Extracts from An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment of the Proposed Flood Relief Scheme.

NGR SD 490 171 (centred)

Report for the Environment Agency.

By Mark Adams and Clare Ahmad in August 2013

6.1 Palaeolithic and Mesolithic

There is very little evidence for human activity in during the Palaeolithic. The skeleton of an elk which had been wounded by a bone harpoon point found in 1970 at Poulton- le-Fylde and Palaeolithic material from two cave sites at Warton in north Lancashire are the only documented sites from the county (Ede & Darlington 2002, 8). Any evidence of this date within the study area is likely to be buried beneath thick deposits of peat, alluvium and post-glacial drift.

The Mesolithic is far better represented in the archaeological record as improving climatic conditions from c. 8500 BC meant that the landscape could sustain settlement by larger numbers of people and bands of hunter-gatherers occupied the upland and lowland landscapes of Lancashire following a ‘Hunter Gatherer’ Lifestyle. However, there are still relatively few sites compared with other periods, across the county there are 64 sites or 14% of the known prehistoric sites on the Lancashire HER (Ede & Darlington 2002). Most sites consist of scatters of flint scatters tools in topsoil and there are very few excavated settlement sites.

One of the earliest sites in the county is the late Mesolithic site at Blackmoor, which lies just outside the southern boundary of the study area and was excavated in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013). Though records are sparse, the site appears to have been repeatedly visited by groups, some of which may have been engaged in hunting. Comparison with the recently excavated site at Lunt Meadows, Sefton, where the remains of three structures interpreted as a dwellings have been excavated and radiocarbon dated to c. 5800 BC (R. Cowell pers. comm.) is tempting as this too seems to represent long- term repeated occupation of the site over a series of discrete visits. The Lunt site lay below a cover of marine clays c. 0.3-0.4 m thick and peat of a similar depth. Blackmoor was located on deep well drained deposits of Shirdley Hill Sand overlooking the floodplain of the Douglas and offering a wide range of resources similar to those at Lunt.

Fieldwalking conducted for the North-West Wetlands Survey (NWWS) in the early 1990s (Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013, Fig. 80) suggests that activity of this type may have extended along the eastern and southern edges of Croston/Mawdesley Moss and this area therefore has a significant potential for sites of this date. Although much of the area north of Croston/Mawdesley Moss was fieldwalked under good conditions, no finds were made in this area and it seems that this was a relatively unattractive location. A Watching Brief, Excavation and Topographic Surveys for the North Western Ethylene Pipeline (Site 64) found that Croston Moss still retained deep well preserved peat deposits which have the potential for preserving organic archaeological artefacts and evidence for environmental history. The level of the peat has been lowered (by agricultural activity) sufficient for underlying non-peat deposits to begin being exposed.

The route of the pipeline took a central course through the moss and appeared to cross some of these non-peat deposits. A levelled transect of gouge auger cores was taken along the line of the proposed pipeline, running approximately north to south, with the objective of exploring the stratigraphy of the peat deposits surrounding the sand island. The gross stratigraphical investigation verified the existence of a sand island, formed from Shirdley Hill Sand, a post- glacial cover sand deposit which covered large areas of south-. The archaeological importance of such an island of relatively dry ground in a peat-rich landscape lay in the possibilities such an area held for prehistoric settlement. The potential of this particular site was highlighted when a piece of worked flint was recovered from the sand island surface during the course of the coring. Immediately to the south of the sand deposits, the peat was found to be unexpectedly deep with organic deposits reaching over 3m in depth. The stratigraphy indicated a long period when a mosaic of scrub woodland and sedge communities occupied the site. There were also some interesting silt/clay intercalations of unknown origin. These interrupted the peat deposits between 1.7m-1.9m and 2.55m-2.85m below the surface. It is possible that these were the result of marine transgressions affecting the area in the prehistoric past, or the consequences of increased run-off from adjacent ground. However, a watching brief in September 1991 found only natural geological stratigraphy and no archaeological features or artefacts were discovered.

There are no finds or sites of this date from the eastern end of the study area north of Eccleston, though this may be, at least in part, because of the historic lack of fieldwork in this area.

6.2 Neolithic

The Neolithic is generally associated with a shift from hunting and gathering to a population practicing agriculture and living in established settlements. Related to this is the appearance of new artefact types such as querns, sickles, pottery and polished stone axes which began to replace the tools of the Mesolithic period. Neolithic finds are more widespread in Lancashire than those of the Mesolithic (114 sites, 25% of known prehistoric sites on the HER) and may indicate a greater population density and more successful clearance and settlement of the densely wooded lowland areas (Ede & Darlington 2002, 8).

Excavated evidence for Neolithic settlement in Lancashire is rare, most of our current understanding being based upon environmental evidence, such as pollen from the lake muds and peats of mosses such as Croston. This evidence confirms that vegetation cover was extensively altered with the adoption of farming practices. Sophisticated stone axes, arrowheads and other implements provide evidence of Neolithic occupation throughout Lancashire. Evidence of trade is shown by the finds of stone axes from the Langdale area of Cumbria. Elsewhere in the UK new types of site emerged in the Neolithic, including permanent settlement and large ceremonial monuments, although examples of such are rare in the county. There is evidence of burial in large ridge cairns however, for example at High Park, above Leck Beck. (Ede & Darlington 2002, 9).

Fieldwalking for the NWWS found small amounts of Neolithic and Bronze age lithics along the eastern and southern edge of Croston/Mawdesley Moss and the pollen evidence conforms to the general pattern in Lancashire outlined above which suggests exploitation of the wider landscape, though there was little evidence for direct exploitation of the wetlands, a pattern which appears to continue into the Iron Age and Roman periods (Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013).

Other than the survey for the North Western Ethylene Pipeline described above, little significant palynological work has been undertaken in Croston/Mawdesley Moss, though two transects of cores have been taken across Moss c. 3 km to the south-west of the study area (Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013, 141-144). These provide a detailed record of vegetation history and human impact on the landscape in the surrounding area, from around 5900 cal BC when it supported a closed pine and hazel woodland within which alder was becoming established. The Elm Decline is probably of similar date to other sites in Lancashire, i.e. c. 3960-3656 cal BC and is followed by layers with charcoal and weed pollen related to pastoral farming such as ribwort plantain (ibid).

