Crookhill Farm, Hope Woodlands, Derbyshire
Archaeological Survey 1994
john Barnott: Survey Archaeologist
g~A~I~~~ Coring (or a living landscape
PHOTOGRAPHS AVAILABLE IN SEPARATE BOX CROOKHILL FARM, HOPE WOODLANDS, DERBYSHIRE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1994
John Barnatt CONTENTS
Page Illustrations ii How to Use this Report iii
Introduction 1 Part 1 Crookhill Farm: Archaeological Sites 2 Part 2 Crookhill Farm: Field Boundaries 3 Part 3 Crookhill Farm: Changes in Land Use Through Time 4
Part 4 Crookhill Farm: Location of Archaeological Features 7 Part 5 Crookhill Farm: Catalogue of Archaeological Features 8 Part 6 Crookhill Farm: Assessment of Relative Site Importance 13
Part 7 Managing the Archaeological Heritage 14 Part 8 Glossary of Archaeological Terms Used 16 Part 9 Bibliography 19
Appendices A Crookhill Farm: Description of Survey Archive 20 B Specifications of Feature Recording 21
Acknowledgements 22 ILLUSTRATIONS
After Page Fig. 1 Location of Crookhill Farm 1 Fig. 2 Boundary changes 1627 to 1808 5 Fig. 3 Boundary changes 1808 to 1850 5 Fig. 4 Boundary changes 1850 to 1880 · 5 Fig. 5 Woodland 1627-1808 5 Fig. 6 Archaeological characterisation of the farmland 6 Fig. 7 Location of Figures 8 and 9 7 Fig. 8 Archaeological features on Crookhill Farm - south 7 Fig. 9 Archaeological features on Crookhill Farm - north 7 Fig. 10 The stone circle or kerb cairn at Crookhill (feature 6) 9 Fig. 11 The barrow at Crookhill (feature 11) 10 Fig. 12 The probable barrow at Crookhill west (feature 12) 10 Fig. 13 The barrow at Crookhill north-west (feature 16) 10
ii HOW TO USE THIS REPORT
The following archaeological report is a result of a field survey of the farm or land undertaken by a Peak National Park survey archaeologist. It is divided into nine major parts to allow easy access to different aspects of the information.
Part 1 is a summary of the types and the date of archaeological features identified. Use this section for an overview of the archaeological features within the survey area.
Part 2 is a description of the farm field boundaries. Use this section for an overview of the existing field system.
Part 3 discusses changes in land use over time, based on the sites identified on the ground and from basic documentary work. Use this section for an outline of the development through time of the survey area as an archaeological landscape and tor assessing the archaeological character of different parts of the area surveyed.
Part 4 is the maps showing all the archaeological features recognised by the survey. Use this section to find out the locations of sites within the survey area.
Part 5 is the catalogue, listing all the archaeological features discovered by the survey. Use this section for detailed description and an interpretation of each site.
Part 6 is an assessment of relative importance. Use this section as a guide to the importance of individual archaeological features in the survey area.
Part 7 is an outline guide to managing archaeological features. Use this section for general suggestions on how archaeology can be managed in the landscape without undue interference with usual land management practice.
Part 8 is a glossary. Use this section for definitions of archaeological terms used in the report.
Part 9 is a bibliography of published and archive documents consulted in the writing of this report. Use this section if more background or detailed information on the types of site found within the survey area is required.
In addition, in the Appendices there is a description of all the archive material produced in conjunction with the survey and where it is kept, and a note of how the survey information was recorded.
iii CROOKHILL FARM, HOPE WOODLANDS, DERBYSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1994
John Barnatt
The archaeological survey of this area was carried out in September 1994, for the Upper Derwent Officer Working Group as part of the Upper Derwent Survey Project. Survey comprised systematic search of the farm (fig. 1), and discoveries were sketch-plotted on an OS 1:2500 base (the Board's Phase 1 survey standard). Time did not allow extensive archive research to be undertaken, thus this report should not be taken as a history of the farm, but one that largely concentrates on the extant archaeology. Maps showing the extent of the survey area covered by this report are given in Part 4.
The interpretations of the archaeology given in this report are provisional. They are based on the knowledge available at the time of writing. Additions and some alterations may be made to these interpretations when survey work for the whole of the Upper Derwent Survey Project area and more in-depth documentary research is completed. Any such changes will be provided after completion of the whole project.
1 PROJECT KEY C({oov Holme Stockport • Sheffield • Macclesfield• Matlock• Wars!ow Leek • Ashbourne• PART1 CROOKHILL FARM: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES None of the main archaeological features inspected in 1994 had been recorded previously in the Derbyshire Sites and Monuments Record (SMR). None of the buildings are Listed. The 1994 survey recorded 6 newly-identified nationally or regionally important features, comprising a stone circle or kerb cairn (feature 6), 2-3 barrows (features 11, 12, 16), a medieval or early post-medieval building site (feature 27), and the present farm building complex (feature 1). A further 21 locally important archaeological features and 4 groups of buildings were recorded, none of which had been previously entered in the SMR. The farm has been acquired by the National Trust relatively recently so was not covered by the in house archaeological survey carried out in 1987. Features of National and Regional Importance A number of important archaeological features exist on the farm that are of a variety of dates. All the pre-medieval sites occur on the higher ground flanking Crook Hill where there has been less later agricultural activity than on lower ground to the east. Early features that do survive are isolated from each other and comprise an unusual small stone circle (feature 6) and 2-3 barrows (features 11, 12, 16), one of which may alternatively be interpreted as a clearance cairn (feature 12). Generally medieval and post-medieval agricultural activity may well have destroyed surface evidence for earlier agricultural structures such as house platforms, clearance cairns and field boundary banks and lynchets which were probably associated with the Bronze Age ritual monuments. Important medieval and post-medieval remains include the farm buildings themselves (feature 1). The present buildings date mostly from the 19th century, but there has been a farm here since at least the 12th century. This was part of a monastic holding from the late 12th century and there may have been administrative grange buildings here. Above Hursthead Cote there is a platform for a medieval or early post-medieval timber building (feature 27) associated with the intake here. The buildings are complemented by the field layout defined by boundaries dating from the medieval period onwards (see below). Features of Local Importance The majority of archaeological features of local importance within the surveyed area are of post-medieval date. The only exceptions are the possible medieval platform in the farmyard (feature 2) and two clearance cairns which may be as early as the Bronze Age, although one of these is more likely to be relatively modern (features 13, 18). Of the post-medieval features, many are redundant structures related to past farming, including old boundaries (features 5, 8, 17, 19, 23, 26, 29, 30), fieldbarns (features 14, 24, 25), stone troughs (features 2, 25), a wall opening (feature 7), a wall builders quarry (feature 15) and cairn (feature 10) and access tracks (features 20, 22, 28). There are a large number of small wall builders quarries which are not individually catalogued in Part 5, but which are shown on the survey area maps. There are also hollow ways which link farms (features 3, 4, 21), and a possible charcoal burners platform (feature 9). 