EMBOROUGH’S MEDIEVAL ORIGINS PROJECT
Trial trenches at Manor Farm, Emborough, Somerset
Location NG Ref. ST6139 5135
July 18 and 19, 2015
Pip Osborne BA (Hons)
Community Archaeology on the Mendip Plateau
2
ILLUSTRATIONS Cover The group by trench 2 Figure 1 Resistivity survey of trench 1 Figure 2 Google Imaging with resistivity surveys dropped in Figure 3 Resistivity survey of trench 2 Figure 4 Annotated survey of trench 2 Figure 5 Photo of trench 1 Figure 6 Plan of trench 1 Figure 7 Photo trench 1 ditch Figure 8 Section through trench 1 ditch Figure 9 Aerial photo trench 2 Figure 10 Plan of trench 2 Figure 11 2nd plan trench 2 Figure 12 South elevation drawing of wall trench 2 Figure 13 Photo of glazed ridge tile Photos by John Croxford, Brian Irwin and Pip Osborne. Resistivity Survey by Steve Tofts
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Background
2.0 Summary
3.0 Trench
3.1 Research questions
3.2 Results of excavations
3.3 Discussion
3.4 Future research questions
4.0 Recommendations for future excavation
5.0 Finds
6.0 References
7.0 Acknowledgements
8.0 Appendices
4
1.0 Background
1.1 Geoffrey Loxton (2002) has done extensive documentary research into the
origins of the settlement of Emborough, but very little archaeological
investigation has ever taken place. The present church is thought to be on the
site of an earlier one, but there is no archaeological, cartographical or
documentary evidence for there having been settlement close by except at
Manor Farm. It is possible that former settlement moved away from the
vicinity of the church with the gentrification of the land in the 16thC by the
Hippisley family. Manor Farm is believed to have its origins as far back as the
14th century, although limited test-pitting nearby has failed to find material
evidence to substantiate this early date (Osborne, 2013, unpublished) (SVBRG
Report 2013).
1.2 This project design has been prepared by Pip Osborne and it forms part of on-
going research by both Pip Osborne and members of Community Archaeology
on the Mendip Plateau (CAMP), into the early origins of the settlement of
Emborough. As a part of the Council of British Archaeology’s Festival of
Archaeology July 2015, members of the public were invited to take part,
alongside those of CAMP. In total there were 10 adult participants and one
child from the public.
1.3 The site of the excavations belongs to Paul and Kay Trippick who own Manor
Farm. The ground to the south of Manor Farm is of rough pasture, with a
number of earthworks, representing former field boundaries and a pond. The
latter could have originated as a quarry.
1.4 Site of trench 1. Limited resistivity surveys carried out by CAMP had identified
a strongly contrasting readings over an earthwork to the SW of Manor Farm,
hitherto considered to be a former field boundary and appearing as such on
maps of the 18th Century. The occurrence of the field name ‘Great Conigar’ on
the Rice map of 1764, gave rise to speculation that one particular earthwork
may have once been an artificially constructed pillow mound, part of a rabbit
5
warren. Such warrens were known on Mendip eg Dolebury, Charterhouse and
Shute Shelve Hill. The latter was excavated in 1955-58.
Figure 1 Resistivity of earthwork in Great Conigar field (black is high resistance)
Blue marks the position of the trench
Figure 2 The resistivity survey dropped into Google Imaging (centre picture)
Site of trench 2. An area due south of the church and formerly a pond was also
investigated. A right-angled, linear parchmark had been noted by Mr Tom
Trippick in an area surrounding the dried up pond. Resistivity shows an
anomaly of moderately high resistance in this vicinity.
6
Figure 3 Resistivity survey of trench 2.
Figure 4 Annotated resistivity showing buried path (red), linear anomalies
which could be walls (green) and position of trench 2 (blue)
1.5 Geology. The published geological map and memoir indicates the area south of
the church underlain by Harptree Beds of Jurassic Age. These are typically buff
coloured cherts with yellowish clayey partings, or thick spreads of sandy loam
with chert debris. To the east and southeast of the church, an outcrop of Coal
Measures including the White Axen coal seam or black coal-rich shales is
reported to have been worked from a trial shaft prior to the 1870's (Kay
Boreland pers com)
7
2.0 Summary of excavation
2.1 Trench 1. Was situated in the large field to the west of Manor Farm and
plotted by handheld GPS (centred on ST61325 51292). An area of 9 x 2metres
was deturfed by mechanical digger ahead of excavations. This was then
trowelled back to reveal a soil surface almost devoid of stone except for two
bands of cobble/pebble sized stone, randomly placed orientated to the spine
of the earthwork. One was along the ridge, the other on the downslope to the
north.
2.2 Trench 2 measured 3x2 metres situated at right angles across a slight rise to
the north of the so-called pond area, which might have been a quarry in the
past and to the south of the field wall bounding a paddock. The SW corner of
the trench was triangulated to plot its position in the landscape.
