Archaeological Quarrendon fieldwalk Society

FIELDWALK AND FINDS ANALYSIS / April 2017

FIELDWALKING by members of the BAS Active Archaeology Group led by Mike Farley.

FINDS ANALYSIS AND REPORT: MIKE Farley and Barbara Hurman

Report number BAS/2017-02 BUCKINGHAMSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY'S ACTIVE ARCHAEOLOGY GROUP

Report of a fieldwalk by Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society's Active Archaeology Group at Quarrendon, Buckinghamshire on 2/4/2017

Michael Farley with assistance from Barbara Hurman

February 2018

Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society

1 Report of a fieldwalk by Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society's Active Archaeology Group at Quarrendon, Buckinghamshire on 2/4/2017

Michael Farley, with assistance from Barbara Hurman

1. Introduction to Quarrendon

The former village site of Quarrendon includes two separate areas of village earthworks - thought to be largely of medieval date - the remains of a chapel, a moated site and substantial garden earthworks of the Tudor period. The site is described in Everson (2001) which includes a plan of the earthworks. A watching brief in 1993 when an area of trackway was illegally stripped west of the principal stream that divides the site, recovered over 600 medieval sherds suggesting the presence of a building(s) here, and also two sherds of Saxo- Norman date. Indications of Romano-British activity had previously been reported nearby.

All of the visible remains are scheduled as an ancient monument and are now owned by the Buckinghamshire Conservation Trust. Air photographs indicate that one peripheral ploughed feature may not be included in the scheduled area. There are now known to be significant manorial records (court rolls and rent rolls) in the Dillon manuscripts at Oxfordshire Record office which have been catalogued post-Everson's 2001 publication and a project to study these is underway.

Fig. 1. Quarrendon looking north. The arable field can be seen centre right

2 2. The fieldwalk

All of the scheduled area is under grass, but a large field immediately adjacent to the scheduled area on the south (SP 8029 1569: Fig. 1) was under arable, providing an opportunity to check whether medieval occupation extended in this direction prior to the field being put down to grass.

The field lies at 72m OD, a metre lower than the floodplain height to the south. The British Geological Survey (BGS 1994) maps the location as on the junction of alluvium and Kimmeridge Clay, with a glaciofluvial deposit forming the rising ground on which the principal earthworks of the former village are sited to the north-east. The latter, at c.82m OD are probably a first terrace deposit of the (BGS 1995, 112).

Following discussion with the Trust and Eliza Alqassar of the County Archaeological Service, an area of 30m grid squares was laid out in advance of the walk, the squares being lettered N-S and numbered W-E (Fig.2). On the day forty-one complete or part squares were walked with about seven people operating in each square for roughly fifteen minutes. Several weeks previously the area had been ploughed but not harrowed and despite a secondary grass coverage of about 10%, search conditions were reasonable, although very uneven. Walkers were asked to collect all man-made items unless obviously of very recent date, also any worked stone. In addition items of geological note were collected.

Fig. 2. Quarrendon fieldwalk grid.

3 3. Post-collection procedure

Prior to washing all of the tile that had been collected was checked, counted and weighed and entered on a spreadsheet (Appendix 3). With few exceptions noted below, all was roof tile. Fabric was not individually recorded but a brief scan noted that the majority of tiles contained small (sandy) silica inclusions. Apart from a small sample of tiles from individual squares which were retained for future fabric analysis or because of particular interest, once recorded all of the remaining tile pieces was discarded.

Subsequent to washing most of the nineteenth-century and later ceramic was also discarded. This was predominantly domestic earthenware (clear glazed, firing brown) and sherds of 'industrial period' ceramic.

4. Assessment and summary of finds

The finds were initially entered on recording sheets and the information was later transferred to a spreadsheet (Appendix 3.NB, Z1 was unallocated). Six categories of pottery were itemised also metal, slag, bone, worked flint, other stone, glass and miscellaneous finds. Features of particular interest relating to any one item were recorded in the notes section on the spreadsheet. For example 3(1) indicates that there were three items in that category and see Note 1 for additional information.