2 PART2 CROOKHILL FARM: FIELD BOUNDARIES While field boundaries are very much part of the archaeology of an area, they are not easily listed in a catalogue because of their number and nature. Individually they may superficially seem of limited archaeological value, but put together they are of crucial importance in defining the character of the archaeological landscape. Those field boundaries comprising the currently used field system, even when ruined but shown on the 1880 Ordnance Survey map, are not included in the catalogue of sites given below (Part 5). Due to this, and the archaeological importance of field boundaries in the landscape, the field system is described here. The currently used boundaries on the farm are all dry-stone walls, and these are mostly of similar construction and use the local Millstone Grit. There is some wall furniture built into the boundaries. Most common are stone gate posts and sheep throughs. A small wall opening of unknown function has been found near to the farmhouse (feature 7). Boundaries of other types also once existed as illustrated by the redundant banks and ditches found at features 5 and 19. These may once have supported hedges. The existing field system is the result of a sequence of enclosure from the medieval or early post-medieval period up to the second half of the 19th century and this development through time is discussed in Part 5. In the present century some fields have been enlarged by the removal of boundaries. Walls are constantly being repaired and occasionally rebuilt, consequently the most recent reconstruction work may well have been in this century, even though the line of the boundary is usually much older. Often footings and other features such as wall furniture date back to the original construction of the boundary. 3 PART 3 CROOKHILL FARM: CHANGES IN LAND USE THROUGH TIME Archaeology is about how humans have used and affected the landscape in the past. This is not restricted to obvious archaeological monuments such as prehistoric burial barrows, ancient hillforts, churches and castles. It includes all the remains of human activity which has taken place across the land through time and survived above or below ground to the present day, whether 5,000 or 50 years old. This record includes the relics left by farmers, labourers, miners and quarrymen, as well as those built by the church and landed gentry. To help identify changing land use through time, post-survey searches of published works, archival documents and maps has been undertaken. This has included a search of the previously-published archaeological literature, as well as unpublished material in the Derbyshire SMR and in the Peak Park Joint Planning Board archaeological archive. Relevant texts are listed in the bibliography. A series of large scale maps was also consulted to facilitate the dating of boundaries and other features. Those used were William Senior's survey of the Earl of Devonshire's Woodlands estates of 1627, Peter Potter's 1808 map of the Duke of Devonshire's Woodlands estates, a Hope Woodlands tithe map of 1850, and the Ordnance Survey 25-inch map of 1880. These provide established key dates that allow the development of boundaries and buildings to be assessed. A Jess-detailed map, the Ordnance Survey 1-inch map of circa 1840, was also sometimes useful. A detailed estate map of 1858 drawn by John Bromley was only re-located in Chatsworth Archives just before the report was finished, thus while some data have been used in the text, information from the map has not been incorporated in the boundary change maps (figures 2-4). This was felt unnecessary as the date of the map is only eight years different from the tithe map already used. All these maps enable something of the changes in land-use to be plotted for the area surveyed from the early 17th century onwards, and for projections back into the medieval period to be made. The Development of Fanning and Enclosure. When looking at the development of the archaeological landscape, it should be borne in mind that when starting with the present landscape and working backwards through time, peeling off 'layers of the onion', levels of destruction increase. For earlier periods, the lack of surviving features often does not imply that the area was little used by people, but only that later farming activity has swept away the surface evidence. Little can be said of the survey area in prehistoric or Romano-British times, although people were certainly present in the general vicinity. This is indicated by the presence of Bronze Age barrows on the ridgetops round the upper Derwent valley including those within the survey area (features 6, 11, 12, 16) and also on Crookstone Hill (Barnatt 1993) and Bridge End Pasture (Barnatt 1994), and Pike Low, Lost Lad and Little Howden Moor (Bevan 1994a, b). By analogy with prehistoric remains elsewhere on the gritstone uplands of the Peak District (Bamatt 1986), it is likely that the barrows round Crook Hill indicate this area was also farmed in prehistory. The relatively gently shelving land round the farmhouse and northwards from here to Hursthead Cote, and that in the north-west corner of the farm, are the most likely areas for this to have taken place. Farming in the Roman period may also have taken place although this is unsupported at present. More generally a presence in the Upper Derwent area is indicated by a Romano British quemstone has been found near Ashop Farm (SMR 8225) and probable Romano British pottery and a spindle whorl that have been found round the shores of the three reservoirs (Paul Ardron pers. comm.). 4 The basic pattern of enclosure throughout the Woodlands Valley and the western side of the Upper Derwent Valley was laid down before 1627 (Senior 1627) and it rnay have already been much enclosed in the medieval period. In 1068 the Woodlands Valley was granted to William Peveril by William the Conqueror as part of the Royal Forest of the Peak (Kerry 1893). Both the enclosing of land and erection of buildings was illegal under forest law without the agreement of the forest administrators (Cox, 1905). This did not prevent enclosure and settlement in the forest. Twenty-two cases of enclosure were recorded in 1216 and 131 cases of building between 1216 and 1251 were recorded throughout the whole of the forest. In both types of case the people concerned were fined but neither the enclosures nor the buildings were destroyed. While none of these cases refer directly to Woodlands, it seems likely that some enclosure in the valley began in the medieval period. None of this can yet be correlated to field boundaries identifiable today, due to lack of documentary research. Towards the end of the 12th century the Upper Derwent valley and probably the Woodlands Valley were granted to the Premonstratensian abbey at Welbeck in Nottinghamshire (Kerry, 1893). Little is as yet known of how the abbey managed its land, but it is recorded in 1285 that there were woods present and that they were being damaged by local 'villagers'. There is no surviving archaeological evidence for the existence of open fields in the Upper Derwent valley in the medieval period. Features characteristic of medieval open fields, such as narrow fields with walls following a reverse-S plan, broad and curving ridge and furrow, and cultivation terraces are conspicuous by their absence in the valley. This is in contrast to many other parts of the region, which include villages such as Hathersage, Castleton, Hope and numerous villages on the limestone plateau, which each had an open field (Jackson, 1962). It seems that in the Peak District open fields are associated with nucleated villages and not the type of dispersed settlement which occupies the Woodlands Valley. From 1627 onwards the development of enclosure can be followed using estate, tithe and Ordnance Survey maps (figs 2-4) (Senior 1627, Potter 1808, anon. 1850, Ordnance Survey 1880). By 1627 all the land surrounding Crook Hill was enclosed land, all farmed from Crookhill (Fowkes and Potter 1988). Crook Hill itself was rough pasture. In the period 1627- 1808 there was a trend for the fields to