Hardenclough Farm Edale Derbyshire
Archaeological Survey 1997
W.J. Bevan Survey Archaeologist
Archaeology Service n PEAK~ dNATIONAL~ Caring (or a Living Landscape AC/S HARDENCLOUGH FARM, EDALE, DERBYSHIRE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1997
BILL BEVAN
PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE HOW TO USE THIS REPORT
The following archaeological report is the result of a field survey of the farm or land undertaken by a Peak District National Park Authority survey archaeologist. It is divided into nine major parts to allow easy access to different aspects of the information.
The Summary describes changes in land use over time and notes the main archaeological features. Use this section for a brief overview of the survey area as an archaeological landscape.
The Introduction describes when the survey was conducted, for whom, its scale and scope. Use this section for brief details of the date of survey and other technical details.
Part 1 is a concise description of the types and the date of archaeological features identified and also describes the field boundaries. Use this section for an overview of the archaeological features within the survey area and an outline of the field boundaries.
Part 2 describes the character of the land and also discusses changes in land use over time, based on the features 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 for an assessment of the archaeological character of different parts of the area surveyed.
Part 3 is the map, showing all of the archaeological features recognised by the survey. Use this section to find out the locations of sites within the survey area.
Part 4 is the catalogue, listing all the archaeological features discovered by the survey. Use this section for a detailed description and an interpretation of each feature.
Part 5 is an assessment of the relative ·importance of the features surveyed. Use this section as a gwde to the importance of individual archaeological features in the survey area.
Part 6 is an outline guide to managing the arcliaeological features. Use this section for general suggestions on how archaeology can be managed in the landscape without undue interference with usual land management practices.
Part 7 is a glossary. Use this section for definitions of archaeological terms used in the report.
Part 8 is a bibliography of 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 the Appendices is a description of all the archive material produced in conjunction with the survey, where ·rt is kept, and a note of l1ow the survey information was recorded. HAROENCLOUGH FAR/1.1
CONTENTS
Page
Summary
Introduction 2
Part 1 Hardenclough Farm: Archaeological Features and Field Boundaries 2 Part 2 Hardenclough Farm: Changes in Land Use Through Time 4 Part 3 Hardenclough Farm: Location of Archaeological Features 8 Part 4 Hardenclough Farm: Catalogue of Archaeological Features 9 Part 5 Hardenclough Farm: Assessment of Relative Site Importance 15 Part 6 Safeguarding the Archaeological Heritage - What You Can Do 16 Part 7 Glossary of Archaeological Terms Used 19 Part 8 Bibliography 22
Appendices
A Hardenclough Farm: Description of Survey Archive 23 B Feature Recording - Survey Specifications 23
Ackno.wledgements 23
ILLUSTRATIONS
After Page Illustration 1 Location of Hardenclough Farm Contents Illustration 2 Area of Survey 1 Illustration 3 Field Boundaries 2 Illustration 4 Boundary Changes, 1839-1880 5 Illustration 5 Communication Routes 6 Illustration 6 Landscape Characterisation 7 Illustration 7 Archaeological Features 8
PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK ARCJ-1/\EOLOGY SERVICE PROJECT KEY f{ARPt;N2tJfh/-I f/11<.H ,.--..__ &JU!JrfJAY OF Nfi//oAYIL fl1Rt< ILLUSTRATION NO. I ~ HMoR flOIWS g ~A~I:\~~ TITLE lff/fflOIJ of S{)f(Ltl AJ Bradfield • Stockport • Sheffield • Macclesfield • Longnor Hartington Wars low Leek • HARDENCLOUGN FARM HARDENCLOUGH FARM, EDALE, DERBYSHIRE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1997 BILL BEVAN SUMMARY Hardenclough Farm is situated on tl1e southern side of the Vale of Edale between Rushup Edge and Cold Side to the south and the River Noe to the north. It consists of improved pasture in the valley bottom and semi-improved pasture on the valley side landslip. Thirty-seven archaeological features were recorded by the 1997 survey dating from the Medieval period to the 20th century with two features possibly dating to Prehistory. Two features are of national or regional importance (features 5, 26). There is no surviving archaeological evidence yet discovered for human activity prior to the Medieval period except for a possible Prehistor'1c round house platform (feature 17) and possible Prehistoric antecedents for the hollow-way (feature 26) running along Rushup Edge. The earliest known historical records for the area date to 1068 when the area was granted to William Peveril by William the Conqueror as part of the Royal Forest of the Peak. By the 17th century, settlement reached such numbers that it was decided to take the area out of Forest Law. The area was enclosed by 1839. Three farmsteads were also in existence by this date · Small Clough · which contains 17th century architectural elements, Greenhill · which was recorded as early as 1650, and Harding Clough - which was to the south of the present Harden Clough. Harden Clough was built between 1880 and 1921. The relationship between hedges and walls suggests that hedges were earlier than walls and that the uppermost boundary of the enclosed land was progressively moved up the valley side. PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARC!-fAEOLOGY SEf"IVICE PROJECT KEY ~y OP SUR!JG>' ~ H~LLJlJ MAM TOR HARDENCLOUGH FARM 2 HARDENCLOUGH FARM, EDALE, DERBYSHIRE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1997 INTRODUCTION The archaeological survey of this area was carried out in March 1997 for the National Trust. The survey area comprised a single large holding to the south of the River Noe (Illustration 1, 2). Included within the survey area is a parcel of land between the Edale road and Rushup Edge which was surveyed by John Barnatt in 1993 (Barnatt 1993). The results of Barnatt's 1993 survey have been incorporated into this report but no new field survey of this area has been undertaken in 1997. The principal buildings of Hardenclough Farm (feature 1) are located at Ordnance Survey National Grid reference SK 1240 8482. The survey comprised a systematic search of the farmland and discoveries were sketch plotted on an Ordnance Survey 1 :2500 base (the Peak District National Park Authority's Phase 1 survey standard). Time did not allow an extensive archive research to be undertaken and this report should not be taken as a history of the farmland, but one that largely concentrates on the identified archaeology. PART 1 HARDENCLOUGHFARM: ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES The survey identified 37 archaeological features in 1997. Of these none had been recorded previously in the Derbyshire Sites and Monuments Record (SMR), but 3 were recorded in the National Trust SM R (features 5, 11, 26) and 12 by John Barnatt's 1993 Ed ale survey (features 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37). Two features are of national or regional importance (features 5 and 26) and 34 features are considered as of local importance. Of the 36 features identified, 4 are groups of standing buildings, none of which are recorded in the SMR but one is a Listed Building (feature 5). One site recorded in the SMR has been discounted (feature 38). Features of National and Regional Importance The nationally or regionally important archaeological features that survive on the farm are Post-Medieval in date They comprise Small Clough farmstead (feature 5) and the hollow way running along Rushup Edge between Chapel-en-le-Frith and Castleton (feature 26). Features of Local Importance The majority of archaeological features of local importance within the survey area are of Post-Medieval date though some could also date back to the Medieval period. There are buildings which are in use and maintained to varying degrees (features 1, 8, 9). Most features PEAK NATIONAL PARK AHCHAEOLOGY SE Fl VICE PROJECT KEY ccX .. I' - ' '>--J' / ( I / I I \ I I ,-\ I \ I I / '\----·. \ I I l \ J \ I \ \, J 1', \ ---- I . " .. \ ..... ',,..Y"'" \ \ #'"-'-\ I + :;..