T H A M E S V A L L E Y ARCHAEOLOGICAL S E R V I C E S

Land off Durrant's Lane, ,

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Gordana Baljkas

Site Code: DBH 16/143 (SP 9761 0788) Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

for Taylor Wimpey North Thames

by Gordana Baljkas

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code DBH 16/143

September 2016 Summary

Site name: Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire

Grid reference: SP 9761 0788

Site activity: Archaeological desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Gordana Baljkas

Site code: DBH 16/143

Area of site: 1.8ha

Summary of results: The proposal site contains one known designated heritage asset, a section of Grim’s Ditch, a prehistoric linear boundary formed by a bank and ditch which lies on the north eastern boundary of the proposal site. It is considered likely that it will be necessary for the development design to avoid any impact on this part of the site. In addition the site lies in an area of archaeological potential with Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman deposits recorded to the south. It is considered that further information from field observation will be required to both establish the archaeological potential of the proposal site and define an exclusion zone for the Grim's Ditch.

This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.

Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 05.09.16 Steve Preston 05.09.16

1

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email: [email protected]; website: www.tvas.co.uk Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Gordana Baljkas

Report 16/143 Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted,

Hertfordshire (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Jonathan Smart of Taylor Wimpey North Thames,

2 Imperial Place, Maxwell Road, Borehamwood, Hertfordshire WD6 1JN and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area.

Planning consent is to be sought from Borough Council for residential development of land off

Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire. This assessment will accompany the application in order to inform the planning process with regard to potential archaeological and heritage implications. This is in accordance with the Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) and the Council’s heritage policies.

Site description, location and geology

The proposal site is located on the west side of Berkhamsted, on the southern slopes of the Bulbourne Valley. It comprises a sub-rectangular parcel of land covering an area of 1.8ha and is centred on NGR SP 9761 0788 (Fig.

1). The proposal site is bounded by the rear gardens of residential properties fronting Ridgeway to the north- west, north and north-east, properties on Chalet Close to the east, further residential development on

Close and an open field to the south-east and south and Egerton-Rothesay School to the west. A site visit conducted on 18th August 2016 showed that the proposal site currently comprises a flat sports field divided into two parts by a line of mature trees. It is bounded on three sides by hedgerows and mature trees, while there is no physical boundary towards the west i.e. the school. The field to the south-west is currently under development

(Fig. 2, Pls 1-6). The north eastern boundary is heavily wooded and a break of slope down to the north represents the line of an earthwork known as The Grim's Ditch. The underlying geology is Clay-with-flints (BGS

2016). The proposal site lies at a height of approximately 165m above Ordnance Datum in the north rising slightly to approximately 170m above Ordnance Datum in the south.

1 Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought from for residential development of land off

Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted. No detailed proposal plans were available at the time of the writing of this report.

The Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF

2012) sets out the framework within which local planning authorities should consider the importance of conserving, or enhancing, aspects of the historic environment, within the planning process. It requires an applicant for planning consent to provide, as part of any application, sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to assess the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal. The

Historic Environment is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as:

‘All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora.’ Paragraphs 128 and 129 state that

‘128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. ‘129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.’ A ‘heritage asset’ is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) as ‘A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).’ ‘Designated heritage asset’ includes (NPPF 2012, 51) any ‘World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation.’ ‘Archaeological interest’ is glossed (NPPF 2012, 50) as follows:

‘There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.’ Specific guidance on assessing significance and the impact of the proposal is contained in paragraphs 131 to 135: ‘131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

2  the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;  the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and  the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. ‘132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. ‘133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:  the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and  no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and  conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and  the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. ‘134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. ‘135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Paragraph 139 recognizes that new archaeological discoveries may reveal hitherto unsuspected and hence non- designated heritage assets ‘139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.’ Paragraph 141 requires local planning authorities to ensure that any loss of heritage assets advances understanding, but stresses that advancing understanding is not by itself sufficient reason to permit the loss of significance: ‘141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.’

In determining the potential heritage impact of development proposals, ‘significance’ of an asset is defined

(NPPF 2012, 56) as:

‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.’ while ‘setting’ is defined as:

3 ‘The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.’

In the case of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (and their settings), the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and

Archaeological Areas Act (1979) also apply. Under this legislation, development of any sort on or affecting a

Scheduled Monument requires the Secretary of State’s Consent.

Dacorum Borough Council is currently in the process of introducing a new single Local Plan. Until such time, archaeology and historic environment within the Borough are being managed in accordance with the ‘saved’ policies of the Local Plan 1991-2011 (adopted 2004) and the policy expounded in the Borough’s Core Strategy

2006-2031 (adopted September 2013).

The ‘saved’ policies of the Local Plan regarding historic parks and gardens, listed buildings and conservation areas are not relevant in this case. The only potentially relevant policy is Policy 118 which relates to the important archaeological remains:

‘On Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other nationally important archaeological sites and monuments and their settings, planning permission will be refused for any development where the disturbance of the archaeological remains or their setting would be unacceptable. will be consulted on all planning applications affecting Scheduled Ancient Monuments. On archaeological sites or monuments of more local importance and their settings, physical preservation in situ will be the preferred option and application may be refused. The County Archaeological Group will be consulted on all planning applications affecting areas of archaeological significance and archaeological potential. Where advice indicates that a proposed development will affect remains of archaeological significance or areas of archaeological potential, developers will be expected to provide the results of an archaeological evaluation before the planning application is determined. Where the Council considers that physical preservation of the archaeological remains in situ is not merited, planning permission may be subject to conditions and/or agreement which would facilitate: (a) an adequate archaeological excavation of the site prior to the commencement of the works: and/or (b) the observation by archaeological experts of the site works as they progress; and/or (c) the recording of remains by archaeological experts and the publication of the results; and/or (d) the provision of facilities, including access over an agreed period of time; and/or (e) such other measures as may be necessary to protect the archaeological integrity of the site. Where appropriate the council will encourage the enhancement of archaeological remains and their settings’ (2004).