be reorganised, in some cases subdivision took place, while elsewhere boundaries were taken out (fig. 2). In contrast, between 1808 and 1850 virtually no changes took place to the field layout (fig. 3). Between 1850 and 1880 some subdivision of fields again took place (fig. 4). Some of these new walls to the north-west appear to follow the lines of boundaries present in 1627 but not marked on the 1808 map. The northern end of Crook Hill pasture was also enclosed, although an unfinished wall here suggests the project was never completed. The estate map of 1858 (Bromley 1858) shows that this intake had been created by this date. The Development of Woodland Senior's map of 1627 depicts only a small area of woodland east of the farm (fig. 5), in a close called 'Elline Tre Springe' (Fowkes and Potter 1988). By 1808 this had been removed, but the reorganised field here (which included the earlier 'Ellintree flatt') was still called 'Elder Tree Flat and Little Wood (Potter 1808). From 1808 onwards there is no recorded woodland within the survey area. Industries There is ex1ensive evidence for a charcoal burning industry of medieval and/or post medieval date in the woodlands on the steep valley sides which surround the farmland (Bevan 1994c). However, no burners' platforms have been identified on the Crookhill farmland. 5 PROJECT KEY c.RooK~ l LL FA9.ffi , Hore (;.)OOl>lAN.bS - - ?.:i~d~"' j~t. ~ lb'l.7 N>.<.0 \SOS, 1qq4- - f\RCHREol.O~\cA!.. SvRvE~ -- 0.V..ooJi --( N (o.5. G.RU>J 0 m PROJECT KEY cR.oO\('H\l.L FAR -- -: ... ·· ' ' ' - - -!...I - ' I '-./ 'X x ' ' ' ' x< - - ' ' ' ' 0 Seo PROJECT KEY C.RCO\.<'\.ilLL FARN'l, KoPE <0o0i>LPll'J't'S - -- BCl'"\)"'V\.dw-U2"" r ~1:. \sso .,,.;,, 122 o AR.C\.\AE.ol.06.\CAL SiJR\IE'{ \G\'\4- 'Co1J'Y!.OQ...rt..e ~ ""JJ(. d t.x.1-w<..R."' \'i!So ...... ,d l'BSo PEAK~ ILLUSTRATION NO. 4 ...... - g ei~J ....r'\.A s. K.W\O'V'(~ v.two.~ 1SS0 ,,,..; \880 NATIONAlo. TITLE t-+ +-r '5ov-.o.d~ S\ $1..)('V':..~ o..rco... U"'\fl.J'-~~,; ,,;...... f.>oITTo/.()AtiY CHANe.ES Canng (or a Living Landscape \gSo ro 1880 1SS0 ~ \'iH3o Peak Park Joint Planning Board, R ?.>O'V"'\o\.Jc..ri..A.:; wh:.:..l.. o..p.~ 1-o t-e uk FIELDWORK DATE - AJdern House, Baslow Road, lPO"'l/-..1.J~:'> r r-(..k.."'-1:. ~ lb0.'7 DRAWING DATE Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45 1AE \98'0 """ qs Oo;tJ....:....j" rK,O..Vv'vt. i,...... Tel. 01629 816200 DRAFTSPERSON .. 0we Fax.01629 816310 .. REF - 0 Soo PROJECT KEY CflOO~HILL FARM, Ho?E 1.ooclH.. A...i.DS /,-: '. ()o'VY\ d o..,r U ~ ~.1 6u;\d~~s - a-.S ARC.I-I, f\Eo l.0«.1<:AL.. Su~;E~ l'\q4- ,..,. .· . ?. . PEAK~ ILLUSTRATION NO. ~''.)""- g s NATIONALo.. TITLE .. ,.: :" r-ew...~a lb?.1 f-o ISM . ·.' w"" d. \ ~"' d Coring for a Living Landscape Wool>t.AN}) lb?.7 - 1808 Peak Park Joint Planning Board, FIELDWORK DATE - Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45 1AIE DRAWING DATE Sf\N % Tel. 01629 816200 DRAFTSPERSON crwe, Fax.01629 816310 REF - x x ' ' x ' x 0 500 Communication Routes Throughout the post-medieval period the only through routeways have been tracks between farms, running up to Crookhill Farm from the east and then onwards to the north-west to Lockerbrook and Rowlee. The other tracks on the farm appear to be field access routes. Landscape Categorisation The analysis of land use through time allows Crookhill Farm to be divided into 4 zones which have different archaeological landscape characteristics (fig. 6). While change to the landscape is often inevitable and sometimes desirable, wherever possible the character of each area should be retained (or at least not destroyed thoughtlessly). Equally, specific features of other types, such as the barrows noted above, are valuable for other reasons. A/B. Traditional Enclosure - These areas have been enclosed since at least 1627. the date of the earliest available map of the valley (Senior 1627). They are characterised by small rectangular to irregular fields defined by walls, with their shape becoming rectangular where there were no topographic constraints. In parts several boundaries have already been reduced to footings or removed. C. Post-Medieval Intake - this area north of Crook Hill was not enclosed until the 1850s, although the south-east part had been enclosed and abandoned previously. This project may never have been completed and the improved grassland here looks to have been recently created/recreated. The area is characterised by unfinished/abandoned boundaries and this should not be disturbed D. Enclosed Moorland - this area of Crook Hill has always been rough pasture surrounded by walls. It is separated from once similar areas to the north-west (which have been improved this century), by zone C and the farm boundary wall. 6 PROJECT KEY CR.oo'o(H 1 L.L F'AA.m, 1-!al?e WOOl>LAN:tiS A1tCHA£OLoG1CAL $..IR\lEI( \qq.,_ /// 1•< - lb:l./ t,....._c.lO~IJr( PEAK~ ILLUSTRATION NO. b g Po<;:.C·\b'l..1 t..,...1- .... AA NATI ONA Lo.. TITLE \ ARCHAEOt..OG.\CAL CHARACT!g\SFmoN \ Caring far a Living Landscape ' oF THE FflRmt..ANJ> ' ' £.(\c.\oud <¥'1.oo\\o.,t>.A.d.. ' ' ' Peak Park Joint Planning Board, FIELDWORK DATE - ' Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45 1AE DRAWING DATE J~N qS Tel. 01629 816200 DRAFTSPERSON a-we, Fax.01629 816310 REF. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' D ' ' ' ' ' ' N (o.s. &R1)) ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 0 500 PART4 CROOKHILL FARM: LOCATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES The following plans record all the archaeological sites identified on the farm during fieldwork in 1994. A key to the location of each of the SUIVey maps is given in figure 7. A key to the conventions used is given on figure 8. Each archaeological feature is identified by a number which corresponds with that used in the catalogue in Part 5. It should be remembered that although the farm was surveyed systematically, this was done rapidly over a short· period of time. There may well be a few further archaeological features which were missed, particularly if the earthworks are low to the ground. This is inevitable in that some features are only visible under specific light conditions, when the sun is low or at a particular angle. Vegetation also causes seasonal problems in some locations, for example in spring and summer when the grass is long, or in summer and autumn when bracken is fully grown. A further problem to bear in mind is that the archaeological feature visible at the surface also have buried deposits beneath them. These include foundations, postholes, pits and artefacts. Pits in particular often contain burials or other deposits which tell us much about the people who dug them. Where surface earthworks have been levelled, often hundreds of years ago, the buried archaeology can often still remain. Thus, there may well be further important archaeological sites on the farm that remain undiscovered. 7 PROJECT KEY CJl.00\,l;HllJ. Ff\R.fQ I Hof>.E wooDL.AN:t>S f\ R<:tt AEo(..C Gr\ cA L Stx\..sE'I' 1q9.,. ILLUSTRATION NO. 7 gfA~I~~~ TITLE L.0CAT10N OF F1<.oR•3 B RND q Coring for a Living Landscape Peak Park Joint Planning Board, FIELDWORK DATE - Aldern House, Ba slow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45 1AE DRAWING DATE ~,J95 Tel. 01629 816200 DRAFTSPERSON J"WB Fax. 01629 816310 REF - l I l'i (o.s. a•fl>) 0 500 PROJECT KEY c_RoOV(~1 u.. 'FARM Ho~ WOQ1:>LANJlS 1 5., fHlC~AEOl.0~1cAL. Sv~vE'{ 14qL\- ' "'" ...N (o·'·"''') ,, ~----,---.------'\ V• • 'l..1 ""',· : "'i' . ~,. '' ' ~ .... /( 2•' ('.\. ~, .,-< /I, ,,...... ( --- ,-- ·. ~./ // ..;·0 17. 0 rn 300 "" PROJECT\-\ILL 'FARfQ, HOPE wooDLANVi 1io ''° ARCHf\EOLOOICc~= •L SvRVEY nqi+ ILLUSTRATION NO. TITLE f ARCHA:E"o !.OG.1CAL Fc:P,Tvfl.GS (\ i' cnoO\.(\-llU.FARl11- Soun-\ I . + FIELDWORK DATE •i .. .. .• DRAWING DATE .. DRAFTSPERSON vWB .x·• REF •... KEY •. WoJ.lS S75 "·· ... ~ '. . ·-.': '> ... ./ / ''·.,·.. ·:.. :.: •.. . " .•; ·. \ .... .,.. •·. • \ .. 20 .• ., • ' •,, \. '. .• • 12 •. .• ... .• ·If.· Q Qvo.n-LR.S. -~- ® ?~o ...... ,. ·.~. «'\ ~ s Treo..11\AS S7o .. :::· \ ... "'.. ~ S7o- _.:· ' t ·? fl' ..c.M-oQ 'Li-°-1 s. \ • . \ n.uvv...W . J- 30 Co..