Pottery:

Surprisingly few sherds (140) that were earlier than the post-medieval period were found, the average being 3.4 sherds per 30m square. Those that were present (apart from sherds of post- medieval date) were generally small and only a few were featured in any way (i.e. possessed rims, decoration etc.).

A difficulty with dating arose from the fact that sherds gritted with flint were frequent. Around and in the Chiltern this fabric is common throughout prehistory but also occurs in in some medieval pottery.

(i) Prehistoric worked flint and pottery

For convenience, three pieces of struck flints are included in this section (Fig.3):

1. B5: with some probable re-touch on the ventral face at the bulbar) end suggesting utilisation as a scraper. On good black flint.

2. C2: snapped flake/blade.

3. Z1: snapped flake/blade

None of these are datable. The only probable tool (B5) is a type with a long life but could be Neolithic.

4 Fig 3. Quarrendon worked flints

Four large handmade flint-gritted sherd and three others (Fig.4) are almost certainly prehistoric in date and it is possible that a proportion of the smaller sherds noted above may also be prehistoric. A total of eighteen is suggested but this may be an underestimate.

Of the four large sherds, one is decorated with an applied thumbed strip, apparently below a simple rounded upright rim. This form of decoration is common on middle Bronze Age 'Deverel-Rimbury' pottery (Gibson 1997, 142-5). The large versions of such vessels are often used to contain cremated human bone, for example in Buckinghamshire at Stoke Poges [Fig.5) but similar pottery also occurs on settlement sites, e.g. locally at Walton (Dalwood 1989, Fig.8). Some of the small, thinner, featureless flint-gritted sherds on grounds of thickness might also be prehistoric but most are included in the accompanying spreadsheet under the medieval or undated column (see comment above).

5 6 (ii) Romano-British

Eighteen sherds of Romano-British coarse ware were present, including one certain and two probable rims. It is possible that some other sherds which had solution cavities (see below) could also be of this date. Everson (2001, 21) had previously noted sherd(s) of samian ware during fieldwork, downstream from the bridge which joins the two main areas of the site.

(iii) Saxon-Late Saxon

No sherds typical of the tenth-century locally (St Neots-type ware), were recorded nor any early-mid Saxon sherds.

(iv) Mediaeval

There is lack of certainty about the number of medieval sherds present (see above) but tentatively one hundred and five are dated to this period. Apart from difficulties over flint- gritted sherds, fabrics were commonly sandy; others had cavities indicating the former presence of a soluble inclusion such as limestone or chalk. In a very few cases rim-form determined that these sherds of various fabric were medieval, none conclusively earlier that the late eleventh century or later than the early fourteenth. There were a very few Brill- jug sherds (typically later thirteenth-fourteenth century) a common find around Aylesbury, and their absence here might indicate that the other sherds largely pre-date the main period of production at Brill-Boarstall (the later thirteenth to late fourteenth centuries).The distribution of probable medieval sherds is shown in Figure 4.

(v) Post-Medieval

A large number of 'brown-glazed' domestic earthenware (generally of eighteenth-nineteenth century date) were discarded a few identifiable sixteenth-eighteenth century sherds ere retained.

Tile and brick:

Some 2012 pieces of tile were collected weighing over 54 kilos (moving them off the field was no mean feat ...). As previously noted the bulk of this was roof tile and following sampling was discarded after recording on the accompanying spreadsheet (Appendix 4). It was notable that only 55 had pegholes (or parts of them), that is one peghole fragment to 37 pieces of tile. A calcareous fabric with patchy green glaze provisionally dated to the twelfth century in Aylesbury (Farley 1974, 443) was not present. Undatable brick fragments were also discarded apart from one piece with a curved surface, perhaps from a coping. One curved parallel-sided piece of tile with eroded surfaces, might be either from field drain or be from a Romano-British imbrex.

Other finds:

Metal recovered was all iron and included horseshoe fragments and a hasp.

A small piece of smithing slag was recorded.

