In Search of the Port-way: Excavations in the Area of the Moated Site North of St. Mary's Church in Kidlington By EIIERHARIJ SelL ER with a cOlllribUlion by VIC STRX\'CF SU~lMAR\, FieLdwork north 0/ St. MmJ's church 111 Kidimgtoll b) the Uxford L'ntllenll)' Arrhaeological Soriety has (rul doubt on Ihe [oflg.held theory lIWl there 'W(lJ a direct Roman road lfadmg oLIn Ihi' ford aillamplon Poyle to Kirtlmgiol1. A (oll(fntralwrI of lale Romon roim 111 the floodplal1l near lhe ford, hOWfVf1; H fllitil'llct Jor the regIOnal unportanCl' of tim crossmg over l/if River Chnwell, ami 01 un/Javed tracks leadwg towards it. The area UllinI' Ihe (OUl,) were (h\(OlIfH'd U'(lS /Jrobabl.V unsuitable Jor j)('nTwnenl .setllnTlfll/, but seasonal galhenllg~ at Ihis local traffir )lwrlioll all till' O({"{L'llOm oj traditional feasts or markeh could be on(' pOSSIble fXjJiallalioti for tlib aC(lwudailO7I of (oms. n 1996 the Oxford UniH:r.sit), Archaeological Society continued its research project in 1Kidlington (Fig. 1). lls a im was to e.stablish whether lhe port-way. as a paved Roman road, LOok rhe direct rome from Kidlington northwards LO Kirtlington as some have postulated. The name 'pon-way' is lI sed here for just one amongst several routes of the same name. The word ' pon' refers to the destination, the market. which in this case was at the Anglo-Saxon town of Oxford. I To avoid complication I will not refer to the road as 'port­ street'. though this is the correct hisLO ric term (used in the Anglo-Saxon charters) for the sections paved in the Roman period. It is widely accepted that Banbury Road in Oxford and Oxford Road. its northward continuation to Kidlington, follow the port-way. What is disputed is how this section of the minor road linked up with Akeman Sireet, the main E.­ W. tramc axis in Roman times. There are two theories, which will be discussed in detail below: firstly. that the road continued along Banbury Road and reached Akeman Street at Sturdy's Castle, SW. of Tackley. keeping on the western side of the River Cherwell j alternatively it has been suggested that it continued in a straight line northwards. over the Cherwell bel\'leen St. Mary's church in Kidlington and the village of Hampton Poyle, crossing f\keman Street at Kirtlingwll and continuing further north. The latter hypothesis, wh ich has found more support, implies that the church, the centre of medieval Kidlington. as well as the moated si te to its N .. was situated on this road. Based on the observation that the N. end of Church Street in Kidlington and the northern access of the moat over a gap in the ditch and in the inner bank are on a similar alignment (Fig. I), it was originally suggested that this could be the roule of the port-way. Excavations directed by Michael Ri chards:! did indeed lead to the discovery of paving on this alignment, the surface of which was exposed (tre nch B). When 1 took o\'er the project early J J.Blair. ,-Ing[o-Sllxon Oxford..!hlrf' (1994).121. :.! M. RiLhards. 'Oxford L' ni\'crsilY Archaeological Society'. S. Mldlallru .-4rc/Jaf'oJ. xx,·j (1996). 68. 12 1-. B E. R J 1 A R 0 ~ ALE R \. '""LmleBwyFidd 0...,.." , ~" --_..A ,/".. ," .' .' • !l , f I • r G r a vel $'(1) • " ..---, • topper .dln} (:0111 .-rea 111 \\'hl(h (. 10 unidentified • IOGlllon of the In;"nl he, (:\-10') ----.....J coins hiH't' been found t'xCd\-ateO I !)9;;-() o topper alluy (Ol"e ·65- 65 m. contOllr !Ill(' of forged Silver com arCd in whIch I.u(" Rom,1Il pOlleT) :rRG- lerra(cd RI\cr Gr.t\'eh (I) * siherc;ol\l has been observed IOU In Ftg. I l:.xcavauons l\. ofSt. ~fan"s chuTth. Kidllllgton. Scale 1:5000. (Map based on Ordnance ~urve)­ I :250() map. ero .... n ('op,nghl.) in 1996, the high watertable in the moat pre\-cnted u~ from funher investigation of thl~ stretch of pa\'ing. Drilling allowed us to establish its approximate extelH in the Im\-I~'ing area 5. of the inner nonhern bank of the mO~l.led ~ite, and we tried unsuccessf-ully to find out whether there was a continuation on higher ground. Onh in Spring \ ..'ere we able to uncover the surface of the paving (6 1.-19 111 . abO\'e ~e<.l-Ie\'el) and to section it. The Illiddle of the c. 3 Ill.-wide paving. SP 4976 1504 . was (at the southern border of trench E) 15 Ill . 