GLEVENSIS 42 2009

Gloucester and District Archaeological Research Group (GADARG)

Registered Charity 252290 www.gadarg.org.uk email: post@gadarg.org.uk

Gloucester and District Archaeological ResearchGroup was established in 1967. Currently it has amembership of some 150 independant amateur andfull time archaeologists and local historians.Archaeological and historical evidence is investigatedthrough the study of aerial photographs anddocumentary research and by undertaking activities,such as field-walking, resistivity, landscape andstanding building surveys. For many years Groupmembers have supported local excavations,particularly at Frocester. Sometimes GADARG isasked to undertake archaeological evaluations andwatching briefs. Members are also encouraged toconduct their own projects, for which help is oftenneeded. If local history is your interest, the Group canoffer support to get you started, as well as providecontacts in Gloucester archives, where GADARGvolunteers often help with archive projects. Otheractivities include setting up information displays atrelevant public events.

In the winter months there are meetings in bothGloucester and Cheltenham on a wide range ofarchaeological and local history topics. These providenew and old members alike with the opportunity tolearn more about the past. Visitors are alwayswelcome at these meetings, especially since we are aneducational charity. In the summer there is aprogramme of visits to sites of historical andarchaeological importance. GADARG also producesa free quarterly newsletter to publicise its activities,both practical and social, and to keep members up todate with things that are happening in the localheritage scene.

The group's journal Glevensis is published annuallyin the Spring and is issued free to all members exceptassociates. Authors wishing to submit articles for thenext issue should contact the editor DianeCharlesworth, tel: 01452 790628, or should send anEmail to diane.charlesworthl@btinternet.com. Herpostal address is: 2 Bovone Cottages, Barbers Bridge,Rudford, Gloucester, GL2 8DX. The deadline forsubmissions each year is October 31st.

Copies of past issues that are still available may beobtained from the Group's Hon Treasurer (detailsbelow) at prices ranging from £4.00 (plus postage) forthe current issue to £1.00 (plus postage) for lessrecent ones. A full index for Glevensis issues 1-35and the contents pages of the whole run are viewableon the GADARG website.

The 'Frocester Report' four-monograph series detailsthe results of 47 years of the continuous and rigorousexcavation of the prehistoric, Roman and Post-Roman site at Frocester. Here the longest runningexcavation in Britain has, for the last 25 years, beenunder the leadership of the Group's former presidentEddie Price, M. Univ. Open, MBE, JP, FSA. The thirdvolume of the report is now nearing completion andthe fourth, on Frocester:- The Village, has recentlybeen published. This brought together nearly 50 yearsof Eddie's fieldwork and documentary research intothe development and landscape of the present village.A few copies of the two volume set of monographs 1and 2 are still available at £40 (plus postage andpacking). Volume 4 is £25. For these please contactthe director Eddie Price, Frocester Court, Frocester,Stonehouse, Glos. GL10 3TN. Alternatively an orderform can be downloaded from the GADARG website.

Membership of the group is open to all with aninterest in archaeology or local history: ordinary: £12,associate (of an ordinary member): £3.00, student(under 21): £3.00. Payable on March 1st each year,except for those joining in the preceeding threemonths. Cheques should be made payable toGADARG and sent to the Hon. Treasurer, AngelaNewcombe, 2 Warren Close, Churchdown,Gloucester, GL3 1JP. tel: 01452 859308.

For more information on the Gloucester and DistrictArchaeological Research Group please visit thewebsite.

© 2009 The Gloucester and District Archaeological Research Group and individual authors. Any statementmade or opinions expressed in the Review are those of the contributors alone, for which the group does notaccept responsibility.

GLEVENSISTHE GLOUCESTER AND DISTRICT ARCHAEOLOGICAL

RESEARCH GROUP ANNUAL REPORTNO 42 : 2009

OBITUARY: ANTHONY PATRICK GARROD (1931-2009) HON. SECRETARY’S REPORT TO THE 2009 AGM EDDIE PRICE IS AWARDED THE HONORARY DEGREE OF MASTER OF THE OPEN UNIVERSITYINTERPRETATION OF GEOPHYICSAT BRUNSWICK SQUARE, GLOUCESTERRESISTIVITY SURVEYS AT LLANTHONY PRIORYAND DEERHURSTGEOPHYSICAL SURVEY OF BUCKS HEAD BARROW,CRANHAM SCANDAL AT ELMORE IN 1347 (Translation)FIELDWORK AT WILLINGTON COURT ROMAN VILLA,SANDHURST GLOUCESTERSHIREBOOK REVIEW : A HISTORY OF BISHOPS CLEEVEAND WOODMANCOTEBOOK REVIEW : GLOUCESTER DOCKS AN HISTORICAL GUIDEMEDIEVAL FISH WEIRS ON THE MID-TIDAL REACHESOF THE SEVERN RIVER (ASHLEWORTH-ARLINGHAM)FROCESTER COURT EXCAVATIONS 2009 - SITE 7GLOUCESTER CRAFTSMEN IN 1672COTSWOLD BALE TOMBSINQUISITION POST MORTEM FOR TIBBERTON ANDRODELEYE, 1358 (Translation)PORTABLE ANTIQUITIES SCHEME: GLOUCESTERSHIREAND AVON 2009 ROUNDUPPLANNING RELATED ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONSIN GLOUCESTER 2008HON TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 28FEBRUARY 2009NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS TO GLEVENSIS AND EDITORIAL CONVENTIONS FOR REFERENCES

1

Editorial CommitteeDiane Charlesworth & Les Comtesse

CONTENTS

Page235

7

9

11

1617

29

30

31

45475359

60

65

70

72

COVER : EXCAVATIONS IN PROGRESS THIS YEAR AT FROCESTER (see article on p. 45)

John RhodesMartin EcclestoneDiane Charlesworth

Nigel Spry & Don Mayes

Nigel Spry

A J Roberts

John RhodesA J Roberts

Terry Moore-Scott

Ray Wilson

Terry Moore-Scott

Eddie PriceMartin EcclestoneAngie NewcombeJohn Rhodes

Kurt Adams

Jonathan Smith

Angela Newcombe

GLEVENSIS 42 2009

2

ANTHONY PATRICK GARROD (1931-2009)

Patrick, who died on 14 September 2009, was anarchaeologist of extraordinary skill whose experienceof Roman Gloucester went back at least to the BonMarche excavation of 1958. Work in the aircraftindustry took him abroad for a few years, but in 1966-7 he upstaged a set-piece excavation at the NewMarket Hall by uncovering a longer and wider seriesof Roman deposits in the builders' excavation there.He demonstrated how to record the faint butunmistakable sequences of walls and floors which layabove and below the obvious mosaics and mortarsurfaces, and from the friends who joined himGADARG was born.