- ., \_,>\ I I + I I I I 1 I I -t- I I I I \·-...\_ - --- I I I I I 1- I I I I \ + I _ 11--\'-...._1 + \;- \ ',_ ' ' \ I + I ' \ I . I 1:---- \ I + , f I ---1- C I + - I \ \ \ I ' I I \ \ \ ,.. I ' \_..- I1 \ , __ ...... / - \--~~) J + + - \ I \ I \ \ \ \ I \ I J I I I I I I I I 1· + I I + I I + / I I + I I \ -+/"+ 1.,. + > + ·+ + + + + + + + + HARDENCLOUGH FARM 3 are redundant structures related to past farming, including old boundaries (features 18, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35), sites of buildings (features 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12), sheep lees and folds (features 13, 14, 27, 34, 37), land drains (features 19, 21, 22), an area of possible narrow rig (feature 2), a milk churn stand (feature 7) and a cairn (feature 36). There are a small number of small stone-getting quarries (feature 16) and tracks which link settlements and fields (features 23, 24, 25, 28). Slaked lime was also identified in a discrete area of the landslip (feature 15), In addition there is a possible sub-circular platform which could be of any date and potentially may date from later Prehistory (feature 17). Field Boundaries Field boundaries are very much a part of the archaeological landscape but are not easily listed in a catalogue because of their large number and variety. Individually, they may seem to be of limited archaeological value, but together they are of crucial importance in understanding the development of the farmland. The current field boundaries, even those which have been abandoned and are now ruinous, are not included in the catalogue of sites given below (Part 4). However, they are shown on the archaeological features plan (Illustration 7), and also on the field boundaries plan (Illustration 3) where a distinction is made between those boundaries which are in current use and those which are ruined and which appear to have been abandoned, or where they are far from stockproof without supplementary fencing. In addition there may also be other boundaries, termed here as relict, which have been subsequently removed where footings or individual shrubs indicate that th.ese were either walls or hedges. Because of the archaeological importance of field boundaries in the landscape they are described, briefly, below. The current boundaries on the farm are drystone walls and hedges, as well as modern post and rylock fences. The walls are of similar construction and use the local gritstone. They are roughly coursed, topped with coping stones and have visible through-stones in places. There is a great deal of wall furniture built into the boundaries, comprising stone gate posts and sheep throughs. Most are built from roughly hewn gritstone, though a notable exception is the pair of dressed gateposts near to the site of Harding Clough farmstead (feature 11 ). The existing field system is the result of a sequence of enclosure pre-dating 1839 and this development through time is discussed in Part 2. Since the early 19th century there has been no major new enclosure except for the addition of new boundaries to infill larger, earlier fields. Conversely, some boundaries have been removed in recent times to accommodate modern agricultural practices or to supply stone for the rebuilding of selected walls. Walls are constantly being repaired and sometimes rebuilt: consequently, in any field wall the most recent reconstruction work may well have been in this century, even though the line of the boundary may be much older. Often their footings, and other features such as wall furniture, date back to the original construction of the boundary. Artefacts All objects found in the soil tell us something about past use of the land, but it must be remembered that they mostly have been chance finds, or are known because operations such as ploughing or building have disturbed the soil and hence allowed finds to be made. It should not be assumed that artefacts are restricted to the known findspots; it may well be that further buried objects are common in quantities in other parts of the area and that scattered objects are likely to exist over the area as a whole. The Peak National Park Archaeology Service would be grateful to be notified of the type and location of any such artefacts which are discovered on the farmland. PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCNAEOLOGY SEF?V!CE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 4 PART2 HARDENCLOUGH FARM: CHANGES IN LAND USE THROUGH TIME Archaeology is the study of how humans have used and changed the landscape in the past. This is not restricted to obvious archaeological monuments, such as prehistoric burial barrows, ancient hillforts, churches and castles. It also includes many other forms of human activity which have taken place across the land through time and which survive above or below ground to the present day, whether 5,000 or 50 years old. This archaeological record includes the relics left by farmers, labourers, miners and quarryworkers, which are just as important as those built by the Church and landed gentry. To help to identify changing land use through time, post-survey searches of published works, archival documents and maps have been undertaken. These have included a search of the previously-published archaeological literature, as well as unpublished material in the SMR and in the Peak District National Park Authority archaeological archive. Relevant texts are listed in the bibliography (Part 8). A series of large-scale maps was also consulted to assist the dating of boundaries and other features. Those used were the Edale Tithe Plan of 1839 and the Ordnance Survey 25-inch maps of 1880 and 1921. These provide established key dates, that allow the development of boundaries and buildings to be assessed. The maps enable the broad development of the enclosed landscape to be plotted for the area surveyed, from the 19th century onwards, and for projections back into the Medieval period to be made. When looking at the development of the landscape, it should be noted that the level to which archaeological features survive is related to how long they have been subjected to subsequent human activity in the landscape. Older features are far less likely to survive than those which are more recent because