~o.. \o0~ I •• ' . + \ • \ • \ 2'2. •• •. • •• '· • '\... . ' 7 . ' .\;< ' '. '. ·, • 0 g~A~l~N~3 Caring for a Living Landscape • 10 P k Park J om· t Planning Board,d ea .. Bas1ow Roa , Aldern House, . DE45 1AIE Bakewell, Derbyshire. T I 01 629 816200 180 185 F:;, 01 629 816310 PARTS CROOKHILL FARM: CATALOGUE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES 1. Crookhill Farm (Figure 8) Today the farm comprises four main traditional buildings and several small stone sheds. The large two-storey house lies to the south-west. It has distinctive details including gable finials and kneelers that indicate a mid-19th century building/rebuilding in line with that which was undertaken by Chatsworth Estate throughout the valley at this time (Mike Lee pers. comm.). This is confirmed by a shield-shaped tablet on the south-west gable inscribed 1863. There is a south-east extension with gable in a different style which was added in 1901 (Ward 1932- 33). North of the house are two ranges of two-storey cowshed/loosebox type with a single storey shed linking the two. In front of these buildings are good surviving examples of gritstone paving and setts. To the east is a large range with barn to north and to the south cartsheds with an overstorey approached by steps. There is a small shed to the south and another to the north. Detailed maps (Potter 1808, anon. 1850, Bromley 1858, Ordnance Survey 1880) allow a few changes to the farm buildings to be described. By 1880 there stood the house and all the outbuildings, except the south-east extension to the house, a small shed attached to the north-east corner of the house and the small shed to the north, which are later. The small shed to the south was added between 1858 and 1880. Maps from 1808 onwards show the house and three main outbuilding ranges in about the positions they now occupy. In the case of the outbuilding ranges their architecture is consistent with a very early 19th century date. However, the house has been rebuilt in the mid-19th century, presumably on the site of the earlier dwelling. In 1627 Senior shows a large building and one small one at the site, but his plan is not accurate enough to tell if they were at the same exact positions as some of those of the 19th century. His terrier notes for Crookhill a 'much verie good buildinge etc. and Calf hey' (Fowkes and Potter 1988). Crookhill was first recorded in 1101-8 (Cameron 1959) and it may have already been in existence for some time by this date. It is noted in several medieval documents (Cameron 1959), including a rent roll of 1339-1413 which lists several of the farms in the valley (Ward 1949-50, Byford 1981). Towards the end of the 12th century the Upper Derwent valley including the Crookhill area was granted to the Premonstratensian abbey at Welbeck in Nottinghamshire (Kerry, 1893, Kirke 1925). At least one medieval document names the estate 'our forest of Crookhill' (Kirke 1925), but it is unclear if the farm here was the main administrative centre for the estate, or whether the name applies to the estate as a whole. It has also been suggested the main grange buildings were at the now demolished Abbey Farm in Derwent parish (SMR 4613). The farm was an important horse breeding centre for the Abbey of Welbeck, a document of 1252 recording there were 20 horses and 20 mares at this time (Ward 1956-57). From at least the early 15th century to the early 19th century the farm was occupied by the Eyre family (Ward 1951-52). 2. Stone Trough/Possible Building Platform (Figure 8) The green at the centre of the farm yard contains a rectangular stone trough at its southern end. To the north is a possible building platform, but no buildings are shown here on maps from 1627 onwards and it may be alternatively interpreted as a lynchet formed by farm traffic passing round this area. 3. Hollow Way (Figure 8) A short stretch of hollow way, indicating that the modern track here follows an earlier route. Most probably it is a branch of route 4 (see this feature). 8 4. Hollow Way (Figure 8) A slightly braided hollow way runs from the farm buildings towards the north-west, flanking Crook Hill. This is an ear1y version of the present farm track (see feature 3). It is shown on Potter's map of 1808 running in a straight line to a point about midway between features 16 and 18 and eventually on to Rowlee and Lockerbrook. 5. Field Boundary Bank and Ditch (Figure 8) A field boundary bank and ditch, with the latter to the outer, upslope side. It defines the top of an intake into the moor1and top of Crook Hill. In one part it is overlain by a drystone wall that was added in the 1850s (anon. 1850, Bromley 1858). Feature 5 does not appear on ear1ier maps (Senior 1627, Potter 1808, anon. 1850), which implies it either predates 1627 or was relatively short lived. That it forms an uncomfortable angle with the boundary below, which existed in 1627, at feature 5s' south-eastern end, suggests a pre 1627 date before the fields below were laid out. Thus, feature 5 is probably of medieval or ear1y post-medieval date. 6. Stone Circle or Kerb Cairn (Figures 8, 10) Today this ruined site comprises a semi-circle defined by four small stones, two standing, two fallen. Parts of the interior have low patches of grass-covered rubble. Originally it probably had 5, or possibly, 6 regular1y spaced stones, each about 0.4-0.6m high, set in a c. 6.0m diameter ring. The patches of rubble suggest that the interior of the circle once contained a cairn. Similar Bronze Age ritual monuments are known in the region which combine the stones of a stone circle with the mound of a barrow (Barnatt 1990). There is an almost identical monument on Moscar Moor about 3.5 km to the south-east. This also has 5 stones in a 8.0x6.0m diameter ring and the interior is filled with a cairn. Other small stone circles with internal mounds or platforms exist at Strawberry Lea near Totley Moor, and at Doll Tor on Stanton Moor. At all these sites it is unclear if they are best seen as stone circles that have their interiors filled at a later date in the Bronze Age, or whether they were designed from the outset to have the mound and thus the standing stones form a variant on the continuous ring of stones found at kerb cairns in other regions of Britain. 7. Wall Opening (Figure 8) A drystone wall immediately behind the farm house has a small opening through it, much like a sheep through but with a sill and stonework below. Immediately to the east is a wall joint, the wall eastwards having been rebuilt and being lower than that to the west. 19th century maps show that the whole wall was built between 1858 and 1880 (Bromley 1858, Ordnance Survey 1880). The function of the opening is unknown. 8. Possible Lynchet (Figure 8) A short stretch of possible lynchet which does not appear on any of the maps consulted (Senior 1627, Potter 1808, anon. 1850, Bromley 1858, Ordnance Survey 1880). It is more probably a natural break of slope. 9. Possible Charcoal Burning Platform (Figure 8) A somewhat irregular platform terraced into a slope which measures c. 9.0x10.5m across. While it may be a charcoal burners platform similar to those found in the woods below (Bevan 1994c), it is more likely to be a natural spring/ine landslip. 10. Cairn (Figure 8) A small cairn which has little soil in the interstices and thus is relatively modern. It may be associated with a repair of the wall below. 9 PROJECT KEY Cfl.00\.CH H.1.- 'fAR.tfl i Hol'e ~cA >JbS f'flAll-i ~1.AN AflC.HAEO£.O"°=\C.Af. 5<.JRV£"( 1qq4 , VU'l-;cJ ,sl:d"V\.-9!. ILLUSTRATION NO. 10 f..,lLLv.. $t-.n....A.s ~ ll..""\lo~a 'f'o.st::-s sf-,reL.d 8~A~l~~3 TITLE D Coring for a Living Landscape srotJS. c~ll.cw; OR ViCRt\ .. :::- s ~"" .'J 'r'"'o.ds "'"CAtRN AT CR.ool<\.ilU.. (FEf\TuRE: b} Peak Park Joint Planning Board, FIELDWORK DATE Au& 94- Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45 1AE DRAWING DATE m\N 95 Tel. 01629 816200 DRAFTSPERSON rrwe Fax.01629 816310 REF ,· .. fl' ,: ·" '.: ...... ·. :. '·:: .. ','''. 2. .. : ".. ' ... ~-~. '.:._:.:_<,:.< ... 8ur~J ~.; ' 0 2. 