In 1972, like many excavators before and since, I wasdumbfounded by his visit to my site at 96 NorthgateStreet. An enigmatic hollow in a Roman workshopfloor puzzled me. With a few sweeps of his trowel heshowed that the floor was deeply laminated withhammer-scale from an anvil and that the visiblehollow was only one of many preserved in thelaminations and left by the anvil as it moved about.

By that time he had become indispensable as a sitesupervisor on the major excavations of Henry Hurst,and in 1974 the post of Field Archaeologist wascreated for him in the newly formed Gloucester

Excavation Unit. Thereafter he helped CarolynHeighway to excavate the east and north gates of thecity and shortly found a niche as a peerless executantof archaeological watching briefs. In 1984 Carolynprocured draughtsmen and finds analysts and co-authored the results in a book dedicated to GADARGGarrod’s Gloucester.

Already in 1972 Patrick had redrawn the map of themedieval town by finding its 1lth-century castle in acable trench under Ladybellegate Street. Garrod'sGloucester contained many finds of that importance,such as a Roman monumental arch in a sewer shaftunder Northgate Street and the church of Whitefriarsin a pipe trench under Market Parade. His keyholeobservations were so numerous and of such qualitythat the book is still the main source for debate onquestions of historical geography, such as whetherthe built-up area of Glevum was as big as that ofCorinium and whether the Roman west defencessurvived into the Norman period.

From 1982, when the record in Garrod's Gloucesterended, until 2004 Patrick contributed to Glevensissummary reports on watching briefs which togetherconstitute an immense resource. In 1983-4 atGambier Parry Gardens he found the earliest Roman

Copyright :Gloucester Citizen

3

site in Gloucester. In 1985 at Gloucester Prison hefound buildings of the 13th century royal castle soimportant that the Home Office apologised fordestroying them. In 1987-8 at Kingsholm Stadium hefound Roman pottery kilns, and in 1989 he drew atransect two miles long in a cable trench through theKingsholm fortress and its environs. The flow ofreports was uninterrupted by the vicissitudes of theExcavation Unit or even by his retirement from paidservice in 1996. Yet the reports are only a key to hisprincipal legacy, which is an equally immense

archive of measured plans and sections. Through theefforts of Jonathan Smith and his team that archive isnow being digitised and made accessible to presentand future generations. As Carolyn Heighway wrotein 1984, 'Long familiarity with excavations in the cityenabled Patrick to relate even the smalleststratigraphic section to the known archaeologicalsequence, making the results highly effective'.

John Rhodes

HON. SECRETARY'S REPORT TO THE 2009 AGM

Martin Ecclestone

I want to begin my Secretary's Report on the past yearby congratulating our past-President Eddie Price forbeing made an MBE, a well-deserved honour for hisoutstanding services to archaeology, as Gadargmembers have appreciated for many years. Hisexcavations in Stanborough field at Frocester, one ofBritain's historic archaeological projects, came to anend on 15th September last, and he also hadgeophysical surveys made of some of theunexcavated corners to complete his final report,which will be published as volume 3 later this year.Your Committee is well aware of how much Gadarghas benefited from Eddie's work, and theopportunities this has given to our members to gainpractical archaeological experience. On behalf ofeveryone here, I thank you Eddie, for all you havegiven to us. [Applause] I think it is appropriate here toquote from James Bond's recent review in 'LandscapeHistory' of volume 4, 'Frocester: The Village':"Eddie Price has long been a standard-bearer of thegreat amateur tradition of British archaeology -'amateur' in the literal and best sense, one whoundertakes the work for the sheer love of it. Hisrecord of meticulous fieldwork, excavation andpublication is exemplary, and he has made a majorcontribution to local studies."

Your Committee met five times during the year,chaired by Mike Milward, at the Shire Hall, for whichwe are indebted to the County Archaeological Serviceand especially Tim Grubb and Anna Morris. We arealso grateful to the staff of the Archives, who have

provided space for our winter lectures and this AGM.The Committee's work has been greatly helped by thetwo new members, Tony Roberts and DianeCharlesworth. Tony has been working with theCounty Archaeological Service, and Diane has editedthe current issue of 'Glevensis', assisted by LesComtesse who deals with the IT aspects. Publicationdate has been moved forward to March because thewinter is more convenient for the editorial work thanthe summer, when both editors and contributors areoften on holiday. Potential authors should now begiving thought to what they might contribute to thenext issue. Marta Cock again produced an excellentlecture programme, which is always much moredifficult than it looks, and organised three local visitsand the annual coach trip, this year to Basing Houseand Silchester, where Reading University'sexcavation continues to reveal the development of thesettlement. On behalf of the Committee, I also want tothank Julian Rawes for the very useful work he doesas Gadarg's Webmaster in maintaining our website. Inthat context, it is becoming obvious that it would beuseful to have members' e-mail addresses; the cost ofsending out each Newsletter is now £60, and postagecosts are about to increase. So later this year, weintend to contact all our members to request theircooperation.

Apart from Frocester, there was less fieldwork thanusual carried out last year. There was a minorexcavation near Tewkesbury Abbey for the AbbeyLawn Trust, and two resistivity surveys, one at

4

Deerhurst that located a medieval track leading to thepriory, and another at Blackfriars in Gloucester. Thelatter was during National Archaeology Week and itsmain purpose was to show the public howgeophysical surveys are done (though the results weredisappointing!). Gadarg's activities were alsopublicised at an Open Day at Leckhampton hillfort,organised by the County Archaeology Service. Thiscoming year we will begin a major project in acompletely new field, that will make use of an aerialsurvey of parts of the Cotswolds using Lidartechnology, a survey made available to us through theArchaeology Service and Cranham Local HistorySociety. Lidar technology is only a few years old, andis a considerable advance over air photography indetecting earthworks; interpreting these earthworkscan still be difficult, and the planned project willmean a lot of fieldwork, which we hope our memberswill find interesting. One of the aims of the project isto involve local history societies and other peoplewho know the area, and show them that archaeologyis much more than treasure hunting. Fieldwork isexpected to start before long, and details will becirculated to our members as soon as possible,probably in early May.

Professional archaeology has not been immune as thefinancial crisis develops, in the last three months of2008, 345 archaeologists lost their jobs, 1 in 12 ofthose working in commercial archaeology, and thefirst downturn since 1985-90. The immediate future

looks very bleak, as the recession affects thecommercial developments that have provided somany opportunities for archaeological work fundedby developers. Last year this was valued at over £150million and employed 40,000 professionalarchaeologists. As finance now dominatesgovernmental concerns, the proposed legislationbased on the draft Heritage Bill published last April,that was widely welcomed, has now been dropped,though consultation will soon begin on a draftPlanning Policy Statement (PPS), to update PlanningPolicy Guidances 15 and 16, that date from the early'90s. It would be unreasonable to expect publicexpenditure on archaeology to increase during arecession, but that only makes it the more unfortunatethat in the good years, English Heritage's budgethalved since 1998, museums' storage space andtechnical expertise did not kept pace with developer-funded excavations, the long planned Stonehengescheme was rejected, and the funding of the PortableAntiquities Scheme was undermined.