the land is constantly being used and altered. Consequently, a lack of surviving archaeological remains from earlier periods does not necessarily mean that the area was little used but only that later farming is likely to have obliterated the surface evidence. For a fuller account of the whole of the Vale of Edale through time see Barnatt 1993. The Character of the land around Hardenclough Farm The survey area is situated on the southern side of the Vale of Edale between the River Noe and Rushup Edge and can be divided into two different topographical zones. The northern half of the farm is situated on the gently sloping valley bottom which is dissected by cloughs and now consists of improved pasture. The southern part of the farm occupies the steeply sloping valley side and comprises extensive landslip which forms numerous hillocks and delves. It is semi-improved pasture. The landslip derives from the Marn Tor Beds of the Kinderscout Grit Group which form the southern side of the valley while the underlying geology of the valley bottom comprises the Edale Shales. The overlying soils of the valley bottom are head deposits. Prehistoric and Romano-British Occupation There is no archaeological evidence for occupation and land-use on the survey area during Prehistory or the Romano-British period and little can be said of the Vale of Edale before the medieval period. There is a possible circular platform (feature 17) which could represent the site of a later Prehistoric round house, though it could alternatively be much later in date. PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 5 That the Vale of Edale Valley was used in later Prehistory is indicated by the various barrows in the vicinity (Barnatt 1993; 1996) and the proximity of the Mam Tor hilltop enclosure. The barrows date either from the second half of the third millennium BC, or the first half of the second (circa 2500 - 1500 B.C.), and will have been built adjacent to or overlooking cultivated or grazed land. The soils within the survey area would have been too heavy to cultivate by spade or ard (wooden stick plough) and probably have been naturally wooded. The extent to which this area was exploited prior to the introduction of iron ploughs to till the clay soils is debatable. It is possible that the valley land had been cleared for grazing, but surface evidence for this has been destroyed by subsequent agricultural activity. The survey area would have been part of the landscape of the people using the adjacent and highly prominent Mam Tor hilltop enclosure and settlement (traditionally referred to as a hillfort) which dates to the later Bronze Age/earlier Iron Age. If this important monument was a settlement, as suggested by the building platforms, the occupants would have probably used the surrounding area for pasturing livestock, growing crops, hunting game and gathering plant foods. Iron ploughs, if utilised, could have been used to cultivate the heavy soils. It is possible that there was also settlement in this landscape. However further archaeological research into Mam Tor itself is required to interpret more about the nature and date range of its use and in turn the later prehistory of the surrounding district. Edale in the Anglo-Saxon and Early Medieval periods During the Anglo-Saxon and Early Medieval periods, the area was almost certainly part of a large estate belonging to a semi-autonomous group known as the Pecsaetna (The "Dwellers of the Peak") which was centred on Bakewell (Roffe 1986). This vast estate had sub-centres at Bradbourne, Wirksworth, Hope and possibly at Eyam and Alstonefield. The Domesday survey of 1086 records the area as lying within the Wapentake, or administive area, known as Hamenstan or Wirksworth (Morgan 1978; Roffe 1986). The Development of Medieval and Post-Medieval Farming and Enclosure During the Medieval period, the survey area lay within the Royal Forest of the Peak, an area of land granted by William I (the Conqueror) to William Peveril in 1068 which covered about 40 square miles (Hart 1981 ). The Forest bounds, however, fluctuated greatly through time. It was a royal hunting reserve which was formalised by the Norman Kings, although it may have been used similarly in Anglo-Saxon times (Kerry 1893, Cox 1905, Anderson and Shimwell 1981 ). This hunting reserve comprised relatively desolate areas where deer and other game were allowed to roam freely. It was largely a moorland waste, only the sheltered valleys had an extensive tree cover. The Forest courts were held at Bowden (Chapel en le Frith), Tideswell and Castleton/Hope. Peveril Castle was the administrative centre and the Foresters' chamber was at Peak Forest. The Forest laws were relaxed in the mid-13th century and gradually fell out of use, until the Forest had effectively ceased to exist by the second half of the 17th century. Significant encroachment, in the form of buildings and enclosures, by farmers into the Forest's better areas of land had started by the late 13th century. The royal holdings in Edale were granted to freeholders in the reign of Elizabeth I (probably in the last quarter of the 16th century). This effectively removed them from the Forest. The current pattern of fields and three of the four farmsteads in the survey area were in existence in 1839, the date of the earliest detailed map of the area available to the present survey (Illustration 4). The three farms were Small Clough, Greenhill and Harding Clough (features 5, 9, 11). The present Harden Clough (feature 10) was built between 1880 and 1921 to replace the earlier, and more southerly, Harding Clough (feature 11) (Ordnance Survey PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE PROJECT KEY H/J.R.~N:;,LOtHH -FARM &XI~ All/7€Pi ff,"?J1-rrseo - - -- &>uA.OP.R;r' PR6f£N7; 1&39-!W ILLUSTF_ + ,- I \ ! I I (\ I I /\ I I \ I ; \ I r ' - -1 I 1 \ I I /\ \ I 1 \ \ . . - _I I /\ \ ' - - I I I - - \ I / __ ,.. - \\\ v I }------\I 1-< \ I ,, I -'\ ... I /\_I I _ __! ) I \ \ ) \ I · · · ._ I /-;' \ i_. J. -- - I f I I ~ \ \ \ ·.1,....-,. \ \ I f , \ \ ..... - -( 15Mf!LL I,.. I 1 l I I I I I \ I J \CUXJ1H I I I I \ 1 \_.--\...--..-.\\ ~ \--LI_ -1/ ; )" _I _. r\ I I \ 1 11 / ,f I ., \ I - '- I - I .J. - - \'- I I I...... - -I · I - °""\ / .- 1 I \ / - I '-I - " ) t' I 11 I I 1 f :;;-";,:,I, I tJARD/Nq I I I ( I q~f///..L I cwnw I I I -----!- I I l. I I I\ \I, \ \ \ I \ \ '- '\ \ ' I ) \ \ \I,..-\ \ I \,,.---I,..- //I ___ __, ,..- \ /_-~ \ .--- .- I - ---:J \--' I I '\ ' / \ \ I { \ \ I \ \ \ I I \ _\ I \ ----- '- I - -- ',I -----~ I I \ I I I I I \ \ \ I I \ I I \ I I I I I / I I I I : ~- ~ I I --- I + I I ---,1 + ~-----L ______<.