A programme of auger survey, watching brief, strip and record and palaeo- environmental sampling at the site of three wind turbines west of Cliff’s Farm, Wood Lane, Mawdesley was undertaken between June and July and 2011 (Vannan 2012). The peat deposits at this location were severely eroded, surviving to a depth of only 0.05-0.14 m. The underlying deposits of alluvial silt were cut by tree throws (depressions left by the torn-up roots of falling trees), several of which contained charcoal and one a tiny amount of calcined bone, which may indicate human activity in the area, but no artefacts. In places the alluvium was sealed by a buried soil horizon, which was patchily preserved beneath the roots of in situ tree stumps, and represented the contemporary ground surface when the area was covered by mixed deciduous woodland with a significant component of alder.

Above the soil horizon, a large quantity of preserved recumbent wood was found within the peat deposits, which radiocarbon dates showed had begun to form in the second half of the fourth millennium BC. Although these superficially appeared to be part of a man-made trackway, it was concluded that the horizontal timbers were of natural origin, with no indications of having been worked or positioned by people. It was considered more likely that the trees had died and fallen following the onset of the wetter conditions which caused the development of the peat. It is possible that some of the trees were felled by beavers, as a hazel stick was recovered from the site that bore the classic signs of beaver gnawing at each end. The beaver-gnawed stick was dated to c. 3312-2919 cal BC, which coincided broadly with the Neolithic inception of the peat, and with the date of a possibly worked birch ‘stake,’ recovered during the watching brief phase.

Palaeo-environmental assessment of samples from the site demonstrated changes in the local environment over time, including decreases in woodland and increases in cereal or grass pollen, which could be indicative of clearance episodes by humans and of cultivation during the Neolithic period.

Elsewhere, excavations in 1994 for a pond on the southern edge of the study area produced the preserved skeleton of a deer which was probably of prehistoric date, although there are no indications that it was other than a natural death (Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013, 146).

This evidence suggests that Croston/Mawdesley Moss and its eastern fringe is of significant potential for sites of this date. However, the northern fringes appear to be of lower potential, possibly because of the Boulder Clay drift geology was a less attractive location than the better drained areas to the east underlain by Shirdley Hill Sand.

There are no finds or sites of this date from the eastern end of the study area. However, this may, at least in part, be because of the historic lack of fieldwork in this area.

6.3 Bronze and Iron Age

Bronze Age sites are evident throughout the Lancashire landscape and form a relatively common element of the Prehistoric landscape in the county (303 sites, 59% of known prehistoric sites on the HER). At High Park, above Leck Beck and at Portfield above Whalley, settlements suggest continuity of occupation from the earlier Neolithic. However, a continuing deterioration in the climate to colder and wetter conditions appears to have restricted the early Bronze Age farming activities on the higher fells, which may then have been utilised for pastoral farming by the end of the period. Of greatest relevance in the present context are accidental finds in the mosses of the Fylde and south of the Ribble, where conditions are suitable for the preservation of organic matter, these include bog bodies, burials, traces of wooden structures and trackways, as well as implements of stone and bronze (Ede & Darlington 2002, 9).

Surface evidence for the Iron Age within Lancashire is generally confined to the hillforts at Castercliffe and Warton Crag and a number of defended farmstead sites. This is supplemented by a limited quantity of excavated evidence, such as the settlement site at , near , which lies at a distance of c. 4 km south of the study area, and continued into the Roman period on the same site, although other surface Roman pottery does occur within c. 100m of the moss (Cowell 2005). The absence of evidence directly attributable to the Iron Age (with only 17 sites on the HER), might suggest that Iron Age communities within the area farmed and lived in much the same way as their Bronze Age predecessors and are therefore unrecognised in the record (Ede & Darlington 2002, 9). Almost nothing is known of the political or territorial organisation of the area until just before the Roman Conquest except that most of the region was controlled by the Brigantes. The Setantii, one of the smaller tribes of the loose Brigantian federation, are believed to have occupied the Lancashire Plain and its adjacent foothills (Ede & Darlington 2002, 9). The NWWS found little correlation between late prehistoric settlement and former wetlands. The reasons for this are not entirely clear but may be at least in part as a result of the relatively early removal of the later layers of peat by peat cutting. However, finds of artefactual deposits, or sometimes bodies of this period, often of a special nature associated with either religion or ritual, have been found in wetlands in other parts of the region (Leah et al 2007; Nevell 1992) and the former moss lands within the study area have potential for similar evidence.

Outside the former mossland the Iron Age period is very poorly represented in the study area with no documented sites, a pattern consistent with the rest of North- West . However, the apparent low level of material culture in this period (pottery does not appear to have been in use) may, at least in part, account for this dearth of evidence. The historic lack of fieldwork in the area may be another limiting factor.

It is possible that the ‘castle’ site described below has its origins in this period, though there is no evidence for this beyond the general form of the site as depicted on historic mapping and its low lying situation would ague against this interpretation.

6.2 Roman

In Lancashire, Roman military activity may well have slightly preceded the invasion of AD79, although traces are few. Forts were established at Dowbridge near Kirkham, Ribchester, Lancaster and Over Burrow and rebuilt during the AD120s. An industrial settlement was established at Walton-le-Dale, probably to supply goods to the Roman Army, and a road network constructed which formed the basis of the modern system. Settlement patterns seem to have largely followed those of the pre- Roman Iron Age and little appears to have changed under Roman occupation (Ede & Darlington 2002).

Rural settlement patterns in lowland Lancashire appear to have continued largely unchanged from the Iron Age, continuing the tradition of occupation of small isolated farmsteads occupied by extended family groups. There are few excavated examples of Romano-British settlement from the region; the closest to the study area is the site at Lathom c. 4 km to the south where the Iron Age settlement continued largely unchanged (Cowell 2005).