3.0 Research questions.
1. Does the large earthwork running E/W across the field formerly called the
Great Conigar consist of a rabbit bury, perhaps later utilised as a field
boundary? Can any evidence be found to date this phase of occupation in the
field?
2. What is the linear parchmark observed to the north of the pond area? Does
it have medieval origins? Can any dating evidence be found for medieval
settlement in this field?
3.1 Results of excavations
Trench 1 by Sarah Porteus
Figure 5 The partially excavated
trench in the Great Conigar field
8
Figure 6 Plan of trench 1 at north end
Figure 7 The west face of the ditch showing stratigraphy of the deposits.
Figure 8 Section drawing of the west facing trench edge showing ditch
stratigraphy
9
The natural yellow sandy silt subsoil [1/007] was uncovered at a 215.57mAOD.
Cut into the natural subsoil was a linear ‘U’ shaped ditch [1/008] of 2.80m
width with a slightly stepped southern edge which formed a bank. The ditch
had a depth of 0.70m on the northern edge. Overlying the southern edge of
the ditch and on the bank edge was a 0.10m thick deposit of small stones in a
moderately compact brown silt matrix [1/006]. Light brownish yellow,
moderately compact sandy silting fill [1/009] appeared to overlie some of the
deposit of stones on the bank edge. Fill [1/004], a 0.20m thick moderately
loose, mottled brownish yellow sandy silt with frequent inclusions of coal and
small pebbles with occasional large stones overlay deposit [1/009]. Fill [1/004]
contained medieval and post-medieval finds mainly comprising building
material. The ditch was sealed by a 0.35m thick yellowish brown sandy silt
subsoil [1/002].
At the southern end of the trench the natural subsoil was overlain by a
compact deposit of large stones [1/005]. The flatish stones with rounded edges
measured up to 0.50m diameter and included both limestone and blue lias.
The large stones were overlain by a 0.04m thick deposit of friable, pale
yellowish brown, sandy silt [1/003].
Covering the trench was a 0.05 to 0.10m thick, light greyish brown silty topsoil
containing occasional small angular stones and finds of modern date.
Interpretation
The excavation did not reveal any evidence for a pillow mound or rabbit
warren. A deposit of stones on top of the bank covering half the trench may
have been responsible for the high resistivity reading. It is possible further
stones are present on top of the bank as some were observed sticking through
the topsoil to the west of the excavation area. To the north of the bank was a
ditch of 2.80m width and 0.70m depth. The ditch appears to be the reason for
the area of lower resistance from the geophysical survey. The ditch contained
a primary silting deposit which was overlain by a deposit containing large
pieces of clinker and coal along with finds of both medieval and post-medieval
date. The uppermost ditch fill was largely devoid of artefacts.
10
The bank appears to have had large stones put along the top, possibly to form
a field boundary. The stones may have been structured as a wall and later
robbed out: extensive drystone walling with such walls can be seen around the
neighbouring manor house. Post-medieval pottery from beneath the large
stones suggests a post-medieval date for the deposition of the stones on the
bank. The deposit of smaller stones on the northern slope of the bank may be
those thrown to the edge of the field during ploughing. No artefacts were
recovered from the base of the ditch; post-medieval finds were recovered
from the secondary fill. The ditch seems to have been used to dump material,
which may be associated with renovations to either the church or manor
house. More recent fills of the ditch contained little or no finds suggesting far
less activity in the field; possibly pasture or occasional arable use of the land.
Matrix of trench
11
Trench 2
Figure 9 Aerial photo of trench 2 (photo John Croxford)
Figure 10 First plan of trench 2
12
Figure 11 Second plan of trench 2
Figure 12 South elevation of wall foundation 002 in trench 2
The natural substrate was reached at AOD 215.24 (005 and 006) and consisted
of a very compact yellowish brown silty clay (10YR 5/6). Overlying this was a
wall foundation (002), running east/west over the width of the trench. It
consisted of squared-off stones to the south face but the north face had
slumped and was not visible. The wall measured 700mm width, <350mm in
height and was of 5 courses with rubble core. The highest coursing stone lay at
215.56. Lying to the south of 002 was a bed of lias limestones (007) at 215.403
on the surface of the natural substrate (006). To the north of 002 more
randomly placed stones were observed over 005 at 215.364. Overlying 005 was
a fairly compact surface consisting of pebble to boulder sized stones, red brick
and red tile, with charcoal and coal, bone metal, glass, claypipe and post-
medieval pottery. This was at AOD 215.415.
Overlying 006 and 007 was a subsoil (004) at avg 215.505.
13
The trench was sealed by turf and topsoil (001)
M
Matrix of trench 2
3.3 Discussion
There were no indications of any occupation prior to the post-medieval
period in this trench although it could not be ascertained when the wall was
constructed. The more organized nature of the stone of 007 could have
constituted a floor surface, but the presence of random stones to the north of
002 suggest either a natural occurrence, the residue of stones from the wall
construction or slippage at some early period in the wall’s life.
