Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ROGER WHITE, JENNY MARRIOTT and MALCOLM REID JULY 2009; REVISED JULY 2010
CONTENTS List of Acronyms List of Figures List of Heritage Assets by Heritage Asset Type and a guide to their use Key to HLC Map ( Figure 2.27) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: BREATHING LIFE INTO WROXETER CHAPTER 1. THE NEED FOR A CONSERVATION PLAN 1. The aims and objectives of the Wroxeter Conservation Plan CHAPTER 2. CHARACTERISING THE DEFINED AREA 2.1 Definition of the study area 2.2 Ownership and current land use 2.3 Physical Character of the defined area 2.4 Vegetation and Ecology 2.5 Heritage 2.5.1 Initial investigations 2.5.2. Wroxeter discovered 2.5.3 The State intervenes 2.5.4 Buildings and other surveys 2.5.6 Chronological summary of development CHAPTER 3. WHY WROXETER MATTERS: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEFINED AREA Evidential Historical Aesthetic Communal v vi ix xii 1 2 2 6 6 6 6 10 12 12 13 14 16 21 24 24 32 34 38
ii
CHAPTER 4. MANAGING WROXETER TODAY: CURRENT ISSUES AND RELATIONSHIP TO NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLICIES 4.1 Towards a new land management process 4.2 Building management 4.3 Opportunities/constraints within the policy framework for retaining significance and realising potential 4.4 Outcomes from the consultation process 4.4 Consideration of an extension to statutory protection for parts of the site CHAPTER 5: MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Evidential Historical Aesthetic Communal
41 41 44 44 49 49 50 50 52 53 55
Appendix 1: List of sources used in compiling the Conservation Plan Appendix 2: Consultation Process Appendix 3: Wroxeter Visitor Survey, March-April 2009 (data supplied by Kate Churchill). Taken from 73 responses (198 individuals) Appendix 4: DCMS Listings for Historic Buildings in Wroxeter study area (Source: Heritage Gateway) Appendix 5: List of the main national, regional and local policy documents relating to cultural/historic environment/biodiversity matters: Appendix 6: Current Management Issues relating to the Monument BIBLIOGRAPHY
57 58 60 62 63 64 73
iii
Acknowledgements The authors are extremely grateful to everyone who has helped in the compilation of this report. Of key importance of course were the English Heritage staff, notably Heather Sebire, William Du Croz and Tony Fleming who commissioned and monitored the report through its many and varied drafts, responding at all times with courtesy and rapidity. Others in the organisation who supplied useful detail about the functioning of the site and their role in running it were Nola and Steve Ames, Mark Badger, Jo Beach, Heather Bird, Emma Carver, Graham Deacon, Tim Johnson, Bill Klemperer, Jeremy Lake, Sara Lunt, Russell Man, Cameron Moffett, Pete Wilson and Richard Zeizer. In addition to the English Heritage staff we received much co-operation from individuals within other organisations with an interest in Wroxeter, not least Jeremy Milln and Bob Thurston of the National Trust, Jez Bretherton of English Nature and Michael Eaton, Hugh Hannaford, Emma-Kate Lanyon, Nigel Nixon, Penny Ward, Andy Wigley, Mary White, Fran Yaroll and Liz Young of Shropshire Council. From the local community we would like to thank especially Brian Nelson (Wroxeter & Uppington PC), Nigel Baker, Ed Hall (Wroxeter Hotel), The Millington Family and Richard Jones-Perrott and Andrew Lewis of the Raby Estate. James Lawson, Peter Kienzle, Peter Wade-Martins and Hilary Cool provided academic support and information on aspects of Wroxeters past while Kate Churchill took on the task of carrying out a visitor survey. Finally at Birmingham Archaeology Roger White would especially like to acknowledge the support of their Finance Manager Caroline Raynor and chief illustrator, Nigel Dodds, who supplied the necessary maps.
iv
List of acronyms AMP ARC BAR BTCV CCT CMP CP CSS DCMS DEFRA DoE EH ELS ESA GI HAR HLC HLF HLS HPA LDF NT SC WHP WRC Asset Management Plan Archaeological Resource Centre Buildings at Risk British Trust for Conservation Volunteers Churches Conservation Trust Conservation Management Plan Conservation Plan Countryside Stewardship Scheme Department of Media, Culture and Sport Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Department of Environment English Heritage Entry Level Scheme Environmental Stewardship Agreement Green Infrastructure Heritage at Risk Historic Landscape Character/Characterisation Heritage Lottery Fund Higher Level Scheme Heritage Partnership Agreement Local Development Framework National Trust Shropshire Council Wroxeter Hinterland Project Wroxeter Roman City
List of Figures Executive summary 1.1 1.2 The Old Work Location of Wroxeter Village and the Roman Town of Viroconium Cornoviorum Viroconium Roman Town and the village of Wroxeter: scheduled area.
2.1: Land ownership and land management survey at WRC (Source: White 1976). The shaded strip of land on the east side of the site, from south of the Bell Brook to the B4380, has since been acquired by English Heritage. 2.2: Soils within a 1km radius of WRC (outlined) and the course of the River Severn. The radius of the catchment is calculated from the outer limits of the town. 2.3: Soils groups within a 5km radius of WRC (outlined), with the course of the river Severn. 2.4: HAN218, the river cliff and floodplain from north of The Cottage. 2.5: Stream bank below Mount Pleasant buildings. 2.6: Bell Brook valley, eastern half from east. 2.7: Aerial view of Bell Brook valley, western half from SE.
2.8: Sycamore plantation HAN216 from the west. Note ivy growth on tree boles and on
boundary wall HAN408 in the foreground. 2.9: Copse and scrub north of Bell Brook at western entrance to town. 2.10: HAN600, a black mulberry (Morus nigra) in the field opposite the Wroxeter Hotel. Note protective fencing. 2.11: Leylandii hedge flanking the holloway to the ford (HAN411) at The Boathouse (opposite the Church of St Andrew). 2.12: Aerofilms view of Wroxeter Baths, 1929 (NMR AFL03 25 28868). 2.13: Dr Arnold Baker (rear cockpit) on another Wroxeter flight. 2.14: Wroxeter aqueduct (HAN557) photographed by Dr Graham Webster before its destruction. 2:15: The gradiometry survey of WRC produced collaboratively by GSB Prospection and English Heritage. 2.16: The north side of St Andrews, Wroxeter (HAN111). 2.17: The gates of St Andrews with re-used Roman columns (HAN120).
2.18: The Grange and its gazebo, HAN112 & 113 (right).
2.19: Glebe Cottage HAN115. 2.20: The Old Post Office HAN113. 2.21: The Old School House HAN114. 2.22: Wroxeter Hotel HAN110. 2.23: Mount Pleasant Cottages HAN117.
vi
2.24: HAN100,The former Smithy (latterly the Post Office) at the Wroxeter crossroads. 2.25: HAN104, 1 & 2 The Ruins. A back-to-back cottage built for Raby Estate tenants. Detached pig sties to right. 2.26: HAN101, Wroxeter Farm, a fine model farm of 1850-1880. 2.27: Historic Landscape Character Assessment for WRC and environs Shropshire Council courtesy of Dr Andy Wigley. (Key at end of list of illustrations) 2.28: John Rocques map of Wroxeter produced in 1746 (SA 6900/1). 2.29:The bank of the River Severn at Wroxeter with waterlogged tree-stumps in gravel (foreground). 2.30: The cliff lane at Wroxeter (HAN407), suggested by Bassett (1990) to be preRoman in date. 2.31: The suggested developed of WRC, from fortress (top left) to Brittonic town (bottom right). Source: White & Barker 1998. 2.32: The site of Wroxeters Medieval manor house (HAN306), viewed from the church tower. 2.33: The green lane (HAN402) leading to Wroxeters former east gate showing the reverse S shape imposed during the middle ages. 3.1: The Old Work and the baths (HAN118 and 119) under snow. 3.2: WRCs defences (HAN305), behind Glebe Cottage. 3.3: The Breidden from Wroxeter with Atcham village (foreground). 3.4: Lawley and Caer Caradoc from Wroxeter. 3.5: The cropmarks around Norton Farm (HAN556) as plotted by RCHME [English Heritage]. 3.6: The Forum Inscription, Rowleys House Museum. Dated to AD 129-130 it is acknowledged as the finest Roman Inscription in Britain. 3.7: WRC from the Wrekin. The white Wroxeter Hotel can clearly be seen immediately above the rape field in the centre ground. 3.8: Thomas Girtins watercolour of the North side of the Old Work with Wroxeter Church framed in the doorway. The pond in the foreground has been transposed from the other side of the wall since a contemporary watercolour shows the north field under the plough. 3.9: Stereoscopic souvenir photograph of Wrights excavations, 1859. Note 1 & 2 The Ruins visible behind the spoil heap. 3.10: Thomas Prytharchs The Fall of Uriconium (ca.1920) English Heritage, Kenilworth Castle 3.11: The Wroxeter Mirror. A 30 troy oz. silver mirror, one of the finest examples surviving from the ancient world. 3.12: Amde Forestiers reconstruction of Wroxeter Forum. 3.13: Alan Sorrells reconstruction of the Bushe-Fox buildings. 3.14: School children reconstruct the columns of the baths basilica.
vii
3.15: Fran Yarroll of Shropshire Museum Service dressing school children in Roman costume. 3.16: Volunteers collecting resistivity data during an open day in 1996. 3.17: County archaeologist Mike Watson guiding visitors at Wroxeter in 1996. 4.1: Land ownership and access to scheduled area (source: Barlow Associates (2008). 5.1: Key sites identified for protection. 5.2: The late 5th century tombstone of Cunorix. 5.3: Wroxeters street grid made visible in HAN207 during a drought. 5.4: Attingham Park Estate, as shown on the newly installed panel in the Welcome Centre at Attingham Park. 5.5: The 2009 footbridge installed over the River Tern within Attingham Park. 5.6: Timescope. A method for interpreting ruins. http://www.ename974.org/Eng/pagina/ archeo_concept.html 6.1: Visitors viewing the baths basilica interpretation. Note the bleeding of coloured gravels and moss growth. 6.2: HAN119, The baths as first laid out, in 1992, demonstrating original clear delineation of colour coding. 6.3: On-going damage to the monument. From left to right: original herringbone floor decaying; east baths praefurnium wall; animal and other damage in natatio. 6.4: Mole damage, south of the baths in HAN207. 6.5: Poaching by cattle on either side of the Bell Brook in HAN200 & 203. 6.6: Ruts caused by farm traffic to feed stock. 6.7: Lime dump on HAN224, adjacent to Norton Farm. 6.8: Chestnut paling and concrete-and wire fence in baths field. 6.9: Wooden gate buried in overgrown hedge. 6.10: Unrecorded Roman stone HAN410 in Grange garden wall. 6.11; Unrecorded wall (HAN409) defining The Cottage. 6.12: Silts deposited in HAN203 by the Bell Brook adjacent to B4394. 6.13: Ivy understorey in Sycamore plantation HAN216. 6.14: Fly tipping / fence repair adjacent to B4394. 6.15: HAN101, Wroxeter Farm and its farmyard. 6.16: Derelict pig sties behind 1 & 2 The Ruins. 6.17: Original 1980s gate notice.
viii
WROXETER ROMAN CITY (SHROPSHIRE SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENT NO.670): LIST OF HERITAGE ASSETS BY HERITAGE ASSET TYPE AND A GUIDE FOR THEIR USE The Heritage Assets of Wroxeter Roman City (WRC) have been subdivided into broad Types (HATs) containing a list of Heritage Asset Numbers (HANs), each HAT having its own sequence, as indicated in the table: Built Assets 100-199 Fields 200-299 Earthworks 300-399 Linears 400-499 Buried Assets 500-599 Natural Assets 600-699
In the text, references to HANs are colour coded throughout to ensure accurate location of the feature being discussed. The list below provides a guide to each asset but the full details are to be found in the separately bound Gazetteer volume.
HAN
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222
DESCRIPTION
Old Post Office / Smithy Farm Buildings Shelter shed Stable 1 & 2 The Ruins Site museum The Cottage Wroxeter Terrace Topsy Cottage The Old Post Office The Wroxeter Hotel St Andrews Wroxeter The Grange Gazebo The School House Glebe Cottage The Boathouse Mount Pleasant Cottages The Old Work The baths ruins The churchyard and its gate EH field 7885; 0476 EH field 6307 NT Attingham Estate NE field EH field 7205 EH field 9491 EH field 8152 EH field 5951 (part) Baths visitor site EH field 5951 EH field 7525 Millington field (glebe lands) Millington field (glebe lands) Millington field (glebe lands) EH field 2508 Boathouse field Severn island EH field 2533 Sycamore coppice EH field 3185 (south) EH field 1673 EH field 3185 campsite EH field 4178 EH field 3185 (north) NT Attingham Estate triangular field
Fields
ix
Earthworks
223 224 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539
EH field 4405 NT Attingham Estate NW field Rampart NE Rampart E 1 Rampart E 2 Rampart SE Rampart S 1 Rampart S 2 Wroxeter manorial earthworks Rampart W Rampart NW Rampart total Wroxeter harbour Wroxeter village Whitchurch road Horseshoe Lane Green lane B4380 Ironbridge road Patch lane B4394 village road B4394 Ruins road Cliff road Stone wall by HAN216 Stone wall at HAN106 Stone Wall village Boathouse lane Pre-Roman Wroxeter Insula i Insula ii Insula iii Insula iv Insula v Insula vi Insula vii Insula viii Insula ix Insula x Insula xi Insula xii Insula xiii Insula xiv Insula xv Insula xvi Insula xvii Insula xviii Insula xix Insula xx Insula xxi Insula xxii Insula xxiii Insula xxiv Insula xxv Insula xxvi Insula xxvii Insula xxviii Insula xxix Insula xxx Insula xxxi Insula xxxii Insula xxxiii Insula xxxiv Insula xxxv Insula xxxvi Insula xxxvii Insula xxxviii Insula xxxix
Linear Features
Buried Assets
Natural Assets
540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 600 601
Insula xxxx Insula xxxxi Insula xxxxii Insula xxxxiii Insula xxxxiv Insula xxxxv Insula xxxxvi Insula xxxxvii Insula xxxxviii Cemetery (north) Middle Crows Green cemetery Legionary fortress and associated features Early Civil town AD90-120 Mature Roman town AD120-500 Late Roman / Post-Roman town AD500-650 Medieval village AD650-1600 Norton cropmarks Line of aqueduct Black Mulberry Veteran Oak
xi
- - -
xii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: BREATHING LIFE INTO WROXETER Wroxeter Roman City was acquired by the Government in 1973 from Raby Estate, an enlightened move that immediately removed agricultural activity as the greatest threat to the buried remains on the site. As a consequence of the purchase, a feasibility study was drawn up by the Inspector of Ancient Monuments to recommend a long-term strategic vision for the site (P. White 1976). This called for a bold development of the Roman City as an archaeological park that would have turned Wroxeter into one of the premier Roman visitor attractions in the country. For all sorts of reasons, these ambitions were not realised. This Conservation Plan offers a new strategic vision for Wroxeter. Unlike that first report, it is built upon a long and sustained discussion with the local community, visitors, landholders, policy makers, businesses, administrators, non-governmental bodies such as Natural England, the National Trust, the Environment Agency, academic bodies and many others as well as, crucially, English Heritage staff themselves. We hope that there will be widespread agreement that the recommendations made here will bring long term benefits to both the site and the community as a whole. The completion of the management plan and the introduction of the Heritage Protection Review process would offer the potential for the first time in a generation to reinvigorate the management of the site. The completed plan will form the basis on which to bid for the resources needed to engage upon its strategic development into the future, perhaps turning Wroxeter into English Heritages single most important Roman visitor attraction and educational resource. It offers new and exciting management challenges for English Heritage yet also holds out the promise of rich rewards in exploring innovative approaches to the management of archaeological sites. Imaginative management could lead to the first archaeological eco-park, for example, combining the historic and natural environment agendas and promoting green tourism in this still largely unspoilt region. Wroxeter has been saved for the Nation. Its future is secure, protected by English Heritage from damage. It is time now for English Heritage to take up the challenge to present the site so that the significances brought out here can be communicated to all and its potential realised.
CHAPTER 1. THE NEED FOR A CONSERVATION PLAN 1. The aims and objectives of the Wroxeter Conservation Plan This document has been commissioned by English Heritage (EH) to inform the long term preservation and interpretation of Wroxeter Roman city. It is also the first step in the establishment of a Heritage Partnership Agreement (HPA) for Wroxeter Roman City (WRC), Shropshire (Figure 1.1). that will enable English Heritage, as owners of a large part of the archaeological site, to develop mechanisms for its long-term management. Future management is best achieved through the mechanism of a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for the site which will be drawn up in the light of the recommendations offered here, along with other considerations and consultations. The operation of the CMP would be as part of the future HPA for the site. The main aim of this document is to develop an understanding of the significance of the archaeological remains at WRC and to arrive at management recommendations for future development of the site based on that understanding. The defined area studied here is a living and evolving environment and this Conservation Plan (CP) provides a strategy to manage these remains, to explore its strategic elements and to arrive at a means of broadening understanding and appreciation of the site among those who live and work there as well as those who visit it. Establishment of a Heritage Partnership Agreement will see EH engaging with other stakeholders to actively promote the interests of the monument to the benefit of all. Decisions made by EH regarding the future of the site will use this CP as guidance in forming their own views on how the site might be managed. The constraints of time and opportunity mean that the Conservation Plan has not been able to explore fully all options through consultation. However, the plan is not a finalised document and will always be open to revision in the light of further developments and comments from interested parties. This document is structured to reflect the purpose of the EH Commission (Sebire 2/2/08). These were: To inform the management of the monument in order to continue to protect and sustain its significance; To inform the long term strategy for the site; To inform the maintenance of the site to an exemplary conservation standard; To inform the management of current levels of public access and enjoyment and where appropriate identify additional opportunities; To inform the interpretation of the site in a way that enhances the visitor experience without adversely impacting on its significance; To inform English Heritage on the most appropriate use of all the assets, especially the farm buildings and residential properties. The brief further stipulated that the significance of the site be considered in light of Conservation Principles (English Heritage 2008) whereby the Evidential, Historical, Aesthetic and Communal aspects of the site are considered. Accordingly the aims, methods and objectives of this document can be set out thus:
Aims
to provide a management framework for Wroxeter Roman City that will incorporate data in respect of the archaeological resource mapped in relation to the existing landscape; to assess the current understanding of the condition and values of the site in all its aspects; archaeological, ecological, historical, aesthetic and communal so as to arrive at an understanding of the significance of the monument at local, regional, national and international levels; to institute a mechanism by which English Heritage can engage with all stakeholders in the future management of the monument through a Heritage Partnership Agreement; to develop an understanding of the nature and importance of the archaeological resource that can be communicated to the public and form the basis of relevant management policies.
Methods use of walk-over survey and desk-based research into all aspects of the site to provide a detailed consideration of the existing state of the monument, its relationship to the surrounding landscape and an assessment of the extent and quality of the underlying archaeological resource. The desk-based and other sources used to compile this report are listed in Appendix 1 while the gazetteer of heritage assets is bound as a separate annex; broad consultation through face-to-face stakeholder meetings with relevant groups including representatives at national, county and district levels and of stakeholder organisations and individuals (Appendix 2); consultation with the local community and provision of visitor statistics (Appendix 3). Objectives to produce a Conservation Plan for Wroxeter Roman City that will realise its potential as a visitor attraction without compromising the archaeological and natural resource; to highlight the significance and values of the site to visitors and stakeholders alike; to make recommendations on how the monument might be managed into the future in a sustainable and coherent fashion following the formulation of a coherent strategic vision for the site; to understand and popularise the archaeological resource. The limits of the Conservation Plan are the boundary of the currently Scheduled Area, which largely coincides with the late 2nd century defences of the town, encompassing ca. 78ha (Figure.1.2). Aspects of the wider landscape are discussed only in order to provide contextual background. The Plan provides recommendations for the conservation and future management of this resource and this should provide guidance for any future interventions. It also presents a coherent strategy for the long-term sustainability of the resource within the contemporary environment.
B5
06
Norton Farm
B439
B4
38
rs
ho es
e Lan
i
v
Wa tlin g St r ee t
ll
ro
ok
Earthworks/ Defences
r
C li
er
ff
L
a
Pat ch Lane
Wr oxeter
ok
o Br
400m
Figure 1.1 : Location of Wroxeter village and the Roman town of Viroconium Cornoviorum
Figure 1.2: Viroconium Roman Town and the village of Wroxeter: existing scheduled area.