There are no archaeological remains from the Roman period recorded in the Lancashire HER from within the study area, a pattern consistent with the rest of North-West England and confirmed by the results of fieldwalking for the NWWS, though the NWWS documented a hoard of nine coins from ‘near ’ found in 1825 and another of 2-300 coins in a ceramic vessel found on the western fringes of Croston at Croston Brickworks (NGR SD 4848 1909) in 1884 (Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013, 148 & 235).

Whilst these finds demonstrate the presence of a population within the wider area, exploitation of the wetlands appears to have been limited and any settlements present are most likely to have been located on areas of drier high ground such as those on the eastern side of the study area. However, the historic lack of fieldwork aimed at locating such sites in the area makes their location difficult to predict. 6.3 Post-Roman

Little is known of the settlement patterns in Lancashire during the centuries immediately after the departure of the Roman administration from Britain and there are even fewer excavated sites of this date than for the Iron Age and Roman periods. Palaeo-environmental evidence suggests that during the 5th and 6th centuries there was a reduction in population and an increase in woodland regeneration. Place names suggest that the county was largely populated by British speaking peoples until well into the 7th and 8th centuries, though others show the evidence of later Anglo-Saxon and Norse speaking populations from the 6th and 9th centuries onwards. Despite this evidence there is very little direct archaeological evidence for this period, the majority being carved stonework, usually crosses or finds, and the HER lists only 71 sites from the period (Ede & Darlington 2002, 12). In general broad settlement patterns for this period can be determined from later periods. It appears that over much of the county nucleated settlements were rare and most people inhabited small hamlets and isolated farmsteads and this pattern can still be seen in the countryside between , Mawdesley and .

Later place name evidence (see below) suggests that the settlements at Croston, Eccleston and Mawdesley each originated during this period and it is likely that in Croston and Eccleston the population was centred around the churches which are both likely to be pre-Norman foundations. However, no sites are listed on the Lancashire HER from the study area and in common with most areas of Lancashire the location of settlement is difficult to predict. It is possible that the putative castle site at Croston (See below) was established during this period, though there is no direct evidence for this interpretation.

The NWWS found no evidence for post-Roman exploitation of Croston/Mawdesley Moss, though this may be a result of the truncation of the upper levels of the peat by later peat cutting and erosion (Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013).

6.4 Medieval

Following the Norman Conquest, the 12th and 13th centuries were a period of relative prosperity with economic expansion and population growth. Settlements and agricultural activity were expanded to feed a burgeoning population; new settlements were established and more difficult terrain brought into use, wetland was drained, woodlands cleared and tracts of pasture ploughed up (Ede & Darlington 2002, 13)

This growth was checked in the 14th century by a combination of disease, bad harvests and warfare. This resulted in significant changes to agricultural practices and the structure of medieval society. In many areas arable crops were replaced by pasture for livestock farming, including large-scale sheep farming to supply wool for the English and continental markets. Some lowland communities, such as those in the study area, operated an open or common field system, although this was rarely the rigid three field system of the Midlands as the scarcity of drier land meant that a fallow year was economically unviable. (Ede & Darlington 2002, 13). The small areas of ‘ridge and furrow’ fields within the study area confirm that the open-field system was present in Croston and Eccleston in areas away from the mosses. Although areas of wetland such as Croston/Mawdesley Moss were described as ‘waste’, they often provided important resources for rural communities such as peat for fuel, reeds for thatching and rushes for candles. In addition waterfowl and fish were sources of year-round food and many acres of land were secured as rough grazing for livestock. However, between AD1100 and 1300 population pressures forced the drier edges of the mosslands to be regarded as potential farmland and small-scale drainage works were often undertaken to bring these areas into cultivation (Ede & Darlington 2002, 13). However, in most areas of West Lancashire and Merseyside, the mosslands remained as open land well into the post-medieval period.

The North-West Wetlands Survey found little evidence for use of the mosslands during this period, though ridge and furrow fields occur on the eastern edge of Croston Moss (Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013, 148) and it is likely that peat cutting was an important activity (ibid 151).

The study area covers parts of three adjoining townships, Croston, Eccleston and Mawdesley which are considered separately below. None of them are recorded in the Domesday Survey of 1086, though this is more likely to be a reflection of the patchy nature of the survey in south Lancashire than the absence of settlement.

The historically most of the study area lay within the parish of Croston which was originally much more extensive than its present form. Much , with two townships, was separated in 1642, the detached township of Chorley, 4 or 5 miles to the east, became an independent parish in 1793, while the townships to the west of the Douglas or Asland River; Rufford, , and Hesketh-with-Becconsall; were separated in 1793 and 1821 (Farrer & Brownbill 1911). The landowners of the undivided parish contributing to the subsidy in 1525 were Robert Hesketh, Thomas Ashton, Henry Banastre, Edward Beconsaw, Roger Dalton, Bartholomew Hesketh, Henry Charnock and William Chorley. Otherwise the history of the parish is poorly documented and ‘... shows little of interest to record’ (Farrer & Brownbill 1911). The eastern end of the study area lay within the parish of Ecceleston which has an even more limited documentary history.

6.4.1 Croston

The earliest documentary evidence for the village dates to the early medieval period where reference is made to Croston 1094, c. 1190 ‘-tun’ (meaning town with a (market) cross), the tun element suggesting the presence of an Anglo-Saxon speaking population. Other spellings include Croxton 1237 and Croxston 1259 (Ekwall 1922).

Farrer and Brownbill (1911) present a detailed history of the medieval landholdings in Croston which can be traced to the late 12th or early 13th century when ten plough-lands and 6 oxgangs of land were by given by Roger de Montbegon, lord of Hornby to his half-brother John Malherbe. This included not only the township of Croston, but Mawdesley, Bispham, Chorley and Tarleton.