The Core Strategy contains Policy CS27 which refers to the quality of the historic environment:

‘All development will favour the conservation of heritage assets. The integrity, setting and distinctiveness of designated and undesignated heritage assets will be protected, conserved and if appropriate enhanced. Development will positively conserve and enhance the appearance and character of conservation areas. Negative features and problems identified in conservation area appraisals will be ameliorated or removed. Features of known or potential archaeological interest will be surveyed, recorded and wherever possible retained.

4 Supplementary planning documents will provide further guidance’ (2013, 118).

The proposal site is located within an archaeological notification area (HHER 2016).

Methodology

The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies (CIfA 2014). These sources include historic and modern maps, the Hertfordshire

Historic Environment Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

The archaeology and development of Berkhamsted have been summarised as part of the county’s Extensive

Urban Survey series (Thompson and Bryant 2005). Archaeological investigations within and around the town have tended to be on very small scales. Berkhamsted is located in the Bulbourne river valley, which would have been a favoured location for prehistoric occupation, but in fact, evidence for periods prior to the late Iron Age is rare. The valley does seem to have been settled by the Neolithic, and a late Bronze Age or early Iron Age settlement has been excavated on the line of the modern bypass at Oakwood to the south-west of the town. To the south of the town (and on the margins of the proposal site) is Grim’s Ditch, a bank and ditch, which may have extended the entire length of the south side of the Bulbourne Valley down to but not beyond the town; there is also a similar earthwork to the north. It is assumed that the earthwork was constructed during the late Bronze

Age or Iron Age and probably acted as a boundary marker (ibid.).

By the late Iron Age, however, and into the Roman period, the area seems to be a major iron production centre and probably a population centre, although evidence for the latter is patchy by comparison to other parts of the county in these periods (Bryant and Niblett 1997; Bryant 1997; Going 1997). There was a settlement at

Cow Roast to the north-west but evidence for Roman activity from the town itself is quite sparse. Akeman

Street, the Roman road which connected (Verulamium) with passes through the Bulbourne valley, and was an important route through the Chilterns. The course of the road is clearly traceable from

Berkhamsted heading west, and the current High Street is thought to follow its alignment (Margary 1955).

Outside the town, evidence for several substantial Roman buildings has been recorded, including one to the north of the and the remains of villas at (Thompson and Bryant 2005) and near Frithsden, further to

5 the north-east, where a building with tessellated flooring and a hypocaust heating system was discovered

(Birtchnell 1972).

Little is known of Saxon Berkhamsted until its entry, but the medieval town and castle are relatively well documented (Thompson and Bryant 2005; Doggett and Hunn 1985). The town’s layout may originally have been predicated on the castle, but later (perhaps in the 13th century when a new church was founded) developed along the south-east to north-west aligned road on the south side of the valley.

Hertfordshire Historic Environment Record

A search was made of the Hertfordshire Historic Environment Record (HER) on 10th August 2016 for a radius of

750m around the proposal site. This revealed 22 entries relating to monuments and historic buildings, including one Scheduled Ancient Monument, and nine entries relating to archaeological ‘events’ i.e. investigations carried out within the study area. The HER entries were then collated to take into account duplicates, sites which are quite close together or sites which have more than one entry. The resulting 24 entries are summarized as

Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.

Prehistoric

The section of Grim’s Ditch from Berkhamsted to Leyland’s Farm, Buckinghamshire [Fig. 1:1], a probable prehistoric boundary ditch, survives in a various state of preservation. The 210m long section immediately north- west of Woodcock Hill is a Scheduled Ancient Monument (35349). The section runs broadly north-west to south-east between Bell Lane and the grounds of Woodcock Hill, a large Victorian house on Durrant's Lane.

This section of Grim's Ditch is located on high ground in the former parkland associated with Woodcock Hill overlooking Northchurch and the Bulbourne Valley to the north. The boundary survives as a clearly visible bank and ditch along most of its length. The earthen bank measures up to 12m wide and stands up to 0.5m high in some places. To the south of the bank lies a parallel ditch, approximately 12m wide and up to 0.4m in depth. An excavation carried out in 1973 across Grim's Ditch in the parish of , approximately 5km to the west, produced evidence of a level area, or berm, separating the bank and ditch. Evidence for a palisade trench, which would have supported a wooden fence, was also found along the outer edge of the ditch. Similar components also survive as buried features along this section of Grim's Ditch. A further excavation, also carried out in 1973, immediately to the west of this section produced pottery believed to be Iron Age in date.

Two further (unscheduled) sections of Grim’s Ditch are recorded within the study area. The section around

Darr’s Lane [2] has been destroyed to the west by a brickworks while to the east and south-east of the lane the

6 earthworks have survived for a length of 200m. The ditch in this section is not obvious on the ground but is visible on aerial photography. Another section of Grim’s Ditch is recorded in the playing field of Egerton-

Rothesay School within the north-western corner of the proposal site in a heavily wooded area. [3] There appears now to be little trace of a bank but a break of slope represents the edge of the ditch (Pl. 4).

Bronze Age

A possible Bronze Age cremation burial [4] was recorded during an evaluation at Durrant’s Lane to the west of the proposal site (Ritchie 2014). A mid to late Bronze Age pot truncated by ploughing was located within an irregular ovoid pit. The same evaluation also recorded a number of features dated to the late Bronze Age to the earliest Iron Age [5]. The features were scattered from the south-west to north-east of the field south of the proposal site. These features, all plough-damaged and cut into natural, included ditches, pits and postholes, with small amounts of flint-tempered pottery apparently dating to the period between c. 800-600 BC.

Iron Age

In addition to the above-mentioned early Iron Age features, middle Iron Age features [6] were also found during the evaluation at Durrant’s Lane, south of the proposal site. A posthole and a nearby hearth contained sherds of sandy middle Iron Age pottery. Another trench revealed three postholes, a ditch and a pit. In the ditch fill was a sherd of similar middle Iron Age pottery whilst the pit contained flint-tempered late Bronze Age to early Iron

Age sherds, and was one of several features of this date in the western side of the field.