It should be noted here that in 1997 the field was searched by Tom Clark, a local metal detectorist, whose finds were recorded at the County Museum (HER 6273). There is a little

7 doubt as to whether these all came from the fieldwalked area or nearby. It is reported that the finds included:

• Part of a 14c stirrup • 13-14c coins • A copper allot crotal bell • A tinned buckle • Copper alloy fittings • A ?jetton in base,metal • A finger ring ??silver • Six Roman coins (certainly from this field) • A piece of a copper-alloy bowl. • A quantity of lead shot (?pistol) (found close to the east bank of the garden earthworks) and other shot in the same field further to the east

Some of this material is now in the County Museum some was sketched or photographed (record in HER).

Bone:

A small amount of animal bone (49 pieces) was recovered. Unstratified animal bone can rarely be dated (and not always identified from small pieces) so it was counted and discarded apart from teeth (6) which were retained. All of the teeth were from sheep; one intact cattle bone was retained . One other identified piece has been retained for further examination in case it is human. The presence of a substantial number of sheep at Quarrendon over many centuries is well documented.

Stone:

One very small piece of lava with no certainly worked surface was found. As an alien rock this might have come from a lava quern. Such querns are present on both Romano-British and Saxon sites. A small piece of conglomerate was also noted. Querns of conglomerate are common on Romano-British sites but unfortunately this had no worked surfaces either. A number of other small pieces of stone not naturally occurring in the vicinity were collected and are listed in Appendix 1. They included weathered, undressed, oolitic limestone which had not obviously been used as a building stone. Also present were three quartzose pebbles, commonly called 'Bunter' pebbles, whose origin lies in the Midlands. The most likely source for some of these rocks is the Anglian glacier which extended almost as far south as the Chilterns.

5. Conclusion (i) Prehistoric.

The three struck flints are likely to pre-date the prehistoric pottery. They were not geographically associated with the sherds.

8 Difficulties with dating flint-gritted sherds have been noted above, however, one decorated sherd is certainly Bronze Age and a second rim and two bases are likely to be of similar date. This is an unexpected find. A number of Deverel-Rimbury vessels of this kind include cremated human bone. In some areas clusters of these urns occur in quite large cemeteries. The sherds may be from one or more cremations destroyed by ploughing. However, as noted above, this kind of pottery also occurs on settlements.

(ii) Romano-British.

The discovery of other material of this date in the immediate vicinity has been noted above. The small quantity of material identified here suggests that the field was not at the centre of settlement, however note (above) that a few Roman coins have been found here.

Romano-British activity at Weedon Hill by Park just east of the scheduled area has been identified prior to housing development (Wakeham 2013); the unnamed roadside town of is not far distant, and a surprising number of small settlement of this date continue to be identified in advance of other developments..

(iii) Saxon - Late Saxon

No material of this date was identified (iv) Medieval

It was anticipated that there might be a significant distribution of medieval sherds close to the known settlement of this date. Although it is true that there are medieval sherds in the general area (see distribution on Fig.4) they are surprisingly few in number and certainly less than might be anticipated from any sustained or substantial area of settlement here. Unfortunately tile cannot be so readily dated but one early fabric-type noted in Aylesbury (see above) and provisionally suggested to be later twelfth century was not present here. The tile was entirely handmade as against machine produced. Although it is possible that it was of medieval date it could as well have been later. Substantially more tile than pottery was recorded; there was little brick. Like the pottery it was relatively close to the known settlement area (see distribution on Fig.5). It could be argued that the few medieval pottery sherds appear to extend as a band through the centre of the tile distribution but the low density of the pottery in comparison with the volume of tile, plus the fact that that the distance across 'the band' is some 180 metres, makes it unlikely that the two are closely related. In other words, it seems improbable that the tile came from a medieval building here It is probably more likely that the tile originated from a building within the nearby moated site, perhaps being initially spread here as dry access (the land is very low-lying) and subsequently further spread by ploughing. A minimalistic view of the pottery distribution would be that it is a manure scatter but brief occupation here during the medieval period cannot be completely ruled out.

9

(v) Post-Medieval

It will be recalled that the garden earthworks at Quarrendon were once interpreted as of Civil War date. Although this is not disputed, but the presence of some quantity of lead shot adjacent to the earthworks banks may indicate an 'afterlife' of some kind here.

