate 3: Two fragments of design 13.11. The fragment on the left had the design in brown/olive on a yellow background, while that on the right attempted to show the design in yellow against olive. A fault in the glaze has coloured olive both the tile body and the white clay applied to it.
63
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Plate 4: A fragment of design 13.7 showing several characteristics of tile group 13. The upper surface of the red tile body or quarry has had a layer of white clay applied to it. This layer is 7mm thick at the right hand side of the tile and tapers to 1mm thick at the left edge. The area of dark clay on the left can be seen to have been inset or inlaid into the layer of white clay. This 'reverse inlay' technique is one way of making tiles of the same design but in reversed colours. There is a nail-hole in the right hand corner of the tile.
Plate 5: The upper surface of this small (53mm) square tile was coated with (pinkish) white clay and then glazed yellow. The glaze did not bond well with the white clay and has flaked off in places, possibly because the tile was slightly under fired. The square nail-hole in the centre is clearly visible.
64
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
APPENDIX VII Environmental analysis of Insect remains from samples at Abbeytown, Cumbria (2015) Dr Lynda Howard
Introduction Three environmental samples from excavations during summer 2015 and weighing between 2.5 and 3.25kg were analysed for insect remains from the base of a section at Abbeytown (contexts 294, 324 and 327).
Methodology The samples were disaggregated in warm water and processed by paraffin floatation (Coope 1986) sieving at 90m. The resulting floats were stored in 70% IMS and insect fossils sorted under low power binocular microscopy. Chironomid larval head capsules were mounted on slides in Euparal and identified using standard texts (Brooks et al 2007, Andersen et al 2013). Beetle fragments were stored in IMS and taken to Birmingham University where they were compared with modern examples in the Goring Collection under the supervision of Dr David Smith. Beetle nomenclature follows that of Buckland and Buckland (2006).
Results Samples 40 and 41 (3.25kg, 2.75L and 2.3kg, 2.0L). Black in colour and looked organic but contained no identifiable insect remains. Preservation appeared to be poor.
Sample 42 (2.5kg, 1.65L) This sample consisted of dark grey silty material with an abundance of organic material. Wood, seeds and insect fragments were observed floating on the disaggregated sediment during the floatation process. The resultant float, sieved at 90m in order to retain the smallest chironomid heads, contained beetle, chironomid and other insect material. A full list of taxa present and MNI (Minimum number present) is included in Table 1.
Chironomidae A total of 6 taxa were identified from 94 head capsules collected. Coleoptera A total of 36 taxa were identified from a total of 56 individuals and one larva. Other unidentified taxa included a fly pupa, orabitid mites (decomposers) and daphnia ephippia (water flea egg cases).
Discussion and environmental interpretation The presence of chironomid larvae necessitates the sample to be derived from an aquatic environment as the larvae require a water source in which to live. All indicate still water environments, possible shallow and non- permanent. The chironomid assemblage is dominated by the Chironomini and in particular, Chironomus plumosus (62%). Chironomus anthracinus (1%) is commonly associated with C. plumosus. Both are known to be relatively tolerant to high organic pollution levels, particularly phosphorus and/or nitrogen (Eutrophic conditions). The next abundant chironomid Psectrotanypus (1%) is very little documented from UK sites and unknown from UK archaeological contexts but there is an indication in the literature that it is commonly found with Chironomus plumosus in highly organic rich conditions, possibly with high pH (Hellawell, 1986). There is one listed site in association with a Polish rettery (flax/hemp) in this context (Kittel et al, 2014). The general lack of species diversity indicates that a very specific set of environmental conditions existed. The beetle assemblage consists of a mixture of environmental background and synanthropic (human associated) taxa. Five taxa could be considered aquatic (Helophorus grandis, H. aquaticus, Ochthebius sp., Agabus bipustulatus, Hydroporus melanarius) and are associated with shallow, vegetation rich waters. Trechus
65
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 rubens, Oxytellus nitidulus and Limnobaris striatellus which lives on Carex, are associated with marginal wet environments. There are a high percentage of purely synanthropic taxa, mostly those which favour artificial habitats but are also believed to survive in nature as well. Some are common in natural habitats but favour artificial ones and one is a strong synanthrope which depends on human activity for survival (Mycetea hirta). Four species are associated with drier organic matter and are considered ‘house’ fauna by Hall and Kenward, 1990 (Cryptophagus sp., Atomaria sp., Mycetea hirta and Tipnus unicolor). These are commonly associated with debris such as mouldy hay, straw and sometimes in foodstuffs and cellars. Lathridius is also associated with mould in hay barns. Several taxa are associated with foul organic conditions, often dung including Cercyon analis and Cryptopleurum minutum. Aphodius sphaecelatus/prodromus is a dung beetle associated with all types of dung. Other taxa associated with decaying organic matter but not necessarily dung are Clambus minutus, Trogophloeus bilineatus, Coprophilus striatus, Oxytellus nitidulus, Oxytellus sculpturatus, Omalium exiguum, Omalium excavatum, Gyrohypnus fracticornis, Tachinus rufipes and Monotoma sp. This group constitutes the majority of synanthropic taxa present. From other environmental indicators it is possible to detect the presence of several plant taxa such as stinging nettles from Brachypterus urticae, and possibly the growth of Medicago (animal fodder) from the weevil Sitona humeralis. Harpalus rufipes although a relatively common carabid is often found associated with strawberries or cereal crops. The presence of Cantharis sp. and Athous hirtus indicate the close proximity of open fields and some access to the environment although there are very few purely environmental (background) indicators here. Environmental information on Coleoptera from BUGS database (Buckland and Buckland, 2006), available to download online. Chironomid environmental information from Brooks et al, 2007.
Conclusions Sample 42 represents the remains of a highly organically polluted aquatic environment with local input from occupation, including both foul waste and drier environments.
References Andersen T, Cranston P and Epler, J, 2013. Chironomidae of the Holarctic region (Keys and diagnoses- Larvae) Entomologica Scandinavica Supplement No 66. Brooks SJ, Langdon PG and Heiri O, 2007. The identification and use of Palaearctic Chironomid larvae in palaeoecology. Quaternary Research Association. London. Buckland PI and Buckland PC, 2006. Bugs Coleopteran Ecology package Software [Component versions: Bugs CEP: Release 7.43; Bugsdata: Release 7.09; Bugs MCR: Release 2.0; Bustats: Release 1.2] [Downloaded/CDROM:Oct 2016]. Coope GR, 1986 Coleoptera analysis. In: B.E. BERGLUND, ed, Handbook of Holocene Palaeoecology and Paleohydrology. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons: 703-713. Hall A and Kenward H, 1990. Environmental evidence from the Colonia. In: The Archaeology of York 14/6. Council for British Archaeology, London. Kittel P, Muzolf B, Płociennik M , Elias S, Brooks SJ, Lutynska M, Pawłowski D, Stachowicz-Rybka R, Wacnik A, Okupny D, Gła Z, Mueller-Bieniek A, 2014. A multi-proxy reconstruction from Lutomierske Koziowki, Central Poland, in the context of early modern hemp and flax processing. J of Archaeological Science 50: 318-337. Biological indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental Management, 1986. Edited by JM Hellawell, Elsevier
66
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Table 1 Insect taxa present in sample 42, Abbeytown
CHIRONOMIDAE Number present Chironomini Chironomus anthracinus 8 Chironomus plumosus 58 Chironomus sp. 9 Dicrotendipes 1 Tanytarsini Paratanytarsus type A 2 Paratanytarsus sp. 3 Tanytarsus pallidicornis 2 Tanypodinae Psectrotanypus 7 Indet 4 Total Chironomidae 94 COLEOPTERA Carabidae Trechus rubens 1 Harpalus rufipes 1 Carabidae indet. 3 Hydraenidae Helophorus grandis 1 Helophorus aquaticus 1 Helophorus sp. 6 Hydrophilidae Cercyon analis 1 Cryptopleurum minutum 1 Ochthebius sp. 1 Dytiscidae Agabus bipustulatus 1 Hydroporus cf. melanarius 1 Clambidae Clambus minutus 1 Staphilinidae Trogophloeus bilineatus 1 Stenus sp. 1 Aleocharinae indet. 6 Tachinus rufipes 1 Tachyporus cf. hypnorum 1 Coprophilus striatus 1 Oxytellus nitidulus 1 Philonthus sp. 2 Oxytellus sculpturatus 1
67
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Omalium exiguum 2 Omalium excavatum 1 Gyrohypnus fracticornis 1 Cantharidae Cantharis cf. telephorus nigricans 1 Elateridae Athous hirtus 1 Cucujidae Monotoma sp. 1 Kateretidae Brachypterus urticae 1 Cryptophagidae Cryptophagus sp. 1 Atomaria sp. 1 Lathridiidae Lathridius minutus 1 Lathridiidae. Sp & gen indet 1 Lyctidae Mycetea hirta 1 Ptinidae Tipnus unicolor 1 Scarabaeidae Aphodius sphaecelatus/prodromus 4 Chrysomelidae Chaetocnema concinna 1 Curculionidae Sitona humeralis 1 Limnobaris striatellus 1 Ceutorhynchus sp. 1 Beetle larva indet 1
Total Coleoptera 57 Fly pupa 1
68
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
APPENDIX VIII Palaeoenvironmental remains Lynne F. Gardiner By examining certain suites of environmental material, inferences can be made upon palaeodiet, palaeoeconomy, fuel procurement and resource, woodland management, health of past peoples, animal husbandry, climate and so forth. In order to attempt to address some of these subjects, bulk environmental samples were taken.
Samples were taken during the excavations at Holme Cultram Abbey. Those designated site code HCA- A were from the summer season of excavation during 2014, HCA-B was from 2015 and HCA-C was the 2016 excavation. Those samples from HCA-A and HCA-B were processed by the volunteers of the summer field school with HCA-C being processed by Wardell Armstrong Archaeology (WAA) who also undertook the assessment of the resulting flots from the samples of both HCA-A and HCA-B (see Table 1 for quantification).
Site code Flot count HCA-A 49 HCA-B 38 HCA-C 12 Table 1: Quantification of flots Methodology The samples were processed with 500 micron retention and flotation meshes using the Siraf method of flotation (Williams 1973). Once dried, the residues from the retention mesh were sorted and the artefacts and ecofacts removed. The flot, plant macrofossils and charcoal were scanned using a stereo microscope (up to x45 magnification).
The flots were, for the most part, sieved using a 2mm geological sieve. The charcoal fragments that remained in the sieve had the potential to be identified for species, it is this fraction that was weighed and appeared in the relevant tables. The remaining <2mm fraction was not suitable for identification due to its small size and has not been commented upon.
The plant remains and charcoal were identified to species as far as possible, using Cappers et al. (2012), Cappers and Bekker (2013), Cappers and Neef (2012), Hather (2000), Jacomet (2006) and Schoch et al. (2004), Schweingruber (1982) and the author’s reference collection. Nomenclature for plant taxa followed Stace (2010) and cereals followed Cappers and Neef (2012). Molluscan remains were identified using AnimalBase, Cameron (2008), Claassen (1998), Evans (1972), Hayward and Ryland (1998) and Kerney (1999) with nomenclature for terrestrial molluscs following Anderson (2005) and with marine molluscs having followed Hayward and Ryland (1998). The flots for the HCA-C samples followed slightly different conventions. These were laid out in Kenward (1992) and Kenward et al. (1980).
69
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Results A brief overview of the ecofactual material (charred plant remains, charcoal and molluscs) recovered is presented in Table 2.
HCA-A HCA-B T T1 T2 T3 Totals T1 T2 Totals TOTAL (u) Sample qty 13 2 32 2 49 1 37 38 87 CPR (qty) 87 48 4254 171 4560 3 121 124 4684 Charcoal (qty) 103 15 177 11 306 10 166 176 482
Charcoal (wt:g) 182.5 94.0 1.05 4.6 282.27 2 29 31 313.27 4 8 Mollusc: 56 - 120 - 176 - 108 108 284 marine (qty) Material class Mollusc 3486 1 11 - 3498 16 317 333 3831 terrestrial (qty) Avian eggshell - - - - - 7 7 7 Table 2: Overview of the material from HCA-A and HCA-B Key: T= trench (followed by its number), (u)= unknown, qty= quantity, wt:g= weight (g)
Plant remains From both HCA-A and HCA-B a total of 4,684 individual charred plant remains were counted, the majority (n=4,254) were collectively from Trench 3 HCA-A. The preservation overall was mostly poor with only rare examples of good preservation. The greatest yielding flot was from <35>, (270), the upper fill of vault (n=3,215) of which 95% (n=3,069) was oat (Avena sp.). Floret bases were present which allowed, in some instances, to further identify to common oat (A. sativa). Bristle oat (A. strigosa) was identified, albeit in far smaller numbers (n=3), in <36> from (271), the second fill of vault. Oat was overwhelmingly the largest quantity of cereal grain from the Holme Cultram excavations (2014-2016, Figure 1). Brassicaceae (cabbage-family) was the most ubiquitous non-economic seed, specific to HCA- A yet almost absent from HCA-B, with none in HCA-C. Other non-economic plants observed (in very small quantities) were Poaceae (grass-family), Asteraceae (daisy-family), sedges (Carex sp. both bifacial and trignous seeds), corn marigold (cf. Chrysanthemum segetum), knotweed (Persicaria sp.), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), docks (Rumex sp.), chickweed (Stellaria sp.) and common meadow-rue (Talictrum flavum). More noteworthy were possible violet (cf. Viola sp.) and lentil (Lens culinaris) from HCA-A, <65>, (279), organic fill of vault, hazel (Corylus avellana) nutshell from HCA-B, <4>, (250) and common pea (Pisum sativum). The only exotic species was a single example of grape- vine (Vitis vinifera) in <26>, (227) – gritty deposit in (138) (Figure 2 for cereal versus non-economic plant distribution from HCA-A and HCA-B).