This is all very depressing, so I would like to end ona more positive note. Gadarg now has a long history,and has achieved a great deal in the past. There is noreason why we should not continue to break freshground in future. To do so we need to listen to ourmembership and persuade them to be more active (I'mspeaking to the converted at this AGM, of course).And we need to increase our membership, which fellby ten per cent last year, and now stands at 164, ofwhom 18 are Associate Members.

GLEVENSIS 42 2009

5

EDDIE PRICE WAS PRESENTED AND AWARDED THE HONORARY DEGREE OF MASTER OF THEOPEN UNIVERSITY AT THE DEGREE CEREMONY HELD AT THE TOWN HALL IN CHELTENHAM

ON 29TH MAY, 2009

Pro-Vice-Chancellor, colleagues, graduates, guests,today we honour Mr Eddie Price, archaeologist,farmer, for all his life, Justice of the Peace, Fellow ofthe society of Antiquaries of London, and MBE, withthe degree of Master of the University for his notablecontribution to public services, education and culture.Although not a household name, he is well known inGloucestershire and in the world of BritishArchaeology. He became interested in local historyand archaeology after discovering a Romano-Britishsite on the land he farmed and since then, Eddie hasearned the distinction of leading the longest-runningexcavation in Britain, at his farm at Frocester Court,near Stroud.

Today, in this impatient world of ours, televisionarchaeology hopes to solve archaeological problemsin three days. Eddie Price has taken a differentapproach. His excavation started in 1961, the year thefarthing ceased to be legal tender, and the year theBerlin wall was built. Forty eight years later, the

Berlin Wall is now a part of history, but theexcavations at Frocester continue to generate history. As a result of his painstaking labour of love anddedication, Frocester 's story now extends over fourthousand years of history and prehistory from theearly Bronze Age, through the Iron Age, the Romanperiod, the Anglo-Saxon period, the Middle Ages andup to the present day. This is truly the archaeology ofthe long-term, a goal that many archaeologists striveto attain, but very few achieve.

Archaeology is always teamwork and always aboutlearning. Over the years many people havecontributed to the excavation now inextricably linkedwith Eddie. He, himself started as a digger, andgradually learned the archaeological skills needed,before taking over the direction of the excavations.But most of the digging at Frocester has been done byvolunteers, over summer weekends, every year,inspired by Eddie. Volunteers, without fieldworkexperience, who have learned at Frocester and

Members of the Price family, at the presentation. Wife Ruth, Eddie and son Arthur

(Eddie was nominated for the degree by Diane Charlesworth while an academic member of staff with the OpenUniversity and was delighted to be invited back after her retirement, to take part in this prestigious event.)

PRESENTED BY DR PHIL PERKINS -HEAD OF CLASSICAL STUDIES, FACULTY OF ARTS.

I feel somewhat overwhelmed, by what for me, is amost momentous occasion and by the thought that Ishould be asked to accept this honorary master'sdegree. It certainly never entered my head about sixtyyears ago, when I first recognised that I wasploughing over the remains of an unknown building,on the land that my father and I farmed. It waseventually identified as a Romano-British site worthyof excavation. I knew nothing of this subject andalthough a complete beginner, was interested enoughto offer to help uncover the evidence of what wasafter all, my discovery. The director, Captain H. S.Gracie, who became my guide and mentor into thefield of archaeology over many years, issued me withthe necessary equipment and showed me how toremove the dark soil that lay on the floor of what wasidentified as the kitchen of a stone-built villa. I soonuncovered the burnt remains of a basket of grain andquantities of smashed pottery, that were a challenge topiece together during the following winter.

These unexpected and exciting finds were at thebeginning of nearly fifty years of excavation, and Ihave never regretted my decision to continue with theexcavation after Gracie's death in 1978. I learnt a lotfrom him in those early years, and it prepared me forwhat eventually became a major part of a full-timeretirement project, combining it with fieldwork anddocumentary research into the origin, developmentand history, of what is today the small rural parish of

6

individually contributed to the reconstruction of itsmillennial history. This involvement of hundreds ofvolunteers in independent archaeology is just as greata cultural achievement as the discoveries made atFrocester.

It is a truism that creating archaeology is a process ofdestruction, and as a dig proceeds, it destroys thelayers of stratigraphy that it so carefully studies. The

only solution to this paradox is to publish, in as muchdetail as is possible, what has been found, sothat it may be preserved as a contribution to ourunderstanding of our own human past. This tooEddie has achieved in three substantial volumes witha fourth on the way, published by the Gloucester andDistrict Archaeological Research Group, and in thisway he has transferred his deep knowledge of the landand its archaeology to both the local community andthe academic world.

Frocester. I have been fortunate enough to have livedthere for most of my life surrounded by the survivingevidence of its past, and was encouraged from thebeginning to find out more about it. Some of the earlyresults of this work were issued in interim articles, butthe whole has now been combined into a series of fourvolumes, three of which have been published, withthe final one now due to go to the printers. Thepreparation of these reports led me into unexpectedareas of research, and encouraged the development oflatent skills that have since proved invaluable. I amdeeply indebted to the editorial team of Gloucesterand District Archaeological Research Group, for theircritical approach to my efforts, and who undertookthe production and publication of the final results.

The project has been based since its beginning on theassistance of a body of voluntary and professionalsupporters. Many have become close friends andcolleagues whose contributions to its running havebeen invaluable. I am most grateful to all who gave somuch of their time and expertise in their respectivefields. Lastly, but certainly not least, I am veryconscious of the active support I have had throughoutthe whole period, from my wife and sons, they muston occasion have felt very neglected. The work couldnot have continued and been brought to a successfulconclusion, without their tacit approval andencouragement.

HONORARY DEGREE RESPONSE FROM EDDIE PRICE

GLEVENSIS 42 2009

Nigel Spry

7

RESISTIVITY SURVEYS AT LLANTHONY PRIORY AND DEERHURST

Llanthony Priory

In 2003 Richard Sermon, the manager of the formerGloucester Archaeology Unit arranged for the writer,together with the Unit’s finds and events officerRachael Atherton, to undertake a community trainingsurvey of the Inner Court of the Priory usingGADARG’s TR resistivity equipment. The resultswere printed out at the Unit and only subsequently

overlaid on a general site plan, so there could be aminor orientation misalignment. (Figure 1).

Before the Priory was taken over by Gloucester CityCouncil in 1974, the site, particularly the Inner Court,was used as an unapproved caravan park with hard-standings, paved tracks and areas of tipping. This hasmade interpretation of the 2003 results virtuallyimpossible, although the linear west to east area of

FIGURE 1 Resistivity survey at Llanthony Priory, Gloucester, in the summer of 2003.

8

high resistivity in the centre of the plot may representarchaeological evidence of walls or other features.