11. Barrow (Figures 8, 11) A grass-covered cairn which measures 6.5x6.0m across and is 0.5m high. Shallow depressions to the southern side indicate it has been dug into, probably for walling stone. It has all the characteristics of a typical Later Neolithic or Earlier Bronze Age barrow (Bamatt and Collis in press). Its siting in the saddle between the two crags of Crook Hill may well have been important to the builders, creating an impressive backdrop to the rituals and ceremonies that took place here. 12. Possible Barrow or Clearance Feature (Figures 8, 12) A grass-covered cairn which measures 6.5x6.0m across and is 0.3m high. A shallow depression at the centre indicates it has been dug into, possible for walling stone, or more probably in a search for burials. Given the small size of the mound and its topographic location at the south-east end of a relatively good piece of agricultural land (see feature 16), it is unclear if it is a Later Neolithic or Earlier Bronze Age barrow (Bamatt and Collis in press), or a clearance cairn (Bamatt 1986). If the latter, it again could easily be of Bronze Age date, although the possibility of a more recent abortive attempt to improve this immediate area should also be considered. There is a second possible clearance cairn nearby (feature 13). 13. Clearance Cairn (Figure 8) A small cairn of stones that measures 3.0x2.0m across with a badly robbed interior. The robbing makes interpretation difficult in that it is unclear if the stones were part of a man made clearance heap or whether they are fortuitous natural concentration. If a clearance heap it is likely to pre-date construction and/or repair of the adjacent wall. Together with feature 12 it may be of Bronze Age date. 14. Fieldbam/Site of Building (Figure 8) A small fieldbam of one and a half storeys with rusticated heads and sills indicating a late 19th century date. It post-dates the field survey for the 1880 Ordnance Survey map. The 1880 map shows an earlier building at another site (marked on figure 8 with a cross). This was built between 1858 and 1880 (Bromley 1858, Ordnance Survey 1880). It was approached by a hollow way through Grimbocar Wood to the blocked gate in the boundary wall (Bevan 1994c). 15. Quarry (Figure 8) A stone quarry with several overlapping pits. It is marked on the 1880 Ordnance Survey map as 'old quarry' and may well have been dug when walls here were built or repaired. There have been field boundaries here since prior to 1627 and these continued to be modified until the 1850s. At some point between 1627 and 1808 it appears to have been surrounded by a field boundary (Senior 1627, Potter 1808), suggesting it was active or pre-existing at the time the boundary was built. This boundary was removed in the 1850s (anon. 1850, Bromley 1858). 16. Barrow (Figures 8, 13) A grass-covered mound which measures 14.5x12.5m across and is 0.7m high. The southern half has been extensively robbed, probably for walling stone, and then subsequently ploughed-over. A drystone wall rides over the northern edge. The mound has all the characteristics of a typical Later Neolithic or Earlier Bronze Age barrow (Barnatt and Collis in press). Its siting, together with features 12 and 13, on a relatively good piece of agricultural land may well indicate this small area was settled and farmed in prehistory, but that later farming activity has removed all other surface evidence. 10 PROJECT KEY CROO\oCH\Ll ~ARm. H.oPe l.OOOl>LANl>S 5 \.!"-, A RCKf\ Co t.o&-1c.AL So Rue.'{ 1qq(\. .tr\. ILLUSTRATION NO. II g~A~I~~~ TITLE 11·H: &ARRoW ~ C.RoOIAH'lU. Coring (or a Living Landscape ( FE:flTuR.E u) Peak Park Joint Planning Board, FIELDWORK DATE Au"° q"' Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45 1AE DRAWING DATE UAW~ Tel. 01629 816200 DRAFTSPERSON :JU>B Fax. 01629 816310 REF 0 m 10 PROJECT KEY cRoo «HI u.. fARM , KoP€ °""'bll\~DS AR.C~FIE'."OLO~\CAL SURVE'( \qq4 Sl"l'\Jl.'""' . '°fl\ ...· .. ILLUSTRATION NO. l'Z.. Ro~llu- -p\'c.S g~A~I~~~ TITLE n Tl-It: fR.oeAP.>L£ Q.AR.Row A'T"' Caring for a Living Landscape CRoOl 0 rn 10 PROJECT KEY CR.oo\.<:HIU. ff!tR(E Woa]H .. ANb$ $\o(Vl-S AR.c.1-1,A€0 LDG:tt.AL SUR'IP< 199£\. frJ ILLUSTRATION NO. ~o...~\ \ :3 ·.·.·,. 'Drj~\-~ g~A~l~N~~ TITLE "1fi€ 01'.tR.l<.or.U Ar cR001 FIELDWORK DATE f\O~ 9£,. Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45 1AE DRAWING DATE URN '5 Tel. 01629 816200 DRAFTSPERSON ;rwe, Fax. 01629 816310 REF. - ...... · ..~: .. .,. .... :., .. ," .. _:: i l \ ... '; ... . ' . . l . 0 rn 10 17. Field Boundary Bank and Ditch (Figures 8, 9) The field wall here overlies a small bank with ditch on the north side. There has been a boundary show at this point on maps since 1627 onwards, the date of the earliest available map (Senior 1627). It was the boundary between Crookhill and Two Thorn Field Farm in 1627 and it may have medieval origins. 18. Clearance Cairn (Figure 8) A small clearance cairn measuring 2.5m across. While this may date from as early as the Bronze Age, its location next to an improved area of grassland suggests it is of 2oth century date. 19. Field Boundary Bank and Ditch/Lynchet (Figure 8) Two redundant field boundaries can be traced here, one a lynchet running along the slope, the other and bank and ditch running down it from part way along the first. The north-west lynchet seems to mark the site of a fence created after 1922 (Ordnance Survey 1922) but now removed. In contrast, the south-east lynchet and the bank and ditch mark the sites of boundaries that already existed in 1627, the date of the first available map of the valley (Senior 1627). The bank and ditch boundary fell out of use in the first half of the 19th century (Potter 1808, anon. 1850), while the lynchet was replaced by the present wall in the 1850s (anon. 1850, Bromley 1858). 20. Track (Figure 8) A disused field access track is shown on Ordnance Survey maps from 1840 onwards but is now disused. 21. Hollow Way (Figure 8) The present access track to the farm in parts is within a hollow way and is a route of long standing. It is shown on Potter's map of 1808 and tin a general sense was already in use in 1627 when Senior drew his survey, but at that date it does not appear to have kinked norlhwards. 22. Track (Figure 8) This disused track is shown on 20th century maps only. The wall it follows was built in the 1850s (Bromley 1858, Ordnance Survey 1880). 23. Lynchets (Figure 8) Two lynchets across a stony area which has never been improved probably mark the sites of ancient field boundaries. The northern half of the eastern lynchet may well mark the site of a boundary built between 1627 and 1808 and removed between 1858 and 1880 (Senior 1627, Potter 1808, Bromley 1858, Ordnance Survey 1880). The other lynchets mark boundaries that were probably remove by 1808 and possibly 1627. 24. Toadhole Cote - Fieldbarn (Figure 8) A large two-storey fieldbarn of three bays. A rectangular building appears on the 1808 and 1850 maps (Potter 1808, anon. 1850) but not Senior's survey of 1627, nor maps of 1858 and 1880 (Bromley 1858, Ordnance Survey 1880), although two small yards are shown on the 1880 map. This suggests the building became ruinous and was rebuilt or remodelled in the late 19th century. 11 25. Hursthead Cote - Fieldbarn/Trough (Figure 9) AT-shaped building, with barn at the back, the front wing having barn storage above and two rooms below. The south elevation is strangely designed, with two doors at the centre, ground floor windows near the corners and ventilation slits only on the first floor. Changes in the masonry suggests the upper floor has been added. In the north-west corner of the yard is a rectangular stone trough which has rounded corners and is finely dressed. A simple rectangular building was created between 1850 and 1858 (anon. 1850, Bromley 1858), which corresponds with the ground floor building of the southern range. The barn and upper floor had been added by 1880 (Ordnance Survey 1880). 26. Field Boundary Lynchet (Figure 9) A lynchet, in parts overlain by a wall, which at the centre near feature 27 is about 1rn high. It marks the site of a boundary which certainly pre-dates Potter's map of 1808 and appears to also pre-date 1627 as the building at feature 27 is shown as within the field. Thus, this boundary is the upper limit of an intake of medieval or early post-medieval origin. 