The last entry which relates to the Iron Age refers to a findspot for a Hallstatt-type bronze brooch [7], without secure provenance, found within Berkhamsted parish.

Roman

Roman activity within the study area is evidenced by the presence of a road known as [8] running south-east to north-west approximately 600m north-east of the proposal site. Akeman Street (the Viatores' road

16A), was one of the main routes west from Verulamium, running up the Bulbourne valley to the county boundary west of Tring. It may be assumed that where it runs through the narrow Bulbourne valley, the Roman road was an engineered version of an existing route from the late Iron Age (and Roman) iron-ore producing sites at Cow Roast. Its route around is unclear, however through Berkhamsted the Roman course of the road is unlikely to have deviated far from the old A41 (now the A4251).

The HER also records a findspot for a 2nd century Roman bronze ‘trumpet’ brooch [9] found at Northchurch to the west of the proposal site.

7 Saxon

A penannular brooch broadly dated between post-Roman and middle Saxon periods was found in a pit during the evaluation at Durrant’s Lane [6] .

Medieval/Post-medieval

Earthworks representing medieval to post-medieval ridge and furrow [10] were recorded near Woodcock Hill in a field north of Grim’s Ditch and adjacent to Bell Lane to the west of the proposal site. The features were present across the entire field, when noted some years ago, and a rare surviving example of plateau ridge and furrow in the Chilterns.

Post-medieval

A pit containing 19th century material [11] was partly excavated during an evaluation of land at the junction of

Rossway and Shootersway to the south-west of the proposal site.

The HER records a single listed building within the study area. Located towards the south-eastern extent of the study area, Edgeworth House [12] is a Grade II* listed timber-framed house originally built in the late 16th century. It was remodelled in the late 18th century and had a wing added in the 19th century.

In addition to an unlisted wall post box [13] located at Shooterway/Cross Oak to the south-east of the proposal site, the remainder of the post-medieval entries recorded in the HER for the study area are all documentary and cartographic. Woodcock Hill [14] was a 18th to early 19th century farmstead demolished in the

1840s. The house [15] was rebuilt by Frank John Moore by 1848. During this time, Durrant’s Lane was realigned and all the farm buildings replaced. The site of the original farm became a rose garden, and later a rock garden with a pond. Moore also enlarged the park and enclosed it with gates, and in 1872 built lodges on

Durrant’s Lane. The estate remained unaltered until it was sold in c. 1905. The house, garden, and a reduced park were sold on to the McVitie family, biscuit manufacturers, in 1907. In 1942 the house was bought by

Carmelite nuns and in 1951 it was bought jointly by three families and divided into apartments, and the farm buildings and stable block sold off. The house is currently in single ownership.

Further documentary and cartographic evidence refers to the sites of Northchurch Parish Workhouse demolished in the 1830s and an 18th century inn, The Crooked Billet, demolished in the 1960s [16]; the site of

Durrant’s Farm, a post-medieval farmstead with medieval origins, demolished in the later 20th century [17]; the site of a large villa, Crossoak, built over in the later 20th century [18] and the site of chalk pit at Cox Dell [19].

The pit was disused by the mid-19th century. Cox Dell appears on the 1839 Tithe map already filled with trees,

8 beside a bend in the road. It is named Cox Dell on the 1878 Ordnance Survey map and marked ‘Old Chalk Pit’.

Durrant’s Lane has since been diverted across its north side to even out the sharp double bend.

Modern, undated, negative

The evaluation at Durrant’s Lane also recorded a number of undated features [20] to the south-west of the proposal site. Post and stakeholes containing fire-cracked flint, and a ditch, were found in trenches across the south end of a field to the south-west of the proposal site. There was nothing to date them, although a small amount of knapping debris from possibly Neolithic to Bronze Age flintworking was retrieved from one trench.

Further undated features, also possibly prehistoric [21] were recorded during the evaluation of land at the junction of and Shootersway also to the south-west of the proposal site. The features comprised a posthole and a pit, which on excavation produced a flint scraper. Two waste flint flakes were also found in an evaluation trench.

A geophysical survey of land at Shootersway and Durrant’s Lane [22] identified various anomalies, but none that might be the course of Grim's Ditch. Most of the anomalies are probably natural variations in the local plateau drift geology.

Three archaeological investigations within the study area found no archaeological features or finds: a watching brief at The Crooked Billet (Majestic Wine Warehouse), Billet Lane [16] and an excavation and watching brief at Egerton-Rothesay School [22-23]. The HER also records that and evaluation and test pitting were carried out at LIDL, Gossoms End in 2016 but no details have been provided.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

Hertfordshire Grim's Ditch: 210m long section immediately north-west of Woodcock Hill [Fig. 1:1] is a

Scheduled Ancient Monument located approximately 450m to the north-west of the proposal site.

The Scheduling entry gives the following reasons for designation:

‘Linear boundaries are substantial earthwork features comprising single or multiple ditches and banks which may extend over distances varying between less than 1km to over 10km. They survive as earthworks or as linear features visible as cropmarks on aerial photographs or as a combination of both. The evidence of excavation and study of associated monuments demonstrate that their construction spans the millennium from the Middle Bronze Age, although they may have been reused later. The scale of many linear boundaries has been taken to indicate that they were constructed by large social groups and were used to mark important boundaries in the landscape; their impressive scale displaying the corporate prestige of their builders. They would have been powerful symbols, often with religious associations, used to define and order the territorial holdings of those groups who constructed them. Linear earthworks are of considerable importance for the analysis of settlement and land use in the Bronze Age; all well-preserved examples will normally merit statutory protection. The boundary known as the Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire Grim's Ditch includes numerous surviving sections from within three main linear earthworks aligned along the