CHAPTER 2. CHARACTERISING THE DEFINED AREA This chapter seeks to outline the physical limits and characteristics of Wroxeter Roman City (WRC) and to give a brief account of what is known of its history and past research. It thus effectively benchmarks what is currently known of WRC. 2.1 Definition of the study area The designated area of study is the whole of WRC as defined by the town defences (Fig. 1.2). This is coincident with the Scheduled Area under the current legislation. While not within the designated area, the land immediately adjacent to the defensive circuit is also considered for the purposes of determining whether any extension or revision of the protected area of the site needs to be recommended. 2.2 Ownership and current land use Working to approximate figures, 70% of the defined area is owned by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and managed by EH with a further 20% being owned by the National Trust and the remaining 10% privately owned, including the houses in the village, the Wroxeter Hotel and the areas of open pastureland within the defences owned by the Millington family (Figure 2.1). The current land use within the scheduled area comprises pasture fields delineated by a mixture of hedges, walls and post-andwire fences. This land use was established in the mid 1970s when the Department of Environment (DoE) acquired the elements of the Raby Estate that coincided with the town. Arable farming of the National Trust fields in the north of the town continued until the 1990s but these areas too are now down to pasture. 2.3 Physical Character of the defined area 2.3.1 Geology and Soils The solid geology beneath WRC is uniformly Bridgnorth Sandstone of Permian Age with a thick overlying drift geology of Boulder Clay, correctly Glacial Till (Toghill 2006, 195-8; 235-6; BGS Solid and Drift Maps 152). The till is poorly sorted with many erratics but is predominantly sandy in character making it very free-draining and thus well suited to arable agriculture. Occasional plugs of solid red clay mark the positions of ice-wedge polygons, these being especially visible in the aerial photographic and geophysical surveys of the northern part of the town (Baker 1992). Analysis of the soils by the Wroxeter Hinterland Project demonstrated that the soils beneath Wroxeter and within a 1km and 5km compass of the site are uniformly of the best four modern grades of farm land classification (Gaffney and White 2007, 244 Table 6.5) (Figures 2.2 & 2.3), Group 1 soils being the best arable land and Group 4 being best for pasture. Furthermore these resources are provided in roughly equal measure indicating an awareness by the Roman founders of WRC of the quality of this particular spot on the Severn.
Figure 2.1: Land ownership and land management survey at WRC (Source: White 1976). The shaded strip of land on the east side of the site, from south of the Bell Brook to the B4380, has since been acquired by English Heritage.
Figure 2.2: Soils within a 1km radius of WRC (outlined) and the course of the River Severn. The radius of the catchment is calculated from the outer limits of the town.
Figure 2.3: Soils groups within a 5km radius of WRC (outlined), with the course of the river Severn. 2.3.2 Topography WRC was established initially as a fortress (see 2.5.6) so its location was ultimately determined by strategic and defensive considerations, although this is not as obvious as it is at Shrewsbury. Nonetheless, standing at the highest point of WRC, on the southern lip of the Bell Brook where the northern defences of the fortress were located, one is struck immediately by the fine views of the hills to the south, west and north while the 8
Wrekin dominates the rising land to the east. The main view, to the south-west and west, encompasses the land that was then currently under attack by the Roman army. Defensively, the fortress was protected to the north by the steep-sided valley of the Bell Brook, to the west by the river cliff of the River Severn (Figure 2.4) and to the south by an unnamed but still prominent stream (Figure 2.5). The confluence of the Rivers Tern and Severn lies just to the north-west of the fortress and this too must have formed a defensive line protecting this side of the fortress. The land to the east offers no defensive line but this area was firmly under Roman control when the fortress was established. At the foot of the river cliff the floodplain forms a level area with currently a diversity of land uses including arable, rough pasture and marshland. Within the river lies an eyot (HAN214) that is steadily eroding at its northern end. The natural river course flows on the west side of this island. The narrower eastern channel was cut in the medieval period to locate fish weirs whose remains are often confused with the location of a Roman bridge (Pannett 1989). Accordingly in the Roman period the land that is now the eyot was part of the terrace below the defences of the Roman town and this extensive reworking of the floodplain makes it difficult to be certain whether there was ever a Roman dock here. At the southern end of the eyot is a broad gravel ford with, on the west bank the Roman road leading to the south-west of Britain (later reused as a link between river traffic and the Shrewsbury Bridgnorth Turnpike). This natural ford is another reason for the location of the fortress here.
Figure 2.4: HAN218, the river cliff and Figure 2.5: Stream bank below Mount floodplain from north of The Cottage. Pleasant buildings.
Figure 2.6: Bell Brook valley, eastern half Figure 2.7: Aerial view of Bell Brook from east. valley, western half from SE.
Following the foundation of WRC the entire Bell Brook valley was taken into its defensive circuit despite the fact that it is 11m deep at its eastern end where it enters the town (Figure 2.6). The brook soon becomes shallower and on the western side of the town is only 1m or so deep (Figure 2.7). The former line of the northern defences of the fortress was used as the entry point for the town aqueduct and the location of a cistern (Johnson and Ellis 2006). The land shelves away to the south and west from this high point and there are hints that in places the Roman town will have stepped down in slight terraces to accommodate this slope. This is detectable in the archaeology from the location of houses seen as cropmarks. The southern end of the town and the land on the northern lip of the Bell Brook in contrast is relatively flat. 2.4 Vegetation and Ecology WRC is predominantly down to grassland, established in the mid 1970s within the DCMS holding using commercially available seed. Since that time, substantial colonies of nettles and thistles have established themselves in some fields. The grassland is thus predominantly species-poor in character although there has been no modern ecological survey to assess whether there is any sign of increasing diversity of flora. An exception to this are the former glebe fields, behind the Wroxeter Hotel, which do not seem to have been ploughed since the 18th century (D. Millington, pers comm.). The comments below relating to the ecology of the site (with the exception of the assessment of the river bank and margins) are based on a rapid and superficial survey carried out by the authors. On the river bank and water margin the presence of blue water-speedwell (Veronica anagallis-aquatica), hints at a greater diversity of species requiring further assessment. In the marshy area by the river there is a significant colony of bulrushes. While insect life is likely to be rich so far only the presence of the nationally scarce white-legged damsel fly has been recorded. Wild flowers are rare but there is a large and significant colony of snowdrops on the banks below Mount Pleasant Cottage. Horseradish grows in abundance on the verges, especially in Patch Lane (HAN404) while cow parsley, dog rose, red and white campion, honeysuckle and white bryony are found in many of the hedgerows and verges. The Blewit mushrooms, poppies, buttercups, daisies, clover and birds-foot trefoil found on the baths site (HAN206) demonstrate greater diversity of flora than are found elsewhere in Wroxeter perhaps reflecting the lack of cultivation in this area since 1859. Horse Mushrooms and Puff Balls are found in the fields west and south of the baths. The stone walls found in the village (notably around The Cottage, are covered in arborealized ivy forming a valuable wildlife habitat. Three small areas of woodland exist in the town. First is the sycamore plantation located at the northern end of the village, at the junction by the hotel (Figure 2.8; HAN216). The plantation is up to 150 years old since on the tithe map of 1843 this area was occupied by houses. The plantation trees are redeemed ecologically by the undisturbed understorey while extensive arborealised ivy grows on the stone walls defining the field boundaries at this point. The insect life on the ivy supports the bat colony that roosts in the church tower. Ismore Coppice, outside the north-west quadrant of the town, is earlier in date and is predominantly oak, and beech with English elm at the fringes. It is quite open and seems to have been established in the late 18th or early 19th century, perhaps as part of the Attingham Park improvements. Finally, there is a small scrubby woodland north of the turnpike road as it leaves the north-west part of the town. This is of
10
uncoppiced hazel, birch and arborealised elder with willow and alder. It has presumably grown up in the last century (Figure 2.9). This woodland lies on the south bank of the Bell Brook which is itself quite heavily wooded with pollarded willows and, more numerous, substantial alder trees (Figure 2.7). In the eastern part of the Bell Brook valley, north of the Bell Brook growing on the steep slope are a number of substantial hawthorns. Isolated oaks to the north of the defences at the north-east corner hint at former field boundaries. The hedges throughout the town are mostly hawthorn with some ash and appear to be consistently 18th or even 19th century in date.
Figure 2.8: Sycamore plantation Figure 2.9; Copse and scrub north of Bell HAN216 from the west. Note ivy growth Brook at western entrance to town. on tree boles and on boundary wall HAN408 in the foreground.
Figure 2.10: HAN600, a black mulberry Figure 2.11: Leylandii hedge flanking the (Morus nigra) in the field opposite the holloway to the ford (HAN411) at The Wroxeter Hotel. Note protective fencing. Boathouse (opposite the Church of St Andrew). Trees within WRC are otherwise rare. Some large oaks can be found at the southern end of the town, on or near the defences where the well-preserved elements of the ramparts lie. Further oaks are found along the banks of the stream running up to the River Severn. To the north and also on the river cliff is a small and distinctive colony of Scots Pine in front of The Cottage. These may have been planted to screen the house from the view of Cronk Hill across the river. On the other side of this building, adjacent to the road, are some fine mature sweet chestnuts. Within the village, there are a number of specimen trees, especially in the grounds of the Wroxeter Hotel (1935 jubilee copper beech), church (Scots pine) and Old Vicarage. North of Topsy cottage is a magnificent black mulberry (Figure 2.10), now fortunately fenced off to protect it from livestock, as is 11
a veteran oak opposite the church (HAN600 & 601). The English elm that used to be prominent around the hotel grounds seem now to be entirely vanished. Both (HAN106) and Boathouse Cottage (HAN116) are defined disfiguringly by Leylandii hedges (Figure 2.11). The short section of the same sort of hedge (currently untrimmed) between the hotel and church similarly disfigures this part of the village and makes viewing the east end of the church virtually impossible. In the centre of the town, by the education room and small cottage, the ashes have nearly all died and been felled but one oak survives. Adjacent to the farmyard wall are an arborealised elder and two formerly prolific damson trees, the latter representing the last remnants of the cottage gardens tended by the tenants in 1 & 2 The Ruins. In the adjacent museum car park are some field maples, rowans and hawthorn. On the eastern ramparts, where the former green lane leaves the town, there is a prominent clump of ash while the green lane is itself bordered by ash and hawthorn. In terms of fauna, the main species known on the site are badger (various locations), fox, rabbit (especially on the monument), rat (farm buildings) and mole. On the river bank and island, water vole and otter are known to use the river. These are in addition to the bats already mentioned. Until the 1980s, hares were commonly observed in the fields and may still be present. There are no notable species of rare bird but a colony of rooks resides in the sycamore plantation while a small colony of white doves occupies the farm buildings. 2.5 Heritage 2.5.1 Initial investigations The initial phase of excavation at WRC may properly be characterised as antiquarian rather than archaeological in character, i.e. it was a reaction to discovery of ruins on the site during the course of other works. In this category can be placed the accounts of heated rooms recorded in 1701 (Lyster 1706) and 1785 (Turner 2008) and the discovery of a mosaic in Wroxeter Village in 1827 (Cosh & White 2006). Contemporary with these are the records of the three tombstones found in 1752 (Ward 1755) and, at a later date, the fragments of the Jupiter Column and other carvings (Roach Smith 1854). One might also mention the discoveries and records of stray finds reported on especially by Thomas Farmer Dukes in his Manuscripts in the Society of Antiquaries (MS 218) and in the William Salt Library, Stafford (MS 461 & 473; Dukes 1799-1859). Key among these is a drawing of a Bronze Age pygmy cup (Dukes MS 461 fol.S and 473 fol.S). This item has been rediscovered in the collection of Shrewsbury School (Biddulph & Woodward 2000). Research excavations at the site can be said to have begun with Thomas Wright whose work on the town baths on insula V are most cogently summarised by Mackreth (2000). This text is based on the many accounts Wright published of his work, not least the site guide that ran to seven editions up to the final year of his excavations in 1867 (Wright 1859-67.) and his book on the site (Wright 1872). Small-scale explorations of the baths on insula V were continued by George Fox (Fox 1897) and Kathleen Kenyon (Kenyon 1940) before the state acquired the site in 1947. These works had been financed by the owners of the site, the Shropshire Archaeological Society who before the First World War had secured the Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments, J.P. Bushe-Fox to excavate for three seasons (1912-14) on insula VIII north of the village (Bushe-Fox 1913, 1914, 1916). Starting in 1923, the Birmingham Archaeological Society financed the excavation of what turned out to be the forum on insula IV, directed by Donald
12
Atkinson (Atkinson 1942). The site custodian, John Morris, also seems to have been active in the inter-war years in conducting small excavations around the town, including a mortarium kiln (Faiers 2006; Morris 1935).
Figure 2.12: Aerofilms view of Wroxeter Baths, 1929 (NMR AFL03 25 28868). The earliest known aerial photographs of the site are those published in the Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society for 1929-30 (Morris 1930) (Figure 2.12). These were taken commercially by Aerofilms, the costs being met by Sir Charles Marston, President of the Society. The prints and negatives have recently been acquired by the NMR (AFL03 525 28866-8). Another photograph, taken a decade later in 1938 by Group Captain Livock, is also held in the NMR (GEL 9370 frame 369). 2.5.2. Wroxeter discovered Following the Second World War, the public visiting area was sold by the Shropshire Archaeological Society to the Ministry of Public Buildings & Works (latterly DoE). Consolidation of the baths began, coinciding with a small University of Birmingham-run training excavation on a town house south of the baths (White 2006). By 1955, the training excavation was working on the baths, a programme that extended to the baths basilica and continued to 1990, directed by Graham Webster and Philip Barker (Ellis 2000; Webster 2002; Barker et al. 1997). As early as July 1945, aerial reconnaissance over WRC had recommenced and had an immediate impact first through the work of J.K. St Joseph whose first sorties over the site in 1945 and 1947 found the auxiliary fort to the south of the town and a town house immediately south of the baths (St Joseph 1951), the results being evaluated shortly afterwards (ibid, 54-6; Kenyon 1980). He continued to fly over the site notably carrying out the extraordinary vertical aerial photographic survey of WRC during the drought of 1976 (eg CUCAP RC8 BC 04). The bulk of aerial photographic survey over the town was carried out by Arnold Baker and latterly Chris Musson. Arnold Baker was one of a group of ex-RAF men who did so much to revolutionise aerial photographic survey after the war (Wilson 1982, 13-14) (Figure 2.13). He was working early enough to capture some key earthworks that no longer survive, including the Wroxeter aqueduct (Baker 1992; Webster and Hollingsworth 1959) (Figure 2.14). The aerial photographs taken in the immediate hinterland of the town have enabled the development of a considerable degree of understanding of the evolution of the landscape around it (Whimster 1989;
13
Welfare and Swan 1995). Another new technology, geophysics, was also tested at this time with a magnetometer survey being carried out as early as 1950s (Houghton 1960).
Figure 2.13: Dr Arnold Baker (rear Figure 2.14: Wroxeter aqueduct cockpit) on another Wroxeter flight. (HAN557) photographed by Dr Graham Webster before its destruction. 2.5.3 The State intervenes In 1973 the site of Wroxeter was purchased by the DoE from the Raby Estate. As a result a feasibility study was carried out (White 1976) that resulted in a targeted programme of excavations to allow for the creation of a car park and provision for services (Ellis and White 2006). State funding of the excavations carried out by Webster and Barker continued until 1985 in the former case and 1990 in the latter. The contribution of these excavations to British archaeology was significant both academically and developmentally. Websters excavations were able to locate for the first time the long-suspected fortress beneath WRC and to clarify the sequence of development within the baths themselves. Barkers excavation was able to demonstrate an extended period of occupation at the core of the site that added more than 200 years to Wroxeters existence as a Roman town. Technically, the excavations were recognised World-wide as innovative and of a supremely high standard. Both excavations were renowned too for the quality of their training, the legacy of which has been highlighted recently (Everill and White, in press). The resulting collection of artefacts from these excavations is one of the largest stratified collections from anywhere in Roman Britain and, if studied to their full potential, will offer important new insights into the use and development of Roman material culture. This is especially so in the 5th to 7th century levels where Wroxeter has unique potential to transform our understanding of the material culture of the Brittonic peoples who preserved the legacy of Rome by their resistance to the Anglo-Saxon invasions (White 2007). These excavations were brought to press as a result of substantial research programmes funded by English Heritage. In their turn EH funded further research in the form of two other initiatives to explore the wider context of the Roman town. The first of these was the Central Marches Historic Towns Survey which was carried out by Hereford and Worcester Archaeological Unit from 1991-3 (White and Dalwood 1994) the results of which are available on-line through the Archaeology Data Service (ADS). The second was the Wroxeter Hinterland Project (WHP) run from 1994-7 by the University of Birmingham and funded by the Leverhulme Trust with post-excavation work funded by
14
English Heritage. The focus of the WHP was inevitably outside the town but the project did research in the immediate hinterland and, critically, carried out the first complete geophysical survey of any Roman town in Britain (Gaffney & Gaffney 2000) (Figure 2.15). The results, in combination with the aerial photographic evidence, have enabled the compilation of an atlas of all visible buildings in a Romano-British town for the first time (White, Gaffney and Gaffney, forthcoming). A further dimension to our understanding of the evolution of the town after the Roman period has been the Historic Landscape Character assessment (HLC) which was funded by English Heritage again as part of a national initiative.
Figure 2:15: The gradiometry survey of WRC produced collaboratively by GSB Prospection and English Heritage.
15
Despite the impression that a great deal is known about the town, it is worth emphasising that the sum of the excavated area of Wroxeter is between 5-10% with the bulk on three insulae (IV, V and VIII; HAN504, 505 & 508). The rest of the town is virtually unknown archaeologically and there are still entire modern fields within Wroxeter that have never been sampled through excavation. 2.5.4 Buildings and other surveys The primary building record for the site is the DCMS Listing (Appendix 5). This has only one Grade I listed building, the Church of St Andrew (Figure 2.16). The associated gates, with their re-used Roman columns and bases (Figure 2.17), are listed Grade II, as are all the other buildings and structures in the listing. These comprise the Grange next to the Church with its folly made of medieval and Roman masonry (Figure 2.18), Glebe Cottage (Figure 2.19) and the Old Post Office (Figure 2.20), these latter being possibly 16th and 17th century in origin. These structures represent the last remaining core of the village although the Old School House (Figure 2.21), lying between the Glebe Cottage and the Grange, looks to have elements in its structure that would merit consideration for listing, as do the farm buildings in the adjacent courtyard. Other formerly historic structures in the village are substantially altered, including Topsy Cottage, the Wroxeter Hotel (the former Vicarage) (Figure 2.22) and The Boathouse. The remaining buildings in the village are brick buildings formerly belonging to the Raby Estate and provided for its tenants in the mid 19th century, including the English Heritage owned Mount Pleasant Cottages (Figure 2.23).
Figure 2.16: The north side of St Figure 2.17: The gates of St Andrews Andrews, Wroxeter (HAN111). with re-used Roman columns (HAN120).
The Grange and its gazebo, HAN112 & Figure 2.19: Glebe Cottage HAN115. 113 (right).
16
The
Old
Post
The Church of St Andrew is under the administration of the Churches Conservation Trust (CCT). It is a complex building architecturally, managing to exhibit virtually every phase of ecclesiastical architecture in its fabric. The core of the north wall is late AngloSaxon while the entire east end is transitional between Romanesque and Early English, as is demonstrated by the apex to the chancel arch in what is otherwise a strictly Romanesque style. It is thought to date to the later 12th century, contemporary with the ecclesiastical association of the church with the Abbey at Haughmond. The rebuilding of the south aisle in the 14th century is largely lost although part of the Lady Chapel north wall survives with some wall painting visible. The tower is later than this phase since it Perpendicular, at least in its lower sections. The upper sections, incorporating carvings thought to have been brought from Haughmond Abbey, must post-date the latters dissolution. The south aisle wall was rebuilt after collapse in the 18th century at which time the Mercian Anglo-Saxon Cross of 9th century date was taken down and built into the top course of the new aisle wall while a 19th century porch is the latest structural element. The churchyard gates reuse columns from the Roman site and two square bases found during the excavations beneath Wroxeter Farm in the 1850s. Inside the most prominent elements are the fine alabaster tombs of the Newport family of 16th and 17th century date but there is also an aumbry with a medieval painting of Christ in Glory still visible inside (Newman & Pevsner 2006, 718-20).
17
Figure 2.24: HAN100,The former Smithy Figure 2.25: HAN104, 1 & 2 The Ruins. A (latterly the Post Office) at the Wroxeter back-to-back cottage built for Raby crossroads. Estate tenants. Detached pig sties to right. The other buildings within the study area are the old Smithy at the crossroads in the centre of the site which is a cottage probably of 18th century date with a late 20th century extension (Figure 2.24), 1 & 2 The Ruins, the former back-to-back cottage next to the farm buildings which is now in poor repair (Figure 2.25), the farm buildings themselves (discussed below) and The Cottage, the house of the former tenant farmer that sits on the river cliff above the River Severn. These other buildings are all 19th century in date. The farm buildings have been the subject of a detailed architectural and archaeological assessment (Hislop and White 2002) (Figure 2.26). This has demonstrated that the buildings were constructed after 1843 but before 1854. The complex was then built rapidly in stages until completion in ca. 1881 when the tenancy changed to Mr Everall, whose family were still tenants when the property was acquired by the DoE. Minor modifications were carried out up to 1901 with the last element being a Dutch Barn built post Second World War (since demolished). The buildings incorporate large amounts of Roman ashlar, especially where visible from the road but the majority of the building is in brick. The buildings have been assessed for Listing but as yet are unlisted and are currently unused.