70
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
120
100
80
60
40
20
0 HCA-A, T1 HCA-A, T2 HCA-A, T3 HCA-B, T1 HCA-B, T2
oat wheat barley
Figure 1: Histogram showing the distribution of the cereal types from HCA-A (Trenches 1-3) and HCA- B (Trenches 1-2)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 HCA-A, T1 HCA-A, T2 HCA-A, T3 HCA-B, T1 HCA-B, T2
cereal non-economic
Figure 2: Histogram showing the distribution of cereal versus non-economic plants from HCA-A (Trenches 1-3) and HCA-B (Trenches 1-2) Discussion Bioturbation
The bioturbation potential from this site was minimal in that there were very few earthworm capsules and the rootlets were mostly very fine. The presence of these elements within flots could infer the potential of movement of ecofacts (especially grains and seeds) through the archaeological sediments. Although nematode capsules were present these were considered un-intrusive.
71
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Overview
The Cistercian order tended to site their monasteries in almost inhospitable places. Aston (2000, 85) suggested that this was so they could ‘tame their surroundings’. The area of Holme Cultram abbey was surrounded by marshes (Walker and Graham, 2013, 1) and today, agriculturally, is also met by challenges in that there is seasonally wet pastures but also woodlands, grassland and arable land (Landis).
The archaeobotanical assemblage from the excavation has added to the corpus of extant material from the monastical sites in Cumbria. As Newman and Newman (p105) mentioned in the Regional Research Agenda that work on monastical remains has tended to focus on their upstanding remains. The added problem when dealing with monastical sites, especially in the countryside, is that there is a paucity of plant remains due to the shallow stratigraphy and an organised waste disposal system in place (Hall and Huntley 2007, 177). Also inhibiting the archaeobotanical record is that the medieval crops are all free-threshing and processing is often not done at the place of consumption therefore the chaff and associated weed seeds will have been disposed of elsewhere (van der Veen et al. 2013, 172).
Plant remains
The main cereal observed within this assemblage was oat (see Table 3 for charred plant material quantification and identification). Main cereal crops planted during the medieval period were wheat, rye, barley and oats, along with peas and beans (Hammond, 2005, 2 and van der Veen et al. 2013, 171). Campbell (2007) observed, from historical documents, that for the later medieval period 27% of all crops that were grown were oat (wheat was also calculated at 27%) with barley slightly less at 25%. The favoured barley-type was hulled (Stone, 2006, 50) although there was not enough morphological traits on the Holme Cultram assemblage to ascertain that the barley grains present were of the hulled variety.
The growing conditions for oat are harder than other cereals; poor acid soils, along with a damp climate (Pretty 1990, 4). These conditions are typical in the north of England hence Hammond’s (2005, 2) statement that most of the oats grown in England during the medieval period were in the northern counties of England. The north also grew barley (Burton and Kerr 2011, 111). Most of the oat grains within this assemblage could not be identified to sub-species but when the floret bases were present both the common oat and the bristle oat were observed. This was also seen in the archaeobotanical assemblage at Hoddom in Dumfriesshire (Holden, 2006, 151). The bristle oat is a hardier species and has a high tolerance for really poor growing conditions but could also be a contaminant of the common oat (Stone, 2006, 48,50) and Stone (2006, 48) stated that oat is more nutrient-rich (for protein and also a higher calorific values than other cereals).
Cereal grain was a significant portion of the diet during this period and was mainly consumed in three different ways: bread, ale and pottage/porridge (Stone 2006, 1). Although ale was usually made from barley this seems not to be the norm in the northern counties where oat was used (loc. cit. 13). There was a historical reference to this from Bolton Abbey (Hammond, 2005, 26). Bond (2004, 48) stated that oat was grown mainly as horse fodder. As already stated, it was also used as a human foodstuff, especially in the north of England. However, the straw from oat is more palatable and nutritious for animals and could have been used in lieu of hay in the winter (Steane, 2014, 262).
72
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
The self-sufficiency of the Cistercians meant large areas were tied to their houses, for example Rievaulx Abbey had over 90 acres (Burton and Kerr, 2011, 160) as these expanded into granges. Holme Cultram is thought to have at least 19 (Newman 2014, 151) with the majority close to the abbey.
All the plant remains from HCA-A and HCA-B were charred, as was the cereal grains from HCA-C. In the cold, damp northern climate the grains need to be dried before storing (Steane, 2014, 262). A large quantity of the cereal grains from Holme Cultram showed signs of abrasion. This has been attributed to a high temperature of heat (Boardman and Jones, 1990, 8). Other issues may also contribute to abrasion such as agitation whilst in or near the heat source (this adds more oxygen) and also if moved from its primary deposition position. The non-economic plants observed in this assemblage could be present in cultivated fields, such as chickweed, docks, wild radish, corn marigold and knotweed. As part of the crop processing procedure weed seeds were removed, as the chaff fragments were rare (only the floret bases in very few instances remained) due to the very small numbers and were most likely to be remnants of the crop cleaning procedure.
By the later medieval period the diet of the Cistercians had changed with an introduction to more exotic foods and examples of oranges and grapes were recorded for Strata Marcella and Strata Florida in Wales (Burton and Kerr 2011, 112). A single exotic species (grape-vine) was observed in this assemblage. The most common non-economic plant was Brassicaceae, although the seeds of the cabbage-family it is difficult to discern between cabbage (Brassica oleracea), turnip (B. rapa) and oil- seed rape (B. napus); all of which were grown during the medieval period.
Worthy of comment was the presence of violets from Trench 3 HCA-A <65> (279), third organic fill of vault. Although difficult to fully identify it may be pertinent to note some medicinal uses. Sweet violet (Viola odorata) has been used for insomnia, headache and depression (Mabey, 1997, 128) whilst wild pansy or heartsease (V. tricolour) was used in treating eczema, helping alleviate rheumatic pains and also as a cough medicine (Linford, 2010, 241). However, assigning a medical use for them in isolation from other plants is tentative.
Charcoal
The majority of the fragments identified within the charcoal were oak with rare examples of willow/poplar, hazel and alder/hazel (Table 4). The source of this is likely to have been Inglewood Forest of which the monks were granted permission to utilise the woodland for building in its foundation charter (Walker and Graham 2013, 3). This area was one of the most wooded during the medieval period (Newman 2014, 102), covering almost 500 km² (loc. cit. 89). When the ‘island’ of Holme Cultram was deforested it was mentioned that two marshes with alders adjoin the island (loc. cit. 99 and 104). The area of Aikshaw, eight kilometres to the south west of the abbey, means oak woods (loc. cit. 104). All of these were likely to have been the source of the wood in the charcoal assemblage. However, the fragments were not large enough to determine whether their prior use i.e. as building material.
The charcoal assemblage from excavations at Furness Abbey were described as oak or diffuse porous taxa (OAN 2009, 16). Closer to Holme Cultram, palynological evidence and waterlogged wood from the Roman fort in Carlisle (Carlisle Millennium Project) was discovered, including ash and alder then larger oak timbers (Newman 2014, 102).
73
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
A few of the fragments showed evidence of vitrification. This was once thought to have indicated that the fragments were charred by high temperatures but this has now been disproved (McParland et al. 2010, 2686).
Molluscs
O’Meara (2013, 95) mentioned oyster shell, mussels and clam from the 2008 excavation at Holme Cultram Abbey. Oyster was present in HCA-A and HCA-B, but in very small numbers (see Table 5). The most prevalent was common mussel. However, all of the examples were severely fragmented and this has led to a disparity of preference in that it suggested that common mussel was favoured over oyster. This disparity was due to the likelihood that oyster shell tend to be robust whilst common mussel more fragile and less likely to withstand taphonomic processes thus fragment easily. Mussel fibres were the main flot constituent in HCA-A Trench 1 <3>, <4> and <5> from (108) - from old trench, and <8> (133) - north-west corner of trench, Trench 3 <25> from (223) – beneath (222) just outside of arch and, <31> from (271) – second fill of vault. All the species presented (oyster, common mussel and common cockle) would all have been consumed during the medieval period (Hammond 2005, 21).
Avian eggshell usually suffers the same pressures in surviving taphonomic processes as the common mussel in that they are fragile. The very small quantities were likely to have been from domesticated poultry (identification to species of avian egg shall is very difficult (Stewart et al. 2013, 1079)).
The majority of the terrestrial molluscs were from Trench 1 in HCA-A. The most consistently prolific throughout the Trench 1 flots were those of those was Discus rotundatus rotundatus. This is a woodland species (Evans, 1972, 185). Aegopinella nitidula was the most numerous in Trench 1 (not as ubiquitous though). This is a catholic species that will tolerate human disturbance (Kerney, 1999, 142). The samples from (178) - drain fill, <43>, <44> and <45>, contained these but also significant quantities of another catholic species, Cochlicopa cf. lubricella. The samples also contained large quantities of Pupilla muscorum. This species is a grassland species (Evans 1972, 89) which thrives on earth devoid of vegetation and does not favour extensive agriculture (loc cit. 146). All of these molluscs were from the (178) samples. Some species would likely have been present due to the ecological niche presented by a drain (shaded and damp) whilst others will have been likely to have entered the drain somewhere else and transported there.
Waterlogging
HCA-C was the only area to yield waterlogged samples. The results are visible in Table 6. Only two samples were considered to not be waterlogged. Sample <15> (143) did not yield any plant remains whilst sample <17> from (126) contained less than ten examples of oat and barley. The majority of the remaining samples were waterlogged but had a poor yield of plant material, Examples of buttercups (Ranunculus sp.) were observed in samples <5>, <8> and <10> with the latter sample also yielding goosefoots/oraches (Chenopodium/Atriplex sp.), woundworts (Stachys sp.) and a trignous sedge fruit. Pale persicaria (Persicaria cf. lapathifolia) and goosefoots/oraches were observed in sample <7> with bramble (Rubus sp.) and goosefoots/oraches also in <5>. The whitemarked spider beetle (Ptinus fur) was observed in <5> and <7>. Overall, there was a paucity of palaeoenvironmental material from this phase of the Holme Cultram excavations.
Conclusion 74
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Although the charred plant assemblage from Holme Cultram was relatively poor in its preservation, very few archaeobotanical records exist for this area. Only three datasets from the north-west exist out of 608 medieval datasets for Great Britain (van der Veen et al. 2013, 154). This in itself makes the Holme Cultram assemblage important. The charcoal remains were also subjected to poor preservation and abrasion, which is limited in its scope for further work but important nonetheless. This dearth of archaeobotanical and charcoal from the medieval period in the north-west is probably due to the taphonomic processes of its soils and sediments. Nonetheless it may be inferred from the Holme Cultram assemblage that oat was the preferred cereal crop that was occasionally supplemented by wheat and barley. Other food stuffs, such as Brassicaceae and pea, were also present. Marine molluscs (especially oyster, mussel and cockles) were likely to have been consumed too. Although documented in historical texts, Inglewood Forrest and the alder carrs surrounding the abbey were also the likely source for the wood species identified within the charcoal.
Acknowledgements Dr. Emma Tetlow undertook the HCA-C identifications and assessment. Charles Rickaby, Sean Johnson, Mark Lawson and Ron Brown processed the HCA-C samples. Thanks to Faidra Katsi who helped sort the HCA-A and also aided the analysis. Thanks to Joanne Stamper and Mark Graham from Grampus Heritage who provided additional site information.