9 between Bradenham and Berkhamsted, spanning a total distance of 18km. It does not appear that these principal sections were ever joined to form a continuous boundary. Current evidence suggests that the sometimes quite sizeable gaps represent areas which were formerly forested or in which natural features served to perpetuate a division of the land. The same pattern has been discerned along the North Oxfordshire Grim's Ditch, to the west of the Thames. A further comparable linear boundary, the Moel Ditch, extends to the east across parts of neighbouring Bedfordshire. For the most part the visible sections of Grim's Ditch in the Chilterns include a wide single ditch flanked by a bank of upcast earth, which is always upslope of the ditch. Other features, discovered by limited excavations include a turf core within the bank, a berm separating bank and ditch (concealed over time by the spread of bank material) and a trench for a fence or palisade, along the outer rim of the ditch. The Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire Grim's Ditch is thought to have served as a territorial boundary, separating, and perhaps enclosing, organised groups of land and settlement. It may also have been an agricultural boundary, denoting grazing areas and impeding the movement (or theft) of stock. Excavations to date have provided only limited dating evidence. Pottery recovered from the fill of the ditch indicates that it was in existence in the Iron Age. As such, the boundary provides important evidence for the management of the landscape in the centuries preceding the Roman Conquest in AD 43, although it may have a considerably earlier origin. It remained a notable feature in later centuries, acquiring its present name (a variation on the name of the god, Odin) at some point in the early medieval period, perhaps during the period of pagan Saxon settlement in the 5th and 6th centuries. The earliest recorded use of the term ‘Grim's Ditch’ occurs in a charter granted by Edward, in 1291. All sections of the Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire Grim's Ditch which survive in visible form, or as well- preserved buried remains (identified by aerial photography or ground survey), are considered integral to a general understanding of the monument and will normally merit statutory protection. This section of Grim's Ditch immediately north-west of Woodcock Hill survives well as a visible earthwork along most of its length and provides a fascinating insight into the nature of early territorial land division in the Chiltern Hills. It will contain archaeological evidence for the manner of its construction as well as environmental evidence for the appearance of the landscape in which it was built. The archaeological evidence may also include artefacts or scientific dating material from which to determine the period of its construction and the duration of its maintenance as an active boundary’.

Neither the SAM nor its setting will be affected negatively by development on the proposal site due to distance and the intervening development.

Cartographic and documentary sources

The toponym Berkhamsted derives from Old English berg meaning ‘a hill’ and hm-stede denoting ‘a homestead’ giving the composite meaning of ‘Homestead on a hill’ (Mills 2011, 52-3). At the time of Domesday

Book the town is recorded as Berchehamstede and prior to this, in c. 10th century, it is recorded as

Beorhthanstaedae (ibid.).

Other than the name there is little evidence relating to Saxon Berkhamsted. Northchurch, formerly known as Berkhampstead St Mary’s, was a large parish of Saxon origin. It would seem probable that at one time the parish of Berkhampstead St Peter, or Great Berkhampstead, which is bounded on the east and west sides by the parish of Northchurch, formed a part of the latter parish. In the entry in the Domesday Survey relating to

Berkhampstead there is mention of a priest with fourteen villagers, possibly indicating a manor of the rectory, which existed at Northchurch, while there is no evidence of such a manor at Great Berkhampstead, so it is

10 possible that the priest of Domesday belonged to Northchurch. It was extremely unusual to find two parishes occupying the whole extent of one manor (VCH 1908, 162-171).

However, after the Conquest the focus of the area shifted from Northchurch to the castle at Berkhamsted. It was at Berkhamsted that the Saxons surrendered to the , with the Archbishop of and Saxon nobility swearing loyalty to William. This episode is noted in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, which record that

William met with Archbishop Aldred, Prince Edgar, Earl Edwin, Earl Morcar, and all the best men from

(Swanton 2000, 200; VCH 1908, 162-171). William then granted Berkhamsted to his half-brother, the Count of

Mortain, who soon afterwards had the Castle constructed (Birtchnell 1972).

Domesday Book of 1086 records that Robert, Count of Mortain held Berchehamstede in Treung (Tring)

Hundred. Prior to the Conquest the manor had been held by Eadmer (or Edmer Atule), a thegn of Earl Harold.

The manor was assessed at 13 hides with land for 26 ploughs. Fourteen villagers and fifteen smallholders (heads of households) and a priest are listed, along with six slaves, a ditcher (holding ½ hide) and a sergeant of the

Court, Rannulf, who held 1 virgate. This is quite a substantial population by Domesday Book standards. It also records the fact that there were 52 burgesses who paid £4 in toll. The number of burgesses is often taken as a scribal error; possibly it includes the 39 villagers already detailed, but in fact the area of land allotted is also very large, so it is possible the town was already substantial. The presence of two mills, vineyard, pasture, meadow, and a huge area of woodland (enough for 1000 pigs) is also recorded. Mention of a vineyard is unusual for the period; the ‘ditcher’ may be unique. Possibly he was in charge of constructing the Castle earthworks. In 1066, the manor was worth £24 (this substantial value again suggests the population figure is not necessarily an error) and in 1086 it was worth £16 (Williams and Martin 2002, 378; VCH 1902, 317).

The Count of Mortain’s son, William, lost the manor of Berkhamsted having joined the rebellion against

Henry I in 1104. The manor was then granted by the king to his chancellor, Randulph after whose death in 1123 the estate reverted to the Crown. In the ensuing centuries, numerous royals and members of aristocracy claimed ownership of the manor. Following the Restoration, the honour, castle and manor of Berkhamsted returned to the

Crown and as parcel of the , remained under the control of the crown or the eldest son of the reigning sovereign till 19th March, 1862, when the manor was purchased by the trustees for John, the second Earl

Brownlow, then a minor. His brother held it at the beginning of the 20th century (VCH 1908, 162-171). During this time, Northchurch was known as the manor and halimote of Northchurch in the possession of Earl

Brownlow (VCH 1908, 245-250).

