Local History and the Little Ouse Headwaters Project Heritage Audit
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Local History and the Little Ouse Headwaters Project Heritage Audit April 2013 Prepared for the Little Ouse Headwaters Project by The Landscape Group, School of History, University of East Anglia Professor Tom Williamson Dr Sarah Spooner Dr Jon Gregory UEA Consulting Ltd trading as The Landscape Group. Registered Address: The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ Company No:06477521 Local History and the Little Ouse Headwaters Project Heritage Audit Contents Section 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………2 Section 2: Archaeology………………………………………………………………………...5 Section 3: Cartographic Evidence……………………………………………………………11 Section 4: Contemporary and Archival Evidence…………………………………………..18 Section 5: Published Works – an overview………………………………………………….61 Section 6: Census Material……………………………………………………………………65 Section 7: Analysis and Interpretation………………………………………………………..67 Section 8: Next Steps…………………………………………………………………………..79 Section 9: Select Bibliography…………………………………………………………………81 Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………82 1 Section 1: Introduction This report builds on the identified need to address the local and landscape history of the Little Ouse Headwaters Project (LOHP) area, as noted in our report of April 2012. This piece of work seeks to identify all the relevant ‘heritage assets’ relating to the study of the Little Ouse valley in order to answer some of the research questions which have previously been identified. A key issue here is the geographic spread of material between archives held in Norfolk, Suffolk, other archives in the UK and some international archives. There is also a distinction between material held in publicly accessible archives, and that in private hands. The LOHP area of interest as covered in this report includes eight parishes in both Norfolk and Suffolk: • Garboldisham • Blo Norton • North Lopham • South Lopham • Thelnetham • Redgrave • Hinderclay • Hopton A detailed study of any one of these parishes is a time consuming exercise – although a great deal of material exists for all of these parishes, much of that material will not be strictly relevant to the interests of the LOHP. 2 Figure 1.1. Map of study area showing sites managed by the LOHP in green. In our previous report, a number of possible linked research questions and themes for study were identified: • The changing course of the river, its tributaries and the history of drainage in the area. • What effect did historic climatic changes over a long period have on the fens? • The economic use and value of the fens – how were they managed in the past, and when do the traditional uses of the fens stop? How were they used for peat excavation in the past? How did these management practices influence the development of habitats in the LOHP area? • Comparison of the LOHP with other wetland landscapes. • How important were the fens to the local community, and how did that change over time? How were the fens affected by changes to the rural economy in a broad sense? How did landownership and tenure affect the use and management of the fens? What influence did the local poors trusts have on 3 land management in the area? What effect did the fens have on ‘open’ and ‘closed’ settlements in the area? • Oral History in the LOHP area. Some of these questions can be relatively easily answered by examining the availability of the documentary evidence. For example, the owners of land in the area can be easily traced for the 19th century using the documents relating to enclosure and to tithes. Other questions are not so directly linked to the available evidence – there is virtually no direct mention of the ways in which the Fens were managed during the historic period, although we can infer from the evidence of land use recorded at enclosure or on the tithe documents. It is also difficult to push the answers to these questions further back than the 18th century, and in some cases, the 19th century, simply because the documents that may shed some light on the use and nature of the Fens in the medieval and early post-medieval periods have not survived, or are not known/accessible in the public domain. This report takes each type of evidence in turn, and considers that evidence for each parish; the archaeological evidence, the evidence of cartographic sources and aerial photographs and an assessment of the archival material held in a variety of archives across the UK. Detailed lists of identified material are provided in a series of appendices. These are designed to provide a quick reference guide to the location of material for future use. It should be noted that more material may come to light in the future, or may become more easily accessible – particularly as digitisation of archives and datasets is a priority for many archives and local authorities. Norfolk is perhaps better served than Suffolk in this respect – the Norfolk Record Office, NROCAT, and the Norfolk Heritage Explorer websites have a level of detail and search capability which their counterparts in Suffolk are lacking at the time of writing. 