27. Platform/Building (site of) (Figure 9) Two rectangular platforms are cut into the slope behind lynchet 26. The larger one at the front appears to be a yard, while upslope the smaller one, measuring c. 9x3rn, appears to be the site of a timber building. It may well be that shown at about this site on Senior's 1627 plan. His terrier does not note the building therefore its function is unclear (Fowkes and Potter 1988). It had gone by 1808(Potter1808). 28. Track (Figure 9) A disused terraced track shown on the Ordnance Survey map of 1880. 29. Orthostat (Figure 8) A large slab set upright in the line of a robbed wall with large footings remaining. The boundary has been in existence since prior to 1627, the date of the first map of the valley (Senior 1627). 30. Drystone Wall (Figure 8) This wall, built in the 1850s (anon. 1850, Bromley 1858), is unusual in that the coping stones, which are thin slabs, are arranged so that about every fourth stone a tall slab is introduced to give it a 'castellated' effect. This is not a Peak District style of wall building. 12 PARTS CROOKHILL FARM: ASSESSMENT OF RELATIVE SITE IMPORTANCE The following is an assessment of the relative importance of the archaeological features discovered within the survey area. It is made by the National Park survey archaeologists in the light of archaeological features recorded regionally at the time of the survey. Features of National ·or Regional Importance are all important to the understanding of the archaeology of the Peak District. All contain valuable information which ideally should be recorded in greater detail than the brief inspection notes made during the rapid survey described here. This normally could take the fonm of more detailed survey. If at some point in the future a feature in this category comes under threat of damage or destruction, excavation may well be desirable if conservation measures cannot be negotiated. Locally important features are those which are important to the archaeology of the locality. Standing buildings are listed separately because they present different management problems. In some cases they are protected under the Listed Building legislation. This separate listing is not to say that many buildings are any less important archaeologically than the archaeological features listed as being of National or Regional Importance. LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE FEATURE CATALOGUE NUMBERS Archaeological Features of National or 6, 11, 12, 16, 27 Regional Importance Archaeological Features of Local 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, Importance 21,22,23, 26,28, 29, 30 Standing Buildings of National or Regional 1 Importance Standing Buildings of Local Importance 14,24,25 13 PART7 SAFEGUARDING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE - WHAT YOU CAN DO Introduction Many archaeological features have survived for hundreds or thousands of years. Each feature is a unique record of past human activity, even though it may be similar to others, and once destroyed it is gone forever. Archaeology covers all the remains of past human activity, from ancient stone circles to tracks used by our grandparents. It not only includes relics such as churches and castles, but also the walls used by farmers, and the mines and quarries that provided wealth from the ground. An individual archaeological feature is often not just important in its own right. Sometimes it is the general character of a landscape, including its many 'features of local importance', that is archaeologically valuable. The humps and bumps identified as archaeology may be the visible tip of the iceberg, hiding buried archaeological deposits of settlement or ritual activity. Not all archaeological features or landscapes can be conserved, nor is it desirable that the countryside become a cultural theme park where everything is fossilised. However, many features can be safeguarded at little or no inconvenience to landowners or tenants. Many archaeological features have been destroyed in the past due to lack of knowledge either of their nature or value. Once farmers and other land managers realise that features tell us something of our past, they are usually happy to safeguard them, particularly if there is no significant conflict of interest with the profitable management of the holding. Only a small number of the most important features are protected by law against ground disturbance, designated as Scheduled Ancient Monuments by the Department of National Heritage through English Heritage. Other features can be conserved under schemes such as the Countryside Commission's 'Countryside Stewardship' or the Peak Park Board's 'Farm Conservation Scheme'. Surface Remains After having survived for hundreds or thousands of years, the safeguarding of archaeological features is often easy - they are usually best left well alone, by continuing the management traditional to the field or moor where they are found. When locating new activities or buildings, conservation can usually be achieved by choosing alternative sites which are of little archaeological importance, but which are no less convenient. Leaving archaeological mounds and hollows, rather than creating flat fields, often has little effect on the way fields are managed or on their profitability. Alternatively, this positive approach may be rewarded by conservation payments. Ploughing and rotovating will often be necessary from a financial point of view. However, fields containing important archaeological features can sometimes be managed as permanent grass and other fields ploughed with equal profit. In some case rotovating or direct drilling cause little damage now because shallow ploughing has taken place several times over the last two centuries. In contrast, deep ploughing may damage intact burials and other deposits. This said, any ploughing will reduce the height of earthworks. Livestock damage can be reduced by placing supplementary feeders and licks away from archaeological features, or by moving their locations regularly where remains are extensive, as for example with ridge and furrow. Tree planting should avoid archaeological features where possible, and the natural establishment of saplings or scrub should be controlled. Trees can seriously damage features 14 through root activity. When trees have to be felled on or near archaeological features, it is necessary to consider in which direction they will fall, where the brash will be burnt, and the route vehicles will take when removing the timber. With large plantations, archaeological advice should ideally be sought in advance of new planting, replanting, thinning and clear felling. The deep ploughing often undertaken when preparing for new moorland planting destroys most archaeological features. Tipping and dumping (some of which may need planning permission) should be avoided as much as possible. as they bury archaeological features, making their recognition and interpretation impossible. If it has to take place, a detailed photographic or measured record of a feature may be desirable before the tipping takes place. Vehicles repeatedly crossing an area may quickly cause damage, especially when the ground is wet. If archaeological features cannot be avoided, different routes should be followed each time they are crossed. Field Boundaries Walls and hedges are often on old boundary lines which go back hundreds of years, and have archaeological landscape value even when they have recently been rebuilt or replanted. Wall furniture, such as sheep throughs, gate posts and water troughs should be retained during wall rebuilding. Buildings A major exception to easy management of the archaeological resource is the care of standing buildings. Once these have become redundant they are expensive to maintain. If alternative uses or sources of repair grant cannot be found, then there is often little choice but to let them decay or to demolish them. In the sad event of this happening, the Peak Park Survey Archaeologists would welcome the opportunity