11 There is mention in the court rolls of the manor of Durrants or Northberkhampstead as early as 1495, but the name of its owner is not given. In 1607 this manor was said to be dismembered, and was in the hands of different persons. The demesne and house appear to have been held by John Orrys, who had purchased them from the Seare family. In a later survey of 1616, however, the manor is said to have been held by Henry Seare of the prince as of the honour of Berkhamsted in free and common socage for suit of court and rent. In an undated survey of the reign of James I, John Norrys or Orrys held three tenements for which he paid rent to Durrants and to the rector of Northchurch, and Timothy Dawbney held a meadow called Durrant Mead. Subsequently the manor came into the possession of John Cock, whose sister and heir, Anne Partridge held a messuage called

Durance in 1729. Her heirs sold the manor and messuage called Durrants in 1739 to Thomas Egerton. The site of this manor still existed at Durrants Farm to the south of the village of Northchurch (VCH 1908, 245-250).

The location of Berkhamsted on a major thoroughfare, combined with the presence of the Castle encouraged additional trade in the area, and as a result the town expanded into a thriving market. Kings of

England utilised the Castle as a stopping point as they travelled north-west along Akeman Street. By the early

13th century there is reference to the manufacturing of roofing tiles in the town, and by 1440 to the presence of lime kilns also. By the early 13th century the town had a weekly market and an annual fair (VCH 1908, 162-171).

The medieval settlement expanded along the High Street, rather than adjacent to the Castle. The layout would have consisted mainly of ‘burgage’ plots fronting the High Street, with plots of land to the rear. However by the mid-14th century the Castle ceased to be an important royal centre, and by the 16th century the site had fallen into ruin (VCH 1908, 162-171).

In the 17th and 18th century, Berkhamsted became an important staging post for the coaching trade, attested by number of inns in the town. During the 18th and 19th century Berkhamsted developed rapidly and this was largely due to the increase in communications with the development of the in 1805 and the railway in 1838. The presence of both the canal and railway encouraged industries such as malting and timber milling. Also by the 19th century Berkhamsted was renowned as a centre for barge construction (ibid.).

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Hertfordshire Record

Office and online in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the site’s later history and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see Appendix 2).

The earliest map available of the area is Saxton’s 1577 map of Hertfordshire (Fig. 3). While the map at this scale provides no meaningful detail as to the proposal site, it, however, depicts Barkhamsted magna

12 (Berkhamsted) as a sizable settlement straddling the unnamed with a bridge linking each bank.

Although Berkhamsted castle is not depicted, an enclosed park is shown on the town’s northern boundary. North churche (Northchurch) is shown as a separate smaller settlement to the north-west of Berkhamsted and the proposal site should be located between the two settlements. Seller’s map of Hertfordshire from 1676 (Fig. 4) reveals the town of Barkhamsted in greater of detail with buildings on either side of a main road parallel to the river and a small development on the opposite bank where the road to Hemel Hempstead leaves Berkhamsted.

The town appears to be focused around the junction of the roads to Tring, Rickmansworth, Hemel Hempstead and . A church is shown in the centre of the settlement and there appears to be a building, presumably a mill, on the river downstream from the town. North Church is well to the north-west and Barkhamsted Place to the north. Durance is shown to the south of Northchurch and it is presumed that the proposal site should have been located within this area. Both Oliver’s (1695) (Fig. 5) and Warburton’s (1749) (Fig. 6) maps of

Hertfordshire show continued development of what is now Great Barkhamsted along the main Tring-Watford road. Additional mills are shown on the river and, to the north, Barkhamsted Place appears on both maps and the castle, which has until this point been absent, makes an appearance on Warburton’s map. Durance is not shown on Oliver’s map but reappears on Warburton’s.

Dury and Andrews’ county map of 1766 (Fig. 7) is the first on which the site can be located reasonably accurately. Shootersway and Durrant’s Lane are shown, the latter with a pronounced bend adjacent to Woodcock

Hill. The proposal site appears to be laid out as an open field(s) though a precise identification is not possible because the field boundaries have been somewhat simplified.

The Berkhamsted Magna Tithe map dated 1839 (Fig. 8) is the first to allow for a reasonably precise identification of the proposal site. It is depicted as comprising parts of two open fields, 346 known as Great

Hippards and 392 known as Middle Lagley. The only distinguishing feature within the landscape is a small copse to the north-west of the proposal site beyond which is Woodcock Hill. An elongated subdivision of plot

345 shown on this plan just north west of the proposal site probably reflects the presence of the Grim's Ditch there, though this is not otherwise depicted on the plan.

The First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1877 (Fig. 9) shows the proposal site as comprising the northern parts of plots 295 and 296 as well as a small wooded section to the south of plot 290. The proposal site is bounded by open fields on all sides: 290 to the north, 294 to the east, 295 and 296 to the south and 288 to the west. The small wooded section which appears not to belong to plot 290 corresponds to the length of Grim’s

Ditch [Fig. 1:3] located within the proposal site. Some trees are visible along the boundary of plots 295 and 296

13 within the proposal site, but otherwise the proposal site has no other distinguishing features. Cox Dell is depicted as a spinney covering an old chalk pit to the north-west of the proposal site. The features is bounded by the unnamed Durrant’s Lane to the west and north. There is no depiction or mention of Grim's Ditch on this map

(nor any other until 1938 (Fig. 12) but a boundary within the woodland within the site correspond to its position.

The Second Edition Ordnance Survey map dated 1898 (Fig. 10) shows no changes to the proposal site apart from re-numbering of the fields so that now it comprises parts of plots 247 and 248 as well as the section of

Grim’s Ditch which appears to belong to the large plot 242. To the west of the proposal site two new wooded plots (249 and 250) are depicted.

The 1924 Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 11) shows the proposal site as still comprising northern parts of plots

247 and 248; however, the plots appear divided by a track/footpath numbered 248a. Roughly speaking, a third of plot 248 to the north is now covered with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous trees. Plot 247 has no distinguishing features. The section of Grim’s Ditch is now located within a separate plot numbered 242a. To the east of the proposal site some development has taken place in the form of three properties and associated grounds: The Chalet, Whitelea and Woodlands. The two wooded plots to the west of the proposal site are named

The Plantation and further forestation has taken place to the east of Cox Dell. The old chalk pit is no longer depicted within Cox Dell.

