Malmesbury Town Walls, Malmesbury, Wiltshire
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THEWiltshire PREHIS ArchaeologicalTORIC &AND Natural MEDIEVAL History Magazine, DEFENCES vol. 104 (2011),OF M ALMESBURYpp. 79-94 79 The prehistoric and medieval defences of Malmesbury: archaeological investigations at Holloway, 2005-2006 by Mark Collard and Tim Havard with contributions by J. Hart, E. R. McSloy, J. Meadows, S. Warman and T. P. Young Archaeological work associated with the restoration of a section of the town walls of Malmesbury provided further evidence that the medieval wall followed the line of a rampart of an Iron Age hillfort. Radiocarbon dates suggest that the rampart was built in the earlier Iron Age, and it appears that the hillfort defences were subsequently remodelled by the addition of further external ramparts. It is likely that this was associated with the elaboration of the defences around an entrance close to the site adopted for the medieval East Gate. Some extant medieval masonry of the town wall was also revealed. wall, which at this point is a Scheduled Monument Introduction (Wilts. 881). This section of the town wall traverses the crest of the western valley of the River Avon, which Between October 2005 and January 2006 Cotswold surrounds the Malmesbury promontory on three Archaeology (CA) carried out a programme sides. The underlying geology comprises Jurassic of archaeological recording during the repair, Cornbrash with alluvial deposits present towards restoration and reconstruction of a section of the the Avon (BGS 1970). town wall of Malmesbury (centred at ST 9356 8733; The archaeological, historical and topographical Figure 1). The work was prompted by the collapse in context of Malmesbury’s defences has recently been recent years of a c.15m length of walling in the area described in detail in a report on the archaeological between Holloway to the north and a 19th-century investigations of 1998-2000 on the line of the town railway cutting to the south. The work was conducted wall at Nun’s Walk, to the south of the present site under the aegis of North Wiltshire District Council (Longman 2006; locations shown on Figure 1). In and was grant-aided by English Heritage. Following summary, this work concluded that the defences the completion of the restoration works in May originated as part of an Early Iron Age hillfort. 2006, an excavation trench was dug to characterise Successive remodelling and enhancement of the the nature of archaeological deposits immediately defences occurred during the second half of the 1st outside the town wall. millennium BC, and a complex sequence of ramparts The site lies to the south of East Gate (also known was recorded during the investigations, along with as the Holloway Gate) along a section of the town evidence for external ditches. Documentary evidence Cotswold Archaeology, Building 11, Kemble Enterprise Park, Cirencester, Glos., GL7 6BQ 80 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig. 1 Site location (1:2500) THE PREHISTORIC AND MEDIEVAL DEFENCES OF MALMESBURY 81 suggests that a monastery was founded at Malmesbury outside the wall. Area 3 measured 12m by 5m at the in the 7th century AD and it appears that the town had modern ground surface but was stepped in to allow been fortified as anA nglo-Saxon burh by the late 9th investigations to proceed to a maximum depth of 3m. century when it is recorded in the Burghal Hidage. The Archaeological deposits continued below this level investigations at Nun’s Walk indicated that the burh and hand-augering through the base of the central defences�������������������������������������������� were remodelled in the 10th or 11th century part of the trench identified the level of the underlying by the addition of a substantial bank and ditch. bedrock. Following completion of excavation in Further enhancement of the������������������������� defences���������������� occurred during Area 3, further geophysical surveys were conducted the early 12th century with the construction of a stone outside the wall but no archaeological anomalies wall, attributed to Bishop Roger of����������������� Sarum�����������. Following were identified (Archaeological Surveys 2006; a period of neglect at the end of the medieval period Arrow Geophysics 2006). Following completion the defences were reconstructed during the Civil of the fieldwork an assessment was made of the War before being slighted by Parliamentary forces in significance of the findings, and a programme of 1646. In the later post-medieval period, the walls were analysis proposed which has led to the production rebuilt and altered on a piecemeal basis by individual of this report (CA 2007). property owners. Results Methodology Period 1: Defences of the Iron Age Prior to the start of the repair works, resistivity and hillfort ground-penetrating radar surveys were conducted over two areas, one