(vi) Summary

On balance, although search conditions were not ideal, considering the area covered the surface finds are insufficient to indicate anything but peripheral occupation of this field during the medieval period. The sherds may result from manuring or low level use indicating perhaps its use as an infield near settlement.

Finally, a geophysical survey here would certainly be of interest, but the slight indications of activity at more than one period might make the results difficult to interpret.

7. Archive deposition A copy of this report will be deposited with the County HER (CASS 6273). With permission from the Buckinghamshire Conservation Trust all of the finds and a copy of the report will be deposited with the County Museum. 7. Acknowledgements.

The writer is grateful to those AAG members and others who turned out on the day and who struggled across a very uneven surface. Thanks are also due to our 'leaders' who looked after individual groups and who assisted with the initial laying out of the recording grid. Particular thanks are due to Barbara Hurman who kindly assisted the writer in identifying and cataloguing the finds. Eliza Alqassar of the County Archaeological Service and the Buckinghamshire Conservation Trust encouraged the survey.

8. Bibliography

BGS (1994). Geological Survey of Great Britain. 1:50,000 Solid and Drift Geology. Sheet 237, Thame. BGS (1995). Geology of the Country around Thame: memoir for sheet 237. British Geological Survey.

Dalwood H, Dillon J, Evans J and Hawkins A (1989). Excavations in Walton, Aylesbury 1985-6. Recs Bucks 31, 137-22.

Everson P (2001) Peasants. Graziers and peers; the landscape of Quarrendon, Buckinghamshire interpreted. Recs Bucks 41, 1-45. Farley M (1974). Aylesbury - a defended town? Recs Bucks 19, 429-448.

12 Gibson A and Woods A 1997. Prehistoric pottery for the archaeologist. Leicester University Press. Wakeham G and Bradley P 2013. A Romano-British malt house and other remains at Weedon Hill, Aylesbury. Recs Bucks 53, 1- 44.

Appendix 1. Unworked stone from the fieldwalked area. A non-professional assessment of stone samples collected in the field.

All, apart from E4 are small pieces (under 10cm), none show worked faces. Note, worked flint is included on main finds spreadsheet.

A1 Limestone A6 Sandstone B1 Limestone x3, flint, Bunter pebble, quartzite B3 [angular pink granite = roadstone], also fine grain hard cemented sandstone? B4 Flint (water worn), flint angular, fossiliferous shelly limestone with serpulid worm tubes x2 [identification thanks to Dr. M Oates]. Also ?tar B5 Red flint x2 B6 Oolitic limestone B7 Flint x2, Ironstone x2, ? C1 Oolitic limestone C5 Ironstone nodule, rounded C8 Limestone also flint ?plough-strike D5 Limestone Oolite D9 Limestone E1 Bunter pebble E3 Limestone E4 Large ironstone nodule, magnetic E6 Limestone ?oolite Z1 Burnt? oolite

13 Appendix 2. A note on surface finds occurring beyond the area fieldwalked.

The twenty-five inch Ordnance Survey map of 1899 (sheet 28,11, plot 38) shows a small building which no longer exists with an adjoining enclosure (at SP 8046 1551), in an area within the field that was not walked and at roughly the field's highest point (77m OD). The building was adjacent to the grassed over earthworks of the village but on the west side of a longstanding trackway from Quarrendon heading in the direction of Aylesbury. After the fieldwalk and subsequent to harrowing, a cluster of small pieces of dense unworked limestone was noted here extending over an area c.30m sq. Roof tile was present in some quantity.

In a ditch adjacent to the field on its eastern side, ten large weathered, but undressed, blocks of limestone were present. The stone appears to be a shelly oolite. These blocks seemed to be out of proportion to the mapped building and may indicate another structure.