48 42 48
40
48
48
23
42
29
48 47 6 40 40 41 7 14 40 42 42 45
48
40 2942 41 45 47
42
40 47 42 6 48 42 48 42
29 36
36 36
42 42 42
50
30 42
48 47
47
42
Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Shropshire County Council 100019801 (2008)
48
48
40 48
Economy & Environment The Shirehall, Abbey Foregate Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY2 6ND
Historic Landscape Character (HLC) Map for Wroxeter and environs. (Annotated numbers refer to 'Current HLC Types' legend . see p.xii) Scale: 1:10,000
19
Figure 2.27 (previous page): Historic Landscape Character Assessment for WRC and environs Shropshire Council courtesy of Dr Andy Wigley. For key to map see p.xii. The Historic Landscape Character assessment, carried out by Dr Andy Wigley for Shropshire Council, has mapped the farm land associated with the farm complex and its immediate surroundings (Figure 2.27) and his description is appended. The fields assigned to the piecemeal enclosure Historic Landscape Character (HLC) type are likely to be amongst the oldest in the area. They were enclosed directly from medieval strip fields after 1746 since they are shown on Rocques map of that date (Figure 2.28). The fields allocated to the reorganised piecemeal enclosure category have similar origins, but were subject to boundary alterations in the mid-late 19th, probably as part of the rationalisation and improvement of the Raby Estate (this reorganisation was probably also coeval with the establishment of the farmstead at Wroxeter crossroads). The paddocks and closes immediately adjacent to Wroxeter village are also likely to have ancient origins. Prior to the mid-19th century, those to the east of the church were subdivided into smaller plots and a number of buildings existed adjacent to the road. The fields allocated to the miscellaneous floodplain fields category are likely to have been established as wet meadows between the 15th and 17th centuries. The field allocated to the small irregular fields type to the north-east of the Post Office, and the one to the north-west of The Cottage, are likely to be ancient pasture fields. However, the other fields assigned to this category, together with those allocated to the other small rectilinear fields type were all created in the later 20th century. Similarly, the fields allocated to the larger irregular fields type were established through boundary alterations in the in the second half of the 20th century, whilst those assigned to the very large post-war fields category were created in the same period to facilitate intensive arable cultivation. The 18th century parkland at Attingham has been assigned to the parks and gardens HLC type. The majority of Wroxeter village has been assigned to the pre-1880s settlement HLC category, whilst the 20th century extension to the south of the stream has been assigned to the post-1880s settlement type. The majority of the woodland in the area around Wroxeter has been allocated to the other broadleaved woodland with sinuous boundaries HLC type, whilst the south-eastern end of Ismore Coppice has been assigned to the mixed woodland with sinuous boundaries type. Examination of Foxalls transcription of the Tithe Award map for Wroxeter Parish indicates that Ismore Coppice originated as a later 18th or early 19th century plantation. However, Grotto Coppice, Figure 2.28: John Rocques map on the west bank of the river, may have ancient of Wroxeter produced in 1746 origins. (SA 6900/1).
20
2.5.6 Chronological summary of development Prehistory While there are Neolithic finds from Wroxeter, including a pot rim and flint tools, settlement probably only occurred in the early mid Bronze Age, perhaps ca. 1500 BC. The evidence for this comes from the banks of the River Severn where the 3m high alluvial bank overlies gravel shoals with preserved tree stumps (Figure 2.29). Environmental analysis has established that rapid alluviation of the Severn occurred at this time, probably as a result of deforestation of the upper Severn and perhaps the Severn plain itself. This event was crucial as it created a stable river channel requiring fording points. These seem to have been occasionally marked by round barrow cemeteries, as appears to have been the case at Wroxeter (HAN500; White, Gaffney & Gaffney, forthcoming). The discovery of these features probably accounts for the pygmy cup referred to above.
Figure 2.29: The bank of the Figure 2.30: The cliff lane at Wroxeter (HAN407), River Severn at Wroxeter with suggested by Bassett (1990) to be pre-Roman in waterlogged tree-stumps in date. gravel (foreground). Evidence for Iron Age occupation (roughly 800 BC to the Roman conquest of AD 43) is again slight but some enclosures can be seen within the geophysics and one was located by Webster below insula V. An evolving system of trackways leading to and from the ford has also been suggested (Figure 2.30) linked, it has been argued, to a co-axial field system of a type found commonly throughout Britain at this date (http://www.engh.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/cfs.htm; Bassett 1990). The theory has yet to be proven but would be consistent with the existence of the numerous Iron Age enclosures within the Wroxeter hinterland. Roman The outline of Wroxeters development in the Roman period is broadly understood despite the lack of extensive excavation (White and Barker 1997; Figure 2.31; White, Gaffney & Gaffney, forthcoming). The initial phase was military and comprised first the
21
auxiliary fort south of the later town of Viroconium and currently itself Scheduled. This may have been built as early as AD 47 during the first campaigns by the Roman Army in the area. Around a decade later the legionary fortress was constructed to act as the winter base of the XIIII Legion then currently campaigning in mid and north Wales. Three sides (west, south and east) are still easily traceable in the landscape today (HAN551). An annexe may have been created between the west side of the fortress and the river cliff. Temporary camps have been noted to the north of the fortress that were either created as practice camps during the life of the fortress or which pre-date it (Welfare & Swan 1995).
Figure 2.31: The suggested developed of WRC, from fortress (top left) to Brittonic town (bottom right). Source: White & Barker 1998.
22
Following the withdrawal of the then occupying legion, the XXth in about AD90, the town was laid out using the street pattern established by the fortress but carrying the streets over the levelled defences on all sides but the east and even over the Bell Brook to the north. The area of the town was quadrupled and trackways extended out into the landscape beyond (HAN552; Figure 3.5). Some retrenchment occurred in the 2nd century following the construction of the town defences, which appear to have been in earth and timber. This cut across the earlier street grid at its extremities. Even so, the 78ha. enclosed made Wroxeter the fourth largest town in Roman Britain (HAN553). It was equipped with public buildings of suitable grandeur of conception and design, notably the forum and baths (Mackreth 1987). The recent analysis of the geophysics and aerial photographs have located more than 260 buildings although this can only be a fraction of the total number since most buildings were in organic materials and are thus not easily detected (White and Gaffney 2003; White, Gaffney and Gaffney, forthcoming). While occupation remained strong at the core of the town into the 5th century, lasting even up to the mid 7th century, the extent of this latest phase of occupation is unknown (HAN554). It may even have been polyfocal perhaps with a new nucleus growing up around the ford.
Figure 2.32: The site of Wroxeters Medieval Figure 2.33: The green lane (HAN402) manor house (HAN306), viewed from the leading to Wroxeters former east gate showing the reverse S shape imposed church tower. during the middle ages. Medieval to post-medieval The demise of the town seems to have occurred at around AD 650. The earliest medieval evidence is the Mercian Cross of ca. 200-250 years later and it may be that the site was entirely abandoned. This seems unlikely however and it has been argued that there was a Brittonic church and perhaps community here during this hiatus that later formed the nucleus of the medieval church and its village (HAN555; Bassett 1992). Little is known of the medieval village other than the location of the manor house whose extensive earthworks of fish ponds and house platform survive in the fields opposite the Old School House and Glebe Cottage (Figure 2.32) but the final echo of Wroxeters field system is seen on John Rocques map and in the reverse-S shape of its lanes (Figure 2.33). The post medieval landscape is effectively that characterised by HLC assessment.
23
CHAPTER 3. WHY WROXETER MATTERS: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEFINED AREA This chapter reflects on the evidence gathered in the previous chapter to draw out the significance of the site under four headings: evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal. Evidential Above ground The visible evidence for Wroxeter Roman City is, with one spectacular exception, not readily apparent yet it is there nonetheless and repays the time and effort spent in seeking it out. The exception is, of course, The Old Work itself (Figure 3.1). The largest free-standing wall left in any town in Roman Britain, it has served as Wroxeters iconic monument, testament not least to the ruggedness of Roman architectural design and construction. Around it, and visible for the past 150 years, are the remains of the town baths, the only complete large civil town baths visible anywhere in Britain (Bath is of course the other notable example but it is not complete, nor is it readily intelligible to the visitor). Were the forum to be added to the existing attraction then the site would become the only place north of the Alps where one could see a combination that, in Roman times, was common to every major town throughout the Empire.
Figure 3.1: The Old Work and the baths Figure 3.2: WRCs defences (HAN305), behind Glebe Cottage. (HAN118 and 119) under snow. Outside the baths area, the next most prominent evidence can be found at the extremity of WRC: the town defences (HAN309). The lack of stone in their construction means that they are less visible, and are certainly less spectacular, than those at Caerwent, Chester or Silchester. In places Wroxeters defences are no more than a gentle rolling slope and grassy ditch (Figure 3.2) but elsewhere they convey their former formidable nature (the stretch by the hotel is one such, as is the less accessible stretch at the north-east corner). Indeed, their appearance echoes the appearance of the many Iron Age hillforts that can be seen in the county, such as Old Oswestry or Caer Caradoc, or even the Wrekin itself, visible from the heart of Wroxeter. This link is not as tenuous as it might appear in that the inhabitants of the town may well have been trying to emulate their ancestors in designing and building their defences. One last visible legacy of WRC is its roads. Some are visible within the fields, with careful observation at the right time of year, but much more obvious are those present day lanes that perpetuate the former street grid. These include especially Patch Lane,
24
the cliff lane, the main road from Norton through to the village (Watling Street), the Horseshoe Lane and the green lane running past the football pitch (HAN404, 407, 400, 401 and HAN402) Figures 2.30; 2.33). These relic features have of course only survived because they are still used but they could have a wider interpretive role for the visitor. Patch Lane, for example delineates the entire south side of the fortress while the Watling Street, from its junction with Patch Lane through to the former smithy at the crossroads delineates much of the west side of the fortress. In consequence, one can stand on the observation platform overlooking the baths and, looking to the south, see one half of the entire fortress of Wroxeter. It is experiences like this that makes Wroxeter special. Such a feat would be impossible in Colchester or Gloucester, Lincoln or York. By standing next to the football pitch, on the other side of the Ironbridge road (B4380), one can experience the topography of the Roman town with all its complexity, while experiencing the expansive views of the Severn Plain and the hills all around, including the 14 visible hillforts (Figures 3.3 & 3.4). From this spot too the Roman soldiers, standing on the invisible northern ramparts of the fortress, kept a close watch upon their newly conquered and settled territory.
Figure 3.3: The Breidden from Wroxeter Figure 3.4: Lawley and Caer Caradoc with Atcham village (foreground). from Wroxeter. In seeking Wroxeters Roman past it is all too easy to forget that its urban existence for 600 years was a blip compared to its use as farmland. Situated as it is in the heart of the Severn Plain, the predominant view is of farmland so it is fitting that within the area of WRC farming predominates too. Accordingly, the survival of the farm buildings at the core of the town echoes the importance of farming to the community at Wroxeter. The farm buildings, and the housing related to the farming industry scattered around the village, from the solid wealth epitomised by The Cottage to the basic existence of the farm hands hinted at by 1 & 2 The Ruins, give as complete a picture of High Victorian farming as to be found anywhere in the county. Yet this legacy remains virtually invisible to the visitors who are generally focused entirely on things Roman. Fortunately, the buildings are still there to be interpreted and brought back to life in a new role. Of no less importance, but somehow isolated from the Roman town is the wonderful church of St Andrew. This is one of those classic English churches in which the whole history of a settlement, its ups and downs, can be mapped on the building itself, if you have the time and patience to read and understand it. To focus on the Roman period alone at Wroxeter is thus to miss the point: the evidence on the site points to a much broader and more interesting story than just one more Roman town that failed.
25
Assessment of Significance The above-ground archaeology of Wroxeter is key to attracting visitors to WRC; in this the Old Work and the ruins of the baths have the greatest part to play being the most spectacular elements of the site. The ruins are a rare instance in Britain of seeing a complete plan of a Roman civic building but the complex could be made even more spectacular and relevant to understanding Roman urban design through excavation and presentation of the town forum. The defences are less well known due to their current inaccessibility but enabling visitors to walk their course would bring home to people just how large WRC was. Buried It is difficult to assess the amount of buried evidence at WRC since in spatial terms so little of it has been excavated. All significant excavation has focused on three insulae of the town: HAN504 (forum), HAN505 (baths) and HAN508 (south of forum) out of a total of 48. Other investigations in the remaining insulae have been so slight as to give little clue as to their use and density of occupation. Our apparently comprehensive nature understanding of the town has come from remote surveys, either the extensive geophysical survey of 1995-7 (Gaffney and Gaffney 2000; White, Gaffney and Gaffney forthcoming) or the aerial photographic surveys by Dr Arnold Baker, J.K. St Joseph and others (Baker 1992; White, Gaffney & Gaffney forthcoming). Some rough calculations may perhaps be used to illuminate the problem. It is known that stratigraphy in the major excavated insulae is 1.5-2m deep. This is likely to be at the extreme end of deposit depth and one can assume perhaps that the average over the whole town is ca. 1m. If this is accepted, then the total amount of stratigraphic volume can be calculated by the formula of multiplying the area (78ha.) by the depth (1m) to give 780,000m. If the depth were ca. 1.5m, then the volume would be an extra 390,000m, a total of 1,170,000m. Calculating the excavated area of the town is more difficult since the trench sizes and depth of excavation varies considerably, and with the exception of Barkers baths basilica excavation all excavations have been by trench or box trench method. Barkers excavation was roughly 140m by 80m by 1m, giving 11,200m. If we round up the excavated area to include Websters and Atkinsons and Bushe Foxs excavations, the total is probably at least 50,000m. This would be just under 5% of the 1.7m suggested above, or under 10% of the 780,000m. Where excavation has been carried out, the survival of remains has been good or excellent. The condition of the artefacts, especially those vulnerable to acidic soil such as bone or shell, is good indicating an overall neutral pH, although recent prolonged use of Nitrogen fertilizers may have altered this balance. This is in contrast to the immediate hinterland which has slightly acidic soils, a variation that may be attributed to the use of lime mortar and plaster for the major stone buildings. Accordingly, it can be anticipated that where mortared buildings are not present in the town, preservation of bone and other artefacts will be poorer than in the core of the site. As with most sites, there has been considerable build up of remains of successive phases of occupation in the same place since there was no concept of totally clearing or levelling a site before reconstruction took place. The phenomenon is most obvious on the road surfaces, such as Watling Street between the Baths and Forum where the comparative heights of the porticos demonstrate differing ground levels between the 2nd century (forum) and 4th (baths) This means that the remains visible to us by aerial or geophysical prospection across the town are likely to be the latest although interpretation of the plots has highlighted components of different chronological phases
26
(see below; White, Gaffney & Gaffney forthcoming). Inevitably, therefore, there is only one phase that can be characterised in detail without the benefit of excavation, the main civilian occupation of the town, from roughly the Hadrianic period (AD 120s) to the end of the 5th century (ca. AD 490s). Early Roman (Military; ca. AD 55-90; HAN551) Within the area of the Roman town, our understanding of the buried archaeology of the Roman military sites is relatively weak given that these remains lie at the bottom of the sequence of stratigraphy on the site. Excavation of the buildings inside the fortress has been limited to the small and fragmented areas of archaeology seen by Webster during his excavations of the baths. Assessment of Significance While the remains of the fortress hold some interest they are not as significant as the wider pattern of military archaeology around Wroxeter. The assessment of the temporary marching camps carried out by the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England and published in the mid 1990s demonstrated a large number of military instillations around the town (Welfare and Swan 1995). These include a small fort south of the town that was identified and investigated by J. K. St Joseph, two marching camps immediately north of the town rampart, a further camp in Ismore coppice immediately to the west of Wroxeter and another in the grounds of Attingham Park (ibid) as well as forts at Uffington and Duncote (ibid, fig. 126). To these can be added the vexillation fortresses linked to the campaigns of conquest slightly further afield at Cound and Leighton (White, forthcoming in Burnham and Davies Roman Frontier of Wales, 3rd edn.). Taken together the central Shropshire military camps represent the densest areas of Roman military activity in England outside of Hadrians Wall (Welfare and Swan 1995, fig. 2). Early Roman (Civil; ca. AD 90-120; HAN552) Assessment of this phase of the towns history is problematic since so little work has been done. Only in Atkinsons and Websters excavations has this level been reached. In the latter, some evidence was found for the reuse of military buildings into the civilian phases. The only other elements of the early town that can be defined are the street grid, which was clearly established at its fullest extent at this period, as is demonstrated by the partial burial of elements of the street pattern under the later town rampart in the north of the town (insulae XLIII-XLVIII; HAN543-548). More intriguingly, the Roman camps lying around Norton farm, immediately to the north of the town, appear to be overlain by trackways and enclosures also partially buried beneath the defences which would imply that the early civil period saw the creation and use of a landscape in the immediate hinterland of the town that, for whatever reason, was then disrupted by the creation of the town defences (HAN556; Figure 3.5). This area represents a high priority for both research and protection. Assessment of significance It is virtually impossible to gauge the significance of the early civil period within the town since it is the most opaque of all the phases of the towns history, lying as it does between the fortress and the mature town. However, from the fact that the later defences in places overly the road grid established in this period it can be surmised that the town was from the outset planned to be one of the largest urban settlements in Britain. Further work on this phase will be crucial for
27
characterising the ambitions of the civilian establishment at this period and its potential is high given that it is deeply stratified. The possible identification of an early Roman landscape in association with the Roman town represents a potentially unique survival within Britain. These fields are still currently under plough although recent geophysical survey has demonstrated that the cropmark features still survive. It is therefore an urgent priority to secure the future of these remains by taking this field out of cultivation so as to preserve it for future investigation.