inside and one outside the wall Dating evidence for this period was based on Iron (Figure 1; Archaeological Surveys 2005; Arrow Age pottery recovered from several rampart deposits Geophysics 2005). No additional evidence for the in Area 1 and on radiocarbon dates for deposits in development of the defences was revealed by either Areas 1 and 2. Other contexts were assigned to this survey. period on the basis of their similarity to dated ones or Before site clearance, a rectified photographic and stratigraphic and spatial association. The principal survey record was made of the surviving wall fabric elements revealed of the Iron Age defences were a between the railway cutting and Holloway. The wall series of earthen ramparts (here termed A1P1-A3) was then cleared of undergrowth and loose rubble and a drystone wall 1073 which formed a facing for under archaeological supervision. Wall fabric was at least one of them. removed by the contractor only where unstable; this included a section of upstanding wall by the railway Area 1 cutting, but not the length where the wall stood to The removal of undergrowth and unstable stonework full height nearest to the East Gate. The approach exposed rampart deposits to the rear of the town adopted to the repair programme was to remove wall. Within the south-western part of Area 1 the sufficient fabric to ensure that the exposed footings rampart deposits lay directly against the rear face were suitable to carry the load of the reconstructed of the wall but to the north-west a gap between the wall; in practice this equated to the level at which wall and the rampart deposits had been backfilled solid, in situ wall fabric was encountered. Following during the medieval or post-medieval periods with clearance of all loose material to that level, the area rubble 1074. Section AA (Figure 3) illustrates a was cleaned and recorded archaeologically. The section through the rampart deposits following the major exposures were a large section of rampart partial removal of the rubble 1074 lay up against behind the wall and the upper surviving courses the face of the Iron Age rampart. No cross section of the wall itself. Together, these are designated as was available through the Iron Age wall 1073 and Area 1 (Figure 2). the ramparts; consequently the wall does not appear Area 2 was excavated at right angles to the outer on Section AA. face of the wall, primarily for engineering purposes. Four phases of rampart construction were Following the completion of the restoration works, identified, surviving to a total height of more than Area 3 was excavated to determine the presence 1.5m. Rampart A1P1 was the earliest exposed or otherwise of prehistoric or medieval ditches rampart, although the base of the archaeological 82 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig. 2 Areas investigated (1:125) Fig. THE PREHISTORIC AND MEDIEVAL DEFENCES OF MALMESBURY 83 Fig. 3 Area 1, Section A-A showing Iron Age ramparts exposed by the removal of the collapsed section of the town wall (1:100) sequence was not reached and earlier phases suggestive of a cross section through a north-west/ may have been present. It was constructed using south-east aligned rampart. Three large stones (3007) layers of firm brown, grey and orange-brown clay. set firmly into the outer side of the rampart may be Although the profile of these deposits suggests that a the remains of a drystone wall, which appeared to longitudinal section through a south-west/north-east continue beyond the area of investigation. aligned rampart is represented, this must remain a Rampart A1P4 had been built on to the rear face tentative conclusion since no faces to the rampart of Rampart A1P3, although its full extent did not were exposed. A small quantity of late Bronze survive as its inner face had been truncated by the Age/Early Iron Age pottery was recovered from 19th-century railway cutting. A single sherd of late rampart layers 1051, 1049, 1050, 1048 and 1047 and Bronze Age/Early Iron Age pottery was recovered a radiocarbon date of 730–390 cal BC (OxA-18757; from dump 1053. Table 1) was obtained from a residue present on one of the sherds from 1051. The upper surface of Area 2 Rampart A1P1 survived as a distinctive pale clay Wall 1073, also observed in Area 1, was again exposed layer (1046), perhaps a product of the weathering of and here was faced with roughly coursed and dressed the upper surface of the rampart. The lowest exposed stones with rubble to the rear (Figures 4 and 5). It was layers of Rampart A1P1 were abutted along much excavated to a depth of 1m, exposing fifteen courses, of their eastern side by the rear face of a dry-built without its base being reached. A second drystone limestone wall 1073 (not visible in section AA). It wall 1027, identified at the south-eastern end ofA rea was not possible to determine whether this wall 2 was also built from limestone rubble.