14 Bucki nghamshire Archaeological Society: AAG Fieldwalk at Quarrendon 2 April 2017

NOTE on this sheet bracketed numbers refer to descriptive notes at the end - not number of items. (D) = Discarded. For bone, only teeth retained. Tile number = those retained as samples; for number present before discard see separate

Grid Pottery Tile No. Metal Slag Worked Flint Other stone Glass Other material Notes numbered 1-10 etc for each grid square Square Prehist Roman Saxon Med Post-Med undated A1 1 2 2 sheep teeth A2 1 A3 3 (1) 1 1 Fe disc (D) 1(2) (1) 1 13c rim, 2 sherds. (2) I sheep tooth A4 2 (1) 1 1 nail (D) 1(2) and 4(D) 3 'oyster' (1) base and sherd (2) poss radius ??human A5 1 (1) 3 1 nail (D) 9(D) 1 slate (D) (1) RB jar rim A6 2 (1) 1 (2) 0 3 (D) (1) 1 and Oxford sherd? (2) sherd flint and cavities A7 1 (1) 1 1 horseshoe 1 (2) 4(D) 2 clay p stems (D) (1) 18-19c cup base ?tin glaze, (2) sh mandible A8 1 1(1) (1) sheep tooth B1 1 5 (2) 2 1 1(1) 12(D) 1 fossil she3l 1(D) (1) ?cattle carpal? (2) Brill jug base B2 6(1) 1 4(D) 1(D) 1(2) (1) 1 small rod handle, 1 rim 13-14c, 4 sherds (2) 1 brick ?conical form B3 1rim ?RB 14 (1) 0 1 hone (1) 1 strap handle, 2 rims, 3 bases, 7 sherds B4 1? RB 8, 1 base 3(1) 1 1 1 17c (1) 1 Midland black, 2 16-17c rims B5 13(2) 2 2(6) 1 Fe perf (1) 1 (3) 1(4) 1(5) (2) 1 slashed handle ?Brill, 1 rim, 3 base, 8 sherds, (1) Fe perf strip and I nail (D), (3) sheep tooth ,(4) 1 large flake ? Neo retouch,(5) steeple bot B6 1 1 1 (1) 1 slate (D) 1 blue (8) 2 handles (thumbed), 2 rims, 5 sherds (1) 3" Fe nail (9) 1 slashed handle, 2 rim, 1 Brill glazed , 3 base, 6 sherds (7) 1 Fe door B7 13 (9) 1 0 2 (7) 1(5) hang, 1 boot shoe? Fe, (5) sheep tooth B8 6 (1) 1 0 2(2) 1 (D) 1 (D) clay p stem (1) 1 rim, 1 gl. Brill, 4 sherds. (2) 1 Fe ?door strap, 1 Fe ring C1 1 (2) 1 (1) 5(D) (1) horshoe (2) 1 ?RB tile (1) 1 ?RB imbrex or ?drain, (2) 2 horshoes (3) 1 snapped blade ?Meso (4) ?1 C2 1 1 2 (1) 2 (2) 1 (3) 1 (4) 1(D) burnt oolite C3 1 4 2 12 Fe nail (D) 1 (1) ?lava ? 2 (D) 1 clay p, (2) brick (1) no surface but poss quern? (2) brick part-glazed C4 7 (1) 3 (2) 0 1 nail L (1) Brill jug, 6 sherds, (2) 2 and I ?cast stoneware dec C5 4 0 3 (1) 1 (2) (1) 1 ?rivet, 1 ?small blade. 1 small chain, (2) sheep tooth (1) 1 Brill rod handle, 1 Br gl.(2) 1 rim/bandv thin rim with 2 lines stab ext, C6 2 (1) 1 2 (2) 1 1 hasp 1 (3) 1(D) L one line inside ?fabric (3) ? Smithing wt. 11g C7 3(2) 1 1 spike 2 thin brick (2) 1 ?burnt base ? RB and 2 ? Rim, 2 sherds C8 5 1 (1) 1 jar rim, 1 base, 3 sherds D1 1 1 horshoe(1) (1) also one nail D2 3 (1) 1 (1) all flint grit incl rim D3 2(1) 4? 1 (2) 1 horsehoe (1) 2 heavily flint gritted (2) small D4 2 0 1(D) 1 brick D5 1(1) 1 1 (1) 1 large flint grit with applied thumb strip and rim D6 1 2 D7 2 2 (1) 1 1 2 (2) (1) 1 handle, (2) 1 door/gate support, 1 horshoe D8 1 1(1) 2 (1) I densely packed flint/quartz gritted? pot or stone! ?with stamp? D9 0 1 nail E1 0 rock sample E2 1 0 ?oolite burnt E3 1(1) 4(2) 1 rock sample 1 (D) (1) large flint-gritted sherd, 2 rims, 2 sherds E4 3 (2) 7(1) 0 2 (D) (1) uncertain dating (2) featureless flint grit again but thick E5 8(1) 1 2 brick (1) 8 flint incl 1 base E6 1(2) 2(1) 0 1 pt horshoe 2 brick (d) (1) poss evert rim bead, 1 sherd (2) 1 flint ?handmade rim E7 0 3 brick (D) E8 2 0 2 brick ?one ridge (1) 1 base, sherd picked up pre-walk . (2) I snapped blade ? Neo, edge Z1 2 (1) 0 1(2) damage Quarrendon Fieldwalk 2nd April 2017: Tiles Square No. No.Plain Wt. Plain tiles Av wt. No. with Tile thick 1 Tile thick 2 Tile thick 3 Average thick Brick Frags tiles gms Pegholes Tile mm