John Malherbe died childless so Croston reverted to Sir Roger de Montbegon, who passed it on to John de la Mare. By about 1300 the manor had descended to the two daughters and co-heirs of John de la Mare. Their moieties, or shares, of the manor descended in a complex network of distinct lines for nearly six centuries, various elements being variously held by members of the Fleming, Dalton, Hesketh, , Master, Norris, Lea, Ashton, Stanley and Trafford families but by 1874 whole manor was reunited in the holding of John Randolphus de Trafford (Farrer & Brownbill 1911)

In addition to the lords of the manor other landowners appear in the pleadings and inquisitions such as Richard Ashton and Henry Croston in 1564, the Radcliffes and Bartons and several families took a surname from the township. The Knights Hospitallers and the priory of had lands in Croston, as also had Cockersand Abbey.

There is little direct evidence for the medieval layout of Croston, the church of St. Michael is situated at the centre of the village, close to the River Yarrow, and is likely to have been sited within or close to the core of the early settlement which was probably around Town Road. In 1283 William de la Mare procured a charter for a weekly market at Croston on Wednesdays and for a fair on the eve, day and morrow of St Wilfrid, though there is no obvious site for these on the available historical mapping. Probably about the same time a borough was created, traces of which remained in the burgage tenure of certain messuages in the town during the early 14th to 16th centuries (Farrer & Brownbill 1911). Later mapping (See below) shows a few long narrow plots in the area north of St. Michael’s and on the north side of Town Road which may be evidence of these plots.

The Lancashire HER lists the site of a castle in Croston though the direct evidence for this is limited. Baines (1870) makes no mention of the site and there appear to be no references in other antiquarian accounts of the county. However, there is some relatively early place name evidence, Joan, widow of William Dalton claimed a close called ‘Castle Place’ against Henry Croston in 1545-6; ‘Castle Hill’ is mentioned in the landholdings of William Nelson in Croston in 1559 and Thomas Nelson had a capital messuage and tenement (later sold to Robert Hesketh of Rufford) called ‘Castleyard’ in 1590 (Farrer & Brownbill 1911, n44).

‘A Survey of the Glebe Lands in Croston’ dated 1759 (LRO PR702) makes no mention of the Castle site but that is likely to be because it did not form part of the glebe lands in Croston. ‘A Survey of the Manor of Croston’ (not dated but probably c. 1750, LRO PR707, the hand is similar, but not identical to that in PR702) contains plot numbers and plots are listed under the headings of ‘Lands belong(sic) to S[i]r Tho[ma]s Hesketh Bat Half Lord’ and ‘Lands belonging to Humphrey Trafford Esq’. Plot 193 is named ‘Castle Yard’ and was part of the ‘Demesne Lands belonging to Jers Thom[a]s’. The plot numbers correspond with those on ‘A Plan of the Township of Croston’ dated 1833, a note in the bottom corner states that it was ‘copied from an old map’ (LRO PR780) and it is probably the map referred to in PR707. This shows the castle site (Plot 193) as a single plot bounded by the line of what is now Castle Walks. Later mapping such as the Tithe Map of 1837 (Fig. 18 and see Section 7) shows the site sub-divided into smaller plots, plot 669 is named as ‘Castle’, 708 as ‘Near Castle’ in the Tithe Apportionment and a building labelled the ‘Dungeon’ is shown at the eastern end of the plot, though this is probably the village ‘Lock-up’ shown on the slightly later 1st Edition OS map. The line of ‘Castle Ditch’ looks superficially as though it could be following the former line of a ditch or moat and encloses an area of about the correct size. However, there is no other documentary evidence to support this and there is an undated (probably c. 1957) comment from the then landowner on the NMR entry for the site (Monument No. 40234) that the line of Castle Ditch was actually a former course of the River Yarrow which had been filled in 30-40 years earlier, though this is contradicted by the historical map evidence which shows it separate from the river from at least 1750.

Fieldwork within the site has been confined to a single watching brief conducted during the top soil strip for a site compound on the eastern half of the site and measuring 60 m x 30 m which was required for flood alleviation works in 2003 (Clark 2003). No archaeological features were found, though this could be at least in part be due to the shallowness of the top soil strip which left undisturbed top soil in place across most of the site which would have obscured any features such as ditches or pits cut into the underlying geology.

In conclusion the evidence for this being the site of a medieval castle is confused and contradictory. The site can be traced using map and place name evidence to at least the mid- 16th century and its form would be consistent with a fortified site. However, the lack of any other documentary evidence and the fragmented nature of the medieval manorial tenure in Croston argue against this interpretation, as does the site’s relatively low lying location. It is possible that this is the site of a castle established in the immediate post-Conquest Period and abandoned before the late 12th or early 13th century when documentary evidence first becomes available for Croston. Alternatively it may be an earlier, Anglo-Saxon or possibly Iron Age site, the name being a later attribution. The final possibility is that the line of Castle Ditch simply follows a former course of the Yarrow and the place name is simply the result of a misinterpretation of an apparent earthwork.

Later map and aerial photographic evidence (See below) suggests that the wider landscape around Croston was largely occupied by the common fields laid out in strips in the area to the north, east and west. Set within these were isolated farmsteads, though there are no moated such as those in Eccleston to the east (See below) which exhibits a more dispersed settlement pattern than Croston.

Croston Mill, a water-powered corn mill on the river Yarrow, is first shown on the Yates Map of Lancashire dated 1786 and in detail on the 1837 Tithe Map (Fig. 19) and 1847 OS first edition six inch map. The 1837 Tithe Apportionment describes it as ‘Mill kiln and Garden’ and as being owned by the Traffords and occupied by Henry Chadwick. There are still buildings on the site which are used as a corn mill and map evidence suggests that some of the buildings shown on the 1847 map are still standing, although the mill race has been filled in. Earlier evidence is entirely documentary and need not relate to this site but suggests that it was in use from at least the 14th century. A deposition of Thomas Tassiker dated 31 December 1814 ‘concerning rights of Hesketh family to be hopper-free at Croston Mill’ (LRO DDHE 71/9) and an estimate for the repair of ‘Croston Mill Bridge’ submitted in c. 1720 (LRO QSP/1159/16) are very likely to relate to the mill shown on the Yates map. It is possibly the same site referred to in a grant dated 3 Jan. 1499/1500 from Roger, son & heir of Richard Dalton, & Elizabeth his wife to Hugh Hesketh, gent., Edward Hesketh & Hugh Mathew, of various lands including ‘...a fourth part of the water mill of Croston.... in the tenure of William Nelson (LRO DDN 1/39) and a lease of 19 Dec. 1361 from Thomas Flemmyng to Roger Bonde, miller of a ‘...moiety of the water-mill of Croston, late held by William son of Richard of Heskyn’ (LRO DDHE 11/16).