References
Anderson R. (2005) Annotated list of the non-marine mollusc of Britain and Ireland, Journal of Conchology: 38 (downloaded as PDF from www.conchsoc.org/nonmarinelist on 28/2/14)
AnimalBase Project Group (2005-2016), AnimalBase. Early Zoological Literature online (www.animalbase.uni-goettingeg.de) accessed 08/12/16
Aston M. (2000) Monasteries in the Landscape, Tempus, Stroud Boardman S. and Jones G. (1990) Experiments of the effects of charring on cereal plant components, Journal of Archaeological Science 17, 1-17
Bond J. (2004) Monastic Landscapes, Tempus, Stroud
Burton J. and Kerr J. (2011) The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge Cameron R. (2008) Land Snails in the British Isles, FSC Publications, Telford
Campbell B.M.S. (2007) Three Centuries of English Crop Yields. 1211-1491, http://www.cropyields.ac.uk accessed on 22/12/16
Cappers R.T.J., Bekker R.M. and Jans J.E.A. (2012) Digitale Zadenatlas Van Nederland: Digital Seed Atlas of the Netherlands, Barkhuis Publishing, Groningen
Cappers R.T.J. and Bekker R.M. (2013) A Manual for the Identification of Plant Seeds and Fruits, Barkhuis Publishing, Groningen
Cappers R.T.J. and Neef R. (2012) Handbook of Plant Palaeoecology, Barkhuis Publishing, Groningen
75
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Claassen C. (1998) Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology: Shells, CUP, Cambridge
Evans J.G. (1972) Land Snails in Archaeology, Seminar Press, London
Hall A.R. and Huntley J.P. (2007) A Review of the Evidence for Macrofossil Plant Remains from Archaeological Deposits in Northern England, EH Res. Dep. Rep. Ser. 87-2007
Hammond P. (2005) Food and Feast in Medieval England (revised ed.), Sutton Publishing, Stroud
Hather J.G. (2000) The Identification of the Northern European Woods: A Guide for Archaeologists and Conservators, Archetype, London
Hayward P.J. and Ryland J.S. (1998) Handbook of the Marine Fauna of North-West Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Holden T. (2006) The botanical evidence, in, Lowe C., Excavations at Hoddom, Dumfriesshire, An Early Ecclesiastical Site in South West Scotland, Society of Antiquaries Scotland, 150-155
Jacomet S. (2006) Identification of cereal remains from archaeological sites (2nd Ed.), Archaeobotany Lab, IPAS, Basel University
Kenward H.K. (1992) Rapid recording of archaeological insect remains-a reconsideration, Circea 9: 81- 88
Kenward H.K., Hall A.R. and Jones A.K.G. (1980) A tested set of techniques for the extraction of plant and animal macrofossils from waterlogged archaeological deposits, Science and Archaeology 22: 3-15
Kerney M. (1999) Atlas of the Land and Freshwater Molluscs of Britain and Ireland, Harley Books, Colchester Landis http://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes/ accessed during December 2016
Linford J. (2010) A Concise Guide to Herbs, Parragon Books, Bath
Mabey R. (1997) Flora Britiannica: The Definitive New Guide to Wild Flowers, Plants and Trees, Chatto and Windus, London
McParland L.C., Collinson M.E., Scott A.C., Campbell G. and Veal R. (2010) Is vitrification in charcoal a result of high temperature burning of wood?, Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 2679-2687
Newman C.E. (2014) Mapping the Late Medieval and Post Medieval Landscape of Cumbria, unpublished University of Newcastle PhD thesis
Newman C. and Newman R. The Medieval Period Research Agenda, www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/mol/archaeology/arf?accessing-research-agenda.aspx accessed on 08/12/16
76
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
O’Meara D. (2013) Environmental Report, in, Walker J. and Graham M., St Mary’s Abbey, Holme Cultram, Abbeytown, Cumbria: Archaeological and Historical Investigations, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, Cumbria Archaeological Research Report 494-97
Oxford Archaeology North (2009) Dalton to Roose Greenway, Furness Abbey, Barrow in Furness, Cumbria, Archaeological Watching Brief, OAN
Pretty J.N. (1990) Sustainable Agriculture in the Middle Ages: The English Manor, The Agricultural History Review 38:1, 1-19
Schoch W., Heller I., Schweingruber F.H. and Kienast F. (2004) Wood anatomy of central European Species (online version: www.woodanatomy.ch) accessed in December 2016
Schweingruber F.H. (1982) Microscopic Wood Anatomy (2nd Ed), Swiss Federal Institute of Forestry Research, Zurich
Shaw P. (2014) Environmental Data, in, Graham M., Shaw P., Stamper J. and Walker J., An Interim Report on Archaeological Excavations at Holme Cultram Abbey, Summer Season 2014, unpublished report, 40-43
Stace C. (2010) New Flora of the British Isles (3rd Ed.), C.U.P., Cambridge
Steane J. (2014) The Archaeology of Medieval England and Wales, Routledge, Abingdon
Stewart J.R.M., Allen R.B., Jones A.K.G., Penkmen K.E.H. and Collins M.J. (2013) ZooMS: making eggshell visible in the archaeological record, in, Journal of Archaeological Science, 40:4, 1979- 1804
Stone D.J. (2006) The Consumption of Field Crops in Late Medieval England, in, Woolgar C.M., Serjeantson D. and Waldron T. (Eds.), Food in Medieval England: Diet and Nutrition, Oxford University Press, Oxford van der Veen M., Hill A. and Livarda A. (2013) The Archaeobotany of Medieval Britain (c. AD 450-1500): Identifying Research Priorities for the 21st Century, Medieval Archaeology 57: 151-182
Walker J. and Graham M. (2013) St Mary’s Abbey, Holme Cultram, Abbeytown, Cumbria: Archaeological and Historical Investigations, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, Cumbria Archaeological Research Report 4
Williams D. (1973) ‘Flotation at Siraf’, Antiquity, 47: 198-202
77
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
APPENDIX IX
Report on the window glass found at Holme Cultram Abbey excavations 2014
Dr Rachel Tyson
Introduction
The 2014 season of excavations at St Mary’s Abbey, Holme Cultram, by the West Cumbria Archaeological Society, produced 232 fragments of painted window glass, and 100 fragments of unpainted window glass. Previous excavations between 2008 and 2010 had uncovered 325 painted and 303 unpainted fragments (Tyson 2013). The majority of the painted glass from those excavations showed early to mid 13th-century grisaille designs of stiff-leaf foliage, in thick bold painted lines; where the glass colour was visible it was greenish-colourless glass. Some examples of later medieval glass designs were also identified from the previous excavations: more naturalistic oak leaf grisaille of the late 13th century; and a small number of motifs and other design elements of the 14th or 15th centuries (Tyson 2013, 58).
Research aims and methods
The glass from the 2014 season was fully examined to establish its date on the basis of painted design styles and other physical features of the glass. Consideration was given to whether the glass was similar to previous excavations at Holme Cultram, or whether new insights were given, and how typical the glass was to other Cistercian foundations. The glass was identified using the same ‘design types’ given for the previous excavations (Tyson 2013), in order to allow for comparison; these are described below. All painted fragments were fully catalogued in a Microsoft Excel database, and unpainted fragments in a separate less detailed database; these are available in the site archive. The method of examination was the same as for the previous excavations. An overview of each design type is given below, with drawings of selected fragments.
The glass
The condition of the glass was typical of much excavated medieval glass: most had deteriorated with opaque brown weathering layers on the surface and sometimes within the glass, and orange crystallisation within the body of the glass. The original colour of the glass was only visible on a few fragments. It was often unstable and crumbly, and recommendations will be made for fragments to be sent for conservation to stabilise their condition. On a number of fragments the poor condition of the surface made the painted decoration unclear. If any paint had been applied to the external surfaces, as shadows, this was not visible. Nineteen apparently heat-distorted fragments were found to be an opaque pale blue colour (see below) with some cream or brown surface weathering, and although misshapen, were in a more stable condition. Some warping also occurred on fragments of the more usual opaque brown-weathered glass.
Description of design types found at Holme Cultram
Design types A-G: Vegetal grisaille (early to mid 13th century)
The general style of the painted decoration is vegetal grisaille, showing ‘stiff-leaf’ foliage with curving stems, painted with bold outlines, sometimes with a cross-hatched background, sometimes with veins along the stems. Foliage heads have varying numbers of lobes, often with elongated spurs where they join the stem. All of these features are part of the same style, and the division into different ‘design 78
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 types’ is purely for the practicalities of discussing fragments with similar distinguishing features. Only one possible instance of veining on the stems, design type A from the previous seasons’ glass assemblage, was identified in the fragments recovered in 2014, and none of type C which is also distinguished by veining. This may simply be coincidence and due to the smaller number of fragments; only 16 fragments of Type A and 11 fragments of Type C were identified from the previous excavations.
Design type A or B: Vegetal stiff-leaf grisaille with cross-hatched background and possible veining (No. 1)(Illustrated: No. 1)
(1 fragment, area 8cm²)
Only one fragment has possible veining: No. 1 has two short thin lines at one end of the stem area, and it is possible that these two lines may be the terminals of where the stem starts to split. It also has a bold line with cross-hatching on one side, and is otherwise similar to design type B.
Design type B: Vegetal stiff-leaf grisaille with cross-hatched background, no visible veining (Nos 2–61)(Illustrated: Nos 3, 5, 6, 12, 13–14, 15–16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 34, 35, 36–37, 39, 41–44–45, 42–43, 46, 47, 48, 51, 56–57, 58, 59, 60–61)
(60 fragments, area 546cm²)
This type was the most common amongst the 2014 excavated glass, at 60 fragments; and design types E, F and G are consistent with it. It shows the general grisaille style having stylised foliage with wide stems, lobed terminals, including a front-view with up to five lobes, or a side profile more usually with three lobes. These rounded lobes have dividing lines that are slightly pointed at the end, which can help identify lobes from small fragments (see EL). The lobes can be large (e.g. No. 18), or small (Nos 56–7, 58). The stems overlap each other (see Nos 13–17). There is usually some cross-hatched background visible. They are outlined with bold lines in a matt paint, appearing red-brown close up, which would have given a black outline in the window. The cross-hatching is painted with thicker lines than occurs later on 14th-century grisaille (e.g. fragments from Garendon Abbey), and the brush- strokes can be seen to overlap the thick outlines in places (e.g. on No. 3). No. 17 shows a number of features: a profile-view of stylised foliage, with two relatively large lobes visible, with its stem following the curve of the quarry and a spur at the top of the stem. On the other side of this foliage, a wide stem joins between the lobed terminal and stem, and has another stem crossing under it the other way after a short distance, with the sections between infilled with cross-hatching. One of these cross-hatched areas is approximately triangular, and triangular cross-hatched areas bordered by wide stems can also be seen on an almost-complete triangular quarry Nos 15–16 (the largest fragment from the excavations), as well as No. 28, and part of what may be a similar triangle on Nos 35 and 39. Nos 13– 14 illustrate a central stem with a lobed head at the top, spurs at the junction between head and stem, and others leading off ( or ‘springing’) symmetrically on either side to foliage heads, or stems leading underneath these to continue the design. Adjoining fragments Nos 42–3 show separate long bold lines with pointed ends curving in the same direction along plain areas, probably stems, which may represent further ‘springing stems’. Rounded terminals on Nos 27, 42 and 47, are similar to No. 71 (E). This type of grisaille can be seen at Lincoln and Salisbury cathedrals where it is thought to date to the early 13th century (Marks 1993, fig. 102 a,b; fig. 103a), with similar excavated fragments from Battle and Bayham abbeys in Kent (Kerr 1983 and 1985).
Design type D: Vegetal grisaille with plain background, no visible veining (Nos 62– 70)(Illustrated: No. 68)
(9 fragments, area 66cm²) 79
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
These 12 fragments have a vegetal grisaille style very similar to type B, but cross-hatching is not present on them. The ‘plain background’ may include stem areas, which are relatively wide in this style, and do not preclude the likelihood that they come from a window with cross-hatching as well; for example, if fragment 14 did not join 13, it would have been categorised as D rather than B.
Design type E: Specific elements of 13th-century grisaille design (Nos 71–108)(Illustrated: Nos 71, 72, 73–74, 91, 102, 105)
(Total 38 fragments, area 144cm², including EL and ES)
These are generally smaller fragments, which have motifs that are found in grisaille, but other elements of the design are not discernible. A number show the lobes of foliage, with their characteristic pointed lines dividing the lobes (EL), or are fragments which include spurs at the top of stems (ES); these are discussed as subcategories of type E.
Two fragments show less common motifs: No. 71 is a small fragment painted with a rounded terminal with a line leading off it. Similar motifs can be seen on Nos 27, 42 and 47 (all B), where this rounded terminal is found between foliage heads. Three illustrated fragments of 13th-century grisaille excavated at Bayham Abbey in Kent also show this terminal, between lobes or different foliage heads (Kerr 1983, 62, fig. 16, 15, 22 and 29).
One fragment with a decorative device different from those identified so far is No. 72. This small fragment comes from a grisaille design, having bold lines and cross-hatching of a consistent style to other fragments here, but within a painted area there are two small slightly separated circles with dots in their centres. Since they are not part of a cluster and have dots in the centres they are unlikely to be fruits. Larger separated circles with central dots from previous excavations (e.g. Tyson 2013, nos 207, 212) were identified as border decoration, but these are clearly not borders.
EL Lobes of foliage with pointed lines between each (Nos 73–101) (29 fragments, 113cm²)
Twenty-eight fragments of glass have lobes from foliage terminals, but the fragments are not large enough to show what other features/devices, such as cross-hatching, were also present. Most of the lobes are rounded, but No. 91 has a more pointed central lobe (distorted?), as might be found in a vesica-shaped quarry; even though this fragment is heat-distorted the painted lobe appears to be close to original shape.
ES Elongated spurs from top of stem adjoining foliage (Nos 102–108) (7 fragments, area 27cm²)
Elongated spurs are often found at the inside top of the stem, where the stem joins with a lobed terminal. Seven fragments from Holme Cultram 2014 show this spur; and No. 102 has two opposing spurs on either side of the stem. In addition to these fragments, a further nine fragments from other design types have similar spurs, combined with other features of stiff-leaf foliage, and their position within the design can be illustrated more effectively (e.g. Nos 13, 17, 19 and 48). Spurs were not so obvious on the previous seasons’ fragments, although two fragments (Tyson 2013, fig. 31, 4 and fig. 33, 52) show what looks like a ‘double’ spur. These spurs can be seen on other early to mid 13th- century grisaille window designs, for example at Lincoln Cathedral and Salisbury Cathedral (Marks, fig. 102, a and b). They are also evident on fragments excavated from Battle Abbey (e.g. Kerr 1985, fig. 40, nos 2–5).
Design type F: Cross-hatched background, may have edge of bold lines from grisaille designs (Nos 109–129) 80
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
21 fragments, area 62 cm²
These fragments are consistent with the grisaille types above; on some there is a bold line next to the cross-hatching, on others only cross-hatching is visible.
Design type G: Other fragments with bold curving or angular lines consistent with 13th-century grisaille designs (Nos 130–184)(Illustrated: Nos 131, 180, 184)
(55 fragments, area 174 cm²)
Design type J: Border designs (Nos 185–191)(Illustrated: Nos 185, 187–189, 190–191) 7 fragments, area 28 cm² At least five fragments (three adjoining) came from border strips, with a width of c. 20–23mm; two smaller fragments in probable heat-damaged opaque pale blue (Nos 190–91) from the edge of a quarry may also come from this type. Three adjoining fragments (Nos 187–9) form an almost complete rectangular quarry, dimensions c. 22 x 82mm, showing three and a half circles, and would be one of a length of such quarries. The style is ‘beading’, a row of large plain circles of clear glass, picked out of a matt paint wash. Two such fragments came from previous excavations at the site (Tyson 2013, nos 202–3). This is a universally common border design in medieval windows from as early as the late 12th/early 13th century in the Corona Chapel of Canterbury Cathedral (CVMA 010079), continuing on through the medieval period. It is part of the grisaille repertoire; it is found amongst the 13th-century grisaille fragments from excavations at Battle Abbey (Kerr 1985, 129 and 131, fig. 40, no. 15), as well as forming a curving border in early 13th-century grisaille at Salisbury Cathedral (Marks, fig. 102b).
Design type K: Fragments with parts of straight and curved lines, date uncertain (Nos 192–194)
3 fragments, area 4cm²
Design type L: Painted fragments, but with indistinct paint or undiagnostic designs (Nos 195– 232)
38 fragments, area 108cm²
A note on fragments appearing opaque pale blue (Nos 34–5, 91–3, 120–2, 173–6, 190–1, 209–11)
17 fragments, area c. 111cm²
Nineteen fragments of glass (17 painted, area 111cm²; 2 unpainted, area 11cm²) are unusual in appearing to be made of opaque pale blue glass, with some cream and brown surface weathering. The fragments are considerable warped and puckered, suggesting perhaps that they have been exposed to great heat. No. 210 (not illustrated) has shapes and linear impressions in the surface, presumably formed while it was semi-molten. Rather than the crystallised appearance and crumbly texture of the other excavated glass, their glass matrix is still glass-like and stable. All the fragments came from context 104 in Trench 1. Four similar fragments were found in previous excavations: one from context 1022 in 2009, and three from context 112 in 2008.