----, ~ + ,~ I + + + + + + + HARDENCLOUGH FARM 6 1880; 1921). Greenhill is recorded as early as 1650 by a Parliamentary Survey (Cameron 1959). Architecturally, standing buildings at Small Clough date from the 17th century onwards. However, this is the norm for the Peak District as a whole, irrespective of the history of particular townships, and often reflects rebuilding rather than the foundation dates of such farms. It is therefore far from clear when all but the present Harden Clough were built. The earliest surviving documents for four of the five Edale booths date to the late 16th/early 17th centuries, while Grindsbrook Booth is recorded in 1342 (Cameron 1959). All the booths probably have Medieval origins (Barnatt 1993). It is possible that the dispersed farms of the valley reflect subdivision of the landscape that only started after the royal holdings came into private ownership in the late 16th century. This seems particularly likely on the southern side of the valley which is divided into a series of narrow strips which suggests purposeful subdivision of areas that may well have been farmed communally prior to their partition. However, the possibility that the division of Edale into five booths was an administrative convenience cannot be discounted; and thus there may have been more farms from Medieval times onwards. The foundation of the three farms and the enclosure of the field system as present in 1839 may therefore have begun in the Medieval period or after the transferral of the Forest into private hands in the late 16th century. There is a common ct1ronological relationship between hedges and walls throughout the valley which suggests that the earlier boundaries were hedges which were later replaced in places by dry-stone walls. This is clear elsewhere in the valley where the bottom is dominated by walls, the upper valley sides by walls, and the lower valley slopes contain a mixture of both hedges and walls. The survey area is slightly different to many other areas of Edale with hedges, or hedge banks, generally intermixed with walls. However where both boundary types exist together walls overlie and are later than hedges. Also the boundary along Rushup Edge and part of the boundary lying immediately below Rushup Edge, the two uppermost boundaries on the valley side, were created originally as walls and did not replace hedges. The documentation of settlement and boundary relationship suggests the following h'1story of enclosure in the survey area. Large enclosed strips running between the river and valley side may have been laid out during the later Medieval or earlier Post-Medieval periods. These were defined by hedges and each associated with a separate farmstead in the valley bottom. The upper limits of these enclosed areas may have been demarcated by boundaries running along the valley side partway into the landslip zone. Over time the large areas were sub divided into smaller fields and their upper limits were moved progressively up the valley side towards Rushup Edge, all of which was complete before 1839 (anon. 1839). Some hedges were replaced by walls and the boundaries highest up the valley side were built originally as walls. Attempts to improve the pasture higher up the valley side can be seen in the presence of a scatter of slaked lime (feature 15) within molehills and erosion scars within the landslip just below the Edale to Mam Nick road. Lime was produced across much of the limestone plateau of the Peak District in kilns for fertiliser, among other uses, from the Medieval period to early the present century. Liming of moorlands and upland pastures was prevalent in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as a major component of the ideology and practice of agricultural improvement. Woodlands Apart from cloughside scrub the only woodlands present within the survey area are recent plantations. PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARC/-IAEOLOGY SERVICE PROJECT KCV {3oUNOf\R.Y oF :SURIKY AAL5'1 H~J..OU'il-i PARM --- TUROV'iµ ROVJe; p K~ ILLUSTf /\ \ ,,... - / \ / \ / I // \ ( \ \ \ \ \ } • 1 I \ ,,,...,,,,.~'°''- I I /~ I _, \ I I-- I I '/ I I I I I I I - ···.,. HARDENCLOUGH FARM 7 Communication Routes There are a small number of communication routes within the survey area (Illustration 5). Most are short-distance trackways (features 23, 24, 25. 28) allowing access between settlements, fields and longer-distance routes. The longer through-routes crossing the survey area are the present metalled Mam Nick to Edale road which overlies an earlier packhorse route (Dodd and Dodd 1980) and the hollow-way running along the southern side of the Rushup Edge ridge. It may be a ridgetop route of some antiquity, which is difficult to prove from the field evidence, but is the remains of a Post-Medieval packhorse route which may have Medieval origins (Dodd and Dodd 1980). It continues to both the east and west of the survey area (Barnatt 1993; Beamish 198[?]) and directly links Chapel en le Frith in the west and Castleton to the east. Tideswell, Hayfield, Hope and the Edale Valley were also connected via other trackways branching from this route. Packhorse routes were a principal form of road transport from the early Middle Ages until the 18th century. Packhorse routes were still in use during the 19th century in the Peak District, especially for light transportation. Packhorses generally travelled in a "train" sometimes up to 40 or 50 in single file. Many packhorse routes were paved with large stone slabs to prevent erosion and improve traction in wet weather. These were often known as causeways with rivers negotiated by narrow humped bridges which sometimes date back to the Medieval period (Dodd and Dodd 1980). On steep hillsides packhorse tracks often form hollow-ways due to erosion caused by repetitive use of the specific routes. Landscape Characterisation (see Illustration 6). The analysis of land use through time allows Hardenclough Farm to be divided into a number of zones which have different archaeological landscape characteristics (Illustration 6). Whilst 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). Archaeological features which are not characteristic of such landscape zones are still regarded as valuable, even though they may be seen as untypical of activities normally associated with each zone. Zone A: Traditional Enclosure, complete by 1839. The valley bottom and part of the valley side landslip comprises traditional enclosure, bounded with walls and hedges into small, irregular. fields. This area had been enclosed by 1839. Zone B: Intaking, complete by 1839. The upper part of the valley side landslip comprises the intaking of this land into larger areas defined by hedges and walls. Most of the boundaries run along the contour and suggest progressive intaking of land up the valley side. PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE rPROJEC1 TKEY TR.APITIQN.CJ/_ GNCl..05VR.€ ,,_~-,~~-~~-=---, f j' l--Ai'$5Cll{/q Coring for o LJving Landscape cl PART 3 HARDENCLOUGH FARM: LOCATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES The following archaeological features plan (Illustration 7) records all the archaeological sites identified on the farm during fieldwork in 1997. Each archaeological feature is identified by a number which corresponds with that used in the catalogue in Part 4 below. It should be noted that although the farm was surveyed systematically, this was done rapidly over a short period of time. There may well be some archaeological features which were missed, particularly if the earthworks are low to the ground. This is inevitable since some features are only visible under specific light conditions, for example, when the sun is low or at a particular angle. A further problem to note is that any archaeological feature visible at the surface may also have buried deposits beneath it. These include foundations, postholes, pits and artefacts. Pits in particular often contain 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 farmland that still remain undiscovered. PEAK NATIONAL PARK Ar!CHAEOLOGY SERVICE PROJECT H~()7JI F.ARH ILLUSTRATION NO. 7 TITLE Af4::HP6:/IL>9 /CAL FG"fmJ!iE5 FIELDW.ORK DATE HftRCU l"f'f7 DRAWING DATE WIRCH l'i'r7 DRAFTSPERSON KKrB REF. / KEY -- hYlLL -II-- '1AJG 7T S!e:f> Tl/l?CJIH/{ -·-·- ~ ····· "6[7f€ ON 8ANJ< • • • 6ANI< • • • /..Y NC J.le/ 15A/Jk ~ !11/CH ...... ' .. ' . +·+· Fe.J<:E Ar € (}%" oF SU""51 MIS" A ----- (711.Af N • -n: -~~ t?ISUS€/7 "YPf)c:J4.JAY ::;;'1·.;1:::.