55\\'. of the central point of the gap in the northern ditch of the moat, and 4.5 Ill. 55'V. of the stretch uncovered in 1995. The paving does not extend beyond the low-lying ground. Modern pottery (dated by Paul Smith to the 19th cenllln) and other contemporary objects were embedded in and also beneath the stone paving which was onl" 10 CI11. thick. ~o structure could be observed beneath this padng or indeed in any of the other trenches. The finds were all modern with the probable exception of a ~ll1all quantity of metal shlg from 20 m. SS'\'. of the central point in the gap (trenth D). With trial trenches and systematic drilling down to I m. below the preseO[ surface, we were able to prove that there had nevel been a paved road or track on the assumed alignment. The \'CI') small quantity of stones and the virtual absence of even modern objects in trench F, just 5.S m. S. of the seCtioned stretch of modern paving (trench E) , excludes rhe possibility that a pavement (even an insubsLantiai one) ever existed there before being de::,troyed b\ ::,Lone robbing or ploughing. The finds, the exact plans and other documentation ha\'e been given to the Oxfordshirc County Museum Services. Gur results definitely disprm'e the theory that there was a paved road between Church Street and the gap in the moat. It is dear that the hypothesis put forward hy C.11. Ilargrea\'es (md R.P.F. Parker:l is equally mistaken. They bclie\'ed that there was a Roman N.-S. road whose 'alignments show a military precision'. It \\-'as assumed that thi~ fO<ld changed its direction at Kidlington church (SP 497 148) between a straight section from B1elchingdon (SI' 502 177) and lhe continualion 10 CUlleslo",e (SP 503 115). In lhe Cherwell naod-plain they observed 'a massive SLOne causeway 21 ft. wide·. On the map showing the suggested route of the road, an arrow indicates a 'Roman causeway' about midway between the church and the Cherwe11. There are three features in the area which could conceivably be interpreted as causeways and whose width is (lbolll right (neglecting irregularities and erosion). There is a narrow footpath, following the drainage ditch from the NE. corner of the moat north-north-eastwards on a shallow earth bank 011 its \\-. side. In places ~ome stones are on the surface, but it is easy to drill with a l11etal bar deep inro the bank, and there is no reason to assume lhal it consists of anything other than the material extracted from the drainage ditch. It certainly i~ nor 'a massive Slone causewa,,'. It is in am, case unlikely that the medieval moat-builders would have wbhed to undertake Ihe laborious task of digging the ditch through massi\'e SLOne paving (a nd thus to destroy useful infrastructure) just to extend the moat for about 10 m. to the E.. while there were no obstacles lO the W.: Ihe causeway ends today just W. of the N E. corner of the moat. During the floods of January 1998 (figs. 2-4) most of this bank \\as still above the watenable, but this wa~ equalJ)' true for the strip of land on the other side of the drainage ditch . Similar!) olle cannOt consider the \\'. bank of the moat. nowada),s overgrown by scrubs and trees, to be a reused Roman road: it is possible to drill into it. and it does not extend beyond the 1110at northwards. The third option is the paved way over Ihe nonhern g~'p in the moat. If Hargreaves and Parker assumed that the causeway had been buried under sediments, they might ha\e thought that this wa~ the onl) visible pari (the alTOw on their map is approximately in the 1 C.II lIargreave!> and R.P.F. Parker, ' Kirtlington Ilon " ·a\' Ro m<tn Road'. S ..\-1Idlmu/\ Arrhnr()l. II ( 19i2), 15; cf. K.E. J~ml\' , ·KidlmgtOn', S, Mldla1Ul, Anharol. 'v (1974), 12. 11 E n t R 1-1 \ R U .... \ L to R Fig. 2. rhe rnc.ldo\\~ belhccn lIamplOn Po\'lc .and Kidlington . .lIl ,11"{'<t dvoided h} medieval and modern <'euiemenl. dunng \"Inter f1ood~ (~Januan 199H ). I he footbridge: ()\'C:r the RiH'r Chen.. elll~ on the Ic.'h. SI. \f.try\ church 111 III<.' b<l(L.gnJlllld • • Fig 3. \Iuth Ollhc .Irea Ixlhcen Ihe Chcnwell.tnd tilt' moat cd 'Ill', '''Uhl.' \\ ,lTlel ,. 'tldcs <Ire: marked b) the..' hne of lrees \j'lble In the bad,ground. is ,"blllerged (1'1 j.lIludn 199X). L': ~EARLJ-I Of. rllt~ I'()RI-W,\) KIDLI"\ILIO~ 15 right position). If one accepts thal il is unlikely lhal the northern ditch of the moat cms a road, then there is hardh any other option for the course of a road in [he suggested direction (even considering thaI the grid references are only approximate).