81
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
While the fragments appear opaque pale blue on first inspection, if they are held up to the light they have a translucent brownish hue where not covered by surface weathering. This is a phenomenon that has been noted in post-medieval glass from glassworking sites, where waste or failed products have accidentally transformed into this dichroic (two-coloured) effect, pale blue in reflected light and yellowish in transmitted light (Dungworth and Paynter 2011). It appears to be a feature of glass with a high-lime low-alkali (HLLA) composition, a common glass type in post-medieval England. However, chemical analyses of medieval window glass currently suggests that window glass with this composition emerges around 1400, and is thought to be imported from the Continent (pers. comm. Ian Freestone). It is hoped that some of the Holme Cultram fragments can be analysed to establish their composition, as they are significantly earlier in date.
Unpainted window fragments
A total of 100 fragments with an area of c. 269cm² had no visible paint, although on the more badly degraded fragments it is likely that paint has flaked off or is no longer visible on the opaque surface. Three fragments had patchy surface opacity, and greenish-colourless glass was visible through this. Two fragments had an opaque pale blue appearance (see above). The remaining glass was all badly degraded and opaque brown, while many fragments had crumbly orange crystallisation within the glass. Two adjoining fragments made up a complete rectangular quarry, measuring 50 x 24mm (at widest end), 4.5mm thick. A number of fragments had right-angled corners or straight edges, and five had slightly curving edges, indicating a combination of quarry shapes. The number of unpainted fragments is much smaller than the painted pieces, suggesting that they come from unpainted areas within or around the painted windows, rather than completely plain windows.
Trench Context No. of fragments Area (cm²) 1 103 6 9
1 104 62 180
1 134 7 8
1 149 2 8
1 U/S 11 20
3 115 4 9
3 133 8 35
TOTAL 100 269
Discussion
All of the glass from the 2014 excavations is consistent with early to mid 13th-century grisaille window designs. ‘Grisaille’, from the French for ‘grey’, was a glazing scheme of colourless glass, originally unpainted with the quarry shapes forming a geometric pattern, and subsequently painted with vegetal designs, often around central motifs. It was popular in the Cistercian movement for its simplicity; it also had the advantage of letting more light into a building than the previous deeply coloured designs. St Bernard of Clairvaux, founder of the movement, instructed against the use of colour, figures and images in windows in the mid 12th century (Allen 2009). Nevertheless, windows often had a small number of 82
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 coloured quarries in central bosses and borders. By the later 13th century the statutes had adapted, and were more concerned with regulating ‘superfluous novelties’ and ‘notable curiosities’ than colour and figures (Kinder 2002, 219).
Not all of the categories identified in 2010–13 have been found in the 2014 excavations; fewer fragments were found with veining on the foliage stems, and, most notably, none of the later styles were present. Amongst the grisaille, no examples were found of central motifs such as that which had a fleur-de-lys design from the previous excavations (Tyson 2013, 60, No. 66; 66, fig. 33). Circular ‘fruits’, three of which were identified from previous excavations (Tyson 2013, 60, nos 63–5; 66, fig. 33) were not found in 2014. The glass must be seen in conjunction with the previous seasons’ excavated glass for a more complete picture of the Holme Cultram glazing scheme.
Much of the Holme Cultram glass has decayed and has opaque brown surface weathering, and a crystallised orange or opaque crumbly glass matrix within, so the original colours cannot be discerned. Where any colour is visible through the surface weathering, it is greenish-colourless. While grisaille known from elsewhere was primarily colourless, it was frequently enlivened with coloured glass – in borders, strapwork and bosses. It is a possibility that glass panels may have been stripped from the abbey during the Dissolution or Reformation period, and that the more decorative central panels or coloured glass might have been removed for re-use, possibly in domestic glazing (e.g. as at Kells Priory, pers. comm. Jo Moran).
Examination of whether the edges of the fragments were broken, or whether they were grozed, for which medieval glaziers used a tool called a ‘grozing iron’ to ‘nibble’ the edge to the shape required, can reveal what the original ‘quarry’ shapes were. Sometimes a lead shadow can be detected around the edge, where the edge was protected within the surrounding lead came, such as on No. 47. The quarry shapes include an almost complete triangular quarry with wide stems and a triangular area of cross-hatching, and a smaller plain rectangular quarry. A complete border quarry with plain beading was also rectangular. Grozed edges show other quarries with irregular shapes, with a combination of straight and curved edges. The glass was relatively thick: while the thickness ranged from the extremes of 2.2mm to 5.9mm, the average thickness was c. 3.5mm, typical of glass of a 13th-century date.
The total area of the painted glass was 1140cm², the equivalent of a panel approximately 30 x 38cm in size. The total area of painted and unpainted glass was 1409cm², which, added to the area of the previous seasons’ excavated glass of 2571cm² makes 3980cm²: the equivalent of a panel approximately 50 x 80cm, clearly a tiny proportion of what was originally installed in the windows, although an impressive archaeological assemblage.
The majority of the glass, 204 fragments, 150 of which came from context 104, was excavated from Trench 1 (from contexts 104, 134, 149, 178 and unstratified). Only 28 fragments, on average smaller in size than from Trench 1, were retrieved from Trench 3 (contexts 102, 123, 133, 157 and 279). The style of the painted glass was very similar in both trenches. As discussed in the previous report, the excavated location of the glass is not necessarily next to the original windows. It is thought that, if the glass was still in situ at the time of the Dissolution, glass panels were sometimes removed to one convenient location to dissemble the glass from the more valuable lead (Tyson 2013, 57).
Conclusions
All of the glass from the 2014 excavations appears to be an early to mid 13th-century grisaille design, with stiff-leaf vegetal foliage, painted in bold lines with cross-hatched backgrounds, with spurs at the
83
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 junctions with the foliage heads. These features are comparable to glass from other English religious buildings of that date, from cathedrals (e.g. Salisbury and Lincoln) and abbeys (such as Battle and Bayham in Kent). Despite the appeal of grisaille glass to the Cistercian movement, it was clearly not confined to Cistercian foundations. Very little survives from Cistercian foundations in England, so it is difficult to say how typical this glass is in other Cistercian houses: glass from excavations at Garendon Abbey in Leicestershire (http://www.leics.gov.uk/revealed_objects_grisailleglass.htm), and a window panel from Furness Abbey in Cumbria (Allen 2009b) are painted grisaille glass, but both a little later than the style of the Holme Cultram glass. Other unpainted glass from geometric designs survives, but not in situ, from the Cistercian abbeys of Abbey Dore, Bordesley, Newminster, Warden and Fountains (Allen 2009a). The Holme Cultram glass must therefore be seen as very significant in providing evidence for the use of glass by the Cistercian order.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Sarah Paynter and Ian Freestone for their advice about the opaque blue fragments.
Websites
CVMA (Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi) http://www.cvma.ac.uk/jsp/index.jsp (accessed 19.6.15)
Garendon Abbey glass: http://www.leics.gov.uk/revealed_objects_grisailleglass.htm (accessed 19.6.15)
Bibliography
Dungworth, D, and Paynter, S, 2011 Nano-Scale Investigation of Some Dichroic/Opalescent Archaeological Materials, in I Turbanti-Memmi (ed.), Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on Archaeometry, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 371–5
Kerr, J, 1983 Window Glass, in A Streeten, Bayham Abbey, Sussex Archaeological Society Monograph 2, 56–70
Kerr, J, 1985 The Window Glass, in J N Hare, Battle Abbey: The Eastern Range and the Excavations of 1978-80, Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England Archaeological Report 2, 127– 38
Kinder, T N, 2002 Cistercian Europe: Architecture of Contemplation Grand Rapids, Michigan: Erdmans Publishing Co
Marks, R, 1993 Stained Glass in England during the Middle Ages, London: Routledge
Morgan, N, 1983 The Medieval Painted Glass of Lincoln Cathedral, CVMA (GB), Occasional Paper III, London
Tyson, R, 2013 Report on the window glass found at Holme Cultram Abbey excavations 2008 – 2010, in J Walker and M Graham, St. Mary’s Abbey Holme Cultram, Abbeytown, Cumbria, Cumbria Archaeological Research Reports 4, 56–69
84
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
85
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
86
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
87
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
88
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 TABLE 1: HCA – A PAINTED GLASS
No. Design Dimensions Area Thickness grozed Colour Condition type Painted design (mm) (cm2) (mm) edges Quarry shape
Bold line parallel to grozed edge, another line meeting it at a slight ? Opaque B angle, and cross-hatching on one side of the join. 27.2x22.6 5 3.3 1 Straight edge
Two bold lines joining at right angles, and cross-hatching inside – cross-hatched paint strokes layered over bold lines. Part of separate Straight edge curves ? Opaque B bold line at edge. 41.2x25.3 7 3.8 1 round
Bold line parallel to grozed edge. Two close thinner curving lines Opaque, poor condition, flaky orange (meant to be one thick line?) join same point of bold line at slight ? crystallisation inside matrix. B angle, cross-hatching on one side. 39.3x30.5 8 3.8 1 Straight edge
Bold line parallel to grozed edge, with two further curved bold lines Straight edges meeting ? Opaque and bent B meeting it, with cross-hatching between them. 49.9x27.3 12 3.5 2 at slightly acute angle
Bold line along broken edge, and another parallel. Curving bold line ? Opaque B adjoins this second line, with cross-hatching between. 43.1x29.7 7 2.6 0
Two bold curving lines joining at a point (between lobes?); cross- ? Opaque B hatching on one side. 25.7x25 4 2.9 0
Bold curving lines - one with looping curves forming ?point between lobes; two further curving lines joining this, with cross-hatching in ? Opaque B small enclosed area between. 29.3x19.8 4 3.3 0
Bold curving lines - one with looping curves of lobes; curving line Opaque, poor condition, flaky orange joining with cross-hatching in small area between, and another ? crystallisation inside matrix. B curving line joining that one. 31.6x22.3 6 3.7 1 Slightly rounded edge
Bold curving lines - one with looping curves forming point (between Opaque, scratches on painted surface, and lobes); another line adjoining, with cross-hatching in small area ? badly pitted on external surface. B between. 34.7x21 4 3.4 1
Bold lines: three straight lines forming U-shape, with elongated spur ? Opaque ES at one edge; elongated spur at edge of another line opposite. 34.8x25.5 6 3.7 0
89
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Bold curved line towards one corner of fragment with cross-hatching within corner. Another bold line, partially visible, curving with looped ?spur - top of stem, lower foliage head. Degraded area of Three sides tapering ? Opaque, poor condition including surface B paint on remaining edge. 55.1x25.7 11 4.3 3 inwards
Opaque, poor condition including surface; ? badly pitted on external surface. ES Bold straight line, with partially visible looped ?spur adjoining. 27.7x22.5 5 4.4
Two adjacent curving bold lines, one dividing into two lines at break. ? Opaque, poor condition including surface G Possible lead shadow on grozed edge. 26.8x21.2 4 3 1
Bold straight line, widening at one broken edge, another ? Opaque G perpendicular straight line joining it. 42.5x35.6 14 4.7 1 Straight edge
? Opaque G Bold straight line, another perpendicular straight line joining it. 35.9x28.5 6 3 0
? Opaque G Small part of bold straight line 31.9x16.8 3 3.9 0
? Opaque, poor condition including surface G Bold straight line visible - decayed surface. 25.5x16 4 4.3 1
Curving line with two long points on inside forming foliage lobes, ? Opaque, poor condition B cross-hatching on other side, as well as an adjoining bold line. 38.6x33.8 10 3 ?1
Bold line around curved edge, pointed line coming off it, forming ? Opaque, surface poor condition EL 'lobes', adjoins 20 32.3x25.1 5 3.9 1 Curving edge
Bold line around curved edge, pointed line coming off it, forming ? Opaque, surface poor condition EL 'lobes'; adjoins 19 34.7x20.6 5 3.9 1 Curving edge
? Opaque EL Curving line forming a point between lobes in centre 25.1x14.7 2 3.5 ?1
Curving line extending two points to form lobes on one side, part of ? Opaque, surface poor condition D bold curving line visible on other side; poor surface visibility 39.2x34.6 9 4.1 ?2
? Opaque G Bold lines: parts of two curving lines with thick line joining them. 32.2x22.3 6 3.7 ?1
Opaque, very poor condition including ? surface EL Curving line around edge extending to two points between lobes 38.3x23.2 7 2.9 ?1
? Opaque, poor surface condition EL Two extending points from between lobes 28.9x22.4 5 3.3 0
Opaque, very poor disintegrating condition ? including surface G Point extending from curving line 26.4x17.9 3 3.3 0
90
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Opaque, very poor condition including ? surface L Paint visible, but poor condition and design not clear - bold lines? 19.3x29.6 3 3.3 0
Bold lines outlining a symmetrical 'stem', with cross-hatching separating side stems, and two opposing 'spurs' extending inside top of 'stem'. On one side, two lobes of part of a foliage head is visible, with another elongated spur where it adjoins the stem. Other stems 'spring' symmetrically on either side of the central stem. Nos 28 and 28 adjoin. Opaque surfaces, very poor crystallised ? condition internally B 61.9x57.1 26 3 0
Opaque surfaces, very poor crystallised ? condition internally B 35x33.9 9 3.9 0
Nos 30-31 form an almost complete triangular quarry. Bold straight ? B lines forming triangle, longest side parallel to quarry edge; cross- hatching within triangle. One side extends beyond triangle to fragment edge. Wide plain bands running down the other two sides of the triangle (one overlapping) are likely to be stems. One edge of Opaque, orange crystallisation within glass quarry, within lead shadow, forms a ridge of greater thickness, glass ? matrix B surface dipping down 4mm from edge. 77.3x68.1 35 5.9 3 Triangular
Bold lines forming part of stem and lobed foliage, with spur on inside of stem at join with head, and pointed lines between lobes. A wide stem leading up to corner of foliage head/stem on outside, Greenish- with another stem crossing underneath that one, and triangular Curving line around colourless Partially opaque surfaces B areas of cross-hatching within bold lines. 61x46.6 25 3.8 1 part of quarry
Poor surface condition; bold lines outlining part of curving stem and Opaque surfaces, very poor crystallised foliage with pointed lines between lobes, and spur at inside edge of Curving line around ? condition internally D foliage. Curving line along curving grozed edge. 58.9x46.6 22 4.2 2 part of quarry
Bold lines outline a three-lobed area with cross-hatching either side, and two straight parallel lines c.7mm apart immediately above ? Opaque surfaces B central lobe. 53.3x46.7 17 3.6 ?1
91
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Bold line design includes stem leading to five-lobed foliage head, next to a partial stem/long leaf and stem leading to more lobed Greenish- Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation foliage with spur on inner angle. Two small areas of cross-hatching Curving edges, lead colourless within glass matrix B next to foliage. Line along edge of curving grozed edge. 77.8x44.4 24 3.8 2 shadows on reverse
Straightish edge and Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Bold curving lines forming part of three lobed foliage areas, and two small part of adjacent ? within glass matrix B partial areas of cross-hatching. 46.4x39.2 13 3.7 2 edge
Bold straight lines forming a right angle, with a curved foliage lobe within with rounded terminal at edge, and cross-hatching in ? Opaque surfaces B between. Possible grozed edge parallel to straight line. 44.4x31.5 9 2.9 ?1 Straight edge
Opaque surfaces, very poor crystallised Curving bold line with cross-hatching on one side. Part of three ? condition internally B thinner pointed lines, between or within stems. 36.2x22.7 7 3.4 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix F Small part of bold straight line with cross-hatching on one side. 23.7x19 3 3 ?1
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Two adjoining bold lines adjoining, one straight, one curved; cross- ? within glass matrix B hatching between and up to grozed curving edge. 24.7x20.6 4 3.4 1 Curving edge
Bold lines forming design of three-lobed foliage, with two straight Straight, one possible Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation lines leading up to one side of foliage, with cross-hatching in area curving grozed edge ? within glass matrix B between the two lines. 56.7x32.6 14 3.1 ?2 adjoining
Fragment with clear red pigment bold lines forming two lobes of ? Opaque surfaces EL foliage; another line just outside foliage. 24.9x23 4 2.9 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Surface in poor condition, but part of three lobes of foliage, with ? within glass matrix B cross-hatching outside. 33.8x31.4 7 3.8 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Curving bold lines forming parts of two lobes of foliage head, with ? within glass matrix, very poor condition B area of cross-hatching between enclosed by another line. 33.4x23.1 5 2.9 0