-: rP.llcktJJ ~ Wfir'"R. C:OU.Rs6S ~ g~A~l~N~~ Caring for a uving Landscape Peak Park Joint Planning Board, AJdern House, Baslow RDad, Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45 1AE Tel. 01629 816200 Fax.01629 816310 +."'". + ·•. +. +·+· •.•. +·+· I +-. + . + . "' . .,. . +. i "'. ... ,4 . • .. ' .... 4 "3 ·'t\ . i '· • • • • • • • .. .•. • (,. .... ) . . ·· .. // 15 ... 3 r :f ' . '· .2'1 • /' I + ' (J.• 20 '~ ·'' ' I I + ...... + 36 I + 21 / t + 35 I • 37 I t 0-- I + I t I t I + / .+ ·+ " . 21 13 • .. • .... ~ ...... I • • • ~·-····-~ ""16+ + + + "'\ ·10 3~ .,, • - ' ',. ' ' / 28/ ,., 35 I I ' I . ' I : 33 : . .~ . .~ ' . ... ~ "' ••.,:m·:.<·-r• 0 300 M ""' ' HARDENCLOUGH FARM 9 PART 4 HARDENCLOUGH FARM: CATALOGUE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES 1. Hardenclough Farmstead. Hardenclough farmstead comprises three two-storey gritstone buildings forming two sides of a courtyard. The farmhouse is situated at the south-side of the courtyard while two con-joined outbuildings are located at the east-side of the yard. The house and one outbuilding have tiled roofs while the second outbuilding was being re-roofed with stone slates during the time of the present archaeological survey. The ot11er buildings of the farmstead are all modern. Hardenclough farmstead was only built between 1880 and 1921 (Ordnance Survey 1880, 1921 ). Only a single building is shown by the 1880 Ordnance Survey at the present farmstead site, which was situated at the location now occupied by the small, stone-built, modern barn nearest to the entrance to the farmyard. This building was a field barn as recorded in the Tithe Award of 1842 and shown on the Tithe Plan of 1839 (anon. 1842; anon. 1839). There was a Hardenclough farmstead pre-dating 1839 which was to the south of the present site (feature 11 }. 2. Possible Narrow Rig. An area which appears to contain very laint traces ol narrow rig. There is a suggestion of parallel ridges running downslope within a field north-east of Hardenclough farmstead. If there is narrow rig in this location ii may be better observed during snow-melt. 3. Site of Building. A small rectangular building surviving as stone and brick rubble and a small level terrace. The building was in existence by 1839 (anon. 1839) and was probably a field barn. A trackway is shown by the Ordnance Survey of 1880 as leading to the building from the south west. It was demolished after 1921 (Ordnance Survey 1921). 4. ·cairns'. Three small cairns or piles ol stone lying in a row. They appear to be relatively recent and not the product of Prehistoric or Medieval agricultural field clearance. They may be further rubble from the nearby building (feature 3). 5. Small Clough Farmstead (NT SMR 60487; Listed Building Grade II 212/6/47). Small Clough farmstead comprises four buildings arranged in an east-to-west oriented row running across the slope. They are all built from coursed gritstone with gritstone dressings and three are two-storeys while the fourth is single-storey. The farmhouse and attached barn are listed buildings. The farmhouse is the eastern-most building wh'rch has two three-light mullion windows in its upslope side, and stone slate rool and has been extended at ground level on the downslope side. The house is conjoined with a barn which also has a stone slate roof and has been similarly extended along the downslope side. Both buildings have a brick ridge stack and gable end stack. In addition to the downslope extension both show evidence of alterations in the form of blocked windows and doors. Next in the row is a walled yard then there is another barn which has a tiled roof. Upslope of this barn is the only single-storey building, a small store roofed in stone slate. A field wall forms the boundary wall to a yard immediately downslope of the farmstead. PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCNAEOLOGY SERVICE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 10 Architectural features point to the farmhouse and attached barn having a 17th century date of construction with alterations made in the 19th century. The farmhouse and attached barn do appear on the 1839 Tithe Plan while the other barn and outbuilding were built between 1839 and the Ordnance Survey of 1880. It was possibly also at this time that the alterations were made to the farmhouse and attached barn. 6. Concrete Foundations. Low concrete walls attached to the boundary wall of the yard in front of Small Clough (feature 5). They either formed the foundations of a building or the border of a tiny parcel of land. 7. Milk Churn Stand. A small dry-stone square platform built into the boundary wall of the yard in front of Small Clough (feature 5). 8. Field Barn. A two-storey gritstone field barn comprising an 'L'-shaped ground plan. The main part of the barn is comprised of a single large space which follows this 'L'-shaped floor plan. A smaller room has been added later as a lean-to at the western gable end. Within the main part of the barn there is a wide cart door facing north, a pedestrian door facing south and wooden stalls inside. Both the main part of the barn and the lean-to have stone slate roofs, that of the main barn being supported by timber-frame roofing trusses. The corners and entrances are emphasised by large gritstone quoins. The building was built by 1839 (anon. 1839). 9. Greenhill Farmstead. Greenhill farmstead comprises four gritstone buildings and a modern hay barn. Three of the stone buildings are arranged in an east-to-west oriented row running across the slope while a fourth building is set apart to the south. From west to east the buildings in the row consist of a two-storey barn with timber-frame roof trusses, wooden stalls and a modern roof. This is attached to what used to be farmhouse but is now used as a barn which also contains wooden stalls and a modern roof. The easternmost building is lower in height, appears to have been single storey with a roof-storage space and has a stone slate roof. The fourth building is a small barn with a stone slate roof. The farmstead was recorded as early as 1650 by a Parliamentary Survey (Cameron 1959). The present layout of buildings, excepting the detached field barn, appear to be in existence by 1839 (anon. 1839). 10. Shelter/Building. A small rectangular mortared stone building with a downslope-facing entrance. Possibly a shelter or store. It is not depicted on any of the plans available to the present archaeological survey. 