4 Section 2: Archaeological Evidence Using archaeological evidence as a means of understanding landscape change in the long term can be extremely useful, but this type of evidence can also have its limitations. Every local authority in the UK has a statutory responsibility to maintain a Historic Environment Record or HER (sometimes also called a Sites and Monuments Record): effectively a database of every archaeological find, monument, building or site in the county. These datasets are linked to GIS maps and other additional data relating to archaeological excavations. The information contained within them can be sensitive, particularly with regard to sites which may be at risk from nighthawking (illegal metal detecting) or other damage, so on occasion information about sites may be withheld from the public domain. Both Norfolk and Suffolk maintain an up-to-date HER. Norfolk’s is entirely accessible online through the Norfolk Heritage Explorer website, which also provides additional content in the form of parish summaries and other thematic articles. The Suffolk HER has less online functionality, but is freely accessible through the Heritage Gateway website, run by English Heritage. The records for both Norfolk and Suffolk, and for each parish, vary in their level of detail. With the exception of Garboldisham, none of the parishes within the study area have been the subject of detailed and systematic archaeological investigation, and the results of recent work in Garboldisham are unpublished. It will be worth revisiting this assessment once that work has been completed and published. 2.1 Blo Norton The Norfolk Historic Environment Record (NHER) records 33 sites in Blo Norton – a relatively small number compared to other parishes. There is little evidence of prehistoric activity in the parish – two Neolithic axeheads are the only finds of this date to have been recovered from the parish. Similarly, there is little evidence to date of Roman occupation, although a glass bead, pottery and a late Roman coin have been found. A Middle Saxon brooch, and Middle to Late Saxon pottery have also been discovered. The majority of the records relate to the medieval period and later – three manorial sites, two churches and a number of late medieval and early post-medieval buildings are all recorded on the database. These records are listed in Appendix 1.1. 5 2.2 Garboldisham Garboldisham has seen more archaeological activity than Blo Norton, including a number of excavations. A recent programme of community archaeology carried out by the University of Cambridge will undoubtedly add to our understanding of the parish, but this work has yet to be published. There is some evidence for prehistoric activity within the parish – flint implements dating from the Mesolithic and Neolithic have been found, as well as a Bronze Age antler with incised decoration and a copper dagger. During the Bronze Age a barrow cemetery was established on what is now Garboldisham Heath, in a typical location on light soil above the river valley. One round barrow survives as an upstanding earthwork, whilst others have been destroyed. The barrow was excavated in 1963, revealing a complete Bronze Age cremation burial. Settlement within the parish continued into the Iron Age, although the focus of any particular settlement site is unknown. A likely Roman settlement site has been discovered to the north of the present village; pottery, tiles, coins and other domestic finds have been recovered from the site. The most important archaeological site within the parish is the Devil’s Ditch, which also forms the parish boundary to the west. A linear earthwork, it probably dates to the Early Saxon period, but it’s function remains enigmatic. As in Blo Norton, a number of the recorded sites relate to the medieval period, including two churches and three moated sites – not an unusual number for this area of East Anglia. In 2000 an archaeological investigation on Back Street discovered evidence for medieval ploughing in the form of ridge and furrow, demonstrating the presence of open fields in the parish (something corroborated by the documentary evidence). There are a number of well- preserved late medieval and early post-medieval vernacular buildings, including Jacques (built in around 1490) and Pear Tree Cottage (also dating to the late medieval period). Garboldisham Post Mill is a good example of a mid 18th century post mill, and stands close to the location of another 18th century windmill – both of which are mentioned in contemporary documents. These records are listed in Appendix 1.2. 2.3 North Lopham There are 59 sites recorded for North Lopham on the NHER. In common with Blo Norton and Garboldisham there is relatively little evidence from the prehistoric period, apart from a few scattered finds of find implements and Iron Age coins. During the Roman period a villa was located to the east of the present village, and a large number of Roman finds have been 6 recovered from the site, including coins, brooches and pottery.