Greenish- Partially opaque surfaces, orange Surface in poor condition, but part of two lobes of two different colourless crystallisation within glass matrix EL foliage heads. 28.3x27.9 7 2.5 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix EL Curving bold lines forming part of lobed foliage and stems. 37.2x32.6 7 4.2 0
92
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Bold lines, one along straight grozed edge, four thick and thin ? within glass matrix G curving lines forming stems. 40.8x33.2 9 4.9 1 Straight edge
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Bold line, curving and with another adjoining. Trace of painted line ? within glass matrix G along probable grozed edge. 21.4x22 3 3.2 1
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix ES Two adjoining curving lines, and edge of small spur or loop. 24.3x20 4 3.5 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix EL Three curving bold lines, one edge of lobed foliage. 30.5x29.6 6 4.4 0
Bold slightly curving line, another line adjoining it at edge of Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation fragment, and, on the same side, another curving line forming two within glass matrix, very poor disintegrating lobes of foliage with a pointed line between, and a rounded terminal ? condition EL at the edge of one lobe. 37.8x36.1 9 3.6 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass Two adjacent edges at ? matrix F Bold line near fragment edge, with cross-hatching on one side. 33.4x28.7 8 3.2 2 an angle to each other
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass Small fragment with bold curving line probably forming foliage lobe, ? matrix EL with pointed line between lobes. 19.7x17.7 2 3.3 0
Bold lines forming foliage lobes, with pointed line between two Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation lobes, and a rounded terminal at edge of lobe. Cross-hatching on one straight, one ? within glass matrix, poor condition B other side of bold line. 44.1x33.1 9 3.5 2 curving edge
Bold curving line with two bold lines leading off on one side. On other side, a thinner line end - dividing stems? Line visible along one straight, one ? Opaque surfaces D edge of curving grozed edge. 35.5x33 8 3.5 2 curving edge
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation within glass matrix, poor disintegrating Three straight bold lines forming triangle, filled with cross-hatching; ? condition B one line extends beyond triangle. Plain (stem) areas around it. 39.9x24.8 7 2.8 1
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation within glass matrix, poor disintegrating ? condition F Cross-hatching just visible on badly weathered surface 30.6x15.7 3 3.5 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Parts of two almost parallel bold lines across small fragment, one ? within glass matrix G thicker than the other. 20.6x16.5 2 3.4 0
93
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix L Slightly bent fragment; trace of paint on extreme edge. 23.8x14.2 2 3.3 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix L Small trace of paint on badly weathered surface. 21.6x21.2 4 3.4 ?1
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Bold line at edge of fragment, and another thin pointed line in ? within glass matrix G centre. 18.9x13.3 2 3 ?1 ?curved edge
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix F Cross-hatching visible over whole fragment (weathered surface). 18.8x18.8 2 3.2 0
? Opaque surfaces G Bold line in corner of fragment. 19.5x17.1 2 2.8 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix G Thick bold curving line. 16.5x13.3 1 3.3 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix L Faint area of paint. 11.4x9.8 1 2.9 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix G Bold paint with rounded terminal 17.5x11.2 1 3.3 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix G Part of bold line on small fragment 11.7x10.5 1 3.1 0
Curving bold line, with part of pointed line between lobes, and ? Opaque surfaces EL rounded terminal at edge of lobe. 19.5x15.8 2 2.2 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Straight bold line with cross-hatching on one side, curving line ? within glass matrix B forming lobes with pointed line between. 22.5x16.6 3 3.4 1
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix G Parts of three bold adjoining straight lines. 21.2x17.6 2 3.6 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix L Weathered surface with trace of paint in corner. 22.5x15.6 2 3.1 2 Join at obtuse angle
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix L Small fragment with painted area. 13.1x13.1 1 4 0
94
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix L Small fragment with trace of paint. 12x15.7 1 3.7 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Badly weathered disintegrating fragment with trace of cross- ? within glass matrix, very poor condition F hatching. 19x18.4 2 4.6 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix, very poor condition L Badly weathered disintegrating fragment with trace of paint. 16.2x15.2 1 2.6 0
Bold line along curving grozed edge. Bold line of foliage stem, with Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation rounded bump on side; a further thinner bold line through wider ? within glass matrix G stem area - either creating another stem or a vein. 39.2x24.5 6 3.8 1 Curving edge
Two adjacent bold lines narrowing to a point, possibly from base of ? Opaque surfaces G springing stem. 37.5x21.7 5 2.7 2 Join at obtuse angle
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Three bold curving lines enclosing an area of cross-hatching; plain ? within glass matrix, very poor condition B outside cross-hatched area. 28.1x21 4 3.9 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Bold lines curving to form two foliage lobes, with pointed lines ? within glass matrix EL between. 30x17.2 3 2.6 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Bold lines forming lobes of foliage around curving grozed edge, two ? within glass matrix EL pointed lines between lobes. 21.5x23.2 4 4.4 1 Rounded curve
Bold line curving to form foliage lobes, with pointed lines between ? Opaque surfaces B lobes. Cross-hatching on outside of foliage. 29.5x21.7 4 3.7 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Bold line at grozed edge of fragment curving to form foliage lobes, ? within glass matrix EL with pointed lines between lobes. 23.9x23 4 3.9 1 Straight
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix G Curving bold line at edge of fragment. 29.1x23.8 5 2.7 ?2 Obtuse angle
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Two curving lines either side of stem; on one side another line meets ? within glass matrix B it at angle with cross-hatching below. 34.5x16.1 3 4.1 0
Two bold lines joining an angle, slightly swollen on one side of Opaque pitted surfaces, crystallisation within corner, with a long curling spur on corner. Another partial line at ? glass matrix ES edge. Possible short line at broken edge of external surface? 35.4x24.6 5 4.2 1? Curving edge
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass Two bold lines joining at an angle, plus a trace of another line joining ? matrix ES close to the angle, with an elongated spur on corner. 23.7x22 3 4.5 0
95
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass Two bold lines joining at an angle, with an elongated spur on corner. ? matrix ES The very edge of a similar spur end visible opposite. 24.9x15.1 2 4.5 1
Opaque brown surfaces, cream within glass ? matrix, warped B Two bold lines with cross-hatching between, plain outside lines. 31x16.3 3 3.2 1
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Bold line down centre of fragment, thinner lines narrowing towards ? within glass matrix G point leading off on opposite sides. 27.2x19.3 4 2.9 1
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix F Two bold lines meeting at an acute angle with cross-hatching within. 22.6x17.9 4 2.6 1
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass Straight and curving bold lines meeting at acute angle with trace of ? matrix F cross-hatching within. 18.9x16.2 2 4.4 ?1
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Straight bold lines, two meeting at right angle, the edge of another ? within glass matrix G opposite. 21.5x15.3 2 4.5 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass Straight bold lines, one slightly narrower, two meeting at right angle, ? matrix G the edge of another opposite. 26.6x16.6 2 4.8 0
Fragment of rectangular quarry, broken at either end, with paint Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass between the edges of two (partial) circular shapes. Beading from From rectangular ? matrix. Warped, with flaky paint J border strip? 23.2x20.1 4 3 2 quarry
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix EL Faint trace of paint forming edge of lobe with pointed line at edge. 23.5x18.9 3 4.6 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix G Two bold lines meeting at an acute angle. 18.8x14 2 4.5 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix G Two bold lines meeting at an acute angle. 17.2x15.2 1 4.4 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass Line around two grozed edges outlinining partial circular area - Approximate right ? matrix J beading? 20.1x14.5 2 2.8 2 angle
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Two bold lines meeting at right angle with cross-hatching on one ? within glass matrix F side. 18.9x20.2 2 2.9 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Adjacent painted lines, one wide and one narrow, possibly vein or ? within glass matrix G spur end. 20x12.3 2 4.8 0
96
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Parts of three painted lines, slightly curved, roughly adjacent, and ? within glass matrix D the central narrow line ending in a point. 18.9x18.9 3 3.1 0
Opaque badly weathered surfaces, flaky paint, orange crystallisation within glass Faint painted area of curving bold line with rounded area coming off ? matrix G it. 19.2x16.8 3 3.2 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix G Small fragment with bold line along grozed edge. 18.7x11.3 2 4.4 1
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix G Small fragment with three curving bold lines meeting. 18.8x12.9 2 4.3 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix L Small fragment with trace of paint at edge of two opposite edges. 17.5x11.2 2 4.1 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange Bold curving line narrowing to a point, and part of another line near ? crystallisation within glass matrix D fragment edge. 19.8x17.8 3 3.2 1
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange Two bold thick curving lines joining, another bold line on other side ? crystallisation within glass matrix, warped D of fragment, and a thinner line narrowing to a point in between. 29.4x22.8 5 3 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange Bold line curving to form foliage lobes around curving grozed edge, ? crystallisation within glass matrix EL with pointed lines between lobes. 24.1x23.7 4 3 1 Curving edge
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Three bold curving lines, at opposite edges and centre of fragment, ? within glass matrix G one along short grozed edge. 23.8x13.7 2 2.5 1
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix L Indistinct paint, showing wide curving line widening at one end. 20.7x15.3 2 3.1 1 Curving edge
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix F Indistinct paint, cross-hatching covering whole fragment. 18.5x11.9 2 3.4 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix F Cross-hatching on surviving part of surface. 14.2x10.9 1 3.7 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix G One wide bold line, another thinner curling line. 16.7x12.8 2 2.6 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix G Edge of bold line. 16.3x12.3 2 2.4 1 Curving edge
97
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix G Two adjacent slightly curving bold lines. 19.9x18.8 3 2.8 1
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix E Narrow line leading to rounded motif. 16.4x14.4 2 4.4 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix G Bold line around curving grozed edge. 12x9.7 1 3.9 1 Curving
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix F Indistinct cross-hatching across fragment. 14.2x10.9 1 3.2 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix G Edge of bold line. 15.2x12.6 1 4.3 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix G Wide curving line. 13.9x10.7 1 3.2 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix G Thin curving line forming a point. 13.2x11.9 1 4.4 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix EL Curving line with a pointed line in between ?lobes. 14.1x13.2 1 2.8 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix G Indistinct paint, two bold lines joining. 15.4x11.6 1 2.7 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix G Indistinct paint, bold line. 12x11.3 1 3.2 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix L Indistinct area of paint. 17.2x11.7 1 3.3 0
? Opaque surfaces, poor condition, warped G Curving bold line forming a point. 10.4x10.6 1 3.1 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix L Indistinct area of paint. 12.4x12.4 1 3.4 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix G Curving line. 12x11.4 1 2.8 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix G Parts of two thin pointed lines. 16.4x15.2 1 2.9 0
98
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix L Indistinct area of paint. 15.6x10.1 2 2.8 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix L Indsitinct paint area with curved edge. 14.7x8.6 1 3.9 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix G Bold line. 11.7x10.8 1 2.8 0
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange ? crystallisation within glass matrix G Part of bold line. 10.6x9.8 1 3.1 0
Opaque pale blue glass matrix, appearing Appears translucent brownish when held up to the opaque pale light, with some opaque cream and brown Trace in the brown/cream surface weathering that there was blue surface weathering; warped and puckered L originally paint. 50.5x40.8 19 4.2 ?3 Rectangular end
Opaque pale blue glass matrix, appearing Appears translucent brownish when held up to the opaque pale light, with some opaque cream and brown Patchy red-brown paint, bold straight line with cross-hatching to one blue surface weathering; warped and puckered F side. 33.6x25.8 8 3.7 0
Appears Opaque pale blue glass matrix, with opaque opaque pale cream and brown surface weathering; Patchy red-brown paint, including bold line with cross-hatching to blue warped and puckered B one side, and curving lines forming a point (between lobes?). 43.8x36.6 9 4.2 0
Appears Opaque pale blue glass matrix, with opaque opaque pale cream and brown surface weathering; Cross-hatching across fragment, appearing cream on a brown blue warped and puckered F background. 21.7x18.7 3 3.7 0
Opaque pale blue glass matrix, appearing Appears translucent brownish when held up to the Bold line around fragment edge (possibly originally grozed) forming opaque pale light, with some opaque cream and brown one complete and two partial lobes, with pointed lines between. blue surface weathering; warped and puckered EL Central lobe slightly pointed. 34.9x26.7 7 3 0
Opaque pale blue glass matrix, appearing Appears translucent brownish when held up to the opaque pale light, with some opaque cream and brown blue surface weathering; warped and puckered G Bold lines on opposite sides of fragment. 39.2x25.2 7 2.9 0
Opaque pale blue glass matrix, appearing Appears translucent brownish when held up to the opaque pale light, with some opaque cream and brown blue surface weathering; warped and puckered G Two adjoining bold lines at fragment edge. 30.5x23.6 5 3.5 0
99
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Appears Opaque pale blue glass matrix, with opaque opaque pale cream and brown surface weathering; blue warped and puckered G Two thick bold lines on opposite sides of fragment. 24.3x19.3 3 3.3 0
Opaque pale blue glass matrix, appearing Appears translucent brownish when held up to the opaque pale light, with some opaque cream and brown blue surface weathering; warped and puckered EL Curving lines forming point between lobes. 18.6x11.5 1 2.8 0
Opaque pale blue glass matrix, appearing Appears translucent brownish when held up to the Surface weathering makes paint difficult to see, but includes two opaque pale light, with some opaque cream and brown bold lines adjoin at an acute angle with cross-hatching within; part blue surface weathering; warped and puckered B of another bold line on opposite edge. 37.8x31.5 11 3.3 0
Opaque pale blue glass matrix, appearing Appears translucent brownish when held up to the opaque pale light, with some opaque cream and brown Short section of painted bold line at edge. As well as puckering, blue surface weathering; warped and puckered L there are shapes and linear impressions in the glass. 49.5x43.7 17 4.8 0
Opaque pale blue glass matrix, appearing Appears translucent brownish when held up to the opaque pale light, with some opaque cream and brown blue surface weathering; warped and puckered L Short section of painted bold line across fragment. 24.3x15.6 2 3.8 0
Opaque pale blue glass matrix, non glass particles embedded in some parts of surface, Appears partial bubble at one end. Elongated melted Despite the glass having no resemblance to a flat window fragment, opaque pale length of glass, bending and with rounded bold paint showing two bold lines at opposite angles with cross- blue edges. F hatching between is visible. 35.1x<9.3 2 2 0
Surface appears opaque pale blue with Appears cream and brown weathering; glass matrix opaque pale appears opaque cream; warped and Paint along one fragment edge with curved lines forming part of two blue puckered. EL lobes with paint leading to pointed edge between 33.9x20.7 4 2.7 0
Appears Opaque pale blue glass matrix, with opaque pale considerable opaque cream and brown Bold painted lines - straight along one edge, and a number of partial blue surface weathering; warped and puckered G curved or rounded lines elsewhere. 36.4x24.9 5 5.4 0
Appears Paint along probable grozed edge, and down centre, with plain area opaque pale with curving edges either side - possibly beading and a border blue Opaque cream glass matrix, slightly crumbly; J? fragment. 39.2x20 6 2.3 1? surface appears opaque pale blue, with
100
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Appears opaque cream and brown surface opaque pale weathering. Slightly warped and puckered. blue J?