11. Site of Harding Clough Farmstead (NT SMR 60527). Within the landslip are a small roughly rectangular platform terraced into the slope and low earthworks situated near to a land drain. The uneven nature of the ground in this area means that it is difficult to identify all earthworks with confidence There are a pair of dressed gateposts in the boundary north of the site defining a gateway through which the present footpath runs. PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCNAEOLOGY SE Fl VICE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 11 The earthworks represent the site of Harding Clough farmstead and the gateposts define the original entrance to the farmyard. The farmstead was already in existence by 1839 (anon. 1839) but was demolished and replaced by the present Harden Clough farmstead, to the north, between 1880 and 1921 (Ordnance Survey 1880, 1921). 12. Sub-Rectangular Platform. A small rectangular level platform built-up on sloping ground immediately downslope of a .. field boundary. At present the platform has conifers planted upon it. It was the site of a building as depicted on the Tithe Plan of 1839 (anon. 1839) but which had disappeared by 1880 (Ordnance Survey 1880). 13. Sheep Lee. A short section of ruined dry-stone wall running downslope with a very short cross-wall at its upslope end which was a sheep lee providing shelter from the wind. 14. Sheep Lee. A short section of ruined dry·stone wall running downslope with a very short cross-wall at its downslope end which was a sheep lee providing shelter from the wind. 15. Slaked Limestone. A discrete area within the landslip zone in which slaked limestone is present in an erosion scar and mole hills. The limestone is presumably the remains of a dump of lime used to improve the fertility of the surrounding area. 16. Quarrying. Small stone-getting pits situated on a knoll of the landslip and a bank and ditch boundary. 17. Possible Sub-Circular Platform. A possible sub-circular platform terraced into gently sloping ground. The platform is approximately 7 metres in diameter, 0.3 metres high, has a low mound situated on its upslope side and appears to be slightly inclined across the natural slope. If this is an archaeological feature, which may only be determined by a contour survey or excavation, it could be related to Medieval or Post-Medieval agriculture as a feeder stand or remains of a lime mound. It is possible that the feature could be related to the later Prehistoric settlement on Mam Tor, a possibility that can not be overlooked at present. It is not depicted on any of the maps available to the present survey. 18. Earthen Banks. A pair of parallel short earthen banks which only partly lie within the survey area and are overlain by a field wall. The feature may be a drain. 19. Land Drains. A group of two ditches with insubstantial banks running diagonally across the slope within the landslip area. Though similar to bank and ditch boundaries elsewhere on the farm the nature and relationship to the topography shows these to be land drains. 20. Bank and Ditch. A bank and ditch which runs across-slope between two watercourses. The feature may have been a boundary, topped by a hedge, a drain or built with both uses in mind. PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARC/-/AEOLOGY SERVICE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 12 21. Bank and Ditch. A bank and ditch which runs downslope and is not connected to either boundaries or watercourses. The feature may have been a boundary, topped by a hedge, a drain or built with both uses in mind. 22. Converging Earthen Banks. Three low earthen banks which converge as they run downslope to end at a watercourse. They stop at a grown-out hedge upslope. The two westernmost banks are relatively insubstantial and may be land drains while the easternmost bank has a grown-out hedge and a gateway on its upslope half and is probably the remains of a hedged boundary. 23. Terraced Trackway. An indistinct terraced trackway running between the lane running up the west side of Harden Clough and a field near to a ruined building (feature 3). 24. Terraced Trackway. An indistinct terraced trackway running between Greenhill farmstead (feature 9) and another trackway currently in use which connects Small Clough farmstead (feature 5), a field barn (feature 8), fields to the north-east of the survey area and the main road along the Vale of Edale. 25. Braided Hollow-way. A braided hollow-way which runs from the riverside up the edge of a terrace formed by a former course of the river and into fields. It runs through a pair of gateposts surviving along a stretch of ruined wall. It appears that the hollow-way has been truncated by movement of the river's course and probably used to continued further along the riverside. 26. Rushup Edge Hollow-way (NT SMR 60557). A hollow-way which ascends on to Rushup Edge from south-west of Mam Nick then follows the crest of Rushup Edge to the south of the ridgetop wall. It may be a ridgetop route of some antiquity, which is difficult to prove from the field evidence, but is certainly the remains of a Post-Medieval packhorse route which may have Medieval origins (Dodd and Dodd 1980). It continues to both the east and west of the survey area (Barnatt 1993; Beamish 198[?]) and directly links Chapel en le Frith in the west and Castleton to the east. Tideswell, Hayfield, Hope and the Edale Valley were also connected via other trackways branching from this route. 27. Fold or Shelter. A small single-compartment fold built into a corner of the ruined walls of feature 35. These walls were disused by 1880, suggesting the fold had also gone out of use by this date. It was presumably built for stock gathered from lower land to the north. 28. Possible Hollow-way. While this looks like a short stretch of slight hollow way, this may well be a fortuitous natural feature. It is hard to see why, if this was a hollow way, it does not continue to top and bottom of the steep slope. PEAK NATIONAL PAFiK ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 13 29. Bank and Ditch. A bank and ditch, presumably at the site of a field boundary, which does not appear on maps from 1839 onwards, the date of the earliest detailed map of the valley. This, and the relationship to boundary 35, suggests that this boundary was disused by 1839. 30. Bank and Ditch A bank and ditch at the site of a field boundary, that has been modified to the west, as indicated by a lynchet on a different alignment, which does not appear on maps from 1839 onwards, the date of the earliest detailed map of the valley. This, and that it continues eastwards as 35 (which was present in 1839), indicates that this boundary was disused by this date. It may pre-date the present field layout (Barnatt 1993). 31. Bank and Ditch. A bank and ditch at the site of a field boundary, which does not appear on maps from 1839 onwards, the date of the earliest detailed map of the valley. This suggests that the boundary was disused by this date. It may pre-date the present field layout and continues outside of the survey area to the east (Barnatt 1993). 32. Bank and Ditch. A bank and ditch, at the site of a field boundary, which does not appear on maps from 1839 onwards, the date of the earliest detailed map of the valley. This suggests they it was disused by this date. It may pre-date the present field layout. 33. Earthen Bank. A bank, at the site of a field boundary, which does not appear on maps from 1839 onwards, the date of the earliest detailed map of the valley. This suggests it was disused by this date. It may pre-date the present field layout. 