Figure 3.5: The cropmarks around Norton Farm (HAN556) as plotted by RCHME [English Heritage]. Civil period, (ca. AD 120-490 HAN553) This period of Wroxeters history is the most comprehensively understood and there is too much information to easily summarise. The remains have been characterised and described in detail (White and Gaffney 2003; White, Gaffney and Gaffney forthcoming) giving for the first time an over view of the whole town, or at least those elements of the town that are visible in the aerial photographs and in the geophysics. Broad patterns can however be presented. Both survey sets demonstrate that the central insulae of the town have many masonry buildings, mainly town houses of various sizes including substantial courtyard buildings, linear houses with three or four rooms and corridors and simple strip-houses aligned onto street frontages. Some public buildings can also be identified, notably the forum (insula IV; HAN504), public baths (insula V; HAN505) and probable main temple (insula I HAN501; i.e. beneath the farm buildings). Other temples are visible south and north-west of the baths. A cattle market, forum boarium, has been tentatively identified in insula III HAN503 along with a possible mansio in insula XIII HAN513. The
28
insulae adjacent to the east defences appear to be filled with lower status structures while the insulae in the south of the town have a scatter of masonry houses set within open land. North of the Bell Brook, a cluster of dense, low status housing parallel to the rampart has been detected, an arrangement that echoes the position of housing in an Iron Age oppidum or hillfort (HAN534). The north-west part of the town shows a street grid laid out over the Bell Brook rather than respecting it. Pits are densely packed within these insulae indicative perhaps of an industrial area. If so then the industry might be water-dependent given the proximity to the Bell Brook (tanning and fulling have been suggested; White and Barker 1998). The infrastructure of the town is relatively well understood too. The defences seem to have been earthwork through the towns life although they began as a rampart with two ditches before reaching their final form as a single rampart with broad single ditch and counterscarp bank. There is some debate as to whether the defences were in stone or were earthwork (as is argued by Barker 1985, for instance). As yet too little has been examined to decide this question. The line of the towns aqueduct is known although the extant earthworks were ploughed out only 50 years ago. Elements of the street grid survive as modern lanes but the bulk of the road system is known only from cropmarks. There have been suggestions that there was a bridge across the Severn but there is no conclusive proof of this and a ford is as likely. Masonry in the river appears to relate to medieval or post medieval fish weirs (Pannett 1989). Activity in the immediate hinterland is relatively well understood although cannot be examined in detail here. GIS modelling indicates a preference for settlement location on the pastureland in the immediate hinterland, indicating that livestock processing may have been an important element in the towns economy (Gaffney and White 2007). Assessment of Significance There are few towns in Britain that provide the level of detail and comprehensiveness of data that Wroxeter can furnish for this period. The other towns of similar calibre Caerwent, Silchester, Verulamium are much more extensively excavated and / or damaged by ploughing. Similarly, their hinterlands have not been subject to extensive modern survey, with the exception of Silchester. Wroxeter thus has enormous potential for helping us to understand what an important town looked like in Roman Britain and how it functioned. To some extent this has been demonstrated by the work of the Wroxeter Hinterland Project but potentially there is much more that could be done to characterise the site. We would single out two interlinked areas of research that could enable considerable enhancement of our understanding of the site: geochemical prospection to test some of the hypotheses relating to the industrial areas of the site and a paleo-environmental survey of Wroxeter and its hinterland to characterise economic and agricultural change in the town throughout its existence. It is also important to realise that for the Romans, towns did not stop at the defences. They counted the immediate territory around the town as part of its area and thus key elements of the town are located beyond the defences, a fact that modern management must take into account. Not the least of these elements are the cemeteries. These have been investigated in a number of locations at WRC, notably on both sides of the Horseshoe Lane by Wright (1862), Atkinson (1924) and Houghton (1968). Only Wright was successful in discovering undisturbed graves and it seems clear that the cremation cemeteries known along this road
29
are now lost. Another cemetery lay just south of Norton farm but this too has only yielded cremations found by Wright. However, the fields to the west of Norton appear to show evidence for enclosed cemeteries which, if the case, would indicate a 3rd or 4th century date. These features have yet to be confirmed or excavated. They are under plough and are vulnerable to metal detectorists. Removing the threat of both is a high priority. Late Antiquity (ca. AD 490-650; HAN554) This phase has only been identified in excavation with the classic exposition being Barkers excavations on the baths basilica (phase Z) (Barker et al. 1997). The phase can be characterised as the remodelling of pubic space into a private demesne perhaps for a warlord or bishop, creating timber buildings designed and executed in Roman mode. Surrounding insulae (HAN502, 504, 506, 509) have produced evidence for similar structures even though not fully recognised at the time. Quite how widespread this phase of occupation was across the town is unclear but it is likely that the focus was small, as with other Late Antique sites known from the continent or North Africa. Despite the much diminished area of occupation, the nature and scale of the evidence suggests continuing urban activity (White 2007). Note that this phase is not susceptible to aerial or geophysical survey yet is the most vulnerable phase as it lies at the top of the stratigraphic sequence. There has been a suggestion that the early defences on the southern lip of the Bell Brook (if that is what they were) were remodelled in this phase to provide a defensive feature defining the northern limit of this reduced core of the town. Further work is needed to confirm this picture. Assessment of Significance This is perhaps the most important phase in Wroxeters history in that no other site in Britain has produced as much evidence of urban occupation of this date. It has huge regional and national significance in helping researchers to understand and characterise this difficult period. The value comes in particular from the association of a very large dataset of stratified artefacts that can cast considerable light on how the transition from Roman material culture to a Brittonic one occurred. While is it not possible to fully characterise this phase spatially its importance and accessibility as the uppermost layer in the town suggests that it carries a high priority for future work. Early medieval and Medieval (ca. AD 650-1500; HAN555) Excavation in the town centre has implied the virtual abandonment of the area within the walled circuit around AD 650. The only exception to this appears to be the church, or rather the cross known to have stood within the churchyard until the 1740s. This Mercian style cross dates to the late 9th century and it is thus a possibility that the whole town was abandoned after ca. AD 650. However Bassett (1992) has argued on various grounds, not least the presence of a college of priests at Domesday, that before the church there was a Brittonic monastery established in the vicinity of the ford. The buried remains in the churchyard, although inevitably complicated by the existence of the cemetery, has potential as the providing the longest unbroken sequence of occupation / use in the whole town. The existence of a church implies a village too and it can only be assumed that the Anglo-Saxon village of Wroxeter lay around the church, as has now been proven at the neighbouring village of Atcham, which also has an Anglo-Saxon church. That being the case it is assumed that the later medieval (or more probably early post-medieval)
30
cottages within the village are located over earlier medieval predecessors. If so, then the earthworks of the houses abandoned in the mid-19th century may well have a buried archaeological sequence extending perhaps unbroken from the Roman period through to the 19th century. Note that these earthworks extend around Topsy cottage and also into the spinny at the three-road junction outside the Wroxeter Hotel. There is no evidence that the medieval village extended south of the brook defining the southern edge of the town circuit. Also relevant to this period is the site of the manor house and fish ponds lying in the field between the ford and the southern defences. Wright dug here in 1859, uncovering a small inhumation cemetery of unknown date but the prominent earthworks (HAN306) presumably contain stratified evidence of the house occupied by Le Strange family. Within the rest of the town, buried evidence for this period is limited to the remnants of strip fields which appear in some of the aerial photographs and geophysical plots. There is potential for mapping these against the only surviving map of the open field system by John Rocque (SA 6900/1). Assessment of Significance These remains are unlikely to be of great rarity in the region but nonetheless have enhanced significance for two reasons. First is that the protected status of Wroxeter since the 1970s means that radical change here is unlikely and thus threats to the buried archaeology are not severe. Second is the fact that the Anglo-Saxon, medieval and post-medieval village at Wroxeter epitomises an important, and dominant theme in Wroxeters history, namely its existence as an agricultural community. This significance is enhanced by subtle, but still extant, traces of the agricultural organisation of the landscape within and around Wroxeter, especially the relics of open fields. Overall assessment of the buried archaeology Wroxeters buried archaeology represents a virtually untapped resource for understanding how Romano-British towns were founded, settled, inhabited and finally abandoned. It then goes on to provide evidence for the medieval period right through to the present day. For some of the phases of occupation (e.g. the 5th-6th century) Wroxeter offers our best hope nationally for characterising and understanding this difficult period while in others (main civil period and early civil) it represents the best preserved example of any large Roman town in Britain. The latest phase of work on the site has demonstrated that much can be achieved in research terms without causing long-term damage to the site and the development of new procedures and technologies should be allowed to continue in an organised and coherent programme of research to develop our understanding of the town as well as permitting further development of scientific approaches to archaeology. Artefacts The study of the material culture of the Roman city is a relatively neglected area in spite of some important early studies carried out on discoveries from the town. The earliest records relate to the usual antiquarian discoveries of coins, brooches, statuettes and sculpture, including the four military tombstones and fragments of a Jupiter column. Bushe-Fox was the first to adopt a more scientific approach to the material culture through his extensive pottery reports which did so much to underpin his stratigraphic narrative. His excavations were the first too to carry out analysis of environmental data
31
recovered. In contrast, Atkinsons work was much less concerned with a proper analysis of the cultural material tending instead to focus on the spectacular discoveries made in the forum, including the gutter find, inscription, silver mirror and diploma. None of these early excavators found significant amounts of material and were often selective in what they kept. With the start of modern excavation under Webster the practice of selection of pottery and other finds continued for a while until, in the mid 1960s, Barker adopted a more comprehensive approach to collection of artefacts. It is from these two excavations that the bulk of Wroxeters material culture is known since Graham Webster gradually adopted the approach of keeping all finds, although never sieving spoil as Barker did to retrieve finds. The exceptional quantity and quality of the remains from these two excavations, and the complete coverage they afford of the whole sequence of the towns Roman history, offer a unique insight into the economy and society of the town yet the potential of these remains largely untapped (Cool 2006, 231-2). The finds from the baths basilica excavations alone offer huge quantities of artefacts for research: 1.5 tonnes of animal bone, 1 tonne of pottery, over 7000 stratified coins, 11,000 small finds in total. This is one of the largest groups of stratified material culture of Roman date from anywhere in Britain. Its analysis could cast considerable light on changing patterns of the RomanoBritish economy, on changing social mores and dress styles and on the economic basis of the town (Cool 2006). While much of the material has been studied, it has not been brought together in such a way as to realise its potential and far too much of the data rests in archives, inaccessible to researchers and the public alike. If studied and put into the context of the excavation it has the potential to revolutionise our understanding especially of the latest, 5th-6th century material culture, but will also cast considerable light on the adoption of Romanised lifestyles by the Cornovii. Furthermore, study of the stratified material will enable some context to be restored to the material found by earlier excavators, especially those working on insula V (HAN505). Work on this extensive collection is undoubtedly hindered by the division of the material between Shropshire Council and English Heritage. If at all possible these collections should be housed together so as to be capable of joint study. Assessment of Significance The material culture collected from the site at Wroxeter represents one of the largest and most comprehensive of any stratified Roman dataset from Britain (Cool, pers. comm.). Despite this its research potential remains largely unrealised due to the failure to fully study the material culture, especially from the Baths Basilica site. This mistake should be rectified through a concerted research programme designed to study and characterise the assemblage recovered from the site with a view to establishing a benchmark for the material culture of 5th and 6th century Britain. In order to facilitate this, it is further suggested that this nationally important collection be brought together to create an archaeological resource centre on the site, establishing a major resource for the study of Roman Britain. Historical Wroxeters historical importance is less certain than its archaeological legacy because history is in many senses more intangible in the absence of written records. Thus it is merely speculation that the Emperor Hadrian could have visited the town during his stay
32
in Britain in AD122 (Webster 1993). That the speculation has been made at all is based on the fact that the forum and baths complexes appear to have been started at this time although only the forum was completed within Hadrians lifetime, as is demonstrated by the finest surviving inscription from Roman Britain (Figure 3.6). Less speculative, but still nonetheless not recorded by history, is the fact that Agricolas tenure of his first provincial governorship involved marching from Wroxeter with the 20th Legion, with whom he had been Legate a few years previously, to subdue the tribes of northern Wales, and especially Anglesey. The drama of this latter event captured Tactius imagination much more than the fact that his father-in-law had marched from the north gate of the fortress at Viroconium.
Figure 3.6: The Forum Inscription, Rowleys House Museum. Dated to AD 129-130 it is acknowledged as the finest Roman Inscription in Britain. Of other Roman visitors we know even less: did any of the House of Constantine who visited Britain ever visit Wroxeter? It seems unlikely but we shall never know for certain. We can be almost certain that there will have been periodic visits by the governor of the province, not least in his capacity as travelling judge, but such visits have left no visible trace. Even when the archaeology points to the presence of significant people living in Wroxeter, as is the case with the occupant of Building 10 (the large sixth century building sitting on top of the baths basilica) we are frustratingly unable to put a name to the person. This has not stopped others doing so, however, with possible occupants including Vortigern and even Arthur (Philips and Keatman 1999). In truth, such a building, and such a spot, are unlikely to have ever housed such men not least because there are no 5th or 6th century defences to go with the occupation on the baths basilica. Rather, it is likely that the occupant was a senior cleric, perhaps a bishop, reflecting the crucial importance of the Christian community in resisting the pagan Anglo-Saxon communities to the east. It is here that Wroxeters historical significance can really take off because Wroxeter is the place where we can see the birth of the elements of medieval and modern Britain.
33
We are so used to thinking about the division between the English and the Welsh that it is difficult to remember that this situation came about only after the 5th century. In the Roman period, Wroxeter was buried deep within the province of Britannia, away from immediate threats. The collapse of Roman Britain in the first decade(s) of the 5th century suddenly catapulted Wroxeter to the frontier. There is some evidence that its people, and those of the rest of the province of Britannia Prima (Wales, the West country and the Welsh March) were organised enough to resist the invading Germanic peoples, unlike the other three provinces of Britain (White 2007). This heroic role eventually ended not with the fire and sword ascribed to Wroxeters demise by Thomas Wright but by a political carve-up negotiated between the powerful kingdoms of Pendas Mercia and Cadwallada, the Prince of Gwynedd whose mutual need for an alliance to fight King Oswald of Northumbria outweighed their political differences. Wroxeter was the price paid for this unholy alliance. Later, 9th century Welsh Poets would speak wistfully of the heroic resistance of the White Town on the Tren but the Realpolitik of the period was much more prosaic (Rowland 1990). Assessment of Significance It is difficult now to remember that Britain was once a united island. The fragmentation of Britain into its four nations occurred in the immediate postRoman period, and the archaeological evidence places Wroxeter at the heart of this period. WRC offers a powerful locale to explore the historical and cultural identities of the British. Similarly, its early history is associated with two classical figures who epitomise Romes early relationship with Britain: Agricola and Hadrian. These elements in combination tell a powerful story of Roman and British relationships, and how the identities familiar to us for 1600 years first came about. Aesthetic The principal aesthetic values of Wroxeter are poetic and artistic, expressing in particular a link with its surrounding landscapes. The inspiration derived from Wroxeter, especially its demise, by the Welsh poets writing for the Brittonic-speaking courts of the Welsh Princes has been noted already. The location of the narrator in the poem Canu Heledd is of interest and significance: Heledd stands on the Wrekin watching the town burn, lamenting for the death of her father and relatives in battle. The linkage between the town and the most prominent hill seen from Wroxeter is thus clear and is highlighted too by the same root for their respective names, both now and probably in the Roman period too.
Figure 3.7: WRC from the Wrekin. The white Wroxeter Hotel can clearly be seen immediately above the rape field in the centre ground.
34
For the local villagers of the medieval period, the presence of the Roman town was never quite forgotten and the disappearance of the town was explained by the charming story that it had been burnt down by a flock of sparrows with lighted matches on their tails. Another mythical account of the destruction of the city also appears in an epic tale, Romance of Fulk fitzWarin, written in the late 13th century (White & Barker 1998). In this tale it is noted that when William I conquered the area, the burnt and buried remains of the city were inhabited by the spirit of a giant, Geomagog, which was subsequently defeated by Pan Peveril, King Williams champion, and fifteen other knights. The embracing of classical traditions, a central theme of the Enlightenment, provided the stimulus for the creation of the neighbouring Attingham Park from c. 1770 onwards and the construction of Attingham Hall in 1782-5 for Noel Hill, the first Lord Berwick. The close physical relationship between Attingham and Wroxeter prompted Humphrey Repton, designer of Attingham Park, to propose the addition of a spire to St Andrews, Wroxeter to make the church more visible from the steps of the newly completed hall. Thomas, the second Lord Berwick, had a great fascination with the classical world, evidenced by his tour of Italy in 1792. In addition to purchasing various antiquities, he commissioned Philipp Hackert to paint a picture of the excavations at Pompeii, which can still be seen in the Picture Gallery of Attingham Hall. Thomas's interest in local Roman artefacts is indicated by a burial urn, displayed in the library of the Hall, which was discovered by his workmen in 1798 at the junction of the Rivers Tern and Severn.
Figure 3.8: Thomas Girtins watercolour of the North side of the Old Work with Wroxeter Church framed in the doorway. The pond in the foreground has been transposed from the other side of the wall since a contemporary watercolour shows the north field under the plough.
35
The developments at Attingham would have brought noble visitors to the area, prompted by the discoveries of Roman remains, to gaze at the edifice known as the Old Work. The construction became a favourite subject for illustration appearing in 18th and 19th century journals and books about Shropshire antiquities. It was the subject of several paintings, including a romanticised view by Thomas Girtin (a celebrated Romantic landscape artist) produced during his tour of north Wales and the border county in 1798. In the case of Girtins picture (Figure 3.8) the monumentality of the Old Work provides a foil (albeit distorted) to the atmospheric landscape beyond, to the south (White & Barker 1998). The aesthetic appeal of, and public interest in, the remains of the city, in particular the Old Work, was further enhanced by the excavations of the adjacent bath-house undertaken by Thomas Wright, beginning in 1859. The imposing nature of the Old Work, set next to the well-preserved remains of the bath-house, provided dramatic scenes of labyrinthine buildings captured for posterity by illustrators and photographers alike. In fact, the photographs produced as souvenirs of this excavation are some of the earliest known examples taken of an archaeological investigation anywhere in the world (Figure 3.9). The drama of the site was further enhanced by Wrights own lurid account of the demise of the town which he envisaged as an orgy of fire and pillage by Saxon hordes with one of the unfortunate inhabitantsthe old man in the hypocaustcrawling into the hypocaust there to die clutching his life savings. This is easily the most potent of Wroxeters images in the popular imagination, as is demonstrated by the painting entitled The Fall of Uriconium, Wroxeter by Thomas Prytherch, who lived in Topsy Cottage in Wroxeter village and died in 1926. This magnificent painting now at Kenilworth Castle provides an embellished and highly romanticised view of the remains uncovered by Thomas Wright with the Old Work in the background, and is reminiscent of paintings of Classical scenes in Italy produced by earlier Romantic artists (Figure 3.10).
Figure 3.9: Stereoscopic souvenir photograph of Wrights excavations, 1859. Note 1 & 2 The Ruins visible behind the spoil heap.
36
Figure 3.10: Thomas Prytharchs The Fall of Uriconium (ca.1920) English Heritage, Kenilworth Castle The excavations undertaken by Thomas Wright, JP Bushe-Fox and Donald Atkinson also prompted a fair degree of literary interest in Wroxeter. Charles Dickens reported in some detail on his visit to the excavations in 1859 in an article called Rome and Turnips. A.E. Housman visited the site and it inspired him to write On Wenlock Edge, an atmospheric poem about Uriconium (which he shortens to Uricon) and the surrounding landscape. It appeared in his first and most famous collection of poems, A Shropshire Lad, published in 1896. Archaeological work undertaken at Wroxeter and at the Roman towns at Silchester and Caerwent inspired H Lang Jones to write a series of poems, which were published together in a slim volume entitled Songs of a Buried City in 1913. Probably in the same year Wilfred Owen, who lived locally, wrote his descriptive ode of the city, Uriconium. A less joyous poem, Viroconium, composed by Mary Webb (another local writer) in 1924 seems to relate her feelings about the site with the terrible events of the previous decade. She was also inspired to write an essay for a local society entitled The Return of the Romans: a Dream of Uriconium in 1923. The Roman remains at Wroxeter also inspired John Buchan to write a bizarre tale called The Wind in the Portico, published in 1928, in which ancient supernatural forces are re-invoked with deadly consequences! Perhaps the most successful realisation of Wroxeter in literature, however, and certainly the most widely read, is Rosemary Sutcliffes Dawn Wind (1961). This evokes Wroxeters demise in the quasi-historical context of the 9th century Welsh poem The Lament for Cynddylan, itself set in the 6th century. She skilfully evokes the atmosphere of the abandoned town through reference to its known archaeology; the forum inscription, the shops and the herringbone tile floors of the macellum to build a vivid image based on Wrights Old Man and the story of fire and sword, concluding this part of her novel with the observation that Viroconium was not a place to live in any more.
37
The archaeological artefacts recovered from the city, as chance finds or discovered during excavation, are also invaluable in helping modern communities understand the lifestyles of those who occupied the town. Many objects have aesthetic appeal in terms of their design, manufacture and use. The more complex and intricate items, such as glassware or particular personal and household objects, tend to have a greater aesthetic value. The most beautiful and ornate of all the personal items so far discovered at Wroxeter is a silver mirror, discovered during the excavation of the forum in the 1920s (Atkinson 1942). It is considered to be the most lavish example of a Roman mirror found in Britain (Figure 3.11). The inscription from the forum, meanwhile, inspired the artist Eric Gill to create a new font-style based on its high aesthetic qualities.
Figure 3.11: The Wroxeter Mirror. A 30 troy oz. silver mirror, one of the finest examples surviving from the ancient world.
Artists impressions and reconstruction drawings can make a tremendous difference to the way archaeological remains are perceived and understood. Amde Forestiers drawing of Watling Street and the forum, produced for the Illustrated London News in 1925, vividly conveys the bustle of town life in its heyday (Figure 3.12) (White & Barker 1998). Over the years various artists have been commissioned to produce drawings based on the results of archaeological excavations, including Alan Sorrell (Figure 3.13), Peter Scholefield, Heather Bird and Ivan Lapper (White & Barker 1998).
Assessment of Significance Wroxeters aesthetic legacy is bound up in diverse forms: poetry, art, artefacts and literature. This legacy is deep: the earliest poetic elements date back to the 9th
38
century while the popular myths inspired by the melancholy of the ruins may go back further yet. Latterly, the legacy has been more firmly tied into the cultural aesthetic of the European Enlightenment and, latterly, the aesthetic of research. Yet still the thread of popular myth and story surfaces, reinterpreting and building on the legacy of new discoveries to create different interpretations and visions of Wroxeters past. Communal While local people often profess never to have been to Wroxeter, the reality is that it does impinge upon peoples consciousness through school visits if nothing else. With such a major resource on the doorstep and with Romans in the curriculum, it is no surprise that so many schools take advantage of the site making up to a third of all visits during the year. Getting pupils to engage with the site and its archaeology can be daunting but has been made considerably easier by the fine work of the Shropshire Museum Service Education Officers and the substantial resources committed by English Heritage in the form of the buildings and resource centre (Figures 3.14 & 3.15). These are soon to be substantially upgraded by EH Properties and Outreach following a large grant to improve the facilities used by schools. The site is a major resource not just for the West Midlands but also for the north west since it is the nearest major civilian site available to the conurbations of Liverpool and Manchester.
Figure 3.14: School children Figure 3.15: Fran Yarroll of Shropshire reconstruct the columns of the baths Museum Service dressing school children in Roman costume. basilica. During the life of the Wroxeter Hinterland Project (1994-7), the nascent depth of interest in the site was made visible through the boost in visitor figures while the work was in progress, even though most of the project fieldwork was not actually carried out at Wroxeter. The need to recruit volunteers as a workforce for the project also demonstrated the huge demand for public involvement in archaeology in the area. From an initial start of 24 names in autumn of 1994, the final project volunteer database was more than 400 with more than half of these having participated actively. Within the town, many local people participated in the collection of data for the resistivity survey, itself led by a local inhabitant, Jon Guite. In addition to the collection of data by volunteers and by visitors on open days (Figure 3.16), there was a Young Archaeologists Club branch some of whose members have gone on to have careers in archaeology, while from 1995-2002 there were guided tours of the site every year that proved very popular with visitors Figure 3.17). These also included themed days, such as the Ermine Street Guard Roman days and the Poets at Wroxeter event.