The mossland to the south appears to have been largely unimproved waste but was exploited for peat, there are 16th century references to a dispute as to turbary in the town fields of Croston and Mawdesley (Farrer & Brownbill, 1911) and it is possible that this peat cutting accounts for the absence of later deposits from the upper levels of the moss.

6.4.2 Eccleston

The place name is of Celtic origin from eglOs meaning a church, and the Old English word "tQn" meaning a farmstead or settlement adjacent to a church. Appearing as Ekeleston in 1203, later varients include Ecliston, 1252; Hecleston, 1284 and Eccleston, 1301 (Farrer & Brownbill 1911). This evidence suggests that despite its absence from the Domesday Survey the settlement had pre-Norman origins.

The manor of Eccleston was originally held in moieties (shares) first referenced from the grant of a moiety of the church by Roger de Poitou in 1094, the other moiety probably held by the predecessor of the Walton family. Part of the moiety of Eccleston passed through the Dacre family until 1506 when Thomas Lord Dacre sold his manors of Fishwick and Eccleston to Edmund Dudley, the minister of Henry VII; by 1539 the manor was sold to Richard Molyneux. The other moiety belonging to the Waltons of the Gernets was sold to Henry Earl of Lancaster in 1347. The moiety of the manor of Eccleston would eventually become part of the Crown’s possession eventually being sold by Henry VIII in 1545 to Thomas Fleetwood for £607 6s. By the end of the 16th century it was sold to Sir Richard Molyneux descending until 1729 when it was sold off in order to pay charges and debts (Farrer & Brownbill 1911).

A grant dated 3 Feb. 1421/2 from Sir Thomas of Daker to William, son of Thomas of Croston refers to ‘sufficient use of the water of Yarrow between the bounds of Eccliston in Leylondshir to the south and the site of a fulling mill built on the lands of W. to the north’ (LRO DDF 445) suggests the location of a water powered fulling mill somewhere along the course of the Yarrow within the study area, though this site is otherwise unlocated.

Later map and aerial photographic evidence suggests that the pattern of settlement was more dispersed in Eccleston than in Croston to the east, consisting of scattered farmsteads and cottages set within a landscape dominated by piecemeal enclosures. This pattern includes two moated sites within the study area at Ingrave Farm (Site 1) and Bradley Hall (Site 100). The open field system seems to have been less extensive than that seen around Croston, though aerial photographic and LIDAR evidence suggests the presence of extensive ridge and furrow earthworks north of the village and around Ingrave Hall Moat where they cross the platform of the subsidiary moat and some of which these earthworks are set within narrow strip fields.

6.4.3 Mawdesley The place name appears as Madesle 1219, Moudesley 1269, the first element appears to derive from the personal name ‘Maud’ which is of French personal name of Old German origin ‘Mahthild’, the second element is from leah meaning meadow or field. Other spellings include Moudesley 1288, Moudeslegh 1302 and Maudsley 1327 (Ekwall 1922).

During the medieval period the manor of Mawdesley was joined with that of Croston and had an identical history until the early 19th century when the moieties of both were held by Hesketh and Trafford. The Mawdesley moiety was not sold by Heskeths so in the early 20th century the lords of the manor were Sir Thomas George Fermor Hesketh of Rufford and Mr. Sigismund Cathcart de Trafford of Croston (Farrer & Brownbill 1911). In addition to the local surname, the names of Bispham, Germain, Bamford and Rigby occur in the 14th century. (Farrer & Brownbill 1911).

The only section of Mawdesley covered by the study area is the moss which has been discussed above under Croston.

6.5 Post-Medieval to Present

Across the county this period saw a gradual progression from a predominately rural economy and traditional patterns of settlement and land use to a mixed industrial and agricultural landscape with large towns, villages and well developed trade and communications networks (Ede & Darlington 2002, 13).

However, the greatest change to the landscape within the study area during this period was probably the enclosure of the common arable and meadows and the improvement of the wastes and mosses to produce agricultural land. Mid-16th century Lancashire was one of England’s poorest counties with a low population, large areas of unimproved wasteland, impoverished communities and few urban centres (Rogers 1993, 140). By the 1750s most of Lancashire’s common arable and meadow was enclosed and there was a rising prosperity in agricultural areas as well as the industrial areas to the south and east; the study area was no exception.

The enclosure movement had a far-reaching impact upon the moors and mosses where opportunities for greater financial returns from land drainage and improvement ensured many landowners now saw reclamation of otherwise less profitable land as an attractive prospect. Improvements in technology also played a role as windmills aided increasingly ambitious drainage schemes during the early 18th century and from the 1850s the process was aided by steam pumps. These developments made drainage an important feature of the Lancashire landscape from the 17th century onwards and produced large tracts of highly valuable agricultural land in areas such as Croston/Mawdesley Moss (Ede & Darlington 2002, 13).

The greatest change to transport in the study area was the construction of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Company’s railway in 1848 – 49 from Liverpool to Preston (Farrer & Brownbill 1911) which runs south-west to north-east across the western side of the study area.

6.5.1 Croston Many of the buildings in the historic core of Croston date to this period, particularly the late 17th to late 19th centuries and the present village owes much of its character to that period. The increasing quantity of documentary evidence such as leases and estate surveys allow the ownership and occupancy of individual properties and parcels of land to be traced with increasing confidence. For example, the freeholders recorded in 1600 were Thomas Ashton, Henry Croston and John Banastre, and in 1628 Thomas Ashton and William Croston were the landowners contributing to the lay subsidy, though by 1783 the principal landowners were John Trafford, the heirs of Thomas Hesketh and Dr. Master, the rector. Other documents allow the size and extent of the settlement to be estimated, for example in 1666 there were 113 hearths recorded for the Hearth Tax in Croston. The principal house was that of John Trafford, with thirteen hearths; the rector's house had five (Farrer & Brownbill 1911). The Protestation Returns of 1641-2 show a village with an economy based largely on agriculture and domestic crafts (Rogers 1993, 142).