34. Two Sheep Lees. Two short stretches of ruined drystone wall, with no sign of continuations between, suggesting that they were built as sheep lees to provide shelter for stock. They are marked on the Ordnance Survey map of 1880 but not the 1839 tithe map, suggesting they were built between these two dates (also see feature 25). 35. Ruined Wall. A ruined wall below the steepest part of the valley side, which appears on the 1839 tithe map (the earliest detailed map of the valley), but not the Ordnance Survey map of 1880, suggesting it was ruined by this date. The boundary continues eastwards as a bank and ditch (Barnatt 1993) and the whole may pre-date the present field layout. Near the centre of the feature the wall deviates round a natural pond. 36. Cairn. A small heap of roughly dressed stone on the line of a north/south boundary of which there is no trace, but which is shown on the 1839 tithe map, the earliest detailed map of the valley. The cairn lies at the point where the north/south boundary joined another boundary (feature 29). Neither of these boundaries were still present by 1880. PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 14 37. Livestock Fold and Sheep Lee. A short ruined wall, with a small fold at one end defined by a curved wall, with footgate entrance. They are marked on the Ordnance Survey map of 1880 but not the 1839 tithe map, suggesting they were built between these two dates, probably at the same date as those at 34. 38. Reputed Settlement Site. The Derbyshire SMR records a settlement site associated with Mam Tor hillfort which is shown on the SMR map at this location. Nothing was observed during field survey by John Barnatt in 1993 and the topographical description given in the SM R actually places the site to the east of the road PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 15 PART5 HARDENCLOUGH 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 those archaeological features known throughout the region 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 and in many cases the wider area. 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 would take the form of at least a more detailed survey. If at some future time a feature in this category comes under threat of damage or destruction, excavation may well be desirable if conservation measures cannot be negotiated. Some of the features in the Nationally or Regionally Important category in the Peak District have been designated as Scheduled Ancient Monuments and are protected by government legislation. There are no scheduled sites in the survey area. Locally-important features are those which are important to the archaeology of the locality. Such . features should not be regarded as of lesser value for they contribute to the development and character of the local landscape. 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 does not mean that many buildings are any less important archaeologically than any of the archaeological features listed as being of National or Regional Importance. LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE FEATURE CATALOGUE NUMBERS Archaeological Features of National or 26 Regional Importance Archaeological Features of Local 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, Importance 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32,33,34, 35,36,37 Standing Buildings of National or Regional 5 Importance Standina Buildinas of Local lmoortance 1, 8, 9 PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 16 PART 6 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. 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 not only important in its own right. Sometimes it is the general archaeological 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 "tip of an iceberg" where more extensive archaeological deposits of settlement or ritual activity are concealed below ground. Not all archaeological features or landscapes can be conserved, nor is it desirable that the countryside becomes 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 of either their nature or value. Once farmers and other land managers realise that collectively such features tell us much about 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 and are designated as Scheduled Ancient Monuments by the Department of National Heritage, advised by English Heritage. Other features can be conserved under schemes such as MAFF's Countryside Stewardship Scheme or the Peak District National Park Authority'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 of archaeological features can usually be achieved by choosing alternative sites which are of little archaeological importance, but which are no less convenient, agriculturally. Leaving archaeological mounds and hollows, rather than creating flat fields, often has little effect on the way fields are managed or on their profitability. Such a positive approach may be rewarded by conservation payments. Ploughing and rotovating may sometimes 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 cases, 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. PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 17 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, for example, in areas with ridge and furrow. Tree planting should avoid archaeological features where possible. To avoid damage from pulling or digging out stumps, it is better to cut the trees close to the ground and then to poison the stump and leave it to rot. Trees can seriously damage features 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 which is 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 tipping has to take place, a detailed photographic or measured record of archaeological features may be desirable before such takes place. Vehicles repeatedly crossing an area will 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, field stiles, gate posts and water troughs should be retained when walls are rebuilt. 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 and should not be allowed to take place on archaeological features. Such activities rarely produce anything of financial value and often the only finds that can date a feature are removed. Knowing that a find is from a feature is usually 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 the Archaeologists can PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCHAEOLOGY SEr?VICE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 18 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 with minimal inconvenience and delay to the landowner. Ideally a holistic approach to management should be adopted that also includes ecological and landscape considerations. The Authority's Farm and Countryside Service offers guidance on all such issues. PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE HARDENCLOUGN FARM 19 PART 7 GLOSSARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL TERMS ANGLO-SAXON The period of early-English history dominated by the settlement of Northern Europeans in the eastern counties of England. It dates from the collapse of the Roman economy during the early-5th century, to the Norman Conquest of 1066. It also includes influences from occupying Scandinavians during the 200 years before the Normans arrived. The early part of the Saxon period is sometimes known as the Dark Ages because of the lack of historical documentation for this period. In the Peak District, there is no evidence for Anglo-Saxon intrusion until the 7th century. 