39
Figure 3.16: Volunteers collecting Figure 3.17: County archaeologist Mike resistivity data during an open day in Watson guiding visitors at Wroxeter in 1996. 1996. Of more lasting social significance perhaps is the sustained cultural influence of the training excavations, a theme that has been explored recently (Everill & White forthcoming in Schofield ed.). This degree of influence is hardly surprising since the excavations from 1966-1985 often employed a combined total of 150 excavators per week for five weeks. The social interaction between the excavators was one aspect of this: a number of marriages and even more relationships were fostered during the excavations but there was also the interaction with the village and local inhabitants. Not everyone welcomed the large numbers of diggers appearing each year but there is no doubt that the spending power of the excavators was considerable and the five week excavation period provided a substantial boost for the income of the village Post Office ensuring its survival well into the 1990s. The same can be said of the Horseshoe Pub and, to a lesser extent, the Wroxeter Hotel. Assessment of Significance Locally and regionally, WRC has a huge impact, actual and potential, on educating young and old alike in the evidence for Roman Britain. It is a key site for the West Midlands and even for the North West. It is has a significant role in training opportunities for all kinds of archaeological work and for other areas of the National Curriculum. Enhancement of the education facilities would significantly increase the impact of the site, potentially turning it into a National Centre for archaeological research and training based on high-quality archaeology.
40
CHAPTER 4. MANAGING WROXETER TODAY: CURRENT ISSUES AND RELATIONSHIP TO NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLICIES This chapter aims to outline the current management issues within WRC, covering the whole scheduled area, regardless of ownership. The current management process is outlined and then the text considers the buildings, the relationship of the management to national, regional and local government and NGOs, the consultation process and lastly the scheduled area itself. 4.1 Towards a new land management process The land managed by English Heritage equates to the Secretary of States holding in guardianship (Figure 4.1). This accounts for the largest ownership; much of the remainder of the Roman city is managed by the National Trust. In addition, there are a number of private owners, mainly in Wroxeter village. The majority of the farmed landscape is tenanted. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 is the current legislation under which management is implemented. The objective for future management is to simplify the current system under which separate consents have to be granted for separate management initiatives, however minor these might be. Under proposed legislation (the new Heritage Act) a more streamlined system would operate via Heritage Partnership Agreements (HPAs) which would serve as an overarching framework within which regular cyclical maintenance as well as one-off management initiatives could be implemented. HPAs would be able to grant consent for relatively minor and/or repetitive works such as fencing, sign-posting and routine repairs to buildings such as maintenance of the museum. These works will be grouped under an Asset Management Plan (AMP). On the other hand, certain works would require separate consent and might typically include all repairs to boundary walls and all repairs to the historic fabric of the displayed monument. The means of achieving management objectives could be via Environmental Stewardship Agreements (ESAs), agreements with individual private owners, with the National Trust, with Raby Estate and so on; in fact the remit is very wide. The HPA would be a public document agreed with the Local Authority and would be subject to monitoring and performance regulation. An HPA for Wroxeter would operate under the current legislation but would serve as a model to be tested in advance of a new Heritage Act. Partners would normally include the owner (in the case of Wroxeter, English Heritages Property and Outreach section would fulfil the role of manager), the Local Planning Authority (Shropshire Council) and English Heritages Planning and Development group. Consultees could typically include adjoining occupiers, relevant local and national amenity societies and other relevant local and national bodies. This Conservation Plan (CP) is the first step towards enabling a consistent and sustainable approach to the management of the entire monument which has never been achieved previously. It will feed into a comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CMP) that contains strategic options and methods for sustaining the various significances identified in the CP. This will then lead to a series of HPAs targeted at specific works and cyclical operations (e.g. routine maintenance works) that will be prioritised. Thus, this section simply concentrates on summarising what types of assets need to be managed and what are the principal threats to those assets.
41
Norton Farm
18m 18n
18f 18o
R
18k
18g
i
v
18l
18f
e
18h
S
v
er
18e 18l
B ell
B rook
18a
18i
18d 18j
400 m
Figure 4.1 : Land ownership and access to scheduled area (source : Barlow Associates 2008, with additions)
42
The main vulnerabilities/defects are: the condition of the Roman ruins; the extent of animal burrowing across the site; the damage being caused by poaching by cattle; the damage caused by nighthawking metal detectorists; the condition and appearance of field boundaries; the condition of water courses; the colonisation of scrub and unmanaged woodland on parts of the site; the presence of fly-tipping; the management of the Farm buildings; the condition and future of some tenanted houses, e.g. Mount Pleasant, the former Smithy / Post Office; the variable quality, condition and placement of signage; the management implications of the lack of statutory protection (scheduling) for parts of the site with known remains. All but the last of these aspects are examined in detail in Appendix 6, which draws in content largely from a recent condition survey conditioned by English Heritage from Barlow Associates (2008). Other management issues include the implications of widening access to the site and the provision of enhanced interpretation. This overview of management issues at Wroxeter can provide a basis on which to make further recommendations for the retention of significant features of the site. This could be achieved by: maintenance and conservation; legal protection; continuing identification, recording and research; education and training; presentation and interpretation; liaison with the appropriate organisations and individuals.
It is clear that what is currently lacking for the site is an overarching framework within which to achieve these objectives and it is envisaged that this framework will be provided by the Heritage Partnership Agreement currently being formulated. It will be as important to agree the priority of works within the HPA as it will be to identify those works and it is suggested that the issue of boundaries across the site should be high on the agenda. There is also a pressing need to acquire an up-to-date topographical survey of the entire site (to include all earthworks and walls) as a basis for making informed management recommendations. A programme of test pitting across the site to determine the depth of topsoil could also be a very useful tool on which to base management actions. A review of current Environmental Stewardship provision is also required and the possibility of extending and increasing the remit of existing provision via a Higher Level Scheme (HLS) should be considered, although it should be noted that EH is not itself eligible for the HLS scheme. A number of management objectives for Wroxeter would fulfil current HLS eligibility criteria, e.g. arable reversion, hedge planting for biodiversity protection, securing positive management for historic
43
buildings, protecting and enhancing undesignated historic environment features, enhancing and improving access and recreation. There is very good potential for realising a comprehensive set of management objectives for Wroxeter within a HLS. 4.2. Building management
The disparate collection of buildings on the site is in varying condition and there is no real problem in making recommendations to deal with the material concerns. Indeed, this has been adequately covered already by a number of surveys e.g. Tolley and Walker 1999; Barlow Associates, 2008, and the programme of cyclical maintenance works drawn up by English Heritage which will eventually replace existing maintenance works programmes. The cyclical maintenance works schedule is part of the Asset Management Plan process and is evolving all the time. It has not yet been implemented in the current form because the costings have yet to be assigned before the work can be put out to tender. Of more importance however, is the need to find a sustainable use for the buildings so that their management can be integrated into a long-term strategy for the site. These issues are further explored in Appendix 6. 4.3 Opportunities/constraints within the policy framework for retaining significance and realising potential A wide range of local and national policy documents has been reviewed in relation to the management of Wroxeter (Appendix 5). This has been done largely to inform the process of formulating recommendations for the future management of the site (Chapter 5). There were no major areas of conflict detected but the documents and individuals consulted proved invaluable in formulating recommendations that would actively engage with current proposals and policies. The policy context for the management objectives of this CP is the national, regional and local framework. At the national level, both legislation and strategic guidance is in place to ensure both the protection of the historic environment and to highlight overarching themes that are felt to be important. At all levels - national, regional and local - the maximising of historical/cultural/biodiversity assets has risen rapidly up the political agenda. The spirit of much of the current policy that might influence the promotion of Wroxeter as a place of cultural/historical significance is positive rather than negative. Many of the key policy documents, whether at national, regional or local level, stress the importance of landscape character and historic assets and the value of realising their potential for enhancing the social, spiritual and economic vitality of communities. Policy documents that have appeared within the last five years or so in particular, embody an understanding of the need to promote landscape in it widest sense historical, archaeological, cultural, ecological, spatial, recreational, occupational and this multi-facetted approach allows us considerable flexibility in the promotion of the historic and natural environment. This section briefly looks at the main policy documents in relation to the main objectives of this CP which are to: raise the profile of Wroxeter as a place of international significance; conserve, protect and maintain the upstanding archaeological remains, the farming landscape and specific standing structures within it without compromising the biodiversity values of the site; increase understanding of the entire site by engaging in further survey and research;
44
to promote the entire site to as wide an audience as possible by improving the visitors experience and understanding through better on-site interpretation and wider, more inclusive access to the site.
The national policy framework as enshrined in English Heritages Power of Place, 2000, which is not dwelt on here, acknowledges the importance of involving people in decisions about their heritage and observes that the historic environment is generally seen by people as a totality and a major contributor to quality of life. Other bodies, such as Natural England and the National Trust give voice to the values of integrated natural and cultural heritage conservation and management and the need to work in partnership to achieve objectives. In other words, there is little in national policy that is at variance with the objectives of this Conservation Plan. Much more detail on national policy is available on-line. Regional policy, embodied in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands, 2008, incorporating the Regional Transport Strategy, 2008, highlights the importance of providing: a social infrastructure, including health, education, spiritual, cultural activities, sport and recreation; a green infrastructure to mitigate and adapt to a changing climate; provide green space for health and well-being and enhance biodiversity and landscape character; a public transport infrastructure and low carbon transport such as walking and cycling. The West Midlands Regional Economic Strategy, 2007 also promotes the significance of a green and cultural infrastructure as being important for attracting businesses and tourists to the region. It stresses the importance of enhancing and maintaining environmental assets such as historic and other visitor attractions. In other words, the strategy regards green and cultural infrastructure as a key economic asset. The Biodiversity Strategy for the West Midlands (Restoring the Regions Wildlife: the Regional Biodiversity Strategy for the West Midlands (2005), the Regional Forestry Framework (Growing Our Future: the West Midlands Regional Forestry Framework (2004) and the West Midlands Health and Well Being Strategy (2008) all acknowledge the importance of preserving the regions rich and varied heritage. While these documents provide an overarching acknowledgement of the significance of the cultural/historic resource and an understanding of the opportunities available to enhance its significance, at the local level, there is a much greater emphasis on the distinctiveness of the historic/cultural environment and the ways in which it can play a positive role in any vision for the borough. Wroxeter lies within the former Shrewsbury and Atcham District, now called Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough, whose council is one of the six authorities comprising the new unitary authority for Shropshire. The borough has been working with the other five authorities to develop planning policy and produce the new Local Development Framework (LDF) for the new area. The Green Infrastructure (GI) of the LDF specifically includes the historic, cultural and natural environment with a vision as follows:
45
To reinforce the natural, built and cultural resources of Shrewsbury and Atcham by safeguarding and managing historic, biodiversity and landscape assets, whilst promoting additional GI to sustain a period of growth and secure future economic, environmental and social wellbeing. The principal document of the LDF is the Core Strategy (Shropshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document, Infrastructure and Implementation Topic Paper, July, 2008), which will eventually replace the Local Plan and the Telford and Wrekin Structure Plan; both the latter remain in force until the LDF is adopted. It is likely that much of the content of both these documents will be embodied within the new LDF. English Heritage is one of the ten organisations that were consulted on the draft strategy; the other consultees who provided detailed comments were: Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Shropshire Hills AONB, Woodland Trust, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and Shropshire County Council (Sustainability Group and the county ecologist). The Green Infrastructure is much more closely linked with the spatial planning process and looks to green space as a means of: developing existing networks of green corridors to link up with Shrewsbury and the surrounding countryside; conserving protecting and enhancing green spaces and corridors and the hinterland of Shrewsbury and Atcham; identifying sources of funding to enable delivery of to as wide arrange of stakeholders as possible. This approach is a welcome one because it provides a much broader vision and a more flexible framework for achieving the main objectives of this Plan. Few of the following objectives, which emphasise maximising potential for public benefit, run counter to desirable outcomes for Wroxeter: creating a focus for social inclusion, education, training, health and well being; reinforcing and enhancing landscape character; reversing habitat fragmentation and increasing biodiversity; developing a multi-functional landscape and green space resource that meets local needs; providing attractive and sustainable options for flood control and management safeguarding and enhancing natural and historic asserts, between, in and around major communities; conserving and improving the quality of the boroughs natural resource; inspiring cohesive partnership working across a range of disciplines and sectors. There is no specific mention of Wroxeter in the GI Core Strategy report prepared as background evidence for the LDF (A Green Infrastructure Strategy for Shrewsbury and Atcham; a report by TEP, November, 2008), although Attingham Park, Haughmond Hill, Nesscliff Hill and the Wrekin are mentioned as green infrastructure assets with the implication that their historical value could be enhanced by improved access and linkages between the sites themselves. The Local Plan however, acknowledges the breadth and complexity of the archaeological resource and the place of Wroxeter in the development of the district, for example, from the prehistory of the upper Severn valley to the establishment and decline of Wroxeter and the subsequent growth of Shrewsbury. Specific mention of the Wroxeter Hinterland project is also made in the Written Statement (6.22): The Council recognises the value of archaeological surveys to the planning process such as the Central Marches Historic Towns Survey, the Shrewsbury
46
Urban Archaeological Database, the North West Wetlands Survey and the Wroxeter Hinterland Project. There is little in the vision of the Local Plan that is at variance with the intent behind the newly emerging LDF, for the Local Plans aims are: to actively encourage a diverse and sustainable rural economy; to promote development of the Boroughs tourism potential in a way which is sympathetic to the local environment; to conserve and enhance the Boroughs historic buildings, Conservation Areas, archaeological sites and historic landscape; to promote development of a range of recreation, leisure and tourism opportunities within the borough and to preserve and enhance elements of ecological and landscape importance and promote opportunities to create new habitats. There is support in the Local Plan (Written Statement, 6.54) for the creation of new Conservation Areas (currently 17 in the borough) and Wroxeter meets many of the criteria for this, for example, good evidence (both documentary and surviving on the ground) for historic land-use, attractive relationship between buildings and open spaces, archaeological interest, social interest, landscape value. In terms of improving the visitor experience, the Local Plan again supports one of the main objectives for Wroxeter, namely: ..the council will seek to develop initiatives which would involve both owners and the local community in finding ways to interpret the history of particular sites and to provide, as resources permit, the means for the public to access the sites and to have the necessary facilities which may be required to provide for the proper interpretation and understanding of the sites as well as providing for the comfort of the visitor. (Written Statement, 6.93). Further: The council will encourage the provision and maintenance of public access to allow for the interpretation of sites of historic interest.and will support proposals for the sympathetic interpretation of the sites by way marking, signing and if required, the provision of car parking and other facilities (Written Statement, 6.93, Statement). The remaining key local plans all acknowledge the significance of the historic/cultural and natural environments. For example, Shropshires economic development strategy (Shropshires Futures, 2003) recognises that outstanding natural and built environments are key economic assets to be nurtured and harnessed. The Shropshire Sustainable Community Strategy, 2006 urges development of a green infrastructure, and community buildings, investment in leisure services, walking and cycling networks. In this Wroxeter is already embedded in that it lies on a National Cycleway, a National Footpath (Severn Way) and an operational bus route. The Town and Village Design Statements for Shropshire all urge the preservation of local distinctiveness and the importance of keeping rural communities vital and the rural economy strong. Within their remit, support will be given to non-agricultural enterprises which could include the adaptation and re-use of rural buildings in open countryside.
47
The Shrewsbury Countryside Strategy and Rural Area Countryside Strategy, 1991 recommend a series of projects and policies that would ensure the protection and enhancement of its countryside resource. This is not confined to nature conservation but includes landscape and historical issues and has resulted in a network of Countryside Heritage Sites managed by the Countryside Unit (the organisation of these in the new unitary authority is uncertain). The key objectives of Shrewsbury and Atcham Boroughs tourism strategy all accord well with the vision for Wroxeter. They are to: improve and enhancing the visitor experience; increase visitor spending through targeted promotions utilising the Tourist Information Centre and develop Shrewsbury as a leading regional cultural centre. There appear to be few actual impediments to achieving the Conservation Plans objectives. Although the West Midlands Spatial Strategy identifies Shrewsbury and its hinterland as a new domestic and economic growth point, any proposals will specifically require the conservation and enhancement of the environment. In any case, Wroxeters status as a scheduled monument protects it from major development, but there are positive implications for the setting of the site; it seems unlikely that this would be compromised by the siting of new development in or close to the scheduled monument and of course, any such proposals would be subject to consultation. Wroxeter and its hinterland are not mapped in the supporting documentation for the GI but is undoubtedly an area of low development capacity / high historic value. The GI is mindful that such areas should be protected and designated within development proposals as being low priority for development due to the high presence, quality and sustainability of historic environment features. A positive spin-off in making WRC more accessible is that these areas are identified as likely to be suitable as extensions to the green space network within the urban fringe areas, using and enhancing existing accessible features, e.g. cycleways (Wroxeter is already on a National Cycle Route), waterways, footpaths, multi-use routes, to provide a green link between the urban area and the adjoining countryside. In summary, both existing and proposed policy provide an optimistic framework within which to pursue the objectives of this CP. The degree of accord between the various policies discussed here is not perhaps surprising and it would be alarming if the situation were otherwise. In particular, the proposed Green Infrastructure is a timely opportunity to realise most if not all the key objectives for WRC. Perhaps the most fruitful outcome in GI terms could be the creation of improved tourist facilities and wider access. Wroxeter is currently an under-valued resource and its promotion is weak. The LDF and local planning policies identify the natural and historic environments as a tourist pull but point to a lack of widespread access and tourist facilities. The tourist attractions of Shrewsbury itself are well recognised (though could be improved) but WRC is one of the pockets across the borough that the GI recognises as having key tourism assets within attractive landscapes and in close proximity to primary trails and access routes. The GI specifically mentions here the Severn corridor to the south, Haughmond Hill, Attingham Park and the landscape around Buildwas. Wroxeter is not mentioned but is an obvious omission in that it could form part of a trail between such sites, particularly between Haughmond Hill and Attingham Park.
48
4.4 Outcomes from the consultation process An informally-constituted steering group, with representatives from several organisations and individuals, has overseen the production of this Conservation Plan. It is recommended that this process should continue in order to ensure that all the interests in the defined area are represented and fed into the Heritage Partnership Agreement. As part of the consultation process, a number of meetings have been held with the public and interest groups (Appendix 2). The aim of these meetings has been to get feedback from as many interested parties as possible, including the community. The issues raised are listed in Appendix 2. It is clear from these proceedings that the local community and interest groups are eager to be involved with the Conservation Plan process. The goodwill generated through the consultation process is perhaps something that might be usefully continued by EH in future management plans. 4.5 Consideration of an extension to statutory protection for parts of the site The scheduled status of WRC (Figure 1.2, page 4), affords it statutory protection in the face of any policy dictates, but not all the site is so protected and it is therefore important that the current scheduling is reviewed to take account of outlying parts of the site that would merit such protection. The primary areas of concern are: land within the defences not under the ownership of either the Secretary of State or the unalienable land owned by the National Trust. This principally includes the small plot of land between Boathouse Cottage and the River Severn and the former glebe lands behind the Wroxeter Hotel owned by the Millington family; the cropmarks relating to the camps, early civilian-period trackways and possible cemeteries to the north of the defences on either side of Norton Farm and one field to the north of B5061; the Roman Burial ground at Middle Crows Green to the south of the Horseshoe Lane; The fields south of the Bell Brook up to the B4380 and containing the line of the town aqueduct; The fields south of the B4380 and extending round to the bank of the Severn, incorporating the already Scheduled Auxiliary Fort adjacent to the river; The land on the first terrace between the River Severn and Ismore Coppice, the site of Wroxeters tilery and brickworks (Houghton 1960). Of these the most important are the lands within the defences, the area of cropmarks around Norton Farm which are of national importance in preserving a rare and transient phase in Wroxeters early history (Figure 3.5, page 27). Scheduling of these extramural areas would bring the added benefit of promoting links between Attingham Parks estate and the site of Wroxeter Roman City.
49
The main vulnerabilities/defects are: the condition of the Roman ruins; the extent of animal burrowing across the site; the damage being caused by poaching by cattle; the damage caused by nighthawking metal detectorists; the condition and appearance of field boundaries; the condition of water courses; the colonisation of scrub and unmanaged woodland on parts of the site; the presence of fly-tipping; the management of the Farm buildings; the condition and future of some tenanted houses, e.g. Mount Pleasant, the former Smithy / Post Office; the variable quality, condition and placement of signage; the management implications of the lack of statutory protection (scheduling) for parts of the site with known remains. All but the last of these aspects are examined in detail in Appendix 6, which draws in content largely from a recent condition survey conditioned by English Heritage from Barlow Associates (2008). Other management issues include the implications of widening access to the site and the provision of enhanced interpretation. This overview of management issues at Wroxeter can provide a basis on which to make further recommendations for the retention of significant features of the site. This could be achieved by: maintenance and conservation; legal protection; continuing identification, recording and research; education and training; presentation and interpretation; liaison with the appropriate organisations and individuals.