A1 30 586 19.5 1 15.16 15.74 14.16 15.02 A2 105 3316 31.5 4 16.4 13.3 12.6 14.1 1 A3 85 3121 36.7 1 15.5 14.3 13.6 14.46 A4 96 3019 31.4 5 15.1 12.4 14.5 14 3 A5 108 3728 34.5 7 16.7 13 14 14.56 A6 73 2281 31.2 2 14.8 12.3 15 14.03 A7 20 522 26.1 14.1 12.9 13.9 13.63 A8 7 222 31.8 0 0 0 0 2 A9 0 0 0 0 0 00 B1 25 805 32.2 14.1 14.7 15 14.6 2 B2 61 1995 32.7 18.5 15.4 13.1 15.66 7 (1) B3 60 1267 21.1 2 14.7 15.2 11.6 13.83 B4 80 2238 27.9 2 14.3 13 13.4 13.56 1 B5 141 3635 25.8 2 15.6 14.3 15.4 15.1 2 B6 60 1708 28.5 12.6 13.1 13.8 13.16 B7 45 1137 25.3 11.9 12.4 14.1 12.8 B8 20 416 20.8 12.5 11.8 14.4 12.9 B9 0 0 C1 16 553 33.3 13.6 14.3 16.2 14.7 2 C2 72 2032 28.2 13.8 15.3 14.55 C3 143 3171 22.1 3 15.5 15.9 12 14.46 7 C4 104 3285 36.8 4 15.6 13 12.7 13.76 6 C5 95 1612 17 4 14.5 17.5 14.5 15.5 C6 70 2098 30 2 16.3 11 13.4 13.56 C7 45 1143 25 13.3 14 16.5 14.6 C8 14 339 24.2 12.1 12.6 12.6 12.43 C9 0 0 D1 10 389 38.9 1 13.4 14.9 14.4 14.23 D2 9 171 19 D3 28 694 24.8 2 15.9 15 13 14.63 D4 16 237 14.8 0 0 01 D5 41 1145 27.9 1 14 17.9 13 14.96 1 D6 30 600 20 1 11.5 11.7 12 11.73 D7 49 1193 24.3 1 16.1 16.4 14.6 15.7 D8 30 756 25.3 1 15.4 13.8 14.5 14.56 1 D9 7 232 33.1 0 0 00 E1 8 263 32.8 14.6 14.2 15.3 14.7 E2 20 281 14.1 1 13.2 11.4 11.2 11.93 E3 30 420 14 12 12 E4 29 612 21.1 13.8 14.9 15.1 14.6 E5 50 1405 28.1 5 18.2 13.6 13.6 15.13 E6 39 1028 26.4 2 13.8 13 13.4 13.4 E7 21 432 20.6 12.8 11.8 14.2 12.93 E8 20 266 13.3 1 14.2 13.4 12.5 13.36 E9 0 0 16 NB (1) curved TOTALS 2012 54353 29.33 55 surface This report has been produced by the Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society

THANKS County Museum, to the Buckinghamshire Church Street, Conservation Trust Aylesbury, for permission to make Buckinghamshire this survey. HP20 2QP

Website: www.bucksas.org.uk