The next available map dates from 1938 (Fig. 12) and shows that the proposal site now comprises plot 107 which incorporates the section of Grim’s Ditch and the wooded section of plot 248 from the previous map, part of plot 114 (former plot 248) to the west and part of plot 115 (former plot 247). A rectangular structure is shown along the proposal site’s western boundary in plot 114. Grim’s Ditch, however, is depicted along the proposal site’s northern boundary along the section of eastern field, 115, extending to the east along the boundary of plot

113. The area in the western field is shown as an embankment bounded by trees to the north.

Following a gap in mapping of over 30 years, the 1970 Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 13) shows that the development of suburban Berkhamsted has encroached upon the agricultural landscape to the north and east of the proposal sit which is now bounded by residential development around Ridgeway to the north and Chalet

Close and associated housing to the east. To the south it remained bounded by open fields and wooded plots of

The Plantation and further open fields to the west. Grim’s Ditch is no longer depicted along the eastern field which makes up the proposal site but is marked in the western section within the wooded area. The rectangular structure along the proposal site’s western boundary is still present.

14 The next available map dates just seven years later (Fig. 14) and, although incomplete, shows that significant changes have taken place within the proposal site and the surrounding area. To the south Coppins Close and associated residential dwellings have been constructed and to the west Thomas Bourne Middle School (C of E)

(now Egerton-Rothesay School) and associated playing field and other infrastructure has been built. The proposal site itself has been converted into a playing field with a footpath in the north-western corner which appears to have been laid out over the northern embankment of Grim’s Ditch before bisecting it approximately half way of the length and leaving the proposal site to the north. The structure present within the proposal site and shown on the previous two maps has been removed.

The proposal site has remained unchanged on the last two available Ordnance Survey maps of 1991-3 (Fig.

15) and 1993-4 (Fig. 2).

Listed buildings

The only listed building recorded within a radius of 750 around the proposal site is Grade II* Edgeworth House

[Fig. 1:12] located at the very edge of the study area to the north-east. Due to the heavily built-up intervening area, the listed building and its setting will not be negatively affected by the proposed development on the site.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

There are no registered parks and gardens or registered battlefields within close proximity of the proposal site.

Historic Hedgerows

There are no hedgerows on the site that would qualify as ‘important’ as defined by Schedule 1 of the Hedgerows

Regulations 1997.

Aerial Photographs

A search was made on the Historic Archive’s database of aerial photographs on 9th August 2016. This revealed 31 vertical prints from fifteen sorties flown between October 1946 and October 2003. No specialist

(oblique) photographs were taken (Appendix 3). The underlying geology is not conducive to the production of cropmarks and therefore no photographs have been examined.

15 LiDAR

The site was not covered by LiDAR (EA 2016).

Discussion

The proposal site contains one known heritage asset, a section of a prehistoric linear boundary known as Grim’s

Ditch. This section is part of the Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire Grim's Ditch which includes numerous surviving sections from within three main linear earthworks aligned along the Chiltern Hills between Bradenham and Berkhamsted, spanning a total distance of 18km. The scale of many linear boundaries has been taken to indicate that they were constructed by large social groups from at least the later Bronze Age (but with the larger examples here more likely to be of Iron Age or possibly Saxon date) and were used to define blocks of territory

Such surviving earthworks are of considerable importance for the analysis of settlement and land use in these periods. The presence of a section of Grim’s Ditch within the north-western corner of the proposal site, indicates high archaeological potential for this part of the site. This significance is reflected by a well preserved section to the west which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Within the north west corner of the proposal site the monument is not especially well preserved as an earthwork and its course is lost further to the east. There is no above ground trace of a parallel second ditch which has been observed by excavation elsewhere.

It is recommended that this area of the proposal site is excluded from the development proposal and any other construction phase works. As part of this area is already wooded and will, presumably, be retained as a part of an ecologically sensitive area this should have little impact on the design and layout of the development proposal. Depending on the extent of this zone, non-wooded areas should be maintained as grassland without new woodland planting. It is suggested that geophysical survey and possibly trial trenching be used to define this exclusion area in particular with reference to the location of a possible second ditch to the south of the bank.

It remains further to establish if there are any additional previously unknown heritage assets, that is, below-ground archaeological remains on the remainder of the site . In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account, including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use including the proposed development. The site is also large enough to increase the likelihood of archaeological remains of some period being present simply by chance.

The study area contains, in addition to sections of Grim’s Ditch, evidence for Bronze Age, Iron Age and

Roman occupation as well as limited evidence for Saxon and medieval activity. Fieldwork immediately to the south and south-west of the proposal site revealed an area of low density Bronze and Iron Age settlement and

16 burial. The proposed development would undoubtedly carry the potential to damage or destroy archaeological deposits, if present, in areas of building footprints, landscaping and service trenches.

It is considered that it will also be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the remainder of the proposal site from the field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. If requested, a scheme for this evaluation will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the Council and carried out by a competent archaeological contractor. If an exclusion zone for the area of the Grim's Ditch can be incorporated into the development site layout prior to a planning application been made, invasive evaluation fieldwork could be implemented by an appropriately worded condition to any consent gained.

References

BGS, 2016, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html (accessed: 28th August 2016) Birtchnell, P, 1972, A Short History of Berkhamsted, Berkhamsted Bryant, S, 1997, ‘Iron Age’, in J Glazebrook (ed), Research and Archaeology: a framework for the Eastern Counties: 1- Resource assessment, E Anglian Archaeol Occas Pap 3, 23–34 Bryant, S R and Niblett, R, 1997, ‘The late Iron Age in Hertfordshire and the north Chilterns’, in A Gwilt and C Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies, Oxford, 270–281 CIfA, 2014, Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment, Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, Reading DBC, 2004, Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011, Dacorum Borough Council DBC, 2013, Core Strategy 2006-2031, Dacorum Borough Council Doggett, N and Hunn, J, 1985, ‘The origins and development of medieval Berkhamsted’, Herts Past 18, 18–36 EA, 2016, http://environment.data.gov.uk/ds/survey/index.jsp#/survey, (accessed: 4th August 2016) Going, C J, 1997, ‘Roman’, in J Glazebrook (ed), Research and Archaeology: a framework for the Eastern Counties: 1- Resource assessment, E Anglian Archaeol Occas Pap 3, 35–45 Margary, I, D, 1955, Roman Roads in Britain, London Mills, A D, 2011, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London Ritchie, S, 2014, An archaeological evaluation at land at Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, HP4 3TR, Archaeology South-East, Portslade Swanton, M, 2000, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, (rev edn), London Thompson, I and Bryant, S, 2005, Extensive Urban Surveys Berkhamsted Revised Assessment, Hertford Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London VCH, 1902, Victoria History of the Counties of England: Hertfordshire, i, London VCH, 1908, Victoria History of the Counties of England: Hertfordshire, ii, London