to do further recording, either by taking photographs, or exceptionally, by making measured drawings. New buildings (some of which will need planning permission) should wherever possible be sited to avoid archaeological features. Metal Detecting Metal detecting can cause major damage to a feature and the important information it may · contain, while it very rarely produces anything of financial value. Often the only finds that can date a feature are removed. Knowing that a find is from a feature is often of little use unless its exact relationship to particular structures and layers is known. Specialist Advice The above notes present a few general guidelines on good practice which we hope will help safeguard the archaeology without causing serious inconvenience. If there are any specific questions about management or planned development then please seek advice from the National Park Archaeology Service. Normally they can be contacted through the Farm and Countryside Service caseworkers, or through Development Control caseworkers. If buildings have to be demolished or earthworks levelled, then detailed archaeological recording work should ideally be undertaken. If several months notice is given, then this allows a considered course of action to be followed through, and work to be carried out at times which cause the landowner minimal inconvenience and delay. Ideally a holistic approach to management should be adopted that also includes ecological and landscape considerations. The Board's Farm and Countryside Service offers guidance on all such issues. 15 PART8 GLOSSARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL TERMS USED BARROW A burial site covered by a mound of earth or stone. The mounds are usually round and date from the Later Neolithic to Earlier Bronze Age, from about 2500 to 1500 BC. They often contain several burials, some accompanied by simple objects; Gold and silver objects are not found in prehistoric round barrows in the Peak District. A few small mounds were built by the Earlier Medieval ruling families around 600 to 700 AD, and contain the earliest Christian graves known in the region. BRONZE AGE The prehistoric period which comes between the Neolithic and the Iron Age, dating roughly from 2000 to 800 BC. This was the time of the introduction of metals and more importantly of permanently laid out field systems used by sedentary farmers. In the first half of the period people continued to use ceremonial sites such as barrows and stone circles. Few if any monuments were built after about 1500 BC. BUILDING When buildings are constructed, the ground is often levelled by cutting PLATFORM into a slope, or by building up one end, to create a level terrace. Often the sites of demolished timber or stone buildings can still be identified by a surviving building platform. Prehistoric examples are commonly circular, while from the Roman period onwards they tend to be rectangular. CEREMONIAL In prehistory, in the Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age from 3500 to 1500 MONUMENT BC, local people built many monuments used for pre-Christian ceremonies and rituals. The most common sites are round barrows and stone circles, but there are also single standing stones and unusual mounds, some long rather than round (long cairns), others with large stone chambers (chambered tombs). CLEARANCE A pile of stones, often relatively small, which has been gathered into CAIRN heaps in preparation of the adjacent ground for cultivation. In the Peak District the majority are of prehistoric date. However, later examples are known, including some made in the 20th century. FIELD SYSTEM Fields can often by recognised as falling within distinct types and into discrete units; these are termed here field systems. In the Peak District early examples can be identified that date back 4000 years to the Bronze Age. Other examples are Romano-British, while much of the present farmed landscape comprises medieval or post-medieval field systems. FOSSILISED From at least as early as 1350 AD the cultivation strips within medieval OPEN FIELDS open fields of the Peak District started to be enclosed. Typically these fields survive today as narrow walled enclosures with distinctive curved sides with a reverse-S plan. Taken together, they often allow the extent and character of the medieval open field to be recognised, despite the fact that use of open cultivation strips ceased long ago. Enclosure of the open field usually happened piecemeal, with small parcels created that vary in date from the 14th century (1300s) to the last century. 16 HOLLOW WAY The line of a trackway, usually disused, eroded into a gully during its use in the past. Some major routes may be extensive networks of braided tracks running parallel to and crossing over each other. They often pre-date turnpike roads and were used by packhorse and foot traffic, and in some cases by wagons. LYNCHET An artificial bank formed by a build up or loss of soil against a field boundary, or deliberately produced as the downslope edge of a cultivation terrace along a slope. Lynchets are usually found running along slopes and accumulate soil upslope from downward movement of soil after ploughing which is trapped by the boundary. They lose soil downslope where ploughing cuts into the slope. Where a boundary has later been removed, a lynchet is often the main evidence that a wall or hedge once existed. Those forming cultivation terraces often appear in groups and date from the Medieval period and once lay within open fields. MEDIEVAL The period which dates from the Norman Conquest of 1066 AD to approximately 1500 AD. Also known as the Middle Ages. NEOLITHIC The prehistoric period which comes between the Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age) and the Bronze Age, dating roughly from 4000 to 2000 BC. This was the time of the adoption of the first agricultural practices, including cereal cultivation, but more importantly the rearing of domesticated animals, including herds of cattle and flocks of sheep. In the beginning, farmers moved around the landscape with their herds, much as they had in the Mesolithic (except they took animals with them rather than following wild game). It was only after more than a thousand years that they settled in permanent farms which they surrounded by hedged fields. They built impressive ceremonial monuments, often used to establish traditional right to the use of land, by burying the bones of the ancestors to overlook pastures. OPEN FIELDS In the medieval period, from at least as early as 1100 AD, Peak District villages were surrounded by large open fields. While often bounded at their edges by banks and ditches, internally they were initially divided into a large number of unfenced cultivation strips. The use of strips allowed a fair distribution of different grades of land between lord and villagers. This system was designed to favour the needs of arable cultivation. It seems to have been introduced into the area from the lowlands of the Midlands. In the Peak District, pastoral farming was of equal or greater imporlance, and individual strips were enclosed from an early date. POST- The period after the Medieval, beginning at approximately 1500 AD and MEDIEVAL continuing up to the present day. Distinct from the Medieval because of the change from a feudal to capitalist society and the rapid development of industrialisation. PREHISTORY The period from the first human presence in the region, covering many thousand years, to the coming of the Romans and the first written documents just under two thousand years ago. 17 RIDGE AND In many fields that have not been ploughed in recent years, the land is FURROW corrugated by many parallel ridges, known as ridge and furrow. Earlier examples tend to be wider and more massive and have origins as medieval cultivation strips (see Open Fields). In some instances they continued to be used and modified until as late as the 18th or 19th centuries. Narrow ridge and furrow tends to be 19th century in date (or from 1939-45), resulting from ploughing using a fixed mould-board plough. There are rare exceptions to these