Enclosures in Croston appear to have begun with some piecemeal enclosure of the moss edge between 1683 and 1736 shown on Bold estate maps (LRO DDSs 151/23 and 24 cited in Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013, 151; Rogers 1993) and in 1728 the Rev William Pilkington spent £537 on ‘the enclosure and improvement’ of 21 acres of common land (ibid). The construction of the Douglas Canal, initiated under an Act of 1720 and completed in 1742, would also have resulted in changes to the drainage of the area as the river was straightened improving its flow (Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013, 151) and these would have been enhanced when it was connected to the Leeds Liverpool Canal in 1776. However, ‘A Survey of the Glebe Lands in Croston’ dated 1759 (LRO PR702) frequently refers to unimproved moss which suggests that this process did not extend far into the mosslands during the early 18th century.

This does not mean than the moss an wastes were unused and unoccupied, 17th century documents make frequent references to cattle being pastured on the moss and actions were taken against squatter families attempting to build cottages in Croston Finney, common wastes were often an essential element of communal faming patterns (Rogers 1993, 143). In addition to grazing the moss would have provided fuel, clay for building and marl for use as a fertilizer.

The commons within Croston were enclosed by an Act passed in 1724/5, one of the earliest Acts in the county passed to resolve a dispute over access which had run since at least the 1590s (Farrer & Brownbill 1911, Rogers 1993). Prior to this approximately 1200 acres of demesne land belonging to the manor had been enclosed (Rogers 1993, 139), the enclosure act related to c. 800 acres of land in Croston Finney, an area which broadly corresponds with the eastern end of the study area (Fig. 10) The main relevance of the Act and the documents relating to the dispute leading up to it is that they show that during the 17th and 18th centuries Croston Finney contained several structures such as barns and Shippons (ibid 147)

In 1800 an Act was obtained for draining the low lands of Croston, Mawdesley, Bispham, , Rufford and Tarleton (Farrer & Brownbill 1911, Baines 1870) and the associated plans are discussed in detail in Section 7, though they show little detail of the study area. The works appear to have been badly executed, resulting in flooding elsewhere from backed-up water, the amended works being completed by 1845 resulting in the present landscape (Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013, 151). However, the danger from flooding persisted into the 1920s, partly because the outfall the Ribble became blocked with silt, deterioration of the banks and the failure of landowners to keep drains clear. Later improvements were made under the Land Drainage Act of 1930.

By the early 19th century Croston was ‘...a village peopled by squire and parson, substantial tenant farmers and a large social base of agricultural labourers and handloom weavers’, the smallholders of the 17th century having virtually disappeared as a result of enclosure (Rogers 1993, 153).

Croston Hall (Site 10) was constructed in about 1857 to a design by E. W. Pugin (son of the more famous Augustin Pugin) on the site of a 17th century hall (Baines 1870), though there appears to be little documentary evidence for the earlier building. It was demolished in the mid- 1960s though buildings still survive on the site of the 'farm' or 'stables'.

6.5.4 Eccleston

The post medieval development of Eccleston seems to have broadly followed the same pattern as Croston with the enclosure of former waste and common land, though there appears to be much less documentary evidence for the process and the township seems to have retained its dispersed pattern of settlement until well into the 19th century.

During the 16th and 17th centuries the township’s population remained low, the hearth tax return of 1666 shows that there were then ninety-five hearths liable; the principal houses were those of Thomas Abbott with nine hearths, John Todd and Edward Parr six each (Farrer & Brownbill 1911).

Eccleston Corn Mill, a water-powered corn mill on the river Yarrow, is first shown on Yates Map of Lancashire dated 1786 and in detail on the 1847 OS first edition six inch map. The site may have earlier origins, possibly related to the fulling mill mentioned in medieval documents (See Section 6.4.2) though there is no documentary evidence for this beyond a release for 5 shillings dated 1 Mar. 1665/6 from Edward Robinson of Buckshaw to Viscount Mollineux and Sir Roger Bradshaigh of Haigh ‘...of the manors of Eccleston and Heskin with manor house of Heskin, late in tenure of William Fleetewood of Elinge, co. Middx, esq., and moiety of water mill called Bruckmylne late in tenure of Peter Bradshawe’ (LRO DDX 621/9). Unfortunately it is not clear which of the Eccleston’s in Lancashire this refers to, though none of the families named in it held lands in the Eccleston, St. Helens or Great Eccleston, whilst the Molyneux’s did hold part of the manor within the study area at this date. However, the mill could also have been located in Heskin, the township to the south of Eccleston.

6.5.3 Mawdesley

Later map evidence shows the continuation of a very dispersed settlement pattern in Mawdesley into the mid-20th century, the present concentration around Smithy Lane and New Street only appearing in the 1960s. The 17th century population was probably little changed from that of the medieval period. In 1666 there were ninety- three hearths recorded in the hearth tax list, the chief house was that of Mr. Mawdesley, with eleven hearths; no other had as many as six (Farrer & Brownbill 1911).

Mawdesley Hall, at the north end of the village was originally built in the 17th century, but much altered towards the end of the 18th or beginning of the 19th century.

The impact of drainage and enclosure of the moss has already been discussed under Section 6.5.1. The enclosure of the drier lands to the south and east is poorly documented, though there is no evidence for former open fields such as those seen around Croston.

8. Aerial Photographic Evidence and LIDAR Data

Aerial photographs and LIDAR data represent complementary data sets and are therefore considered together. Because most of the data gathered from this evidence comprises contiguous earthwork features primarily related to the earlier agricultural landscape, unless already listed in the Lancashire HER or of specific significance, sites detected from this evidence are not listed in the gazetteer.