17 APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within a 750m search radius of the development site

No HER Ref Grid Ref (SP) Type Period Comment 1 MHT50 945 087 Linear earthwork Prehistoric Grim's Ditch, from Berkhamsted to Leylands Farm, Scheduled monument Bucks. Probable boundary ditch, surviving in sections (mostly in woodland) in various state of preservation. The 210m long section immediately north-west of Woodcock Hill is a SAM (35349). 2 MHT2022 970 083 Linear earthwork Prehistoric Grim's Ditch, Darr's Lane, Northchurch. The earthwork EHT1534 97220 08154 Archaeological survey Modern has been destroyed west of Darr's Lane by the brickworks. The extant earthworks 200m to the east and south-east have been surveyed. 3 MHT2023 9763 0796 Linear earthwork Prehistoric Grim's Ditch, Shootersway. A short length of Grim's Ditch at the northern boundary of the playing field of Egerton-Rothesay School. The bank is c. 1m high by c. 2m wide. Several large trees are growing on the bank. The ditch is hardly visible. 4 MHT30854 97365 07934 Cremation? Bronze Age Possible Bronze Age cremation recorded during the EHT7899 97351 07816 Evaluation Modern evaluation of land at Durrant’s Lane. Truncated mid to later Bronze Age pot in a pit, presumably a cremation burial 5 MHT30854 9740 0771 Ditch Bronze Age Late Bronze Age to earliest Iron Age features recorded EHT7899 97351 07816 Pit Iron Age during the evaluation of land at Durrant’s Lane. Post-hole Modern Ditches, pits and post holes with prehistoric pottery. Evaluation 6 MHT30856 97522 07795 Ditch Bronze Age Middle Iron Age features recorded during the EHT7899 97351 07816 Fire pit/hearth? Iron Age evaluation of land at Durrant’s Lane. Cut features Post hole Saxon including a ditch, pit, fire pit/heath, post holes, late Findspot Modern Bronze Age pottery, early and middle Iron Age pottery Evaluation and a post-Roman to middle Saxon penannular brooch. 7 MHT178 98 08 Findspot Iron Age Hallstatt-type bronze brooch, without secure provenance, found within Berkhamsted parish. 8 MHT4595 9686 0892 Road Roman Akeman Street (the Viatores' road 16A). One of the main routes west from Verulamium to the county boundary west of Tring. It may be assumed that where it runs through the narrow Bulbourne valley, the Roman road was an engineered version of an existing route from the late Iron Age (and Roman) iron-ore producing sites at Cow Roast. 9 MHT1853 97 08 Findspot Roman A Romano-British bronze ‘trumpet’ brooch (2nd c.), with traces of enamel, including red on upper bowl was found at Northchurch. 10 MHT10119 9723 0823 Ridge and furrow Medieval Earthworks of ridge and furrow, near Woodcock Hill in

18 No HER Ref Grid Ref (SP) Type Period Comment Post-medieval field north of Grim’s Ditch and adjacent to Bell Lane. Present across the entire field, when noted some years ago, and a rare surviving example of plateau ridge and furrow in the Chilterns. 11 MHT17173 96915 07850 Pit Post-medieval Victorian pit recorded during the evaluation of land at EHT4485 97010 07806 Evaluation Modern the junction of Rossway and Shootersway. A shaft-like pit found in an evaluation trench contained 19th c. material; it was only partly excavated. 12 MHT9289 9796 0846 Listed building Post-medieval Edgeworth House, Northchurch. 16th c. timber-framed house, remodelled l. 18th century, wing added in 19th c. Grade II*. 13 MHT5489 9792 0720 Post box Post-medieval Wall post box, Shootersway/Cross Oak. Brick pillar wall box. 14 MHT16297 97377 08030 Documentary Post-medieval Woodcock Hill, Durrants Lane, Northchurch. Post- medieval farmstead, demolished in the 1840s. 15 MHT16296 97315 08159 Documentary Post-medieval Woodcock Hill, Northchurch. 19th c. country house on older site, once the home of the McVitie family. 16 MHT9314 9817 0835 Documentary Post-medieval Approximate site of Northchurch Parish Workhouse, MHT13722 98175 08343 Cartographic Negative Billet Lane. It was demolished between 1830 and 1834, EHT1162 98174 08376 Watching brief Modern following the transferral of the inmates to a new building in Berkhamsted. Site of The Crooked Billet, Billet Lane. Post-medieval inn building demolished in the early 1960s. Shown on the 1766 Dury & Andrews’ map; the earliest reference to it as the Crooked Billet was in 1753. Watching brief at The Crooked Billet (Majestic Wine Warehouse), Billet Lane revealed no archaeological features or finds. 17 MHT18188 97829 08476 Cartographic Post-medieval Site of Durrant's Farm, High Street. Post-medieval farmstead with medieval origins, demolished in the later 20th c. Shown on later 19th c. OS mapping on the south side of the main road between Berkhamsted and Northchurch. The farm had medieval origins; the name is associated with the family of Adam Durant, documented in 1294. 18 MHT18670 97770 07185 Cartographic Post-medieval Site of Crossoak, Oakwood. A large villa shown on the 1878 OS map on the south-western side of Shootersway. Crossoak and its grounds were built over in l. 20th c. 19 MHT31143 97546 08083 Cartographic Post-medieval Chalk pit, Cox Dell, Durrant’s Lane. Disused by mid- 19th c. Shown on the 1839 Tithe map and 19th c. OS maps. 20 MHT30857 9732 0778 Ditch Undated Undated features recorded during the evaluation at EHT7899 97351 07816 Stake hole Durrant’s Lane. A small amount of knapping debris Post hole from possibly Neolithic to Bronze Age flintworking was also retrieved suggesting a prehistoric date for the features. 21 MHT17174 96975 07765 Post hole Undated Undated (though possibly prehistoric) features recorded EHT4485 97010 07806 Pit Modern during the evaluation of land at the junction of Rossway Evaluation and Shootersway. A post hole and pit, which on excavation produced a flint scraper and two waste flint flakes were found in an evaluation trench. 22 EHT7414 9750 0788 Geophysical survey Modern Geophysical survey of land at Shootersway and EHT1483 97474 07903 Excavation Negative Durrant’s Lane identified various anomalies, but none Modern that might be the course of Grim's Ditch. Most of the anomalies are probably natural variations in the local plateau drift geology. Excavation at Egerton-Rothesay School revealed no archaeological features or finds. 23 EHT1480 97497 08008 Watching brief Negative Watching brief at Egerton-Rothesay School, Durrant’s Modern Lane revealed no archaeological features or finds. 24 EHT8070 98135 08390 Evaluation Modern Evaluation and test pit at LIDL, Gossoms End. No EHT8141 98150 08390 Test pit details provided.