St Mary’s Deerhurst

A detailed resistivity survey of the churchyard of StMary’s, Deerhurst was undertaken in 2004 directed

by Steve Bagshaw as part of his ongoing research intothe church and its environs. Other GADARGmembers, including the writer, participated. Theaccompanying plot (Figure 2), produced by DonMayes, has been provided at the request of Groupmembers. No attempt has been made to interpret theresults.

FIGURE 2 - Resistivity survey of the churchyard at St Mary's Deerhurst 2004.

GLEVENSIS 42 2009

INTERPRETATION OF GEOPHYICS AT BRUNSWICK SQUARE, GLOUCESTER

Nigel Spry and Don Mayes

Introduction

In the speculative piece in last year’s Glevensis on thecartographic evidence for the site of a RomanAmphitheatre at Gloucester1, the suggestion wasmade that it might be worthwhile to do a resistivitysurvey of the southern corner of the BrunswickSquare garden; this being in anticipation of locatingthe bank of the possible amphitheatre. Figure 1 showsthe location. A survey of the complete central gardenof the square was undertaken on 23 & 24 May 2009.

9

Following this, similar fieldwork was done in thecleared former graveyard to the west, south and eastof Christ Church on the opposite side of BrunswickRoad. However, such was the nature of the site thatnothing useful was noted when the results wereprinted out. This latter plot has been archived in theGloucester City Historic Environment Record.

Figure 2 shows the 19th century configuration ofBrunswick Square garden as depicted on the 1851 Board ofHealth map, drawn by the Ordnance Survey 2 combined withthe overlaid resistivity plot. The map shows that formerlythe central area was bounded on the east by

FIG 1 Brunswick Road area overlaid with field boundaryevidence from the 1780 Hall and Pinnell map.

bushes and a road similar to those that nowborder only the three other sides. On this east side theroad ran parallel with Brunswick Road, but wasseparated from it by a hedge line on the presentgarden’s boundary. The resistivity plot clearly showsevidence of this earlier arrangement.

FIG 2 Resistivity survey combined with the 1851Board of Health Map

Interpretation

Interpretation of the other features shown on Figure 2is difficult. It is possible that geological horizons aswell as archaeological contexts have been recorded.Certainly there is no evidence for the remains of anamphitheatre. There has never been an archaeologicalinvestigation of the Brunswick Square garden so thereis nothing to guide our understanding. It is known thatthe area was the location of a Royalist cannon batteryin 1643.

10

In an attempt to better interpret the survey evidence a3D plot of the results was produced, Figure 3(a). Theprogram, written by the second author, was producedusing Microsoft Visual Basic with an add-on 3Dcomponent control by Nevron. It can now change theelevation, height and the rotation of the representationas shown in Figures 3b and 3c.

3D results clearly indicate the road that was thesoutheast boundary of the square on the 1851 map.The feature at the top right (north) is difficult tointerpret. It appears as a ditch running northwest –southeast with banks on either side with a branchbank running south. These features are unlikely to begeological horizons as the 1:50k Geological mapshows the area to be Lias clay, although areas ofsandy gravel River Terrace do exist locally. Since theditch is across the slope it is unlikely to be naturaldrainage. The best guess is that it is a man-made ditchand bank boundary, but confidence in thisinterpretation is low. Alternatively, the areas of highresistivity may indicate buried road features. Thevariable results at the middle of the garden (east) areequally problematic.

Acknowledgements

The garden is privately owned by the residents of thesquare and we are grateful to them, through the kindoffices of Mr J Proctor, Chairperson of the BrunswickSquare Central Lawn Association Committee, forpermission to survey. Similarly to Mr John Gannon,churchwarden of Christ Church, and the PCC forallowing survey in the churchyard. The support of thefive GADARG members who helped with the surveyswas particularly appreciated. Local residents Marilynand David Champion also gave valuable assistance.

References

1 SPRY, Nigel. ‘Where was Gloucester’sAmphitheatre ?’, Glevensis 41 , (2008), 12.

2 Board of Health map, Gloucester. Surveyed byOrdnance Survey. 1851. Sheet 11. GloucestershireArchives. N12.15

FIG 3(a, b & c) Perspective 3D interpretation of survey results, together with rotated plots, at half scale, viewedfrom the north and east

GLEVENSIS 42 2009

A J Roberts

11

A GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY OF BUCKS HEAD BARROW, CRANHAM

In the spring of 2009, the Gloucester and DistrictArchaeological Research Group (GADARG)embarked upon an exciting new project called theCotswold Edge LiDAR (Light Detection andRanging) Project or, more colloquially, the 'SeeingThrough the Trees' project. A swathe of LiDAR data,covering the Cotswold Edge from Cheltenham toStroud, was interpreted for potential newarchaeological features. Once identified, these siteswould then be validated for their archaeologicalpotential by a sequence of fieldwork anddocumentary research conducted by members ofGADARG. As part of the training programme, inanticipation of the fieldwork element, training ingeophysical techniques of resistance and magnetometrywas provided. The site chosen was the enigmatic roundbarrow at Bucks Head on the National Trust's Ebworthestate in Cranham.

Location and Archaeological Potential

Bucks Head barrow is located at SO 91317 12603,250m south of Cranham Wood. The barrow survivesas a roughly circular earthwork some 30m in diameterand about 1m high (Figure 1). The effect of ploughinghas given it an artificially regular, square plan.Positioned on the 280m contour, it is on the northernslope of a small ridge commanding a good view of thesurrounding Cotswold landscape. The barrow standsout well on the LiDAR imagery (Figure 2 and backcover). The ground has a natural gentle slope to thenorth, the direction of the current agricultural regime.

The site is pasture that has been allowed to grow forhay and the grass had increased to a length of 0.3m bythe last survey. Located on the Cotswold Edge, theunderlying geology is predominantly OoliticLimestone with a covering of thin light lime-richsoils. There are a number of faults in the area with thetrend being aligned southeast to northwest.

The Gloucestershire SMR describes the barrow as abowl barrow dating from the Bronze Age. BucksHead is also known as the Hungerfield barrow,1which was partially excavated by J.E. Dorrington in1880. The name Bucks Head presumably derivesfrom the nearby farm and the close vicinity of amedieval deer park. The Tithe map for the area shedslittle light on this and shows the field name asWortley Piece.

The 1880 excavation revealed two dry stone wallsrecorded as being 3ft apart, which 'ran north andsouth to the edge of the barrow mound.'2 In a cist,formed from a concrete-like substance between thetwo walls, were the primary cremations of a womanand child. Two secondary interments were also found,one a cremation and the second an inhumation. Nomention is made of any accompanying grave goods.