trends, including pre medieval ridge and furrow of various forms, wide but straight examples of relatively modern date and hand dug examples of various dates. All ridge and furrow tends to occur on heavier, thicker soils, but is rare on the thin soils of the limestone plateau. RITUAL See Ceremonial Monument. MONUMENT ROMAN The period covering the occupation of the British Isles by the Roman Empire. In the Peak District beginning in the 70s AD and ending during the 5th century (400s) AD. ROMANO A term used to refer to native activity and settlement during the Roman BRITISH occupation. Although the local farming people present when the Romans arrived adopted some Roman products, such as superior pottery, their way of life continued much as it had done in the Iron Age. SHRUNKEN A settlement occupied in the Medieval period, part of which has since MEDIEVAL been abandoned. This process often leaves the spaces between VILLAGE currently occupied buildings with such archaeological remains as building platforms (also known as tofts), enclosure boundaries (also known as crofts) and trackways. Often abbreviated to SMV. SITES AND Lists of archaeological sites, and summaries of what is known about MONUMENTS them, which (in the Peak District) are kept by County Archaeologists. RECORDS TITHE MAP Maps of townships and parishes were made during the early to mid-19th century to accompany inventories and assessments of fields liable to pay money, known as tithe, to the local church to support the vicar. The level of accuracy and detail that field boundaries are planned to varies from one map to another. Sometimes only those boundaries enclosing the land on which tithe was payable are depicted. There usefulness therefore changes from one map to another. TURNPIKE The present road network was built in the 1700s and 1800s, often as toll ROAD roads known as turnpikes. These roads were a radical improvement on what went before and allowed the distribution of the commercial products of the industrial revolution. Their routes can still be recognised from their toll houses and distinctive milestones. WALL This term is used to cover such details found in drystone walls as FURNITURE gateposts, stiles, sheep throughs and water troughs. 18 PART9 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anon. 1850. Hope Woodlands Tithe Map. Derbyshire Record Office 1828A/PI 201 a. Barnatt, J. 1986. Bronze Age remains on the East Moors of the Peak District. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 106, 18-100. Bamatt, J. 1990. The Henges, Stone Circles and Ringcaims of the Peak District. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Barnatt, J. 1993. Edale Valley Archaeological Survey 1993. Unpublished report, Peak Park Joint Planning Board. Barnatt, J. 1994. Two Thome Fields Farm, Hope Woodlands, Derbyshire: Archaeological Survey 1994. Unpublished report, Peak Park Joint Planning Board. Barnatt, J. and Collis, J. in press. Barrows in the Peak District: Recent Research. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Bevan, B. 1994a. Pike Low, Derwent, Derbyshire: Archaeological Survey 1994. Unpublished report, Peak Park Joint Planning Board. Bevan, B. 1994b. Lost Lad Hi/lend, Bradfield, South Yorkshire and Derwent, Derbyshire: Archaeological Survey 1994. Unpublished report, Peak Park Joint Planning Board. Bevan, B. 1994c. Hagg Side, Lee Wood, Fearfall Wood, Rough Wood, Grimbocar, Hope Woodlands, Derbyshire: Archaeological Survey 1994. Unpublished report, Peak Park Joint Planning Board. Bromley, J. 1858 Map of an Estate situate in the Hamlet of the Woodlands in the Parish of Hope in the County of Derby, the Property of His Grace the Duke of Devonshire K. G. Chatsworth: Chatsworth House Archives. Byford, J. S. 1981. Moorland Heritage. Wood Cottage, Snake Road, Bamford: James S. Byford. Cameron, K. 1959 The Place-Names of Derbyshire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3 vols. Cox, Rev. J.C. 1905. Forestry. Lo. Page, W. (ed.) The Victoria History of the Counties of England, Derbyshire, volume 1, p. 397-426. Folkestone and London: Dawsons. Fowkes, D. V. and Potter, G. R. (eds) 1988 William Senior's Survey of the Estates of the First and Second Earls of Devonshire c. 1600-28. Chesterfield: Derbyshire Record Society. Jackson, J.C. 1962. Open field cultivation in Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 82, 54-72. Kerry, Rev. C. 1893. A history of Peak Forest. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 15, 67-98. Kirke, H. 1925 Monastic settlement in the Peak Forest. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 47, 222-33. Ordnance Survey. 1840. 1" to the mile. Sheet 81 NE. Ordnance Survey. 1880. 25" to the mile. Sheets Vll.10, Vll.14. Ordnance Survey. 1822. 25" to the mile (3rd ed.). Sheets VI 1.10. Potter, P. 1808. Map of the District, or, Hamlet, of the Woodlands. Chatsworth: Chatsworth House Archives. Senior, W. 1627 Earl of Devonshire's Woodlands Estates. Chatsworth: Chatsworth House Archives. Ward, G. H.B. 1932-33 Historical and topographical note. Sheffield Clarion Ramblers 1932- 33, 163-66. Ward, G. H.B. 1949-50 Facts about Edale. Sheffield Clarion Ramblers 1949-50, 135-49. Ward, G. H. B. 1951-52 About Derwent, Crookhill, and Captain John White. Sheffield Clarion Ramblers 1951-52, 83-94. Ward, G. H. B. 1956-57 An old Bradwell-Hathersage-Abney bridleway. Sheffield Clarion Ramblers 1956-57, 129-37. 19 APPENDICES /!';_: CROOKHILL FARM: DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY ARCHIVE Documents This report. Drawings (as included in reduced form in this report) Figure 1 - Location of Crookhill Farm. Figure 2 - Boundary changes 1627 to 1808, at 1:10,000. Figure 3- Boundary changes 1808 to 1850, at 1:10,000. Figure 4 - Boundary changes 1850 to 1880, at 1:10,000. Figure 5 - Woodland 1627-1808, at 1: 10,000. Figure 6 - Archaeological characterisation of the farmland, at 1: 10,000. Figure 7 - Location of Figures 8 and 9. Figure 8 - Archaeological features on Crookhill Farm - south, at 1 :2500. Figure 9 - Archaeological features on Crookhill Farm - north, at 1 :2500 Figure 10 - The stone circle or kerb cairn at Crookhill (feature 6), at 1 :200. Figure 11 - The barrow at Crookhill (feature 11 ), at 1 :200. Figure 12 -The probable barrow at Crookhill west (feature 12), at 1:200. Figure 13 - The barrow at Crookhill .north-west (feature 16), at 1 :200. One file containing the photographic archive catalogue and cross reference to the PPJPB archaeological photograph collection (retained by the PPJPB - viewable upon request). One folder of field notes (retained by the PPJPB - viewable upon request). 20 §.:FEATURE RECORDING - SURVEY SPECIFICATIONS The survey undertaken to produce this report comprised systematic if rapid search of the land within the survey area. Every field was inspected from at least one vantage point and care was taken to avoid blind areas by taking in further vantage points. Every potential feature was inspected more closely to plot its extent, form and interpretation. Large scale maps were available and discoveries were sketch-plotted on an OS 1:2500 base. This is the National Park's Phase 1 survey standard. The plotting of features is relatively accurate because of the scale of the maps and the use of nearby features, such as field boundaries, to gauge relative locations between known points. We believe that under these conditions the normal error of plotted site locations is limited to plus or minus 5 metres. 21 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to the National Trust and their tenant, Mr Wood, for giving permission to survey the land. Chatsworth House Archives allowed access to 17th and 19th century maps, and the Derbyshire Record Office gave access to 19th century maps. Mike Lea provided architectural information and dates on buildings while Bill Bevan and Ken Smith provided infonnation, advice and comment. Sarah Burchby, Alison Foster and Angie Johnson helped with the duplication of illustrations and the binding of the report. CF94REP.DOC 22 ai.J'V\do..ii..o.S re..v..dll"Cd l.xi-w-u.0. l()'l.7 ...... ,0 \808. NATIONALn_ TITLE ++++- 0 .. 0 .... d~ J) 5~ .,-eo-