Aerial Photographs held at the Lancashire HER, Lancashire Record Office and National Museums Liverpool were consulted (See Appendix 1).

In addition the Lancashire Record Office Aerial Photography Collection includes the following vertical aerial photographs

1963 Run 3 Frames 9248-9255; Run 1 Frames 1761-1769

1988 Run 3888 Frames 99 + 100 Run 3688 Frames 1-16, Run 4788 71-73

More recent aerial photography and the 1945-8 RAF survey are held on http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk/ and were checked on-line

Monochrome prints of oblique views taken by Adrian Olivier c. 1980-89 are held at the Lancashire HER. The National Museums Liverpool aerial photography collection which holds the oblique photographs taken by R.A. Philpott 1988-90 were checked.

Cambridge University Collection of Aerial Photography (http://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/cucap/) holds no photographs additional to those listed above.

LIDAR data at 1 m resolution as DTM and DSM data provided by the client was checked for evidence of earthworks. The data was obtained as JPEG images which were subsequently equalised in Photoshop to enhance features.

A sketch plot of features observed on aerial photographs and LIDAR is presented on Fig. 25. Most of the features observed are ridge and furrow earthworks relating to medieval agriculture or traces of post-medieval field boundaries removed as agricultural practices changed during the 19th and 20th centuries. Most of the ridge and furrow features are in the areas north and east of Croston, around and north or Eccleston in areas probably given over to open fields during the medieval period. There are also small areas of ridge and furrow north of Mawdesley.

A well defined group of earthworks visible on LIDAR is centred at NGR SD 4965 1835 and relate to a system of small fields shown on the Tithe Map but which have since been amalgamated into four larger fields (Figs 26 & 27). They are truncated to the east by the avenue for Croston Hall which was constructed between 1854 and 1893.

Other features include palaeo-channels within Croston/Mawdesley Moss which present either as parch marks on aerial photographs or as irregular earthworks on LIDAR (Fig. 28).

A set of linear earthwork banks or ditches north of Mawdesley (Site 118) at NGR SD 4750 4154 is of uncertain date and origin but is likely to relate to the drainage of Mawdesley Moss in the late 18th or early 19th century (Fig. 29).

A poorly defined sub-rectangular earthwork east of Syd Brook farm (Site 119) at NGR SD 5033 1734 is visible on LIDAR but not on the available aerial photographs (Fig. 30). Its size and location in the corner of a field suggests that it is likely to be an in-filled marl pit.

The tail race for Eccleston Mill is visible as a negative feature draining towards the River Yarrow, a short section of the head race is visible to the east of the mill building as a negative feature (Fig. 31).

A sub-rectangular earthwork at SD 51750 17516 (Site 120) appears to be respected by ridge and furrow earthworks and therefore may pre-date them but is more likely to be medieval or later in date (Fig. 32). However, it is not shown on historic mapping of the area.

Site 12, recorded on the HER as ‘a short linear earthwork, possibly a track or interrupted linear earthwork or a portion of a semi rectilinear enclosure’ on aerial photographs ref 1544-N2414) north of.Hilton Hall Farm, Eccleston. The feature shows as a slight earthwork (visible on LIDAR and runs directly between a modern gate and what appears to be a small sand or gravel pit.

Site 13 is a square enclosure South of Old Shaw Green, though the aerial photographs were not available for checking and no features were visible on LIDAR.

Site 14, is the earthwork remains of two undated enclosures south of Billinge Wood, identified from aerial photographs. The aerial photograph shows linear features in the form of old banks seeming to form two enclosures: A) SD 5324 1789, an irregular enclosure formed with short lengths of straight lines, with a straight projection eastwards from the north-east corner. B) SD 5333 1789, a small roughly rectangular enclosure with round corners. These show more clearly on LIDAR and are part of the post-medieval enclosure.

9. Borehole and Test-pit Evidence

No borehole or test-pit data was available.

10. Site Visit

The site visit was conducted on Tuesday 23 July and Thursday 25 July 2013. Access was restricted to areas accessible from roads and public footpaths though particular attention was paid to the areas highlighted in the options plans. Unless specified otherwise all agricultural areas inspected were under crop or pasture and in fields defined by hedges and/or wire fences at the time of the site visit.

The Option 4(ii) FSA and Embankment upstream of Bridge End north of Eccleston (Fig. ) was the least accessible with little of the southern end of the line of the proposed works visible from the road or footpath, though it was clear that the valley of the Yarrow is much narrower and deeper than the sections downstream. The river valley at this point is much narrower and steeper than in the areas to the west, with a flat bottom and steep sides and the Yarrow is deeply incised in the bottom of the valley. All areas were under pasture and no archaeological earthworks were visible, though it is possible that direct access would cause this assessment to be amended in the area south of the Yarrow. The standing building on the site of Eccleston Mill was only visible from the road. Superficially it appears to be of 19th century origin but is much altered, possibly totally rebuilt using original materials, and is now in use as a house. There is no record of its conversion on the Lancashire HER.

Most of the line of the Option 4(i) FSA Embankment upstream of Croston Mill was visible from a public footpath which ran parallel c. 50 m to its east. The Yarrow’s valley widens out at this point and has much shallower gradients, though the river follows a deeply incised course at the bottom of the valley, eroded sections of bank have exposed the clayey sands which comprise drift deposits at this point. All of this section was under pasture and no earthworks were visible. However, conditions were not ideal (bright sunlight at c. 1pm) and it is possible that features would be observable under better conditions. There was no direct access to Croston Mill.

Croston Mill lies on private land and the site was not accessible, though contra the entry on the Lancashire HER there are clearly standing buildings on the site.

Little of the section of the Yarrow between Croston Mill and Manor House Farm (i.e. the line of the Option 3(iv) defences) was accessible from footpaths, though those sections which were accessible had clear been the subject of earlier flood defence works. Sections of sheet piling were visible on the north bank just west of Croston Mill (NGR SD 4960 1804) and many other to the west have a stone retaining wall. These works continue through Croston to just east of Fishery Bridge at NGR SD 4844 1852. The sites of the Option 3(i) Side Spillway and 3(ii) Staged Weir were not accessible or visible. The existing defences listed under option 3 (iii) are 20th century and of no archaeological significance. The site of the possible castle at Croston was not open to access but was heavily overgrown with scrub which would have obscured any surface features.