The barrow lies in a field which is regularlyploughed. In 1959, Neolithic and Bronze Age flintswere collected in the vicinity and one scraper foundhere was kept by Gloucester City museum.3 In 1995,six further flints were found on the ploughed surface

Figure 1: Views of Bucks Head Barrow. Left: Looking North, Right: Looking Northeast. (Author)

12

of the Hungerfield Barrow and are now in theCheltenham museum. During the survey a localinhabitant showed the team some flints that hadbeen collected from the field surface, including onewell preserved flint arrowhead of Neolithic date(Figure 3).

Darvill identifies the site as one of the oldermonuments of the Cotswolds and assigns it aNeolithic date, describing it as a round barrow in asimilar category to the Notgrove Rotunda Barrow.4He suggested that further examination of thismonument would be worthwhile. The enigmaticorigin of this barrow provided a substantial researchelement to the geophysical work, as well as trainingvolunteer members.

Resistance Survey

An area covering some 12,000m2 was surveyed overa number of occasions using a TR/CIA systemresistance meter; the technical details can be found inthe site report.5 The results of the resistance surveyare shown in figure 4 and a relief plot is at figure 5.

The resistance survey clearly shows that the centralarea of the barrow contains a complex arrangement ofhigh resistance features that may represent a burialchamber with internal divisions (feature 7). (SeeFigure 6 for feature numbers). At the north-easternend of the barrow complex is a large high resistantanomaly (feature 8), that may represent the stone

lining of a cist burial. Equally, this may be the areathat was subject to excavation in 1880.

The barrow appears to be flanked to the southeast andnorthwest by to quarry ditches (features 3 and 4).These have a linear trend being aligned southwest tonortheast. They appear to not be continuous with thefeatures (5 and 6) that flank the barrow to thenortheast and southwest. This may imply that there isnot a continuous ditch around the barrow but that thiswas constructed in phases, the earlier, deeper, phasebeing represented by the flanking ditches. Features 5and 6 may represent a later attempt to continue a ditcharound the barrow, but not as deep.

Figure 2: LIDAR Image of Bucks Head Barrow (1:1500). (© Gloucestershire County Archaeology Service)

Figure 3: Neolithic flint arrowhead found in vicinity ofbarrow. (Author)

13

Figure 4: Resistance results for Bucks Head.(Roberts5)

Figure 5: Relief plot of resistance results -Bucks Head. (Roberts5)

Figure 6: Resistance features at Bucks Head barrow. (Roberts5)

14

Figure 7: Bucks Head Barrow in wider landscape. (© Gloucestershire County Archaeology Service)

The other significant archaeological feature appearsto be the low resistance linear anomaly (features 1 and2) that runs southeast to northwest with an alignmentthrough the barrow. If this is a ditch it appears toterminate either side of the barrow seeminglyrespecting it. The chronology of the barrow and thisfeature is unclear, although its position in thelandscape can be appreciated in figure 7.

In the southwest corner of the survey a number of lowresistance linear features run in a northwest tosoutheast alignment (feature 9). These are alignedwith the general trend of the agricultural regime in thefield and are possibly agricultural in origin. However,given the thinner soils on site they could representfissures in the limestone geology. There is apossibility of an archaeological origin given theangular nature of the easternmost feature in thisgroup. Equally, the linear features that are present inthe northeast of the survey (feature 10) may also beagricultural in nature.

Gradiometer Survey

A gradiometer survey was conducted over the area ofthe barrow using a Geoscan FM256 Gradiometer.6The results of the survey are shown in figures 8 and 9.The survey clearly shows that the central area of thebarrow contains a complex arrangement of highlymagnetic features that may represent a burial chamber(feature 3 in figure 9). These anomalies coincide

geographically with the resistance data; 7 the highermagnetic signature may be the result of heat at somestage.

The barrow appears to be flanked to the southeast andnorthwest by two quarry ditches (features 1 and 2).These have a linear trend being aligned southwest tonortheast. The magnetic signature is not strong andmore modern plough features that overlay them, haveconfused their outline. However, they do coincidewith the geographical location noted in the resistancesurvey.8

The other significant archaeological features includea positive magnetic circular anomaly (feature 4) tothe south-east of the survey. Although theidentification of this feature is uncertain, this area hasnow been taken out of cultivation as a precautionarymeasure to preserve any potential archaeology.Measuring approximately 12m in diameter it has acouple of high magnetic 'hot-spots' within its interior.Its function is uncertain. On the north-west slope ofthe barrow (feature 5) is a positive magnetic anomalythat could be interpreted as a possible secondaryinhumation or cremation burial.

Surrounding the barrow is a series of linear ditchesthat appear to be continuous around the wholemonument (feature 6). These are interpreted as theresult of modern ploughing activity around thebarrow and are not archaeological in origin.

15

Figure 8: Gradiometer results for Bucks Head barrow. (Roberts6)

Figure 9: Interpretation of magnetic anomalies. (Roberts6)

16

Conclusions

Both the resistance and gradiometer surveys haveproduced evidence of a number of potentialarchaeological features. The significant revelation isthat the survey appears to confirm the presence of achambered structure within the barrow, that maysupport a Neolithic origin for the monument inaccordance with Darvill's suggestion, that this couldbe one of the only 8 known Neolithic round barrowsin the Cotswolds.9 There does appear to be arelationship with the significant linear features thatare aligned southeast to northwest and have beeninterpreted as ditches. The relative chronologybetween the barrow and the ditches is difficult todetermine. Beyond this, there are few features in theimmediate vicinity of the barrow that could beinterpreted as archaeological. A number of lowresistance features could be agricultural or geologicalin origin.

The geophysics appears to indicate that the structureof the barrow could be remarkably intact.Consequently, notwithstanding the interference thatmay have been caused by the 1880 excavation, thereis the potential for the survival of in situ Neolithicmaterial, including deposits which could clarify thedate and form of the monument.

References

1 GSMR (Gloucestershire Sites and MonumentsRecord), 151.

2 Dorrington, J. E. 'Remarks on a Round Barrowin Hungerfield in the parish of Cranham'.TBGAS 5 (1880), 55 and 133-136.

3 Ref. 1.4 Darvill, T. Long Barrows of the Cotswolds

(Stroud: Tempus, 2004), 61.5 GSMR 33592; Roberts, A. J. Geophysical

Survey at Bucks Head Barrow, Cranham,Gloucestershire. (Gloucestershire CountyCouncil, 2009a), unpublished.

6 Roberts, A. J. Geophysical Survey at BucksHead Barrow (Magnetometry), Cranham,Gloucestershire. (Gloucestershire CountyCouncil, 2009b), unpublished.

7 Ref. 5.8 Ref. 5.9 Ref. 4.

SCANDAL AT ELMORE IN 1347

Translated by John Rhodes1

Proof of evidence

I am rightful proctor of the prior and convent of StMary of Llanthony-by-Gloucester, who have obtainedand appropriated to their use the parish church of StOwen near Gloucester with its chapels at Elmore andelsewhere....Within the chapel at Elmore, which has aright of burial in St Owen's parish, William Hatherleyof Down Hatherley stole a silk gold-embroideredcloth of the value of 302s which had been delivered tothe prior as adornment and furnishing with the bodyof Sir John de Gyse, knight and parishioner. The clothwas promised, given and due to our church andconvent at the wish of the deceased as testified by hisexecutors, but William stole, seized and carried it offfrom the very sanctuary of the chapel while the priorwas actually burying the body, on the day of theknight's burial in December 1347.