Bold paint outlining three foliage lobes, a small triangular area above Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange lobes, a bold line leading away from this, and a bold line parallel to ? crystallisation within glass matrix D the edge of the lobed area - space or stem. 37.8x35 10 3.2 1?
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange Paint in poor condition and design not discernible; includes bold line ? crystallisation within glass matrix G at edge, and further area of paint in middle of fragment. 45x27.5 9 3.2 1?
B Bold painted lines including along grozed edge, and parallel, with Slightly curving edge Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass plain (stem) area between; another wide stem with lines either side ? matrix B joining/interlacing at an angle; and a small area of cross-hatching. 38.1x30.3 11 4.5 1
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange Two slightly curving bold lines parallel on opposite sides of fragment, ? crystallisation within glass matrix D with thinner line ending in a point between them part of the way up. 22.2x18.5 4 3.1 1
Opaque surfaces, poor condition, Two parallel bold lines, a curving line between them at one end, and ? crystallisation within glass matrix B cross-hatching between. 29.9x11.7 2 4.5 0
Bold lines enclosing triangular area of cross-hatching; another bold ? Opaque brown surfaces B line along edge of fragment, plain between. 37.7x25.9 7 2.6 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass Thick bold lines joining at an angle, with trace of cross-hatching ? matrix B between. 21.2x18.5 3 2.5 1
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix G Thick bold lines adjoining at an angle. 16.9x7.8 1 2.8 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix G Bold lines on opposite edges of fragment. 16.7x9.8 1 2.6 0
Bold line with area of cross-hatching on one side, plain with two Straightish on one short lengths of ?vein on other; alternatively could be where the edge, shaped on ? Opaque surfaces; paint indistinct in places A/B stem starts to divide. 36x31.5 8 3 2 adjacent edge
Indistinct paint, curving at edges, with pointed lines between 3 ? Opaque surfaces; paint indistinct in places EL lobes, and tiny area of cross-hatching in corner. 36.4x25.6 8 2.7 1 Curving edge
? J 82x22.4 16 4.3 4 Rectangular quarry
101
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
J Opaque surfaces, poor condition, orange Beading - paint around edges outlining 3.5 large circles in probable crystallisation within glass matrix whole quarry, in 3 adjoining fragments. J
Large fragment with curving grozed edge, bold line running adjacent to edge; inside is a trefoil with pointed lines between each lobe, and Curving on one edge, a 'stem' running next to foliage and another grozed edge. Adjoins shaped on adjacent ? Opaque surfaces; paint indistinct in places B 168/167? 59.9x51.8 26 4.3 2 edge.
B
Two large adjoining fragments with a curving grozed edge; band (stem?) around curved edge, with two separate partial lines ending in points along the centre (veins, or separating stems?); a bold line continues from one of these lines, with an almost complete and a partial trefoil on the inward side, and indistinct paint/lines with cross-hatching within between them; rounded terminal dividing the ? Opaque surfaces; paint indistinct in places B two trefoils. 80x56.8 31 4.2 1 Curved edge
Bold lines including two lobes of foliage, two more lines adjoining, ? Opaque surfaces; paint indistinct in places B and cross-hatching in between. Adjoins 164/168? 32.9x26.6 7 4.1 1 Curved edge
Two bold lines adjoining at one end, cross-hatching on one side; on the other side of a narrow plain area/stem is bold line curving round ? Opaque surfaces; paint indistinct in places B at one end. Adjoins 164/167? 24.4x29.4 5 4 1 Curved edge
? EL
? Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation EL within matrix, poor condition and indistinct Three adjoining fragments around curving grozed edge, in very poor ? paint EL condition; include two foliage lobes. 57.2x17.9 8 3.7 1 Curved edge
Large fragment with bold painted lines forming curving 'stem' around edge with another line starting in centre towards one end, three lobes of foliage, and in between, a small plain area and a ? Opaque surfaces B cross-hatched area. 55.6x43 19 3.7 1
102
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Bold line adjacent to probable edge; area of cross-hatching; foliage One straight grozed Patchy opaque surface weathering and lobes include four small lobes with a rounded terminal separating edge, another straight Greenish- painted surface in poor condition but each two; two partial larger lobes at broken edge. Lead shadow on at obtuse angle with colourless greenish-colourless glass also visible B reverse of one edge. 60.2x38.3 16 2.8 ?2 lead shadow on reverse
Opaque with painted surface in poor Indistinct paint, includes bold lines outlinining trefoil, stem with ? condition; warped B elongated spur on edge, area of cross-hatching. 38.9x38.3 14 3.9 2 Right angle
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix B Curving bold lines with small area of cross-hatching between. 30x17.2 3 4.7 1
? Opaque surfaces; scratched on reverse B Bold lines with part of trefoil and cross-hatching outside it. 31.8x25.2 5 4.6 1
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass Small warped fragment with trace of bold line and cross-hatching ? matrix, warped F visible. 21.3x12.5 2 4 1
Opaque, surfaces in poor condition, slightly Indistinct paint, includes bold lines outlining part of trefoil with spur Straightish edges ? warped B at top of stem, cross-hatching, and further gently curving line. 49.3x30.5 13 3.8 2 joining at obtuse angle
Opaque, surfaces in poor condition, slightly Bold straight line with cross-hatching on one side. Cross-hatched Rectangular end of ? warped F strokes painted over the bold line. 32.2x22.7 6 3.2 3 quarry
B Two adjoining fragments with straightish bold line, cross-hatching on Opaque, surfaces in poor condition, slightly one side, and a thinner line in blank area on other side of bold line ? warped B (stem?). 32.1x24.7 7 3.3 1
Opaque, surfaces in poor condition, slightly ? warped L Indistinct trace of paint on fragment with curving grozed edge. 24.8x18.3 4 3.3 1 Curving edge
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation Small fragment with indistinct bold painted line curving to point ? within glass matrix EL between foliage lobes. 16.9x13.9 2 4.2 1 Curving edge
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix EL Small fragment with pointed line between foliage lobes. 14.3x13.6 1 3.8 0
103
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation within glass matrix, warped and poor Adjacent, slight acute ? condition K Lines along adjacent grozed edges. 22.6x14.4 2 3.6 2 angle
? Opaque, surfaces poor condition L Indistinct paint, two lines just visible. 19.6x13.5 1 3.3 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation within glass matrix, warped and poor ? condition L Small fragment with short section of bold line 20.9x8.8 1 3.9 0
Opaque surfaces, orange crystallisation ? within glass matrix, poor condition L Indistinct traces of paint including line. 16.3x15.3 1 3.4 0
? Opaque, surface in poor condition L Line along grozed edge. 20.7x11.9 2 3.3 1
Opaque and poor condition, external surface ? very pitted L Faint trace of painted line along edge. 18.3x17.3 2 4.8 0
Greenish- Opaque surface weathering but some glass colourless still visible EL Pointed line between foliage lobes. 17.3x15 1 2.5 2 Right-angles
Opaque surface weathering and ? crystallisation, poor condition L Indistinct paint just visible. 29.4x17.8 4 2.2 2 Slight acute angle
Opaque surface weathering and ? crystallisation, poor condition L Indistinct paint just visible. 13.2x11.5 1 3.2 1
Partial thickness of fragment, opaque surfaces, yellow crystallisation in centre, ? crumbly condition L Painted lines visible. 12.3x11.8 1 0
Partial thickness of fragment, opaque surfaces, yellow crystallisation in centre, ? crumbly condition F Cross-hatching. 11.8x8.4 1 0
Opaque surface weathering and ? crystallisation, poor condition L Paint along edge. 8.9x7.3 1 2.7 0
Warped and puckered fragment with opaque brown surfaces, opaque pale blue at edge, and crumbly opaque cream within glass Bold line enclosing cross-hatching one one side of fragment; bold ? matrix. B line turning at top on other side. 40.5x22.8 7 <5.5 0
104
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Warped and puckered fragment with opaque brown/cream rough surfaces, Two bold lines meeting at acute angle with cross-hatching between; ? opaque cream/pale blue within glass matrix B edge of another line at opposite edge of fragment. 36.1x31.6 9 <3.7 0
Warped with opaque brown surfaces, cream ? and crystallised in glass matrix. K Bold line along fragment. 20.9x8.6 1 <3.4 0
Very puckered fragment, opaque ? brown/pale blue/cream. L Trace of paint. 20.6x14.2 2 0
Adjoining fragments, opaque brown L surfaces, cystallised and crumbly within glass Painted; bold line curved gently at one side; wide indistinct area of ? matrix L paint adjacent over most of remaining fragment. <18> 48x36.4 12 3.4 2?