The existing post and panel wall at the site of Option 3(viii) is a mid-20th century structure of no archaeological significance.

The option 3(v) secondary defence passes through an area of agricultural land under ripening crop at the time of the site visit. Only the western, east-west aligned, section was visible from the track. The land here slopes slightly from north to south towards Croston/Mawdesley Moss. No earthworks were visible though any present would have been obscured by the crop.

The area north of Cottage Lane is subdivided into fields which were under a mixture of crop, pasture and set-aside. The landscape here is very slightly undulating with a fall in level from north to south. No archaeological features were visible.

South of Cottage Lane the topography gradually flattens towards Croston/Mawdesley Moss. Most fields were under crop and most of the ditches which define fields were choked by vegetation. However at NGR SD 4789 1737 a short section of the soil profile was visible. The peat here appears to be c. 1m deep and to overlie a deposit of reddish brown gravelly clay, though it was not possible to get closer than c. 4 m or to clean the eroded profile. The upper surface of the clays appear to undulate significantly. At NGR SD 4811 1775 another section of ditch profile was exposed. The peat deposits were absent here, the clayey soils directly overlying the same deposit of reddish brown gravelly clay.

The pumping stations in option 3(vii) are modern structures set on or close to the banks of the River Douglas and are of no archaeological significance.

11. Conclusions

The study area contains, or potentially contains, heritage assets of all periods from the Mesolithic onwards. In generally, the relative proportions of numbers these sites in the study area reflect those in South-West Lancashire as a whole, with the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age being well represented and no sites from the Iron Age. However, there is a marked bias in the geographical distribution of these sites within the study area (see below). The Romano-British period is poorly represented with no accurately located sites within the study area, though two poorly located coin hoards are documented from the Chorley and Croston area (Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013) and there is a possible cropmark of an enclosure to the west of the River Douglas. Other than a poorly located metal detector find (Site 76) from the Croston area there are no documented Post-Roman or Anglo-Saxon sites within the study area, though it is likely that the settlements at Croston, Eccleston and Mawdesley originated during this period.

The commonest sites within the study area are those dating to the medieval and post-medieval periods. Most of these are standing buildings dating to the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, though there are also ridge and furrow earthworks relating to medieval agricultural practices, two medieval moated sites and metal detector finds of coins and other small items of metalwork (Sites 95-99) though it is difficult to relate these directly to settlement and they appear to be chance losses.

The documented sites include three Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Croston Conservation Area and 46 Listed Buildings, mostly within the same conservation area. However, there are no Historic Parks and Gardens or Registered Battlefield Sites within the study area.

Within this broad pattern the study area contains a range of landscapes each with its own unique character and archaeological potential.

The wetlands, former wetlands and their fringes around Croston/Mawdesley Moss have significant potential for the presence of remains dating to the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age periods. Fieldwalking for the NWWS (Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013) found sites of these dates along the former wetlands’ eastern and southern fringes which consisted of small scatters of flint tools. There were no similar sites along the northern fringes, possibly at least in part a consequence of the drift geology in that area which consists of Boulder Clays as opposed to the islands of Shirdley Hill Sand in the areas to the south and east which appear to have been more attractive locations for settlement and these areas ‘...have the potential to hold major areas of prehistoric activity’ (Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013, 153). The alluvial deposits around the rivers are also of significant potential, in particular for buried land surfaces (ibid). Although no finds were made in the areas of surviving peat cover, these have the potential for excellent palaeo-environmental evidence and well preserved organic material (Middleton, Tooley & Innes 2013, 153), even in areas of relatively shallow survival of peat such as at Mawdesley Moss in the south of the study area. However, these areas probably have little or no potential for deposits of later Prehistoric, Roman or Medieval date because these will also most certainly have been destroyed by later peat cutting.

A significant proportion of the proposed works affect the banks of the River Yarrow as it passes through Croston Conservation Area. The below ground archaeological potential of this area is harder to assess because there has been relatively little fieldwork within it, but is possibly greatest for the Early Medieval, Medieval and post- Medieval periods. The possible castle site at Croston is perhaps the most significant, though the origins of the former water powered corn mill at Croston Mill can be traced to at least the mid 14th century. Previous fieldwork at the castle site found no evidence for archaeological deposits at the site and documentary evidence for the castle is limited. However, an early medieval date for the site cannot be eliminated and the scope of fieldwork within the site has been limited. The castle site must therefore still be regarded as having significant potential.

The site of Croston Mill has been significantly altered since the early 20th century and there was no direct access to the site. However, there is some evidence that parts of the 18th or 19th century mill building survive as a standing structure in the present complex and the site clearly has potential for below ground remains relating to the medieval mill and to the mill race which was filled in during the 20th century.

Traces of medieval open field agriculture can be seen in the layout of fields and some surviving ridge and furrow earthworks in the area north of Croston. The landscape to the east of Croston Mill is harder to assess, particularly for periods pre-dating the Norman Conquest, as there is little or no previous fieldwork to draw upon and any assessment is therefore based upon landscape character and limited documentary and cartographic evidence. In addition, it is likely that settlement patterns in this area have always followed the dispersed pattern observable during the late medieval and early post-medieval periods which for most periods makes accurate predictions of settlement location difficult.

There is very little evidence for Prehistoric settlement from this section of the study area and it is likely that during the early Prehistoric period at least activity was concentrated on the sandy soils fringing the mosslands to the west. The potential for later Prehistoric and Romano-British settlement in this area is unknown, as is that for the post-Roman and early medieval periods.

During the medieval period settlement in this section of the study area appears to have consisted of isolated farms, some of them moated such as Ingrave Hall and Bradley Hall. Some of the smaller farms in the study area may also have medieval origins though most are perhaps more likely to have been established during the enclosure of the commons and waste in the township from the early 17th century onwards.