19 APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1577 Saxton’ map of Hertfordshire (Fig. 3) 1676 Seller’s map of Hertfordshire (Fig. 4) 1695 Oliver’s map of Hertfordshire (Fig. 5) 1749 Warburton’s map of Hertfordshire (Fig. 6) 1766 Dury and Andrews’ map of Herefordshire (Fig. 7) 1839 Berkhamsted Magna Tithe map (Fig. 8) 1877 Ordnance Survey First Edition (Fig. 9) 1898 Ordnance Survey Second Edition (Fig. 10) 1924 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 11) 1938 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 12) 1970 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 13) 1977 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 14) 1991-3 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 15) 1993-4 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 2) 2016 Ordnance Survey – Explorer digital edition at 1:25,000 (Fig. 1)

20 APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted (all vertical)

No Year taken Sortie number Frame number Grid ref (SP) Comment 1 11 OCT 1946 RAF/CPE/UK/1786 5337 980 083 2 10 OCT 1946 RAF/CPE/UK/1779 3212-3 980 071 3 02 JUN 1947 RAF/CPE/UK/2136 3181-2 975 081 4 21 JUN 1949 RAF/541/272 4238-9 971 073 5 26 JUL 1949 RAF/541/340 3339-40 973 078 6 30 AUG 1961 RAF/58/4655 37-9 968 085 7 16 AUG 1961 RAF/58/4627 473-4 969 085 8 17 AUG 1966 OS/66204 196, 215 977 083 9 20 OCT 1970 OS/70431 279 976 078 10 06 AUG 1992 OS/92385 413-4 977 078 11 12 NOV 1993 OS/93609 290-1, 307-8 970 076 12 18 OCT 1994 OS/94535 171-2, 223-4 981 075 13 25 JUN 2001 OS/01942 474 976 074 14 29 JUN 2003 OS/031019 6707 976 086 15 12 OCT 2003 OS/031020 1734-5 970 074 NB: Grid reference given is for start of run; multiple frames may offer wide coverage.

21 Letchworth Hitchin Bishop’s Stortford

Hemel Hempstead Hertford Ware

9 09000 St Albans

SITE Watford

8

17 12 24 16

2 10

1 15 21 SITE 14 23 3 8 08000 9 7 4 22 11 6 21 20 5

18 13

7 07000

SP97000 98000 DBH 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 1. Location of site within Berkhamsted and Hertfordshire showing Hertfordshire HER records. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital mapping at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 DBH 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 2. Current site layout Approximate location of site

DHB 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 3. Saxton's map of Hertfordshire 1577 Approximate location of site

DHB 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 4. Seller's map of Hertfordshire 1676 Approximate location of site

DHB 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 5. Oliver's map of Hertfordshire 1695 Approximate location of site

DHB 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 6. Warburton's map of Hertfordshire 1749 Approximate location of site

DHB 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 7. Dury and Andrews' map of Hertfordshire 1766 Site

DBH 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 8. Berkhamsted Magna Tithe map 1839 Site

DBH 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 9. Ordnance Survey 1877 Site

DBH 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 10. Ordnance Survey 1898 Site

Site

DBH 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 11. Ordnance Survey 1924 Site

DBH 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 12. Ordnance Survey 1938 Site

DBH 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 13. Ordnance Survey 1970 Site

DBH 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 14. Ordnance Survey 1977 Site

DBH 16/143 N Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 15. Ordnance Survey 1991-3 Plate 1. Site looking west towards the school Plate 2. Site from centre of field looking south-west

Plate 3. Grims Ditch setting looking north east Plate 4. Grims Ditch looking east

Plate 5. Site from north-east looking south Plate 6. Site from south-west looking north-east

DBH 16/143 Land off Durrant's Lane, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Plates 1 to 6 TIME CHART

Calendar Years

Modern AD 1901

Victorian AD 1837

Post Medieval AD 1500

Medieval AD 1066

Saxon AD 410

Roman AD 43 BC/AD Iron Age 750 BC

Bronze Age: Late 1300 BC

Bronze Age: Middle 1700 BC

Bronze Age: Early 2100 BC

Neolithic: Late 3300 BC

Neolithic: Early 4300 BC

Mesolithic: Late 6000 BC

Mesolithic: Early 10000 BC

Palaeolithic: Upper 30000 BC

Palaeolithic: Middle 70000 BC

Palaeolithic: Lower 2,000,000 BC Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47-49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 5NR

Tel: 0118 9260552 Fax: 0118 9260553 Email: [email protected] Web: www.tvas.co.uk