Curving bold line with cross-hatching to one side; painted area next Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass to both, containing two separated small circles with dots in their ? matrix E centres. 22.1x14.8 2 5 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix L Bold line on one side of small fragment. 12.8x11.2 1 4 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix F Small part of bold line with trace of cross-hatching on edge. 16.1x9.2 1 3.3 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix F Small part of bold line with cross-hatching on one side. 14.3x12.1 1 3.5 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix L Paint on small fragment. 9.9x7.8 1 3.3 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix, very poor condition L Indistinct trace of paint. 29.6x23 4 5.4 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix, very poor condition L Trace of paint, curving line. 17.3x16.8 2 5.6 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass matrix, very poor condition, pitted and ? possibly not full thickness. L Trace of paint, curving line. 17.3x15.3 1 5.3 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix, very poor condition L Trace of paint, pitted surface. 16.6x11.1 1 3.7 0
105
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
B
Opaque beige surfaces, heavily pitted, Bold painted lines, including small trefoil lobes and stem, spur at top One straight edge, crystallisation within glass matrix, poor of stem, part of another two lobes, and small triangular area of adjacent possible ? condition B cross-hatching within. 44.5x36.8 13 4 2? curving edge
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix, very poor condition F Curving bold lines and area of cross-hatching. 26x16.9 3 3.4 0
Opaque brown surfaces, cream within glass ? matrix, surfaces poor condition B Bold lines including small trefoil with cross-hatching behind. 33.4x28.4 7 3.4 2
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass Opposite sides gently ? matrix, surfaces partially corroded G Gently curving quarry length, with bold lines along opposite sides. 38x23.7 8 3.2 2 curving
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass Fragment with one curving grozed edge with bold line along it; ? matrix, surfaces partially corroded and pitted G another thicker bold line on opposite part of fragment. 28.4x28.1 7 3.3 1 Gently curving
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass matrix, surfaces partly worn away, Surfaces poor condition, but paint visible showing two foliage lobes, ? remainder very corroded and pitted B bold lines either side of plain (stem) area, and cross-hatching. 31.3x24.7 6 3.6 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix, surfaces partially corroded and pitted G Bold curving lines. 18.1x16.8 2 3.6 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix, surfaces partially corroded and pitted D Bold lines forming part of two foliage lobes, and line joining. 20.4x18.6 2 3.8 1
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass Some of paint survives to show curving bold line - foliage? And a ? matrix, surfaces partially corroded and pitted G pointed line delineating stem? 20.7x19 3 3.3 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass Line just visible at edge of fragment, line and possibly something ? matrix, surfaces partially corroded and pitted L else on opposite edge. 19.5x14 2 3.5 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix, surfaces partially corroded F Bold line with cross-hatching to one side, paint just visible. 27.6x16.5 3 3 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix, surfaces partially corroded K Double line on one side of fragment. 18.6x17.5 1 2.8 0
106
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix, poor condition EL Small fragment with pointed painted line between two foliage lobes. 17.1x13.3 1 3.8 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix, surfaces largely corroded L Small area of paint where surface remains uncorroded. 18.7x16.4 2 4.1 0
Opaque surfaces, crystallisation within glass ? matrix, surfaces partially corroded ES Bold line with small spur from top of stem. 19x16 2 3.9 1
? Opaque brown surfaces, cream inside G Line along one edge, part of wide device with pointed end. 24.7x18.3 4 3.5 1
Where paint is visible and surface not worn away, curving bold lines ? Opaque brown surfaces, crystallisation B create two partial curved areas (lobes?), more gently curving stem within glass matrix, poor condition and area, and cross-hatching between. Adjoining fragments. Crumbly ? surfaces partly corroded B edges - unclear whether grozed. 48.2x19.8 9 4.2 0
TABLE 2: HCA – A PLAIN GLASS
Area Thickness No. grozed Quarry/edge Year Trench Context Colour Condition (cm2) (mm) edges shape Notes
Opaque, concretions over part of surface, crystallisation within GHTL14 1 103 ? matrix 3 3.7
Opaque, orange crystallisation GHTL14 1 103 ? inside matrix 2 2.5
Opaque, orange crystallisation GHTL14 1 103 ? inside matrix 1 2.4
Opaque, orange crystallisation GHTL14 1 103 ? inside matrix 1 2.3
Opaque, orange crystallisation GHTL14 1 103 ? inside matrix 1 2.8
107
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Opaque, orange crystallisation GHTL14 1 103 ? inside matrix 1 2.3
Striations in non-parallel, slightly converging lines GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 13 4.4 1 across internal face.
Opaque, orange crystallisation GHTL14 1 104 ? inside matrix 7 4.9
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 4 4.2 2 Right-angled edge
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque, part of surface missing 5 3.7 1 Curved edge
Opaque, with cream patches and GHTL14 1 104 ? degraded surface; bent 13 5.4 2 Right-angled edge
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 4 3.5
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 7 4.3 ? Possibly shaped
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 13 3.6 2 Right-angled edge Warped
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 7 4 2 Right-angled edge
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 5 3.4 1 Warped
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 2 3.3 1
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 5 3.5 2 Right-angled edge
Also possible curving GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 2 3.5 ?1 shaped edge
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 4 3.5
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 2.8
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 5.3
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 4 3.4 1
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 2 2.7
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 4.1 1
108
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 3.3
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 3.2 1
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 3.1
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 3 2.9 1 Curving
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 3 2.9 1 Straight
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 5 3.4 1 Slightly curving
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 4 2.3
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 3 2.2 2 Right-angled edge
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 2 2 1 Straight
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 2.4
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 3.4
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 2 3.2 1
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 3.6 ?1
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 2.9 1
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 4.5
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 2 2.6
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 2 2.5
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 2.9
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 2.5 1
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 4 3.2
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 ?
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 3 3.3 1
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 2 2.5 2 Right-angled edge
109
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 2 3.5 1
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 2 2.5
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 2 3 1 Straight
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 3.3 ?2 Right-angled edge
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 2.4
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 2 2.9 1 Straight
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 2 3.3
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 3.6 2 Right-angled edge
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 3.5
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 3.3 1
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 3.1
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 3
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 3.1
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 2.6
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 2.6
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 3.3
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 3.6
GHTL14 1 104 ? Opaque 1 2.8
Appears Opaque pale blue glass matrix, with Green highlighted: opaque pale considerable opaque cream and submitted to Ian GHTL14 1 104 blue brown surface weathering; bent 9 3.9 Freestone for analysis
Opaque pale blue glass matrix, with opaque cream and brown surface Appears weathering, appears translucent opaque pale brownish when held up to light; GHTL14 1 104 blue warped and puckered. 2 4.4
110
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Opaque, orange crystallisation inside matrix, part of surface flaked GHTL14 1 134 ? off 1 3.4
Opaque, crysallisation within GHTL14 1 134 ? matrix 1 2.4
Opaque, crysallisation within GHTL14 1 134 ? matrix 1 2
Opaque, crysallisation within GHTL14 1 134 ? matrix 1 2.2
GHTL14 1 134 ? Opaque 2 2.4
Opaque, crysallisation within GHTL14 1 134 ? matrix 1 2.3
Opaque, crysallisation within GHTL14 1 134 ? matrix 1 2.5
Greenish- Patches of opaque brown surface GHTL14 1 149 colourless weathering 6 2.5
Incomplete thickness, opaque, orange crystallisation and layer of clear glass before remaining layers GHTL14 1 149 Colourless have flaked off 2 ?
GHTL14 1 U/S Opaque surfaces, some greenish- Rectangular, Greenish- colourless glass and orange complete quarry, GHTL14 1 U/S colourless crystallisation internally, crumbly 10 4.5 4 50x24mm Two adjoining fragments
Opaque, crysallisation within GHTL14 1 U/S ? matrix, poor condition 1 3.3
Opaque, crysallisation within GHTL14 1 U/S ? matrix, poor condition 2 2.4 2 Right angles
Opaque, crysallisation within GHTL14 1 U/S ? matrix, poor condition 1 3.4 1
Opaque, crysallisation within GHTL14 1 U/S ? matrix, poor condition 1 2.4 1
111
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Opaque, crysallisation within GHTL14 1 U/S ? matrix, poor condition 1 2.5
Opaque, crysallisation within GHTL14 1 U/S ? matrix, poor condition 1 3.2 1
Opaque, crysallisation within GHTL14 1 U/S ? matrix, poor condition 1 2.6
Opaque, crysallisation within matrix, only half of thickness GHTL14 1 U/S ? survives 1 2.9
Opaque, crysallisation within GHTL14 1 U/S ? matrix, poor condition 1 2.4
Mortar?/hard sandy soil on one side, opaque crystallised in different colours and very poor GHTL14 3 115 ? condition and crumbly 4 4.2
Mortar?/hard sandy soil on one side, opaque crystallised in different colours and very poor GHTL14 3 115 ? condition and crumbly 2 4
Mortar?/hard sandy soil on one side, opaque crystallised in different colours and very poor GHTL14 3 115 ? condition and crumbly 2 4.2
Mortar?/hard sandy soil on one side, opaque crystallised in different colours and very poor GHTL14 3 115 ? condition and crumbly 1 4.1
Uncertain whether Opaque surfaces, crystallisation originally painted as within matrix, puckered - heat Opposite straight surfaces are in poor GHTL14 3 133 ? damaged? 18 4.7 2 edges condition.
112
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Uncertain whether Opaque surfaces, internal originally painted as crystallisation, surfaces corroded surfaces are in poor GHTL14 3 133 ? and poor condition 8 3.5 2 Opposite edges condition.
Uncertain whether Opaque surfaces, internal originally painted as crystallisation, surfaces partly surfaces are in poor GHTL14 3 133 ? corroded away 3 3.9 ?1 condition.
Uncertain whether Opaque surfaces, internal originally painted as crystallisation, surfaces corroded surfaces are in poor GHTL14 3 133 ? and poor condition 2 3.3 condition.
Uncertain whether Opaque surfaces, internal originally painted as crystallisation, surfaces partly surfaces are in poor GHTL14 3 133 ? corroded away 1 3 condition.
Uncertain whether Opaque surfaces, internal originally painted as crystallisation, surfaces partly surfaces are in poor GHTL14 3 133 ? corroded away 1 3.7 ?1 condition.
Uncertain whether Opaque surfaces, internal originally painted as crystallisation, surfaces partly surfaces are in poor GHTL14 3 133 ? corroded away 1 2.9 condition.
Uncertain whether Opaque surfaces, internal originally painted as crystallisation, surfaces partly surfaces are in poor GHTL14 3 133 ? corroded away 1 3.2 condition.
113
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
APPENDIX X Report on the Examination of Glass Fragments
from Holm Cultram Abbey
Introduction Nine fragments of glass excavated from Holme Cultran Abbey in Cumbria (early to mid 13th century) have been analysed with scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X- ray spectrometry (SEMEDS) for the purpose of material characterisation. Two samples were also examined by Raman Spectrometry. Particular attention has been given to three fragments of opaque blue glasses, one of which is painted, to determine if they are the same composition as the normal translucent window glass, and to assess if their opacity and colour developed as a result of being exposed to a fire.
Samples analysed All the samples appear affected by heavy weathering (Fig. 3). The windows fragments are especially badly preserved, with an opaque-brown corroded layer and just a small core of glass left inside (Fig. 1). The opaque-blue fragments have a cream and brown layer of corrosion but they seem better preserved than the windows glass (Fig. 2). They appear distorted and without a clear shape, which could indicate an exposure to heat. Sample 149b was too corroded to allow sampling.
Window glass
110
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
104/45 painted 149 a undecorated 149 b undecorated
U/S 191 painted U/S a undecorated U/S b undecorated
Opaque blue
145 painted 104 a undecorated 104 b undecorated Fig. 3: Samples analysed. 111
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Methods The samples for SEM-EDS were prepared as cross-sections in epoxy resin and polished to a 1 μm finish. The analyses were performed using a Hitachi S-3400N operated at 20 kV. The x-ray spectra were collected using Oxford Instruments INCA software with an acquisition time of 100 s and a detector dead time of 35-40 %. Certified standards were used to standardise the spectrometer while a cobalt standard was used to monitor the stability and calibrate the machine during analysis. Analytical totals were all normalised to 100%.
Fragments of opaque blue glass fragment 104a and of window glass U/Sa were analysed with Raman spectroscopy to assess the phases present in the glass matrix. These samples were analysed using a Renishaw InVia Raman Microscope, equipped with a violet laser (442 nm) and operated at 5 mV laser power for exposure times of 25 seconds for 3 acquisitions.
Results Electron microscopy and composition of the bulk glass
Fig. 4: SEM image. Window glass and corrosion on sample U/Sa. The fresh glass is the white layer in the centre of the image.
The apparently unaltered cores of the clear window glass fragments (samples 149a, U/S a, U/S b, 145/45, U/S), appear homogeneous, covered by a thick layer of corrosion (Fig.4). Sample U/S has no glass left to perform an analysis. The compositions of the other samples are given in Table 1, with the standard deviations on the repeat analyses, and for ease of reference summary analyses are given in Table 2. The glasses are similar except for 149a, which has higher Al2O3, P2O5, Cl, K2O, TiO2 and FeO contents and lower Na2O, SiO2, CaO and MnO. The high chlorine suggests that this analysis may include weathered material. Therefore this sample is not included in Table 2.
112
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
The fresh opaque blue glass (samples 145, 104a, 104b) appears homogeneous in back scattered electron (BSE) imaging. Even at high magnification, no particles are visible, so that any opacifying phase must have dimensions on the order of nanometres. The two undecorated fragments and the decorated fragment show similar compositions.
Area analysis Na2O MgO Al2O3 SiO2 P2O5 SO3 Cl K2O CaO TiO2 MnO FeO 149a 1.93 3.62 3.61 52.26 5.22 0.30 7.76 22.02 0.23 2.61 0.45 1.93 StdDev 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.18 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.05 U/S a 2.32 5.30 1.95 57.50 4.79 0.26 0.32 11.47 14.22 0.23 0.66 1.15 StdDev 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.05 U/S b 2.46 5.19 1.96 57.36 4.78 0.29 0.32 11.35 14.11 0.27 0.79 1.12 StdDev 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.19 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.12 104/45 2.84 5.29 2.08 56.70 4.92 0.41 0.35 11.70 13.73 0.31 0.83 1.21 StdDev 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.31 0.20 0.01 0.08 0.15 0.01 0.05 0.06 U/S No glass left
104 a 2.74 5.25 2.25 56.07 5.12 0.24 0.41 12.78 12.98 0.22 0.82 1.12 StdDev 0.21 0.09 0.05 0.19 0.17 0.08 0.04 0.36 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.06 104 b 2.54 5.19 2.20 56.24 5.12 0.31 0.39 13.02 12.88 0.26 0.87 1.07 StdDev 0.09 0.13 0.05 0.17 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.08 145 2.70 5.10 2.20 55.88 5.15 0.28 0.41 12.86 13.12 0.20 0.83 1.28 StdDev 0.42 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.52 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.01 Tab. 1: Bulk composition of the opaque blue glass (blue shade) and of the window glass (orange). EDS analysis at 1000 X magnification (area of analysis = 127x93 μm). N=3. The italicised analysis (149a) is likely to have been affected by weathering.