Judgement of Henry de Neubold, commissary ofthe diocesan official

Summarily and definitively, we fine William the saidcloth if it exists, or otherwise the price sought for it,to be delivered or paid to the said religious.

Acknowledgement

Brought to notice by Simon Draper, assistant editorof the Victoria County History of Gloucestershire.

Reference

1 Report of the Gloucester consistory court of 18January 1348, copied in the register of SimonBrockworth, prior of Llanthony-by-Gloucester.Public Record Office C115/82, f. 74 (GlosArchives microfilm 1103).

GLEVENSIS 42 2009

A J RobertS

17

FIELDWORK AT WILLINGTON COURT ROMAN VILLA, SANDHURST GLOUCESTERSHIRE

In 1968, Willington Court villa was the venue for oneof the first excavations by the newly-formedGloucester and District Archaeological ResearchGroup (GADARG). A trial trench reported in Review 1 laterGlevensis 11, revealed the remains of a well-appointedRoman building complete with hypocaust andmosaic. Following the fieldwork in 1968, little waspublished; the exact location of the building wasuncertain, with the only indication a scatter of potteryon the plough surface.

GADARG returned for a further study in 2007 withthe objective of conducting a field walking exerciseover the area of the building to help focus ageophysical survey, with the aim of locating theremains seen in 1968. The information gained fromthese activities was synthesized with a systematicmetal detecting survey of the area to provide anindication of the extent of the site and some datingevidence.

Site Location, Description and Survey Conditions

Willington Court Villa is located at SO 837 241 on thesouth-facing slopes of Norton Hill (figure 1). Sitedon a spur, it has as commanding view of Gloucesterand Chosen Hill (figure 2). The site was surveyed onfour separate occasions in September 2007. On eachoccasion the weather was warm and dry, providinggood conditions for all of the activities.

The ground has a natural gentle slope to the north andthe site has been regularly ploughed and planted withcrops. The natural ploughing pattern has been fromnorth to south aligned with the natural slope. Prior tothe field walk, the site had been deep ploughed buthad been harrowed more finely for the geophysicsand detecting. Located on the Cotswold Edge theunderlying geology is predominantly OoliticLimestone with a covering of thin light lime-richsoils. There are a number of faults in the area with thetrend being aligned southeast to northwest2.

Site history and archaeological potential

As mentioned above, the 1968 excavation conductedby GADARG was no more than a small trialexcavation and initially noted in Glevensis 1. This isthe only reference to the work and is repeated below:

"A sample cutting on a site at Sandhurst, locallyconsidered to be a deserted village called Hanley,established the position of a hitherto unknown Romanvilla. Excavation revealed the southern end of astone-robbed rectangular block or wing, whichoriginally contained two, 12ft wide rooms flanked tothe east by a 4ft wide passage. At a later date, theinternal walls had been removed and a hypocaustfloor supported by brick pilae carried a mosaic flooracross the width of the building excavated. No datingevidence was found . T h e excavation will becontinued.3"

The excavation was not continued and alldocumentation appears to have been lost except for afew pictures; a selection of which, are at figure 3.

Consequently, the exact location of the building onthe spur was unknown, an objective for thegeophysics. Despite the ploughed nature of the field,resistance was selected for the geophysical survey asit was the most likely technique to detect the masonrythat was evident from the 1968 excavation.

Metal detectorists had been operating on the site for anumber of years; however, nothing had been reportedto the SMR. The landowner had a few low-denomination roman coins of the 4th century and abroken brooch of the trumpet variety that had beenrecovered from the site and given to him by thedetectorists.

The tithe map of the area (figure 4), shows that thesite lies in a field known as black furlong. To thenorth of this is stoney furlong, now partly wooded.This is an intriguing name and may reward athorough search for stone buildings in this area. Thesefields obviously have great archaeological potential,particularly given the large number of sherds ofpottery and building material that remain on thesurface.

Fieldwalking

The surface of the site is strewn with buildingmaterial and pottery fragments. A systematic collectionand analysis of the distribution of the material wouldnot only help to focus the geophysical survey in thesearch for the building, but provide dating evidence

18

Figure 1: Location of Willington Court Villa.

19

Figure 2: Views of Willington Court villa site. Top Left: viewed to east, Top Right: view to south,Bottom Left: view to site on spur from south, Bottom Right: view down on site from the north (Author).

Figure 3: Pictures of the 1968 excavation (courtesy of P. Moss)

20

for the occupation of the site. The area to be walkedwas divided into 20m2 grids and numbered as infigure 12. The same grid layout was used for thefieldwalking, geophysics and metal detecting to allowdirect comparison of results. Material was collectedfrom a total of 75 squares. Volunteers collectedsurface finds from within each square on a randomwalk pattern basis (figure 5) collecting for 20 minutesper square. All artefacts spotted during that time wereretrieved.

The fieldwalking produced a large volume of ceramicbuilding material (CBM), pottery and one 2nd centurycoin. Figures 6 and 7, show the distribution of CBM

and pottery by volume. Two notable concentrationsoccur in both distributions, one to the south and oneto the northeast. The southerly concentration closelyaccorded with the approximate position of thestructural remains shown in the photographs at Figure3 and indicated a likely area to focus the geophysics.The concentration in the northeast is not as extensive,but may indicate a distribution of the settlement intothis area. There is a notable drift of material downslope, probably from the effects of ploughing.

Figures 8, 9 and 10 show the distributions of box fluetiles, Samian ware and tesserae respectively, over thesurvey area. All three are fairly uniform, except for a

Figure 4: Tithe map of Willington Court villa area (Glos Records Office).

Figure 5: Fieldwalking at Willington Court Villa.

21

Figure 6: Distribution of ceramic building material by volume.

Figure 7: Distribution of pottery by volume.

22

Figure 8: Squares containing identifiable box flue tiles.

Figure 9: Squares containing Samian ware.

23

greater incidence of tesserae to the northeast and mayindicate the presence of mosaic floors in this area.This could, however, be the results of plough driftingof smaller material further from the main buildingarea.

The pottery assemblage consisted of a variety of typicalRoman fabrics with Samian ware, Greyware, Severn Valleyware and Black Burnished ware all represented. Afragment of Samian ware (figure 11) is from the wall ofa bowl, the outside has been decorated with arches and apossible figure above.