The compact layer 003 butting up to the north face of 002 would appear to
have been constructed in the post-medieval period as a ground surface.
3.4 Further research questions
Resistivity survey shows some further high linear readings in the vicinity of
wall. It would be useful to establish the extent and purpose and date of its
construction.
4.0 Recommendations for future excavation
To put further test trenches over strong resistivity readings to check for
evidence of a wall and its alignment
14
5.0 Finds
Two fragments of a post-medieval glazed ridge tile with maker’s stamp SI
in reverse was found in context 003 of trench 1.
Figure 13 Glazed ridge tile from trench 1 (photo Brian Irwin)
6.0 References Loxton G, 2002, Emborough Perambulations, Snowdrop Press
Russett V, 1986, ‘Three Rabbit Buries at Shute Shelve Hill, Axbridge’, in
Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society, Vol 130,
107-113
SWBRG 2013 Manor Farm, Emborough Survey
Williamson, T, 2007, Rabbits, Warrens and Archaeology, Stroud: Tempus
Personal Communication
Boreland, K, Intégrale
7.0 Acknowledgements
Mr P and Mrs K Trippick for allowing access to their land and full support to
our studies
To all members of CAMP for their help especially John Croxford and Steve
Tofts
To the following members of the public who joined the dig:
Vicki Coxon, Sarah Gell, Jamie Carghill, Hamish Carghill, Pete Missingham,
Helen Johnson, David Horton, Lorraine Wright, Sandra Billing, Keri Vigars, Liz
Hardman
15
8.0 Finds Number and weight in grammes 001 002 003 004 005 Pottery: post-med Redware
7/22 4/15 7/25 2/52
White glazed 2/3 Stoneware 1/1 unidentified 1/1 CBM glazed ridge tile 2/210 Red floor tile 12/99 4/39 1/11 Glass 10/12 5/8 very
thin Slate 1/16 Metals: Bolt 1/50 Nails 3/11 1/6 3/7 Flint 4/6 Chalk unidentified object 2/16 2/12 Plastic 1/1 Clinker 4/39 1/6 001 002 003 004 005 Coal 13/13 Clay Pipe Stems 2/3 Trench 2 Finds 001 003 Pottery: post-med Redware
9/15 10/25
White glazed 9/23 16/19 Creamware 2/6 Blue and White ware 3/8 Slipware 3/4 2/3 unidentified 2/6 1/2 Red floor tile 78/379 39/124 Glass 29/44 27/55 Glass molten bead 1/1 Slate 2/1 1/4 Metals: Bolt Nails 15/34 5/13 Button 1/1 Dross 1/7 Flat pieces (hinge parts?) 2/20 Clinker 10/38 Coal 1/5 Bone 10/14 3/18 Clay pipe: stem 1/2
16
Clay ball function unknown 1/12 Oyster shell pt 1/3 8.1 Context Index Trench 1 Context Type Description Length
(m) Width (m)
Depth (m)
Top of deposit (mAOD)
1/001 Deposit Topsoil Tr Tr 0.10 215.90 1/002 Deposit Subsoil Tr 2.00+ 0.35 215.37 1/003 Deposit Subsoil Tr 6.00+ 0.04 215.81 1/004 Fill Fill of ditch 0.50+ 1.00+ 0.20 214.98 1/005 Deposit Deposit of large stones Tr 1.50 0.40 215.76 1/006 Deposit Deposit of small stones 3.00 Tr 0.10 215.65 1/007 Natural Natural subsoil N/A N/A N/A 215.57 1/008 Cut Cut of ditch Tr 2.80+ 0.70 215.40 1/009 Fill Primary silt of ditch Tr 0.90+ 0.08 214.78 8.2 Context Index Trench 2
Context Type description Length (m) width (m) depth (m) mAOD top dep
1/001 Deposit Turf+topsoil Tr Tr 40-100mm 215.59 1/002 Structure Wall E/W Tr E-W 700mm <350 215.51
1/003 Deposit Compact stone Tr N to 002 1.9m Tr E +W 150mm 215.415
1/004 Deposit Subsoil Tr S to N 002 40cm Tr E +W 120mm 215.403 1/005 Deposit Subsoil Tr N 002 to S 1.9m Tr E +W 150mm 215.37 1/006 Deposit Natural clay LOE LOE LOE 215.24 1/007 Structure Floor slabs? random LOE LOE 215.403 About Community Archaeology on the Mendip Plateau (CAMP) This Community Archaeology Group based in Chewton Mendip was established in 2009 by Pip Osborne to provide an opportunity for interested local people to investigate their environment through archaeological and historical study. It publishes reports on its findings on www.camplat.btck.co.uk COPYRIGHT STATEMENT Pip Osborne and CAMP retain full copyright of this, and any other report (commissioned or otherwise), or other project documentation by her under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 with all rights reserved. Pip Osborne and CAMP may however, assign copyright of a document to an interested party upon written request, but will still retain the right to be identified as the author of the document as defined in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Chapter IV s.79). Please contact through www.camplat.btck.co.uk