It is clear that what is currently lacking for the site is an overarching framework within which to achieve these objectives and it is envisaged that this framework will be provided by the Heritage Partnership Agreement currently being formulated. It will be as important to agree the priority of works within the HPA as it will be to identify those works and it is suggested that the issue of boundaries across the site should be high on the agenda. There is also a pressing need to acquire an up-to-date topographical survey of the entire site (to include all earthworks and walls) as a basis for making informed management recommendations. A programme of test pitting across the site to determine the depth of topsoil could also be a very useful tool on which to base management actions. A review of current Environmental Stewardship provision is also required and the possibility of extending and increasing the remit of existing provision via a Higher Level Scheme (HLS) should be considered, although it should be noted that EH is not itself eligible for the HLS scheme. A number of management objectives for Wroxeter would fulfil current HLS eligibility criteria, e.g. arable reversion, hedge planting for biodiversity protection, securing positive management for historic
43
buildings, protecting and enhancing undesignated historic environment features, enhancing and improving access and recreation. There is very good potential for realising a comprehensive set of management objectives for Wroxeter within a HLS. 4.2. Building management
The disparate collection of buildings on the site is in varying condition and there is no real problem in making recommendations to deal with the material concerns. Indeed, this has been adequately covered already by a number of surveys e.g. Tolley and Walker 1999; Barlow Associates, 2008, and the programme of cyclical maintenance works drawn up by English Heritage which will eventually replace existing maintenance works programmes. The cyclical maintenance works schedule is part of the Asset Management Plan process and is evolving all the time. It has not yet been implemented in the current form because the costings have yet to be assigned before the work can be put out to tender. Of more importance however, is the need to find a sustainable use for the buildings so that their management can be integrated into a long-term strategy for the site. These issues are further explored in Appendix 6. 4.3 Opportunities/constraints within the policy framework for retaining significance and realising potential A wide range of local and national policy documents has been reviewed in relation to the management of Wroxeter (Appendix 5). This has been done largely to inform the process of formulating recommendations for the future management of the site (Chapter 5). There were no major areas of conflict detected but the documents and individuals consulted proved invaluable in formulating recommendations that would actively engage with current proposals and policies. The policy context for the management objectives of this CP is the national, regional and local framework. At the national level, both legislation and strategic guidance is in place to ensure both the protection of the historic environment and to highlight overarching themes that are felt to be important. At all levels - national, regional and local - the maximising of historical/cultural/biodiversity assets has risen rapidly up the political agenda. The spirit of much of the current policy that might influence the promotion of Wroxeter as a place of cultural/historical significance is positive rather than negative. Many of the key policy documents, whether at national, regional or local level, stress the importance of landscape character and historic assets and the value of realising their potential for enhancing the social, spiritual and economic vitality of communities. Policy documents that have appeared within the last five years or so in particular, embody an understanding of the need to promote landscape in it widest sense historical, archaeological, cultural, ecological, spatial, recreational, occupational and this multi-facetted approach allows us considerable flexibility in the promotion of the historic and natural environment. This section briefly looks at the main policy documents in relation to the main objectives of this CP which are to: raise the profile of Wroxeter as a place of international significance; conserve, protect and maintain the upstanding archaeological remains, the farming landscape and specific standing structures within it without compromising the biodiversity values of the site; increase understanding of the entire site by engaging in further survey and research;
44
to promote the entire site to as wide an audience as possible by improving the visitors experience and understanding through better on-site interpretation and wider, more inclusive access to the site.
The national policy framework as enshrined in English Heritages Power of Place, 2000, which is not dwelt on here, acknowledges the importance of involving people in decisions about their heritage and observes that the historic environment is generally seen by people as a totality and a major contributor to quality of life. Other bodies, such as Natural England and the National Trust give voice to the values of integrated natural and cultural heritage conservation and management and the need to work in partnership to achieve objectives. In other words, there is little in national policy that is at variance with the objectives of this Conservation Plan. Much more detail on national policy is available on-line. Regional policy, embodied in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands, 2008, incorporating the Regional Transport Strategy, 2008, highlights the importance of providing: a social infrastructure, including health, education, spiritual, cultural activities, sport and recreation; a green infrastructure to mitigate and adapt to a changing climate; provide green space for health and well-being and enhance biodiversity and landscape character; a public transport infrastructure and low carbon transport such as walking and cycling. The West Midlands Regional Economic Strategy, 2007 also promotes the significance of a green and cultural infrastructure as being important for attracting businesses and tourists to the region. It stresses the importance of enhancing and maintaining environmental assets such as historic and other visitor attractions. In other words, the strategy regards green and cultural infrastructure as a key economic asset. The Biodiversity Strategy for the West Midlands (Restoring the Regions Wildlife: the Regional Biodiversity Strategy for the West Midlands (2005), the Regional Forestry Framework (Growing Our Future: the West Midlands Regional Forestry Framework (2004) and the West Midlands Health and Well Being Strategy (2008) all acknowledge the importance of preserving the regions rich and varied heritage. While these documents provide an overarching acknowledgement of the significance of the cultural/historic resource and an understanding of the opportunities available to enhance its significance, at the local level, there is a much greater emphasis on the distinctiveness of the historic/cultural environment and the ways in which it can play a positive role in any vision for the borough. Wroxeter lies within the former Shrewsbury and Atcham District, now called Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough, whose council is one of the six authorities comprising the new unitary authority for Shropshire. The borough has been working with the other five authorities to develop planning policy and produce the new Local Development Framework (LDF) for the new area. The Green Infrastructure (GI) of the LDF specifically includes the historic, cultural and natural environment with a vision as follows:
45
To reinforce the natural, built and cultural resources of Shrewsbury and Atcham by safeguarding and managing historic, biodiversity and landscape assets, whilst promoting additional GI to sustain a period of growth and secure future economic, environmental and social wellbeing. The principal document of the LDF is the Core Strategy (Shropshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document, Infrastructure and Implementation Topic Paper, July, 2008), which will eventually replace the Local Plan and the Telford and Wrekin Structure Plan; both the latter remain in force until the LDF is adopted. It is likely that much of the content of both these documents will be embodied within the new LDF. English Heritage is one of the ten organisations that were consulted on the draft strategy; the other consultees who provided detailed comments were: Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Shropshire Hills AONB, Woodland Trust, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and Shropshire County Council (Sustainability Group and the county ecologist). The Green Infrastructure is much more closely linked with the spatial planning process and looks to green space as a means of: developing existing networks of green corridors to link up with Shrewsbury and the surrounding countryside; conserving protecting and enhancing green spaces and corridors and the hinterland of Shrewsbury and Atcham; identifying sources of funding to enable delivery of to as wide arrange of stakeholders as possible. This approach is a welcome one because it provides a much broader vision and a more flexible framework for achieving the main objectives of this Plan. Few of the following objectives, which emphasise maximising potential for public benefit, run counter to desirable outcomes for Wroxeter: creating a focus for social inclusion, education, training, health and well being; reinforcing and enhancing landscape character; reversing habitat fragmentation and increasing biodiversity; developing a multi-functional landscape and green space resource that meets local needs; providing attractive and sustainable options for flood control and management safeguarding and enhancing natural and historic asserts, between, in and around major communities; conserving and improving the quality of the boroughs natural resource; inspiring cohesive partnership working across a range of disciplines and sectors. There is no specific mention of Wroxeter in the GI Core Strategy report prepared as background evidence for the LDF (A Green Infrastructure Strategy for Shrewsbury and Atcham; a report by TEP, November, 2008), although Attingham Park, Haughmond Hill, Nesscliff Hill and the Wrekin are mentioned as green infrastructure assets with the implication that their historical value could be enhanced by improved access and linkages between the sites themselves. The Local Plan however, acknowledges the breadth and complexity of the archaeological resource and the place of Wroxeter in the development of the district, for example, from the prehistory of the upper Severn valley to the establishment and decline of Wroxeter and the subsequent growth of Shrewsbury. Specific mention of the Wroxeter Hinterland project is also made in the Written Statement (6.22): The Council recognises the value of archaeological surveys to the planning process such as the Central Marches Historic Towns Survey, the Shrewsbury
46
Urban Archaeological Database, the North West Wetlands Survey and the Wroxeter Hinterland Project. There is little in the vision of the Local Plan that is at variance with the intent behind the newly emerging LDF, for the Local Plans aims are: to actively encourage a diverse and sustainable rural economy; to promote development of the Boroughs tourism potential in a way which is sympathetic to the local environment; to conserve and enhance the Boroughs historic buildings, Conservation Areas, archaeological sites and historic landscape; to promote development of a range of recreation, leisure and tourism opportunities within the borough and to preserve and enhance elements of ecological and landscape importance and promote opportunities to create new habitats. There is support in the Local Plan (Written Statement, 6.54) for the creation of new Conservation Areas (currently 17 in the borough) and Wroxeter meets many of the criteria for this, for example, good evidence (both documentary and surviving on the ground) for historic land-use, attractive relationship between buildings and open spaces, archaeological interest, social interest, landscape value. In terms of improving the visitor experience, the Local Plan again supports one of the main objectives for Wroxeter, namely: ..the council will seek to develop initiatives which would involve both owners and the local community in finding ways to interpret the history of particular sites and to provide, as resources permit, the means for the public to access the sites and to have the necessary facilities which may be required to provide for the proper interpretation and understanding of the sites as well as providing for the comfort of the visitor. (Written Statement, 6.93). Further: The council will encourage the provision and maintenance of public access to allow for the interpretation of sites of historic interest.and will support proposals for the sympathetic interpretation of the sites by way marking, signing and if required, the provision of car parking and other facilities (Written Statement, 6.93, Statement). The remaining key local plans all acknowledge the significance of the historic/cultural and natural environments. For example, Shropshires economic development strategy (Shropshires Futures, 2003) recognises that outstanding natural and built environments are key economic assets to be nurtured and harnessed. The Shropshire Sustainable Community Strategy, 2006 urges development of a green infrastructure, and community buildings, investment in leisure services, walking and cycling networks. In this Wroxeter is already embedded in that it lies on a National Cycleway, a National Footpath (Severn Way) and an operational bus route. The Town and Village Design Statements for Shropshire all urge the preservation of local distinctiveness and the importance of keeping rural communities vital and the rural economy strong. Within their remit, support will be given to non-agricultural enterprises which could include the adaptation and re-use of rural buildings in open countryside.
47
The Shrewsbury Countryside Strategy and Rural Area Countryside Strategy, 1991 recommend a series of projects and policies that would ensure the protection and enhancement of its countryside resource. This is not confined to nature conservation but includes landscape and historical issues and has resulted in a network of Countryside Heritage Sites managed by the Countryside Unit (the organisation of these in the new unitary authority is uncertain). The key objectives of Shrewsbury and Atcham Boroughs tourism strategy all accord well with the vision for Wroxeter. They are to: improve and enhancing the visitor experience; increase visitor spending through targeted promotions utilising the Tourist Information Centre and develop Shrewsbury as a leading regional cultural centre. There appear to be few actual impediments to achieving the Conservation Plans objectives. Although the West Midlands Spatial Strategy identifies Shrewsbury and its hinterland as a new domestic and economic growth point, any proposals will specifically require the conservation and enhancement of the environment. In any case, Wroxeters status as a scheduled monument protects it from major development, but there are positive implications for the setting of the site; it seems unlikely that this would be compromised by the siting of new development in or close to the scheduled monument and of course, any such proposals would be subject to consultation. Wroxeter and its hinterland are not mapped in the supporting documentation for the GI but is undoubtedly an area of low development capacity / high historic value. The GI is mindful that such areas should be protected and designated within development proposals as being low priority for development due to the high presence, quality and sustainability of historic environment features. A positive spin-off in making WRC more accessible is that these areas are identified as likely to be suitable as extensions to the green space network within the urban fringe areas, using and enhancing existing accessible features, e.g. cycleways (Wroxeter is already on a National Cycle Route), waterways, footpaths, multi-use routes, to provide a green link between the urban area and the adjoining countryside. In summary, both existing and proposed policy provide an optimistic framework within which to pursue the objectives of this CP. The degree of accord between the various policies discussed here is not perhaps surprising and it would be alarming if the situation were otherwise. In particular, the proposed Green Infrastructure is a timely opportunity to realise most if not all the key objectives for WRC. Perhaps the most fruitful outcome in GI terms could be the creation of improved tourist facilities and wider access. Wroxeter is currently an under-valued resource and its promotion is weak. The LDF and local planning policies identify the natural and historic environments as a tourist pull but point to a lack of widespread access and tourist facilities. The tourist attractions of Shrewsbury itself are well recognised (though could be improved) but WRC is one of the pockets across the borough that the GI recognises as having key tourism assets within attractive landscapes and in close proximity to primary trails and access routes. The GI specifically mentions here the Severn corridor to the south, Haughmond Hill, Attingham Park and the landscape around Buildwas. Wroxeter is not mentioned but is an obvious omission in that it could form part of a trail between such sites, particularly between Haughmond Hill and Attingham Park.
48
4.4 Outcomes from the consultation process An informally-constituted steering group, with representatives from several organisations and individuals, has overseen the production of this Conservation Plan. It is recommended that this process should continue in order to ensure that all the interests in the defined area are represented and fed into the Heritage Partnership Agreement. As part of the consultation process, a number of meetings have been held with the public and interest groups (Appendix 2). The aim of these meetings has been to get feedback from as many interested parties as possible, including the community. The issues raised are listed in Appendix 2. It is clear from these proceedings that the local community and interest groups are eager to be involved with the Conservation Plan process. The goodwill generated through the consultation process is perhaps something that might be usefully continued by EH in future management plans. 4.5 Consideration of an extension to statutory protection for parts of the site The scheduled status of WRC (Figure 1.2, page 4), affords it statutory protection in the face of any policy dictates, but not all the site is so protected and it is therefore important that the current scheduling is reviewed to take account of outlying parts of the site that would merit such protection. The primary areas of concern are: land within the defences not under the ownership of either the Secretary of State or the unalienable land owned by the National Trust. This principally includes the small plot of land between Boathouse Cottage and the River Severn and the former glebe lands behind the Wroxeter Hotel owned by the Millington family; the cropmarks relating to the camps, early civilian-period trackways and possible cemeteries to the north of the defences on either side of Norton Farm and one field to the north of B5061; the Roman Burial ground at Middle Crows Green to the south of the Horseshoe Lane; The fields south of the Bell Brook up to the B4380 and containing the line of the town aqueduct; The fields south of the B4380 and extending round to the bank of the Severn, incorporating the already Scheduled Auxiliary Fort adjacent to the river; The land on the first terrace between the River Severn and Ismore Coppice, the site of Wroxeters tilery and brickworks (Houghton 1960). Of these the most important are the lands within the defences, the area of cropmarks around Norton Farm which are of national importance in preserving a rare and transient phase in Wroxeters early history (Figure 3.5, page 27). Scheduling of these extramural areas would bring the added benefit of promoting links between Attingham Parks estate and the site of Wroxeter Roman City.
49
CHAPTER 5. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The Recommendations need to reflect and sustain the identified Evidential Historical Aesthetic and Communal significances of the site (Chapter 3) in the light of the current management issues outlined in Chapter 4. The recommendations are arranged to reflect this structure. Note that there is no suggested costing, prioritisation or timetable offered here since this will be the remit of the Conservation Management Plan that will follow on from this document. Evidential Wroxeter Roman City has a wealth of untapped archaeological resource. Great strides have been made in mapping and investigating this resource largely using non-invasive techniques although major excavations have also been carried out in the heart of the city. Despite this there are other technologies and approaches that have yet to be tried at WRC and these recommendations aim to continue the exploration through a mixture of invasive and non-invasive technologies. Characterise the archaeology of the site across its entirety through topographic digital survey, full resistivity survey and test pitting at regular intervals. This latter technique, although invasive, will enable determination of the depth of topsoil and facilitate geochemical sampling to aid understanding of past landscape use and the impact of current farming regimes; Locate and sample suitable paleo-environmental sources that can throw light on the past environments at Wroxeter. These surveys will complete the remote sensing data collection started by the aerial surveys and the Wroxeter Hinterland Project and sustain Wroxeters role as an archaeological laboratory. The results of this exercise will determine what approaches can be adopted in respect of future land management regimes; Commission a survey and report on the current ecology of Wroxeter with a view to assessing its quality accurately and making recommendations on how biodiversity might be improved in the future using Higher Level Stewardship Schemes or other suitable mechanisms; Realise the research potential of the extensive artefact collections from Wroxeter by housing the Wroxeter material held by both Shropshire Museums Service and English Heritage together. Wroxeter has one of the largest, and least studied, collections of artefacts from Roman Britain while its 5th and 6th century stratified artefacts are of national importance. By bringing these collections together, nationally important research can be carried out on characterising the material culture of the Dark Ages. Convert the Farm Buildings into an Archaeological Resource Centre to provide space to display the wealth of high quality artefacts excavated from the site using also the unstratified artefacts to provide an opportunity to allow people to engage with real Roman material. Some of the iconic artefacts from Wroxeter will be displayed in the new Music Hall attraction in Shrewsbury to fulfil conditions in the HLF grant but a new attraction at WRC could use high quality painted replica stone items to add drama to the displays. Visitor days could see craft workers employed to demonstrate traditional ways of making artefacts based on discoveries from the site. The only competitors would be the ARC in York and the Museum of Londons ARC. This would provide a much-needed resource centre for the Midlands in its premier Roman site (see Communal recommendations);
50
Ma rc hing Camp s
Pottery Kiln
T ilery
S
l el
ro
er
Wr oxeter
Vi cus ?
Vi neyar d
Roman Fort
500m
Figure 5.1 : Key sites identified for protection around Wroxeter Roman City
51
k
o
rn r Te
Norton Farm
i
v
e
r
e
5th Figure 5.3: Wroxeters street grid made visible in of HAN207 during a drought.
Review the scheduled area with a view to enhancing the protection of the assets in the immediate area around WRC that were part of its operational infrastructure (earlier military forts, cemeteries, trackways, aqueduct, tile and pottery works, extra-mural buildings) (Figure 5.1). Of particular significance is HAN556, the nationally important cropmark landscape around Norton Farm dateable to the late 1st late 2nd century AD. Consideration should also be given to resolving the anomalies of protection within the defences where some fields remain in private hands (e.g. the former glebe lands; HAN209, 210, 211) or are outside the scheduled area though within the defences (eg HAN213, the strip of land in front of The Boathouse) ; Record the field walls in and around the village (HAN408-410) since they incorporate a great deal of Roman masonry. Some consideration needs to be given to the stripping away of ivy from these walls, since the arborealised ivy does support a considerable variety of native insect species that aid bat and bird life.
Historical Wroxeters historical significance offers strong potential for exploring deep questions of identity and cultural perceptions that arose from the transformation of late Roman Britain into the nation states of the Medieval period. The site also offers other perspectives on historical figures that have in more recent times been associated with the site scientifically or culturally. Use the breadth of understanding about the Roman city to explore how Roman towns developed in Britain: how typical was WRC, and what can be learnt from its ultimate failure?; Exploit the nationally important Dark Age remains on the site to explore how the boundaries of England and Wales were shaped and how new national identities emerged that still resonate today; Explore new interpretations based on historical people associated with the site. For the Roman period these include Agricola and Hadrian but the tombstones and few written records offer potential for stories about the townspeople too (Figure 5.2). We know, for instance that the early soldiers came
52
from northern Italy and the Low Countries while the evidence for the methods of carving stone demonstrate links with the Rhineland; Make more of more recent figures associated with WRC such as Thomas Telford. Charles Darwin, Charles Dickens, Wilfred Owen, A.E. Houseman and Mary Webb. People are interested in people and such an approach fosters greater understanding of the significances of the site and how those significances were recognised;
Aesthetic Wroxeter requires an imaginative approach if it is ever to be appreciated by the public. This need not mean expensive development. Much can be achieved by more effective signposting and interpretation combined with wider access to the site. Such an approach will have the immediate effect of allowing people to appreciate how large the site actually is and thus gain a greater understanding of its values. Make the boundary of Wroxeter more obvious by placing road signs at the entry points that point out to the visitor / traveller that they are entering WRC. This will automatically make them aware of the actual size of the defended area (78ha /180 acres, or marginally larger than Pompeii); Make the town visible by laying out the Roman street grid. This occasionally happens naturally during droughts (Figure 5.3) but making this effect permanent will substantially enhance the understanding that visitors will gain of the geometry of WRC; Allow greater access to WRC so that visitors can see the whole site and, with appropriate interpretation (leaflets, downloadable trails), discover what else is known of the town outside of the displayed ruins.;
Figure 5.4: Attingham Park Estate, as shown on the panel in the Welcome Centre at Attingham Park. Note WRC in the bottom right-hand corner.