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 ruling families during the Anglo-Saxon period between 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 building platform or 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. EARLY A term often used for the Anglo-Saxon period, i.e. from the collapse of MEDIEVAL the Roman occupation during the 5th century AD until the Norman Conquest. However, only the later Anglo-Saxon period can be strictly called "Medieval", a period distinguished by the development of towns, nucleated settlements and an organised agrarian landscape. 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. 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. HUNDRED See Wapentake. PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARC/-iAEOLOGY SERVICE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 20 IRON AGE The prehistoric period which comes between the Bronze Age and the coming of the Romans, in the Peak District dating roughly from 800 BC to the ?Os AD. This was a time of settled farming communities living in scattered farms and hamlets, overlooked by hillforts. In the Peak District, there is little direct evidence for Iron Age occupation. LATER A term used here to denote the last 1500 years of prehistory, covering PREHISTORIC the later Bronze Age and the Iron Age. A time when ceremonial monuments were abandoned and the landscape was largely inhabited • by settled farmers. New areas were cultivated with the introduction of larger, stronger ploughs which could turn heavier soils. The new areas probably included valleys such as that of the Derwent. These may well have become more heavily settled at around the time farming was contracting from uplands, such as the gritstone eastern moors, contemporary with a deterioration in climate. 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. PARISH The smallest unit of local government is the civil parish. In some areas this covers the same area as an ecclesiastical parish which is the area of jurisdiction covered by the parish church. Ecclesiastical parishes are almost always the remains of Medieval manors especially in rural areas and many have remained unaltered in their boundaries since the Medieval period. However, in the Peak District many parishes became defined by the boundaries of Townships. 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. 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 cultivat'lon 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 PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCNAEOLOGY SERVICE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 21 the thin soils of the limestone plateau. 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. 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 TOWNSHIP A term given to a subdivision of a Medieval parish which have developed into civil parishes in many areas of the Peak District. Such divisions were usually given the name of the principal settlement therein but also included farmland and open pasture attached to that settlement. 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. WAPENTAKE A political division which probably developed during the Anglo Scandinavian period (see above) and which referred to a unit of land roughly equivalent in size to that of a modern district council. It is a term applied only to former Viking-controlled areas (such as Derbyshire). In English-controlled counties (such as Staffordshire) the same division was known as a Hundred. PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 22 PARTS BIBLIOGRAPHY anon. 1839 Edale Tithe Award Plan. Derbyshire Record Office, ORO 02360 DL5a. anon. 1842 Edale Tithe Award Schedule. Derbyshire Record Office, ORO 02360 DL5b. Anderson, P. and Shimwell, D. 1981 Wild Flowers and other Plants of the Peak District. Ashbourne: Moorland. Barnatt, J. 1993 The Edale Valley Archaeological Survey 1993. Peak Park Joint Planning Board, unpublished report. Barnatt, J. 1996 Barrows in the Peak District: a Review and Interpretation of Extant Sites and Past Excavations. Jn Barnatt, J. & Collis, J. Barrows in the Peak District: Recent Research. Sheffield: J.R.Collis. Beamish, H.J.H. 198[?]. The National Trust Archaeological Survey: Edale, High Peak, Derbyshire, East Midlands Region. The National Trust, unpublished report. Cameron, K. 1959 The Place-Names of Derbyshire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3 volumes. Cox, Rev. J.C. 1905. Forestry. Jn Page, W. (ed.) The Victoria History of the Counties of England, Derbyshire, volume 1, p. 397-426. Folkestone and London: Dawsons. Dodd, A. E. and Dodd, E. M. 1980 Peak/and Roads and Trackways. Ashbourne: Moorland. 2nd ed. Hart, C.R. 1981 The North Derbyshire archaeological survey to A.O. 1500. Chesterfield: North Derbyshire Archaeological Trust. Kerry, Rev. C. 1893. A History of Peak Forest. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 15, 67- 98. Morgan, P. 1978 Domesday Book: Derbyshire. Chichester Phillimore. Ordnance Survey 1880 Twenty-Five Inch to a Mile maps, First Edition. Ordnance Survey 1921 Twenty-Five Inch to a Mile maps, Rev. Edition. Roffe, D. 1986 The Derbyshire Domesday Matlock: Derbyshire Museums Service. PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE HARDENCLOUGH FARM 23 APPENDICES A: HARDENCLOUGH FARM: DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY ARCHIVE Documents This report. Drawings (as included in reduced form in this report) Illustration 1 Location of Hardenclough Farm Illustration 2 Area of Survey, at 1:10,000. Illustration 3 Field Boundaries, at 1:10,000. Illustration 4 Boundary Changes, 1839-1880, at 1 :10,000. Illustration 5 Communication Routes, at 1:10,000. Illustration 6 Landscape Characterisation, at 1:10,000 Illustration 7 Archaeological Features, at 1 :2500. One file containing the photographic archive catalogue and cross reference to the PDNPA archaeological photograph collection (retained by the PDNPA - may be viewed on request). One folder of field notes (retained by the PDNPA - may be viewed on request). B: FEATURE RECORDING - SURVEY SPECIFICATION The survey undertaken to produce this report comprised a systematic and rapid search of the farmland. 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. In enclosed land, and where large scale maps were available, discoveries were sketch plotted on an OS 1 :2500 base. This is the National Park's Phase 1 survey standard. The plotting of features under these conditions is relatively accurate because of the scale of the maps and by using nearby features, such as field boundaries, to gauge relative locations between known points. We believe that in these surveys, the normal error in plotting feature locations is limited to plus or minus 5 metres. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to Mr Metcalfe and the National Trust for giving permission to survey the land. The Derbyshire Record Office gave access to maps as noted in Part 8. Ken Smith and John Barnatt provided information, advice and comment. Angela Johnson carried out the duplication of illustrations and the binding of the report. Report Completed 7/411997 REP96HCF.DOC PEAK NATIONAL PARK ARCHAEOl.OGY SERVICE