Resistance Survey

Electrical resistance survey is a well-establishedtechnique and is undertaken with a resistance meter.When a small electric current is injected into theground it encounters sub-surface resistance, which ismeasured. This resistance relates to the ability of thesoil to retain moisture and can correspond to thelocation of cut archaeological features and buriedstonewalls. The detailed survey was conducted usinga TR/CIA Systems Resistance Meter, with a twinprobe arranged 0.5m apart. All readings were saved toan integral data logger for analysis and presentation4.

Figure 10: Squares containing tesserae.

Figure 11: Samian ware fragment (Photo: Kurt Adams FLO Glos. CCAS).

24

Data was collected at 1m intervals with a traverseseparation of 1m. The survey area was separated into20m by 20m grids giving 400 recorded measurementsper grid. This sampling interval is very effective atlocating archaeological features and is therecommended methodology for archaeologicalprospection5.

The position of the survey grids plotted were fixedusing a Total Station and local reference points and byusing a Garmin GPS for cross-referencing. Therelationship of the grids and their referencinginformation is shown in figure 12.

The technical aspects of the resistance survey arecontained in the geophysics report6. This identified anumber of anomalies with high or low resistancecharacteristics, some of which can be classified aspossibly archaeological in nature, but some, may beassociated with the local geology and the effect ofploughing. Figure 13 shows the greyscale and reliefplots of the geophysics results.

It is of note that many of the low resistance featuresare parallel or perpendicular to each other in a veryregular pattern. Moreover, the high resistance areasseem to lie within the footprint outlined by the lowresistance elements. Given that the square highresistance feature at the bottom of the plot is highly

likely to be the stone foundations of the romanbuilding excavated in 1968, the other high resistanceareas may also represent internal stonework.Consequently, the low resistance details may describea possible regular structure facing to the southwestthat has two wings, the most southerly being the oneexcavated in 1968.

Metal Detecting Survey

The recovery of small metal artefacts in a systematicmanner, from the plough soil, can assist thearchaeological picture in many ways. Accepting thatthey are out of context, and may have drifted with theaction of the plough, the presence of datable coins canassist with the dating of the site. They move in thesame manner as CBM or pottery; therefore, theyprovide similar information on the location of astructure, if used with caution.

A survey was conducted using the same grid utilisedfor fieldwalking and resistance survey. Each squarewas searched for 20 minutes and the findspots wererecorded using GPS7. Underfoot conditions were notideal for detecting, with the ground having beenploughed to a medium depth. This left a lot ofcavities and areas where the presentation of thedetector coil to the ground surface was not uniform.

Figure 12: Relationship of Grid Squares and Referencing.

25

A number of Roman coins were recovered (figures 15 &17), the majority of which were low denomination.The coins span a wide date range, the earliest being acoin of Trajan (98-117 AD) and the later examplesbeing from the Constantine dynasty in the 4th century.Many of the coins are unidentifiable and havecorroded in the plough soil. This may be a result ofbeing low quality locally produced barbarousradiates; the production of which was commonpractice into the 4thcentury. Three brooch fragmentswere recovered; a Polden Hill type (AD 80-120), partof a Trumpet brooch (AD 75-175) and a Hod Hill type(AD 43-75) (Figure 16). The distribution pattern ofthe metal finds is shown at figure 14.

Little can be interpreted from the distribution patternof the metal artefacts. The coins are spread over theentire site as would be expected with disturbancefrom ploughing. However, the dates of the coinsindicate that there has potentially been Romanhabitation on this site for a period spanning aminimum of 200 years.

Discussion

Footprint of Roman Building

One of the primary objectives of the study was toattempt to accurately locate the position of the

building excavated in 1968. The distribution patternfrom the CBM and pottery, recovered as a result ofthe fieldwalking, focused the area of geophysics tothe crest of the spur. The resistance survey clearlyidentifies an area of high resistance, rectangular inshape, highly likely to be the footprint of the masonryexposed in 1968. Therefore, we can, with a degree ofaccuracy, locate the position of the previouslyidentified building. However, the geophysics alsoreveals a number of finer and regular angled featuresthat could be archaeological in origin. The originalnote in Glevensis suggests that the bui ldingexposed was the southern wing of a largerstructure. The geophysical survey seems to supportthis and another wing could be identified to the northwith a connecting central range (figure 18). Thiswould require further investigation. In particular, amagnetometer survey may be beneficial.

Dating of the Site

A second objective was to provide dating evidence forthe site. The datable coins would indicate a period ofoccupation in the Roman period from the 1st centuryto the 4th century AD. This is supported by the widerange of pottery evident in the fieldwalkingassemblage. However, the presence of flint suggeststhat the site is older and there may have beencontinuous settlement from the Iron Age into theRoman period.

Figure 13: Greyscale and relief plots of resistance data

26

Figure 14: Distribution of Roman coin finds.

Figure 15: Obverse and Reverse of coins recovered. (Photo: Kurt Adams FLO Glos. CCAS).

27

Figure 16: Roman brooches recovered. Left to Right: Polden Hill type, Trumpet brooch, Hod Hill type.(Photo: Kurt Adams FLO Glos. CCAS).

Figure 17: Obverse and Reverse of coins recovered. (Photo: Kurt Adams FLO Glos. CCAS).

28

Extent of site

Whilst the geophysics may have discovered solidstructures in the area of the survey that coincides withthe largest scatter of pottery and CBM, there is asecondary concentration of material to the northeastoutside of the area of geophysics. It is unclear fromthis geophysical survey whether features continue tothe northeast, but there is every possibility that theydo. Therefore, it is highly likely that the site extendsfurther to the north east and should be subject offurther investigation.

Conclusions

Recent field work on the site of Willington Romanvilla indicates that more of the original building maysurvive than was previously believed. Fieldwalkinghas recovered an extensive range of ceramic buildingmaterial and many fragments of Romano-Britishpottery from the 3rd and 4th centuries indicating along and intensive period of occupation. The recovery

of flints points towards an earlier prehistoricinfluence on the site and the range of coins andbrooches recovered during the metal detectingindicates possible occupation throughout the Romanperiod. The form that that occupation takes may bebetter understood through the geophysical survey.

The resistance survey has identified the area of theexcavation of 1968. This was reported at the time asbeing part of a southern wing of a villa buildingalthough the justification for this was missing fromthe record. It is possible to surmise from theresistance survey that a larger building may bepresent and the original excavations may indeedrepresent one wing of this structure.

It is clear that further work would be of benefit. Thegeophysical surveys need to include magnetometryand be extended further to the north east of the sitewhere the pottery scatter indicates that there may befurther activity.

Figure 18: Interpretation of larger building on site.

29

References

1 Garrod A. P. & and Moss P. A. 'Willington CourtRoman Villa, Sandhurst, Gloucester Notes' inGlevensis 1 (1968).

2 British Regional Geology (Bristol and Gloucesterregion) , British Geological Survey 1992.

3 Ref., 1.

4 Roberts, A, J, & Brookes, D. J. Fieldwork atWillington Court Villa, Gloucestershire SMR,Archeoscan archive, unpublished report, 2009.