53
Reconnect Wroxeter to its surroundings by linking up with the Attingham Park Estate (Figure 5.4). Existing proposals within the National Trust envisage routes that will take visitors out of the parkland to explore the estate, crossing the Severn at the Atcham Old Bridge and walking thence to the Italianate villa at Cronkhill Farm and on to Brompton on the opposite bank to Wroxeter, where the Roman road comes down to the river. If a footbridge were provided at the existing ford, walkers could then cross the Severn in safety to Wroxeter to the north of The Boathouse (Figure 5.5). Measures would have to be taken however to ensure that the bridge could not be accessed at times of flooding. Return to Attingham Park would be by using the footpath beneath the Tern Bridge under the old A5 thus removing issues of road safety;
Figure 5.5: The 2009 footbridge installed by the National Trust and Natural England over the River Tern within Attingham Park. Develop a consistent approach to the land management of the site that involves the removal of inappropriate livestock from the site (e.g. cattle) as soon as is practicable; Explore the potential of new partnerships to help develop more sustainable management regimes. Through a review of the existing environmental stewardship scheme, examine ways that the landscape can be restored to ecological diversity. This might be achieved by working more closely with the National Trust, BTCV, Natural England and Shropshire Wildlife Trust with the longer term aim of gradually moving the landscape at Wroxeter towards a more ecologically diverse landscape that might ultimately become a wildlife haven and possibly even a nature reserve. This approach will produce a landscape that is far more attractive to visit through broadening the scope and diversity of interests available to visitors. Crucially, while affording ample protection to the underlying archaeology this approach will still allow archaeology to be undertaken if and when necessary since the insulae themselves would still be accessible. Such approaches will be a big step towards meeting the needs identified in the Green Infrastructure concepts enshrined in the Local Development Framework for Shropshire; Determine a sustainable future for buildings owned by English Heritage on the site (eg Mount Pleasant; HAN117);
54
Consider the need for a Conservation Area Appraisal for Wroxeter Village to ensure that its boundaries (especially its stone walls), buildings and setting are protected appropriately; Improve the setting of the Old Work and the Ruins (HAN118-119) by working towards the removal of the current temporary museum (HAN105) as soon as is practicable and throughout WRC by replacing post-and-wire fencing with laid hedges that are more in keeping aesthetically with the appearance of the site.
Communal Wroxeter has an enviable record of training and education that can benefit all in the community. It is plain that the public, visitors and residents alike, do not understand why it is not possible to excavate the site any more. Introducing a limited research dig would once again allow WRC to greatly encourage visitor numbers, enrich the visitor experience, permit the development of communal involvement with the site and facilitate the broad development of practical archaeological skills for both amateur and professional alike. If this approach were to be combined with a new visitor centre also providing active engagement for the visitors then the combination would turn WRC into one of the premier Roman sites owned by EH. Sustain the educational and training role of the site through the reexcavation of the forum as a research excavation. This would be a long-term initiative to be run in part as a community excavation but largely as an exercise in training for those wishing to become archaeologists. The forum is ideal because it is located next to the farm and is already severely compromised by previous excavations. Consideration would need to be given to what to consolidate, but in time this could provide the only forum / baths complex visible north of the Alps; Investigate the potential of educational partnerships to develop the site these could be with local schools, Higher Education institutions, the Institute for Archaeologists and the Council for British Archaeology. Such an approach may well facilitate the research excavation of the forum; Enhance and upgrade the visitor facilities including perhaps a caf. As at Eden, produce could be sourced locally to showcase Shropshires wealth of produce and link in to the wider reputation of Shropshire as a county that is serious about promoting high quality food; Address the physical deterioration of the monument and its access and sustain this on a regular basis through cyclical maintenance and by better attention to detail on steps, handrails, etc. Consideration was given to the possibility of putting up a viewing platform but this would severely affect the setting of the monument and many of the needs could be met by extending access more widely into the landscape; Maintain and enhance engagement with the local community; Ensure that the site and its wider landscape setting are interpreted through the provision of trails and links with the National Trust at Attingham Park. Re-instate viewing points in the landscape which highlight key parts of the site; Purchase the remaining open fields within WRC that remain in private hands. While not under immediate threat, these fields are inaccessible yet provide sections of the best-preserved defences in WRC. Ownership would permit public access to this important resource. These fields are also likely to have greater biodiversity as they have not been ploughed since the 18th century.
55
Figure 5.6: Timescope. A method for interpreting ruins. http://www.ename974.org/Eng/pagina/archeo_concept.html Improve interpretation of the baths by providing new means of visualising ruins through digital technologies rather than through reconstruction (e.g. Timescope; Figure 5.6). Physical reconstruction is not considered viable due to the visual impact this would have on the Old Work as the iconic element of the site. Improve understanding of the main baths suite by restoring a facsimile of the hypocaust photographed in 1859 adjacent to the doorways into the main baths suite and extending a short way into the baths. Further visual clues to the correct floor level could be provided by slender stainless steel rods supporting flat plinths.
56
Appendix 1: List of sources used in compiling the Conservation Plan Unpublished reports used
These documents provided important information on the current state of the holdings at Wroxeter (Barlow Associates) and detail on particular aspects of the site (Baker 1992; White & Hislop 2002). The Archaeological Assessment (White and Dalwood 1994) was an exercise in generating a comprehensive HER for the site and can be accessed via ADS. Baker, W.A. 1992 Air Archaeology in the Valley of the River Severn Unpubl Doctoral Thesis, University of Southampton Barlow Associates 2008 Wroxeter Roman City. Site Number 670. Periodic Condition Survey Report. Report Number 670/08 Sebire, H. Asset Management Plan (AMP) Project. Summary Statement of Significance. Report No. SSoS-670 Wroxeter Roman City (SAM 32) 19/6/08 Tolley, R and Walker, S.T. 1999 English Heritage Review of Properties: West Midlands Region, Wroxeter Roman City, Shropshire White, P. 1976 Wroxeter Roman City. Feasibility Study of Proposed Development DoE White, R.H. and Dalwood, H. 1994 Archaeological Assessment of Wroxeter, Shropshire Hereford & Worcester County Report White, R.H. and Hislop, M. 2002 Summary Report on an Archaeological Evaluation and Building Record at Wroxeter Farm, Shropshire. BUFAU Rep. 893.2
Archives Consulted
National Monument Record: All aerial photographs relating to Wroxeter Roman City (1000 + prints housed in four red boxes + Aerofilms archive) Wroxeter Roman City Plans Catalogue (23/7/07) Northamptonshire Archives Henry Dryden Papers (1880) (NRO D (CA) 505) Shropshire Archives Apportionment of the rent-charge in lieu of tithes in the Parish of Wroxeter in the County of Salop (1840); Plan of the Parish of Wroxeter in the County of Salop (1842) SA2656/1617 A Survey of the Manor of Wroxeter, Eyton, Uppington, Eaton Constantine, etc situated in the County of Salop, one of the estates of John Newport esq. Surveyed and drawn by John Rocque 1746 (SA 6900) Foxall Placenames map, Wroxeter Parish (1972) SA Watton Newspaper Cuttings, vol 1 (1829) (SA901/1) Staffordshire Archives, Salt Collection Thomas Farmer Dukes MS (1799-49) Wroxeter and other Shropshire Antiquities (MS 461 & 473, Salt Colln. Stafford; similar to Idem, Soc of Antiq London MS 218) Roger White, Wroxeter Archive (held at Ironbridge Institute) The following list comprises the materials used to produce and support the findings of the report and represents a listing of the materials held by Roger White relating to the site. Photocopies of all articles relating to Wroxeter from 1709-current as well as MS / original documents Birmingham Archaeology / BUFAU archive reports on Wroxeter projects Copies of all published works on Wroxeter including representatives of all Wroxeter site guides 1859-current Original measured hachured survey of monument and town by Percy Taylor, 1931 (unpublished and not in NMR) Original prints and photocopies of photographs relating to Wroxeter Collection of slides and digital images taken by Roger White as well as Wroxeter slide collections from Philip Barker, Charles Daniel and Graham Webster (ca. 3000 slides in total)
57
Appendix 2: Consultation Process Date of Meeting 6th Feb. 2009 7th March 2009 16th March 2009 20th March 2009 March-April 18th April 2009 18th April 2009 23rd April 2009 11th May 2009 Venue and type of meeting Society of Antiquaries; Symposium Wroxeter Hotel; Guided tour and presentation Rowleys House, Shrewsbury; Museum Curators, Education Officers Attingham Park; presentation and discussion Wroxeter Roman City; visitor survey Radio Shropshire; live interview Shirehall; presentation Wroxeter Hotel; presentation Wroxeter Hotel; presentation Area of interest represented Academic community Local householders Collections holders
Landowners and natural environment groups Visitors to EH monument General public Local history societies and local historians; general public EH staff Wroxeter PC
The management issues formed common themes raised in many of the meetings held with the local community: traffic management there was support for implementing speed reduction and some sort of traffic calming on the B4380 (Shrewsbury to Ironbridge road). However, the possibility of increased traffic in the village was a negative aspect. There was a desire for some kind of speed control on the main access route to the village (Watling Street); road closures local opinion was set against any road closures but desired to see less use of the minor roads (Patch Lane and the cliff road) leading to the village. / Closure of Watling Street would have implications for the three point-to-point meetings held each year at Eyton-on-Severn and the farm business there; Wroxeter church people felt there were greater opportunities for increased liaison between EH and CCT to encourage greater use of the church; farm buildings people felt these could serve as an ideal visitor centre to replace the existing one with potential for: enhanced interpretation and a museum caf (with possible franchise to the Wroxeter Hotel or vineyard); interpretation of the vernacular farm buildings which would include rebuilding them; possible use of parts of the farm buildings as a working farm; possibility of including an interpretation of the interior of a Roman house, baths etc.; reinforcing the need to return dispersed artefacts to Wroxeter so that they can be displayed as a complete assemblage. access people felt there should be wider access to the site: walks to allow interpretation of the main site; walks linking up with Attingham Park via the River Severn and Ismore Coppice; walks linking up with the wider landscape west of the Severn, perhaps by a new footbridge provided near Boathouse Cottage.
58
visitor numbers it was felt that large increases in visitor numbers could not be easily sustained. Residents felt there could be security issues with increased visitor numbers accessing wider areas of the site; interpretation apart from enhanced interpretation in a new visitor centre using the farm buildings, many people would like to see interpretation of a greater proportion of the site and this included a call for further archaeological excavation involving the local community; landscape features appreciation of the special nature of the landscape was expressed, with an understanding of the significance of the Roman site and its landscape setting.
Other, generally favourable, responses to the draft recommendations and expressions of support were received from the following individuals and organisations (emails in archive): Harold Bound (Shrewsbury Resident) Kath Bristow (Shrewsbury and Mid-Shropshire Ramblers Group) Dr Andrew Burnett (British Museum, Secretary of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies) Dean Carroll (Shrewsbury Resident) Dr Hilary Cool (Freelance Archaeological Consultant) Mike Corbishley (University College London) Jo Cross (Churches Conservation Trust) Sir Barry Cunliffe (Acting Chair English Heritage) Paul Flynn (Environment Agency) Mick Jones (Lincoln City Archaeologist) Peter Kienzle (Landschaftsverband Rheinland) James Lawson (Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society) Shelagh Lewis (CBA West Midlands) Prof Martin Millett (University of Cambridge) Jeremy Milln (West Midlands Region Archaeologist, National Trust) Marilyn Priddey (Shrewsbury Resident) David Rudling (University of Sussex) Peter Wade-Martins (Norfolk Archaeology Trust) Dr Pete Wilson (Head of Research Policy (Roman Period), English Heritage) Fran Yarroll (Shropshire Museums Education Officer)
59
Appendix 3: Wroxeter Visitor Survey, March-April 2009 (data supplied by Kate Churchill). Taken from 73 responses (198 individuals)
Transport to site
Ages
<16 16-25 26-50 50+
Interpretation preferences
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Interpretation option
60
Number of people
U p
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
to
11 21 31 41 51 61 71 -
61
Longer
2-3 hours
1-2 hours
80 81 -9 91 0 -1 10 00 11 11 1 0 11 12 2 0 11 13 3 0 11 14 4 0 11 15 5 0 11 16 6 0 11 17 7 0 11 18 8 0 In 1 1 te rn 9 0 at io n U nk al no w n
Appendix 4: DCMS Listings for Historic Buildings in Wroxeter study area (Source: Heritage Gateway) Building name Churchyard gates Wroxeter Grange Folly SW of Grange Horseshoe Inn Glebe Cottage The Old Post Office Church of St Andrew LBS No. 420920 420921 420922 418756 419963 419965 419966 Grade II II II II II II I Date of listing 17.2.85 17.2.85 17.2.85 17.2.85 17.2.85 17.2.85 13.6.58 NGR SJ5629808243 SJ5634208213 SJ5632008172 SJ5771709437 SJ5639808144 SJ5632908310 SJ5633008247
62
Appendix 5 List of the main national, regional and local policy documents relating to cultural/historic environment/biodiversity matters: 1. National The Planning Policy Guidance documents: Planning Policy Guidance Note 15. Planning and the Historic Environment. Department of the Environment and the Department for National Heritage, 1994 Planning Policy Guidance Note 16. Archaeology and Planning. Department of the Environment, 1990 under revision The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979 The Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act, 1990, Power of Place: the future of the historic environment. English Heritage, 2000 Informed Conservation, English Heritage, 2000 Sustainable Communities Plan, 2003; Sustainable Communities: People, Places and Prosperity, 2005 Countryside in and Around Towns, 2005 Securing the Future; the UK Sustainable Development Strategy, 2005 Heritage Protection for the 21st century, 2007 (The Heritage Protection Reform White Paper) Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment. English Heritage, 2007 The State of the Natural Environment. Natural England, 2008. 2. Regional Growing our Future: the West Midlands Regional Forestry Framework, 2004. Forestry Commission West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy, June 2004 (revised, January, 2008) Restoring the regions Wildlife: the Regional Biodiversity Strategy for the West Midlands (2005), West Midlands Biodiversity Partnership Developing the Rural Environmental Economy of the West Midlands, November 2005. Advantage West Midlands West Midlands Health and Well Being Strategy, 2008. 3. Local Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Local Plan, Written Statement, 2001 Shropshire Biodiversity Action Plan 2002, Shropshire County Council for the Shropshire Biodiversity Steering group A Visitor Economy Strategy and Action Plan for Shrewsbury and Atcham, 2005-2009. 2005. Prepared for Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and Advantage West Midlands by Tourism Enterprise and Management (TEAM) Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Community Strategy 2005-2012 (Revised, 2005), Shrewsbury and Atcham Partnership Countryside Access strategy for Shropshire 2008-2018 (Draft), 2008, Shropshire County Council A Green Infrastructure Strategy for Shrewsbury and Atcham, a report by TEP, November, 2008 Shropshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document, Infrastructure and Implementation Topic Paper, July, 2008, prepared jointly by Bridgnorth District Council, North Shropshire District Council, Oswestry Borough Council, Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council, Shropshire County Council and South Shropshire District Council).
63
APPENDIX 6: CURRENT MANAGEMENT ISSUES RELATING TO THE MONUMENT This appendix draws heavily on a recent condition survey by Barlow Associates (2008). Their findings concur in large measure with ground observations made by those writing the CP, with conversations held with English Heritage staff and with others involved in the management of the site prior to and during the production of this CP. The Barlow Associates report bases asset assessment on established criteria such as those used by English Heritage in Heritage at Risk (HAR) and Buildings at Risk (BAR) assessments. It prioritises the order of works and assesses compliance with existing management plans. It is anticipated that the Barlow Associates report will form the basis of further detailed management recommendations following circulation of this Conservation Plan. The document follows the listing of the main identified vulnerabilities / defects. These are: 1. the condition of the Roman ruins; 2. the extent of animal burrowing across the site; 3. the damage being caused by poaching by cattle; 4. the condition and appearance of field boundaries; 5. the condition of water courses; 6. the colonisation of scrub and unmanaged woodland on parts of the site; 7. the presence of fly-tipping; 8. the management of the Farm buildings; 9. the condition and future of some tenanted houses, e.g. Mount Pleasant, the former Smithy / Post Office; 10. the variable quality, condition and placement of signage. 1. Exposed ruins (Roman baths and the Old Work) The Barlow Associates report (2008) describes the overall condition of these remains as fair but points to a number of serious defects which include:
Figure 6.1: Visitors viewing the baths basilica interpretation. Note the bleeding of coloured gravels and moss growth.
Figure 6.2: HAN119, The baths as first laid out, in 1992, demonstrating original clear delineation of colour coding.
the overall degradation of interpretation caused principally by lack of routine regular maintenance and vegetation growth. As a result the coloured gravel used to mark out different rooms and paths is rapidly losing definition (Figure 6.1; contrast with Figure 6.2);
64
deteriorating masonry due to footfall and freeze-thaw erosion; upper wall courses are becoming seriously depleted, exacerbated by earlier insensitive and widespread use of concrete (Figure 6.3); the overall interpretation of the ruins which relies heavily on the use of inappropriate materials, e.g. the tubular metal railings and wooden handrails, the cast slabs and curb edgings marking the lines of walls, extensive concrete capping. Use of these materials jars with the sensitive landscape setting of the site. In some areas, the widespread use of concrete confuses the visitor about the authenticity of the remains, i.e. what is a reconstruction and what is not; the damage being caused due to current access arrangements across the remains. Visitors have free rein to climb over walls, thus dislodging stones and causing serious damage. This is particularly bad where visitors climb into the natatio (plunge pool) from the northern side; the increasing extent of animal burrowing, especially rabbits. This is severe on the west side of the natatio (Figure 6.3). There is rabbit and mole damage around picnic benches and display boards in the baths area. A large animal burrow, either rabbit or badger, lies in the SE corner under a group of shrubs. The extent of burrowing here is unknown but likely to be worsening. A lot of mole activity in this area too in which up-cast RB sherds and butchered bone were found. Moderate mole damage within forum ruins (west side of B 4394).
Figure 6.3: On-going damage to the monument. From left to right: decaying original herringbone floor; disintegrating east baths praefurnium wall; animal and other damage in natatio 2. The extent of animal burrowing across the site In addition to animal burrowing in the exposed ruins, there is increasing damage being caused by rabbits, moles and badgers across the site (Figure 6.4). The worst affected areas include: areas alongside the verges of most roads / tracks across the site; upper part of 18g (HAN203) good condition, priority 4; active badger sett adjacent to stream along S. boundary,18j (HAN208).
65
Figure 6.4: Mole damage, south of the Figure 6.5: Poaching by cattle on baths in HAN207. either side of the Bell Brook in HAN200 & 203. 3. Damage from poaching by cattle and farm machinery Grazing is by cattle and sheep; sheep are the preferred option but it is understood that there has been difficulty obtaining tenants with sheep and this has resulted in more cattle being grazed than is desirable for the good management of the site (Figure 6.5). Of the eleven parcels of land identified by Barlow, only 3 are grazed wholly by sheep; the remainder is grazed by sheep and cattle. On National Trust land (18m-o; HAN202, 222, 224) grazing is entirely for sheep. Poaching by cattle is currently worst in the following areas: 18f, 18h, 18k, 18b HAN221, 200, 201 & 212. 18h (HAN200) severe erosion along Bell Brook erosion repairs aided by fencing needed (Figure 4.6). Metal water trough in SW corner; bad erosion 18h (HAN200) along desire line footpath across field; 18b (HAN212) erosion of stream banks by cattle which could be avoided if fenced and cattle were prevented from crossing stream.
Figure 6.6: Ruts caused by Figure 6.7: Lime dump on HAN224, adjacent to farm traffic to feed stock. Norton Farm.
66
Erosion from movements of farm machinery is also causing damage, along with other farming practices: bad in 18h (HAN200) stone displacement over time along track HAN402 presumed to be due to farm machinery; 18d HAN215 serious deep erosion caused by vehicles tracking across field to remove piles of cut leylandii hedging; severe rutting at entrance to 18g (HAN203) (Figure 6.6); inappropriately sited water troughs some leaking, e.g. one in farmyard causing ponding. The siting of all water troughs should be reviewed; storage of lime on the fields for agricultural improvement 18m (HAN224) (Figure 6.7).
4. The condition and appearance of field boundaries Field boundaries comprise stone walls, hedges or post and wire (mesh and barbed wire) stock fencing; there is some wooden fencing. Some boundaries are a combination of hedging and fencing. Boundaries are a prominent feature of the site; some have historical significance while others result from present day agricultural management. In their current form, boundaries are a management concern because:
Figure 6.8: Chestnut paling and Figure 6.9: Wooden gate buried in concrete-and wire fence in baths field. overgrown hedge. they exhibit a lack of consistency in style and materials; they are often visually intrusive and incongruous, e.g. the concrete post and mesh fence to S and E boundaries of baths basilica (Figure 6.8); many are in a deteriorating condition which imparts an air of neglect and untidiness with evidence of abandoned redundant fence posts and gates in various places (Figure 6.9); some entrances in fencing and hedge lines are inappropriately sited; many hedges have grown out of control and have not been maintained for a long time, e.g. the unmanaged hedges along HAN407 the road running past The Cottage; those along the road running towards the Roman burial ground (HAN403); those along the B4380 running E-W across the site where the hedging is of differing heights (HAN405) and those along the Green Lane (HAN402) extending past the football field; some hedges end abruptly in places with gaps or gaps infilled with unsightly makeshift post and wire fencing;
67
makeshift repairs using plastic fencing alongside hawthorn hedging are extremely unsightly; vistas of aesthetic and archaeological significance have become obscured e.g. the picket fence to boundary of the baths basilica and on the opposite side of road, blocks views into the ruins. The potential for the visitor to read the landscape is thus diminished.