Area analysis Na2O MgO Al2O3 SiO2 P2O5 SO3 Cl K2O CaO TiO2 MnO FeO U/S a 2.32 5.30 1.95 57.50 4.79 0.26 0.32 11.47 14.22 0.23 0.66 1.15 U/S b 2.46 5.19 1.96 57.36 4.78 0.29 0.32 11.35 14.11 0.27 0.79 1.12 104/45 2.84 5.29 2.08 56.70 4.92 0.41 0.35 11.70 13.73 0.31 0.83 1.21 104 a 2.74 5.25 2.25 56.07 5.12 0.24 0.41 12.78 12.98 0.22 0.82 1.12 104 b 2.54 5.19 2.20 56.24 5.12 0.31 0.39 13.02 12.88 0.26 0.87 1.07 145 2.70 5.10 2.20 55.88 5.15 0.28 0.41 12.86 13.12 0.20 0.83 1.28 Tab. 2: Bulk compositions of the opaque blue glass (blue shade) and of the window glass (orange). EDS analysis at 1000 X magnification (area of analysis = 127x93 μm). N=3.
These glass compositions with high contents of potassium and calcium oxides correspond to woodash glass. A plot of potash versus lime, shown in Fig. 5, indicates some differences in composition between the clear glass and the opaque blue glass (Fig. 5), but these are minor 113
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 and unlikely to be significant in terms of durability or colour. In fact, the three samples of opaque blue glass are sufficiently similar to one another as to be identical within experimental error. They are likely to represent glass from a single batch and may even represent material cut from the same sheet.
Fig. 5: Plot of window glass (blue) and opaque blue glass (red) data.
Raman Microscopy Raman microscopy was undertaken to determine the presence of any phase likely to be responsible for the opacity of the blue glass. The Raman spectroscopy analysis of the opaque blue glass shows broad bands around 500 and 1000 cm-1, corresponding respectively to the bending and stretching bands of a glassy matrix (Fig. 6). The general shape and position of the bands suggest an alkali silicate glass, while the strong and narrow peak at 957 cm-1 suggests the presence of a crystalline phase.
Fig. 6: Raman spectrum of opaque sample sample 104a.
114
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
According to the literature the 957 cm-1 signal most likely corresponds to the most intense peak of tricalcium phosphate Ca3(PO4)2. As summarised in Table 2, spectral data available in literature on archaeometric studies refers a range between 955-965 cm-1 for the strongest -1 peak of Ca3(PO4)2, as well as a weaker peak at 589 cm , also detected here.
Group Peaks Main peak (cm-1) Reference
Ca3(PO4)2 955 Colomban and Treppoz 2001
Ca3(PO4)2 429 w, 589 w, 957 vs, 1040 w, 957 Caggiani et al 2013 1071 vw
Ca3(PO4)2 431 w; 590 w; 961 vs; 1046 w; 960 Bell et al. 1997 1071 vw
Ca3(PO4)2 965 Ricciardi et al 2009 Tab. 3: References for calcium phosphate main peaks.
However, in respect to the peak at 957 cm-1, caution is required as it must be observed that a peak at 955 cm-1 is also characteristic of high potash high lime glasses (Colomban 2013) and, as previously described, the EDS data indicate that these glasses are of a high-calcium high-potash composition. Fig. 7 compares the Raman spectrum for the opaque blue sample (104a) with that for the window glass sample (U/S a). The two spectra are similar but the extremely strong intensity of the 957 cm-1 peak in the light blue opaque sample (104a) is most likely due to the over position of two distinct contributions, a sharp narrow peak corresponding to the crystalline phase and a relatively broader peak relating to the glass matrix. In contrast, the Raman spectrum of the window glass (fragment U/S a) has just a low intensity band at 957 cm-1, indicative of the glass matrix.
Plotting the results obtained from the Raman analysis on the graph used by Colomban et al (2006) for the evaluation of different glass matrices, it can be observed that all data indicate a silica alkali glass, and fall between the regions corresponding to high calcium high potash glass and alkali high calcium glass, as might be expected from the EDS analysis. (Fig. 8).
115
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Fig. 7: Raman spectra obtained on the opaque and clear glass fragments. Before spectra treatment. Note the very sharp peak at 957 cm-1in the opaque sample, suggesting the presence of a calcium phosphate crystalline phase
Fig. 8: P Plot of data on the graph of Colomban graph for matrix evaluation. 116
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Grisaille Decoration The red decoration of the clear window glass (samples 104/45 and U/S 191) is a grisaille with a thickness that ranges in size from 1 to 80 micrometres (Fig. 9 and 10). The analyses of U/S 191confirm that it was made of a mixture of SiO2, SnO2, PbO as flux, and Fe2O3 as pigment. Full data are not reported here because the grisaille layers appear to have been significantly corroded and the compositions measured are unlikely to be fully representative of the original paint.
The red decoration of the opaque blue glass (sample 145) is also a grisaille with a thickness that ranges in size from 80 to 20 micrometres. Its composition is similar to that of the grisaille on the clear glass, all of the samples indicating high lead and iron oxides. High concentrations of tin oxide, SnO2, are not reported in grisaille of this period, but significant amounts (tenths of a percent to several percent) were found in all of our analyses of grisaille. However, the high level of weathering suggests that caution is needed in their interpretation, as SnO2 is relatively immobile and where present tends to be enriched in weathered glass. Tin is a component of pewter, so if the glass workers had melted scrap metal to obtain lead for grisaille work, it might have been derived from this source.
Corrosion layers All glasses showed corrosion layers depleted in potash and soda. They show the layered structure typical of corrosion on buried glass (Fig. 11) but the corrosion was less developed on the opaque blue samples.
117
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
Discussion and Conclusions The compositions of the clear and opaque samples are typical of a wood ash or “forest” glass, with high contents of potassium, calcium, magnesium and phosphorus oxides. While they fall within the general ranges of English medieval window glass, it is observed that the compositions are slightly lower in potassium and calcium oxides than has normally been observed for the thirteenth century, based upon the analysis of glass from high status ecclesiastical buildings such as York Minster (Fig. 12).
Fig. 12 Compositions of Holm Cultran fragments relative to thirteenth century glass from the Chapter House at York Minster and early fifteenth century glass from the Great East Window Fig. 12 emphasises that although the compositions of the clear and blue Holm Cultran glasses may be distinguished from each other, they are well within the range expected of a 118
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015 single glazing campaign. Furthermore, the lime and potash contents are more typical of the white (colourless/tinted) glass of the late fourteenth/early fifteenth centuries. This may reflect the origins of the glasses rather than any dating discrepancy however, as there is a possibility that the white glasses were made in England, but the colours on the Continent. The different appearances of the blue and clear glasses are likely to be related to the development of crystalline calcium phosphate Ca3(PO4)2 in the blue glass, which was detected by Raman spectroscopy. Although crystals could not be resolved with the available SEM, it is likely that these were present on a nanometre scale, sufficient to impart opacity and a blue colour. Phosphorus is naturally present in these glasses at the levels seen, and does not represent a deliberate addition. The removal of calcium phosphate from the glass network as a separated phase might be expected to polymerise the glass and increase its durability, so that the corrosion of the opaque glass is less developed than the clear glass. As a separate exercise, we have confirmed this additional polymerisation using Raman spectroscopy (cf. Robinet et al 2006). Dungworth and Paynter (2001) have reported the development of opalescence in later high lime-low alkali (HLLA) glass of the 18-19th centuries, due to the over-heating of the glass which had generated a liquid-liquid phase separation on a nanometre scale. In the present case we were unable to resolve the presence of nanoscale particles in the opaque glasses in the scanning electron microscope but were able to detect the likely presence of calcium phosphate particles by Raman spectroscopy. It is likely that the very fine calcium phosphate particles generated the opacity and colour in the same way as the glass-inglass phase separation in the HLLA glasses. However, the Holme Cultran glasses have substantially less CaO than HLLA glasses (The York Minster Great East Window colours, Fig. 12, are an HLLA variant), and this has probably caused the separation of the calcium phosphate rather than a liquid-liquid phase separation. These compositional and microstructural findings, together with the distorted shape of the fragments, suggest that the light blue opaque glass has been exposed to high temperatures. The heat has caused a re-crystallisation of the component of the glass, forming nanoparticles of calcium phosphate and these are responsible for the blue opalescence. The findings are fully consistent with the suggestion that the glass was exposed to a fire.
Agnese Benzonelli Ian Freestone
Institute of Archaeology London WC1H 0PY
27 April 2016
119
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
References
Bell I.M., Clark R.J.H., Gibbs P.J., 1997. Raman spectroscopic library of natural and synthetic pigments (Pre 1850 AD). Spectrochimica Acta, Part A 53, 2159-2179. Caggiani M.C., Colomban P., Valotteau C., Mangone A., Cambon P., 2013. Mobile Raman spectroscopy analysis of ancient enamelled glass masterpieces. Analytical Methods, 5, 4345- 4354. Colomban P. and Treppoz F., 2001. Identification and differentiation of ancient and modern European porcelains by Raman macro and micro-spectroscopy, Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 32, 93–102. Colomban P., 2006. Non-Destructive Raman analysis of ancient glasses and glazes. In Janssens K. (ed.), 2006. Modern Methods for Analysing Archaeological and Historical Glass, 275-300. Colomban P., 2013. The Destructive/Non-Destructive Identification of Enameled Pottery, Glass Artifacts and Associated Pigments-A Brief Overview, Arts, 2 (3), 77-110. Colomban, P., Tournié, A. and Bellot-Gurlet, L., 2006. Raman identification of glassy silicates used in ceramics, glass and jewellery: a tentative differentiation guide. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 37(8), 841-852 Dungworth D and Payner S (2011) Nano-scale investigation of some dichroic/opalescent archaeological materials. Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on Archaeometry (edited by I. Turbanti-Memmi), 371375. Ricciardi P., Colomban P., Tournié A., Milande, V., 2009. Nondestructive on-site identification of ancient glasses: genuine artefacts, embellished pieces or forgeries. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 40, 604–617. Robinet L., Eremin K., Coupry C., Hall C., 2006. The use of Raman spectrometry to predict the stability of historic glasses, Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 37, 789-797.
120
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
APPENDIX XI Lead Tokens found at Holme Cultram Abbey
Taken from Kate Rennicks Dissertation “The function and purpose of lead tokens in Medieval England – a case study at Holme Cultram Abbey, Cumbria”
Appendix 1 – Tokens Recovered at Holme Cultram Abbey Small Context Obverse Reverse Reverse Diameter Further Comments Finds Number orientation Reference / Location 3.1 U/S; E boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm Heavy lettering side of obv & rev Tr1 3.2 U/S; E boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm Heavy lettering and side of obv & rev slightly off centre Tr1 4 U/S hammer, tongs SEVIL + The tongs are 12 15.5mm & horseshoe o'clock to 6 o'clock, obverse, the S at the 12 o'clock 16 U/S R with a crown blank reverse is blank 15mm above, pecking either side 19 U/S SE boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm corner obv & rev 22 U/S boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm obv & rev 24 U/S hammer, tongs SEVIL + The tongs are 12 15.5mm & horseshoe o'clock to 6 o'clock, obverse, the S at the 12 o'clock 25 U/S boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm Pierced at 12 o'clock obv & rev (corresponds with location of the blob on other ones) and triangular piece missing at 2 o'clock. The 'E' is enlarged 26 U/S undecipherable MA?? impossible to 13.5mm determine 12 o'clock point 28 U/S fleur de lys VIC ?? impossible to 12mm determine 12 o'clock point 29 U/S boat / scales SE & stippling boat is 180 Worn, completely round edge degrees to the different to others on lettering reverse, large casting sprue, ship on obverse larger than on other exmples 30 U/S boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 15.5mm obv & rev 31 U/S fleur de lys VA?O image aligned N/S both 13mm beneath obv & rev 38 U/S SE boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm More of an oval shape, corner obv & rev additional rim below boat / scales, 17mm at widest point 121
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
39 U/S SE boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm Crack at 7 o'clock corner ob & rev 40 U/S SE boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm Pronounced design corner ob & rev 56 U/S SE boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm Casting sprue folded corner ob & rev below boat / scales 60 102 boat / scales SEL SEL slightly 15.5mm Missing NE corner misaligned, not horizontal 61 102 boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm Bent, pronounced and ob & rev flattened design 62 182 pollarded tree indecipherable impossible to 14mm Mortared, hard to see / stag's head lettering determine 12 with antlers o'clock point 63 U/S SE leaping stag FLE stag horizontal in 15mm corner same plane as FLE 65 U/S SE pollarded tree h or crozier impossible to 14mm Quite worn, hard to read corner / stag's head dot in the determine 12 with antlers centre o'clock point 67 124 boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 15mm Pronounced design ob & rev 68 122 boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm Pierced at 12 o'clock ob & rev with casting sprue above 71 U/S SE flower with 5 Indecipherable impossible to 13mm Corroded at the edges, corner lobes? letters. determine 12 very hard to distinguish Possibly INLE o'clock point design or ?HIC 72 122 boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm ob & rev 73 124 boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm ob & rev 74 124 boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 15.5mm ob & rev 75 124 boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm Not complete, NW ob & rev corner missing 78 U/S boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm ob & rev 83 U/S boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm ob & rev 84 U/S boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 15.5mm Slightly bent, section on ob & rev NE corner missing 93 U/S boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm Distinct casting sprue at ob & rev the 12 o'clock point 97 U/S boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm ob & rev 98 U/S hammer, tongs SEVIL + The tongs are 12 15.5mm & horseshoe o'clock to 6 o'clock, obverse, the S at the 12 o'clock 113 U/S Indecipherable Indecipherable Indecipherable 16mm 115 U/S boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 15.5mm ob & rev 122 U/S boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 15.5mm Obverse design is off ob & rev centre, token slightly oval, 16.5mm on N/S orientation, flaw (hole) within ship on obverse
122
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
124 U/S unknown Indecipherable Indecipherable 13mm possibly flower or fleur de lys 125 U/S boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm ob & rev 131 U/S boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm ob & rev 133 U/S boat / scales SEL aligned N/S both 16mm ob & rev 149 U/S boat / scales SE aligned N/S both fragment Fragmentary, only 40% ob & rev remaining
123
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
APPENDIX XII: FIGURES
124
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
1
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
4
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
5
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
6
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
4
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
4
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
5
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
6
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
7
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
4
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
4
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
5
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
6
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
7
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
8
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
9
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd
HCA -A Final Excavation Report December 2015
10
Grampus Heritage & Training Ltd