5 English Heritage, Geophysical Survey inArchaeological Field Evaluation (2008).

6 Ref., 4.7 Ref., 4 Annex M.8 For interpretation see ref., 4.9 For interpretation see ref., 4.

BOOK REVIEW

Terry Moore-Scott

A History of Bishops Cleeve and Woodmancote, by David H. Aldred, Amberley Publishing plc., Stroud,paperback, 252 pages, 15.5 x 23.5cm., 129 illustrations plus 30 in colour, ISBN 978-1-84868-727-1, price

£15.99, 2009.

The author of this highly readable book has long beenrecognised as an expert on the history of BishopsCleeve and its environs, and justifiably so if only onthe basis of his writings and lecturing on the subject,that many of us have appreciated over time. That hedelayed finally releasing this definitive work on thevillage’s history from the Neolithic to modern times,is explained in his introduction. There he admits tohaving waited over 20 years in the expectation thatthe enormous expansion of the village that he waswitnessing from the late 1980s onwards would,thanks to PPG16 developer-led archaeology,eventually add significantly to our knowledge,especially of the early history of the area. And so itproved.

But the archaeological discoveries had begun a lotearlier. Aside from the prehistoric and later finds onnearby Nottingham Hill and Cleeve Hill starting inthe 19th century, significant archaeological discoverywas being made as early as 1969. At that timeexcavations at Lower Farm (led by CheltenhamMuseum’s Ken Brown (but not reported until 2000)uncovered evidence not only of early Bronze Age andIron Age occupation in the village itself but, moresignificantly, of a sizeable Anglo Saxon cemeteryindicative of settlement here dating from the mid6th/early 7th centuries. Evidence was also emergingof earlier Romano-British settlement in the area,notably on Cleeve Hill and at nearby Haymes, as wellas of post-Roman 6th-8th century occupation at StokeRoad and the former Oldacre’s Mill site. Eventually,much to the distress of some, the expansion of thisonce small rural village did take place and theauthor’s patience was rewarded. Starting in 1998, anumber of major developer-led excavations tookplace around the centre of the village, at sites such as

Stoke Road, Cleeve Hall, Gilder’s Paddock, ChurchRoad, Home Farm and along the route of the newbypass road. These greatly added to ourunderstanding of the village as a virtually continuoussettlement through the Iron Age, Romano-British andAnglo-Saxon periods and beyond. All this iscomprehensively recorded in the early chapters of thebook.

But the reader will be rewarded far beyond thisbecause the author from beginning to end has set outa fully researched and highly readable account of thehistory of Bishops Cleeve and its closely linkedneighbour Woodmancote. Although densely written,the facts from the records are imaginatively woven inwith the human context and thanks to the author’sown special style we are introduced to many pastrecorded inhabitants of the area, almost as thoughthey were his old friends. The intimate way in whichthe book thus captures the everyday circumstances oflife for Bishops Cleeve folk over time, will appeal tomany readers. The human perspective is evident alsoin interesting snapshop analyses of the communityand its people, firstly in 1086 with Domesday andthen from the 1851 census. In between there isintriguing information from parish records availablefrom the end of the 16th century and from the Menand Armour Survey of 1608. Plentiful illustrations,including coloured and black and white photographs,will also add to the interest of readers, especiallythose more familiar with the village.

There are interesting accounts of Bishops Cleeve’stwo medieval manorial estates: that of the Bishop ofWorcester and the other belonging to the Rector. Thestory continues with a close examination of thevillage’s post-medieval/post-Reformation farming

30

community, proceeding on to the enclosures andtechnological changes of the mid -19th century whichbrought to an end the centuries-old traditional villagelife, and finally the late 20th century urbantransformation culminating in the arrival of TESCO(perhaps the ultimate symbol of modern urbanisationfor us today). The author identifies three importantevents radically affecting life in the village, namelythe Reformation in the mid 16th century whichrevolutionised the villagers’ traditional religiousbeliefs, the enclosures of the ancient open fieldsbringing to an end the villagers’ traditional farmingmethods, and finally in the 20th century the arrival ofSmith’s Industries, triggering major changes for thevillage.

The book presents its contents in what might bedescribed as a “flexible chronological” order,encouraging the reader to look backwards andforwards in time without losing the overall historical

sequence. Each chapter follows a roughly similarconstruction. It starts with a scene-setting section,then one goes in search of the people usingarchaeological and documentary records, nextdevelopments in the landscape and in technologicalprogress and ends finally with the question “whatmight it all mean?” Following each chapter is asummary of the main sources used and furtherreading. The lack of a list of illustrations and an endindex comes as a slight surprise, but doesn’t detractfrom the overall value of the read.

Much as this book may be intended primarily for localpeople wanting to know about their village, in socialhistory terms it has wider relevance, since what washappening on the ground in Bishops Cleeve washappening all over much of England at the same time.Anyone reading this admirable and comprehensivebook, whether a local of Bishops Cleeve or not,should therefore reap considerable benefit.

BOOK REVIEW

Ray Wilson

Hugh Conway-Jones. Gloucester Docks An Historical Guide, Black Dwarf Publications, Lydney, paperback,48 pages, 210mm x 210mm. More than 100 illustrations including 28 in colour, ISBN 13: 9781903599 15 0,

price £5.00, 2009.

Gloucester Docks became fully operational in 1827with the opening of the Gloucester & Berkeley Canaland they have played an important (albeit changing)role in the City ever since. The docks were extremelybusy initially, but within fifty years the generalincrease in the size of the merchant ships meant thatmany were too large to come up the canal fully laden.This led to the construction of the New Docks atSharpness and the subsequent decline of commercialtraffic at Gloucester, although the end came reallyonly about 20 years ago. In recent years, there hasbeen much discussion about the future use of thedocks. This has lead to a number of residential blocksbeing built and a large retail development, GloucesterQuays, was opened to the south of the docks in 2009.It is therefore timely that this new book has beenproduced by surely the person best qualified to writeit. Hugh Conway-Jones is the acknowledgedauthority on Gloucester Docks having spent 30 yearsmeticulously researching all aspects of the history ofthe docks and publishing a number of books on the

subject. However, there is definitely a place for hisnew book which provides a wealth of information onthe docks in a most accessible form and also bringsthe story up to date.

This very attractive book is clearly laid out in anumber of sections which cover all the major aspectsof the docks, such as its origins, the changes in traffic,the fine warehouses, the 1811 tram-road, the railways,the cargoes and their handling and much more. Thequality of the numerous illustrations is excellentthroughout and they include some fascinating aerialviews, as well as many of the vessels of differentperiods and of course the fine buildings. A clear mapof the area covered by the book makes it easy tolocate the many points of interest described. Socialhistory is not forgotten and there are accounts of thebargemen and boatmen and various incidents thathappened over the years. The book is reasonablypriced and can be thoroughly recommended to thevisitor, local resident or anyone, with an interest inwaterway history.