Apart from the visual defects, the current condition of many boundaries hampers the efficient management of stock. Sheep can pass freely underneath some fencing / combined hedging and fencing, into out-of-bounds areas such as the football field. This occurs frequently in areas where post and wire fencing adjacent to a hedge has lost its wire e.g. 18i (HAN205). The inappropriate siting of some gates also hampers efficient stock management. Ideally, properly managed hedging should be re-introduced to replace the post and wire fencing which is unsightly and jars with the sensitive landscape setting of Wroxeter. This could be undertaken gradually and could comprise post and rail fencing used in combination with hedging; the fencing would protect the hedging and could initially include sheep wire, removed at a later stage when the hedging has matured enough to provide a sheep barrier. The maintenance of existing hedging and planting of new hedging boundaries would fit well with DEFRAs management priorities which are to encourage farmers to retain hedges for their wildlife habitats and general ecological value. Hedges on the site are also valued by the local community for their visual appearance and their support of wildlife. Gates across the site are of inconsistent style and materials and their condition is variable. Some newly replaced gates are constructed of inappropriate wood and not jointed; some gates are not used and blocked off. Other gates are rusted up and appear unused (Figure 6.9). As with fencing and hedging, there is a need to review all gates and achieve consistency across the site. It may be appropriate to remove some gates altogether, e.g. some along the road through the site, others that are not used, those that have rusted up and are unusable anyway.
Figure 6.10: Unrecorded Roman stone Figure 6.11; Unrecorded wall (HAN409) defining The Cottage. HAN410 in Grange garden wall. The stone walls on the site (HAN408, 409, 410) are archaeologically as well as historically significant; they are also aesthetically pleasing (Figures 6.10 & 11). They are 68
known to contain fragments of Roman masonry and may also contain earlier and later material such as Iron Age quern stones and medieval cross fragments. There has never been a thorough survey of these walls and so their full significance is not yet understood. The current state of much of the walling is generally good but long lengths are covered with ivy which in places has penetrated the mortar and set up gradual structural damage. However, much of the ivy growth is non-invasive. The stone walls were formerly managed by the Raby Estate and kept ivy-free; whether there should be wholesale ivy removal remains to be decided but this would facilitate survey if this is to be included in any management recommendations. 5. The condition of water courses The main water courses on the site are the River Severn on the west side, the Bell Brook which runs across the northern area and a brook running along southern edge of the defined area. The main management issues with water courses are silting up and neglect of adjacent land-use (Figure 6.12).
Figure 6.12: Silts deposited in HAN203 Figure 6.13: Ivy understorey by the Bell Brook adjacent to B4394. Sycamore plantation HAN216.
in
On the side adjacent to the R. Severn, the land slopes down towards the river 18 e (HAN218). This area, has not been recently cultivated but was managed by grazing. It has now reverted to weeds and grass with some regenerating woody scrub and trees; it has a generally poor and neglected appearance. There is some erosion where anglers access the rivers edge. Farther south, 18d (HAN215) the river terrace is grazed and generally in good condition, however, ungrazed parts are colonised by weeds and nettles which should be controlled. Isolated areas of erosion are evident behind The Boathouse and re-seeding is recommended. This stretch of the R. Severn is part of a protected County Wildlife Site in which legally protected species include water vole, otter and the nationally scarce white-legged damselfly and county-rare blue water speedwell. The river island (HAN214) was not closely inspected in the Barlow Associates 2008 survey, but it is considered to be a potential site for an otter holt (Barlow Associates, 2008, 14-15). The stream defining the south edge of the defences has fallen trees along the stream side as well as an active badger sett. Its continuation through Boathouse field (HAN213) is poached by cattle and has some shading by vegetation. The Bell Brook has a lot of dense vegetation but the main impact of this is on the ecology rather than archaeology e.g. shaded stream inhibits aquatic/marginal
69
vegetation growth and reduces suitability of habitat for water voles. There is silting up on the east side of the bridge carrying the B4394 and the presence of stonework that needs inspecting. The future of the sycamore copse in 18j (HAN216) needs to be considered. To improve light penetration within the wood (Figure 6.13), the trees need to be crown lifted or the trees should be felled. They have low historical and aesthetic value but they would need to be assessed for biodiversity as they house a rookery and provide insect life for bats. 6. The colonisation of scrub and unmanaged woodland on parts of the site This is not particularly serious generally but there are some concentrated areas of scrub, weed and tree growth that could be better managed. Apart from areas already mentioned along water courses, these include some unattractive and inappropriate scrub immediately to the south east of the baths and within the managed monument. The concrete footprint of a former machine shed / barrack block is located here too and might be removed. There is also some intrusive and unsightly scrub at the southern end of the forum site; the scrub should be removed as it obscures the exposed ruins. 7. Fly tipping This is not particularly serious but is present in parts of the site, especially along water courses and locally around the village on some fields (Figure 6.14).
Figure 6.14: Fly tipping / fence repair Figure 6.15: HAN101, Wroxeter Farm and adjacent to B4394. its farmyard. 8. The management of the Farm Barns buildings The Farm Barns buildings (HAN101) have been mothballed for the present until a use is decided for them. They are currently used mainly for storage by the tenant farmer. The curtilage of these buildings is extremely untidy and neglected. Redundant farm machinery, makeshift fencing and gates, hypodermic syringes and other detritus lie scattered about giving the area an uncared for appearance (Figure 6.15). Rats and mice inhabit the north west barn due to the storage of grain there. This detracts from the buildings themselves and is uncomfortably close to the visitor centre. The buildings themselves are extremely attractive even in their present state. They have undergone detailed survey (Hislop and White 2002) and it is known that the barns
70
generally have only limited defects such as settlement cracks to the north east hay barn and roof damage caused by vandalism. However, the covered yard (shippen) is reported to be in poor condition with failed trusses and fixings to the tin roof of probable 1881 construction. 9. The condition and future of EH owned tenanted houses and other buildings 9.1 1 & 2 The Ruins Cottage (HAN104) This small building lies on the other side of the road from the visitor centre. Though attractive from the outside its conversion in the 1970s for use as a field studies centre resulted in an incompatibility with the original structure. In addition, there is dry rot and deteriorating brick work. There are safety issues with the outbuilding to the west of the cottage (Figure 6.17). This is likely to be demolished shortly to allow for the construction of a toilet block for the adjacent education room.
Figure 6.17: Derelict pig sties behind 1 & Figure 6.18: Original 1980s gate notice. 2 The Ruins. 9.2 The Forge / Post Office (HAN100) There are minor defects to the flat roof at the rear of the building. The property is now vacant and the Roman artefacts in her garden are considered to be vulnerable. The building has little relevance to the Roman site. 9.3 Mount Pleasant (HAN117) One half of this property is tenanted while the remaining half is unoccupied. Neither half is in good condition but the unoccupied half is near derelict and the external wall adjacent to the stream has serious settlement. The occupied half requires up-dating to conform to safety standards, (e.g. new electrical installations) and needs new windows. The garage is in imminent danger of collapse. The building has little relevance to the Roman site, though it may be of historical/social history interest. It would seem more appropriate to sell it on the open market; this could result in refurbishment making the property more in keeping with the character and ambience of the village. 9.4 Current visitor centre (HAN405) The modern timber building was erected in the mid 1970s as a stop-gap until the farm buildings could be converted to be the site museum, as outlined in the feasibility study (White 1976). It is nearing the end of its useful life and has little long-term future as a
71
museum and visitor centre, especially if large numbers begin to visit the site again. It has a serious impact too on the setting of the baths ruins and the Old Work itself since its presence entirely blocks the view of the Old Work from the central crossroads of the site. 10. The variable quality and condition and placement of signage etc. There is no consistency in the type of signage used across the site. Gates sometimes have signs warning against metal detecting within the fields that were first put up in the 1980s when English Heritage was created (Figure 6.18). On the monument there are well-maintained interpretation boards and there is a title board for the site in the car park.
72
BIBLIOGRAPHY Unpublished sources Baker, W.A. 1992 Air Archaeology in the Valley of the River Severn Unpubl Doctoral Thesis, University of Southampton Barlow Associates 2008 Wroxeter Roman City. Site Number 670. Periodic Condition Survey Report. Report Number 670/08 Biddulph, M. and Woodward, A. 2000 The Wroxeter Pygmy Cup, In V.L. Gaffney & R.H. White Wroxeter Hinterland Project Final Report BUFAU Report 500.1, 166-7 Dukes, T.F. 1799-49 Wroxeter and other Shropshire Antiquities (MS 461 & 473, Salt Colln. Stafford; similar to Idem, Soc of Antiq London MS 218) Tolley, R and Walker, S.T. 1999 English Heritage Review of Properties: West Midlands Region, Wroxeter Roman City, Shropshire White, P. 1976 Wroxeter Roman City. Feasibility Study of Proposed Development DoE White, R.H. and Dalwood, H. 1994 Archaeological Assessment of Wroxeter, Shropshire Hereford & Worcester County Report White, R.H. and Hislop, M. 2002 Summary Report on an Archaeological Evaluation and Building Record at Wroxeter Farm, Shropshire. BUFAU Rep. 893.2 Published sources Atkinson, D. 1942 Report on Excavations at Wroxeter (the Roman City of Viroconium) in the County of Salop 1923-1927 OUP Barker, P.A., White, R.H., Pretty, K.B., Bird, H & Corbishley, M. 1997 The Baths Basilica Wroxeter. Excavations 1966-90 English Heritage Archaeol Rep 8 Bassett, S.R. 1990 The Roman and medieval landscape of Wroxeter, In P.A. Barker (ed.) From Roman Viroconium to medieval Wroxeter, Worcester, 3-7 Bassett, S.R. 1992 Medieval Ecclesiastical Organisation in the vicinity of Wroxeter and its British Antecedents J British Archaeol Assn 145, 1-28 Bushe-Fox, J.P. 1913 Excavations on the Site of the Roman Town at Wroxeter Shropshire, in 1912 Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 1 Bushe-Fox, J.P. 1914 Second Report on the Excavations on the Site of the Roman Town at Wroxeter Shropshire 1913 Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 2 Bushe-Fox, J.P. 1916 Third Report on the Excavations on the Site of the Roman Town at Wroxeter Shropshire in 1914 Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 4 Cosh, S. and White, R.H. 2006 A Rediscovered Mosaic from insula XXVI, In P. Ellis & R.H. White (eds.), 141-7
73
Ellis, P. (ed.) 2000 The Roman Baths and Macellum at Wroxeter. Excavations by Graham Webster 1955-85 English Heritage Archaeol Rep. 9 Ellis, P. & White, R.H. (eds.) Wroxeter Archaeology. Excavation and Research on the Defences and in the town, 1968-1992 [=Shropshire Archaeol and Hist Trans 78] Fox, G.E. 1897 Uriconium Archaeol J 54, 123-73 Gaffney, C. and Gaffney, V.L. 2000 Non-Invasive Investigations at Wroxeter at the end of the Twentieth Century Archaeol Prospection 7.2 Gaffney, V.L. and White R.H. Wroxeter, The Cornovii and the Urban Process. Final Report on The Wroxeter Hinterland Project 1994-1997. Volume 1. Researching the Hinterland Jnl Roman Archaeol Supp Ser 68 Portsmouth, Rhode Island Houghton, A.W.J. 1960 A Roman Tilery and Brickfield near Wroxeter Shropshire Newsletter 11, 3 Johnson, S. and Ellis, P. 2006 Excavations on the Eastern Defences, 1975 and 1976 In P. Ellis and R. White (eds), 12-53 Kenyon, K.M. 1940 Excavations at Viroconium, 1936-7 Archaeologia 78, 175-227 Kenyon, K.M. 1980 Excavations at Viroconium in Insula 9, 1952-3 Trans Shropshire Archaeol Soc 60 (1975-6), 5-73 Lyster, J. 1706 A Description of a Roman Sudatory, or Hypocaustum, found at Wroxeter, in Shropshire Anno 1701 Philosophical Trans. 25; No. 306, 2226-9 Mackreth, D. 1987 Roman Public Buildings In J. Schofield & R. Leech (eds.) Urban Archaeology in Britain CBA Res Rep 61, 133-46 Mackreth, D. 2000 The nineteenth-century excavations in the baths insula by Thomas Wright and others, In P. Ellis (ed.), 347-75 Morris, J.A. 1930 Aero-Films of the Excavations at Wroxeter TSAS 45 (1929-30), viii-ix Morris, J.A. 1935 A Guide to the Roman City of Uriconium at Wroxeter Shropshire Shrewsbury Newman, J. and Pevsner, N. 2006 The Buildings of England: Shropshire (2nd edn.) Yale Pannett, D. 1989 The River Severn at Wroxeter Shropshire Hist and Archaeol 66, 48-55 Phillips, G. and Keatman, M. 1999 King Arthur: the True Story Roach Smith, C. 1854 Roman Sculptures found at Wroxeter Collectanea Antiqua III, 2932 Rowland, J. 1990 Early Welsh Saga Poetry D.S. Brewer, Woodbridge
74
St Joseph, J.K. 1951 Roman Forts on Watling Street near Penkridge and Wroxeter Trans Birmingham & Warks Arch Soc 69, 50-6 Toghill, P. 2006 Geology of Shropshire (2nd edn.) Crowood Press Turner, R. 2008 Thomas Telford the Archaeologist, Antiq. J 88, 365-75 Ward, J. 1755 An Account of four Roman Inscriptions, cut into three large stones, found in a ploughed field near Wroxeter in Shropshire, in the year 1752: with some observations on them Philosophical Trans 49(i), 196-205 Webster, G. 1993 The City of Viroconium (Wroxeter): its military origins and expansion under Hadrian, In S. Greep (ed.) Roman Towns: the Wheeler Inheritance CBA REs Rep 93, 50-5 Webster, G. (ed. J. Chadderton) 2002 The Legionary Fortress at Wroxeter. Excavations by Graham Webster, 1955-85 English Heritage Archaeol Rep. 19 Webster, G. and Hollingsworth, D. 1959 The Wroxeter Aqueduct Trans Shropshire Archaeol & Hist Soc 56, 133-7 Welfare, H. and Swan, V. 1995 Roman Camps in England. The Field Archaeology HMSO Whimster, R. 1989 The Emerging Past HMSO White, R.H. 2006 Afterword: excavating Wroxeter at the end of the twentieth century, In P. Ellis and R.H. White (eds.), 165-9 White, R.H. 2007 Britannia Prima. Britains Last Roman Province White, R.H. and Barker, P.A. 1998 Wroxeter. Life and Death of a Roman City White, R.H., Gaffney, C. and Gaffney, V.L. forthcoming Wroxeter Hinterland Project volume 2. Characterising the Roman City: an atlas of Viroconium Cornoviorum. Wilson, D.R. 1982 Air Photo Interpretation for Archaeologists Wright, T. 1859 Guide to the Ruins of Uriconium at Wroxeter (1st edn.) Shrewsbury Wright, T. 1872 Uriconium; a historical account of the ancient Roman city at Wroxeter, and of the excavations made upon its site at Wroxeter, in Shropshire, forming a sketch of the condition and history of the Welsh Border during the Roman Period London
75
Built Assets Fields Earthworks Linear features Buried Assets Natural Assets
References to HANs are colour-coded throughout when referred to elsewhere in the main text of the conservation plan and in other gazetteer entries. All HANs are plotted on individual maps G1-G6 within the gazetteer. Each map and HAN entry is on a single page so it can be laminated and taken into the field. A separate sheet is numbered 670 after the Shropshire Scheduled Monument listing for the site and gives an overall description of the Monument as a whole. It can thus be used in a national sequence of heritage assets with the HATs pertaining to the individual site 670 nesting below. A HAN can thus technically be referred to as [670] HAN400, etc. to distinguish it from any other HAN from another site/monument. The body of the document then lists the MPP-style assessment in the following order: First, each entry has a description of the evidence relating to the asset and, in a separate box, its Designation, which offers an interpretation of the asset. Then three other values are described or listed: Statement of Significance: how important is the asset locally, regionally, nationally and from whence does that significance derive? Period: date range of asset Documentation: what are the principal sources of information relating to the asset? The remaining values are subjectively given a hierarchy through tick boxes with notes if required. Rarity: how rare is this type of asset, both regionally and nationally? Is it important as a good example of the commonplace and most typical? Group Value: is the asset associated with other assets of the same period, or is it part of a sequence of sites which has developed through time? Survival / Condition: how well does the asset survive, both above and below ground? Fragility / Vulnerability: what are the threats to the asset, and how serious are they? Diversity: are there variations in the type of asset specific to its region and period? Potential: what potential does the asset have to teach us about the past? Can we predict if it is likely to contain as yet undiscovered archaeological evidence? Amenity value: is it already accessible to the public?
WROXETER ROMAN CITY (SHROPSHIRE SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENT NO.670 LIST OF HERITAGE ASSET NUMBERS BY HERITAGE ASSET TYPE HAT Built Assets HAN
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 400 401 402 403 404 405 406
DESCRIPTION
Old Post Office / Smithy Farm Buildings Shelter shed Stable 1 & 2 The Ruins Site museum The Cottage Wroxeter Terrace Topsy Cottage The Old Post Office The Wroxeter Hotel St Andrews Wroxeter The Grange Gazebo The School House Glebe Cottage The Boathouse Mount Pleasant Cottages The Old Work The baths ruins The churchyard and its gate EH field 7885; 0476 EH field 6307 NT Attingham Estate NE field EH field 7205 EH field 9491 EH field 8152 EH field 5951 (part) Baths visitor site EH field 5951 EH field 7525 Millington field (glebe lands) Millington field (glebe lands) Millington field (glebe lands) EH field 2508 Boathouse field Severn island EH field 2533 Sycamore coppice EH field 3185 (south) EH field 1673 EH field 3185 campsite EH field 4178 EH field 3185 (north) NT Attingham Estate triangular field EH field 4405 NT Attingham Estate NW field Rampart NE Rampart E 1 Rampart E 2 Rampart SE Rampart S 1 Rampart S 2 Wroxeter manorial earthworks Rampart W Rampart NW Rampart total Wroxeter harbour Wroxeter village Whitchurch road Horseshoe Lane Green lane B4380 Ironbridge road Patch lane B4394 village road B4394 Ruins road
Fields
Earthworks
Linear Features
Buried Assets
407 408 409 410 411 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 600 601
Cliff road Stone wall by HAN216 Stone wall at HAN106 Stone Wall village Boathouse lane Pre-Roman Wroxeter Insula i Insula ii Insula iii Insula iv Insula v Insula vi Insula vii Insula viii Insula ix Insula x Insula xi Insula xii Insula xiii Insula xiv Insula xv Insula xvi Insula xvii Insula xviii Insula xix Insula xx Insula xxi Insula xxii Insula xxiii Insula xxiv Insula xxv Insula xxvi Insula xxvii Insula xxviii Insula xxix Insula xxx Insula xxxi Insula xxxii Insula xxxiii Insula xxxiv Insula xxxv Insula xxxvi Insula xxxvii Insula xxxviii Insula xxxix Insula xxxx Insula xxxxi Insula xxxxii Insula xxxxiii Insula xxxxiv Insula xxxxv Insula xxxxvi Insula xxxxvii Insula xxxxviii Cemetery (north) Middle Crows Green cemetery Legionary fortress and associated features Early Civil town AD90-120 Mature Roman town AD120-500 Late Roman / Post-Roman town AD500-650 Medieval village AD650-1600 Norton cropmarks Line of aqueduct Black Mulberry Veteran Oak
Natural Assets
670
EH Ref. No Salop AM 670 Compiler / Date RHW July 2010
Associated HER Nos. AMP ref. 06487 MSA13147 06492 MSA13152 06495 MSA13155 Summary description of surviving evidence Oval area of ca. 78ha. (180 acres) bounded by earthworks of bank and ditch defences on all but the west side where the river cliff for the River Severn forms the limit. Within the defined area lies the village of Wroxeter (at the south end) and a cluster of farm and other buildings at the central crossroads. A prominent valley containing the Bell Brook runs west-east across the north part of the monument. The enclosed area is largely down to pasture.
Designation The protected (Scheduled) Heritage Asset is contained within the late 2nd c. earthwork defences of the town but the asset also includes the buried asset of the Roman fortress and its annexe (HAN551), the 5-7th cent. late antique town (HAN554) and the current largely farming landscape that evolved from the 7th cent. to the present day, including a church, village houses and Victorian model farm complex. Statement of Significance A unique site that offers the opportunity to explore in detail the spatial components of a major Romano-British urban centre alongside its chronological depth, from its genesis, maturity and especially its demise in the early medieval period. Period Roman, Medieval, Post-Medieval Documentation R. White and P. Barker 1998 Wroxeter. Life and Death of a Roman City Tempus Assessment of importance/significance Criteria Survival/condition High Med. Low The asset has not been ploughed since the mid 1970s and excellent preservation of archaeology has been demonstrated where excavation has been carried out. There are many areas that have never been excavated. The remains are vulnerable to nighthawking and perhaps to longterm management issues such as the effects of artificial fertilizer on buried artefacts but are under the direct protection of the state. Practically unique in terms of levels of preservation but also in terms of appreciation of how Roman towns relate to their countryside. It is still possible to gain an understanding of this because of the relatively unchanged nature of the landscape around the monument. Considered in regional terms, the towns of Wroxeter, Shrewsbury and Telford allow the development of a significant understanding of British urban history over the last two millennia. Good diversity of monument types within the limits of the site and good historical range. Huge potential for the elucidation of Roman urban history in Britain through both excavation and remote sensing The site has unique potential for understanding transition from the Roman to early Medieval periods. The core potential for the site is its research value. Excellent amenity value as a visitor attraction but also as a locale for education at all levels and for public engagement with history in its widest sense.
Fragility/vulnerability
Rarity
Group value
Diversity Potential