You are on page 1of 13

Chapel of St Laurence, Bradford on Avon. Excavation record, Sept. 2000 and notes on subsequent work Originally prepared Aug.

2001 by David A. Hinton, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, augmented June 2009 Explanation These notes are intended to be read together with 6 files of site drawings and photographs. The report on the excavation is in Archaeological Journal, vol. 166 (Hinton 2009), and further discussion is in a paper currently in proof (Hinton 2010). There is also a web-site that has colour images and general background prepared by two M.Sc. students, Graham Prowse and Anton Tait, currently www.soton.ac.uk/archaeology/research/projects/st_laurence_chapel.html The excavation in Sept. 2000 was sponsored by the Trustees of the Chapel of St Laurence to celebrate the millennium of the donation of Bradford to Shaftesbury Abbey. It was undertaken to clarify whether there had been a chamber below the south porticus, which was demolished either in the Middle Ages, or at the time when the chapel was turned into a school, and a house for the school-master built on the south side. Masonry now below ground level had been observed by the architect J. T. Irvine in the 1870s (Taylor 1972), but he had not made a detailed record. Reinvestigation was recommended in the last full investigation of the building (Taylor 1973). As it was not intended that there should be any removal of ground layers that were not the result of nineteenth-century backfilling of the area south of the chapels nave, single-context recording was not done, and there are no context record sheets of the normal sort. I took notes at times during the work, relying on photographs and elevation drawings. What follows sets out those notes in more coherent order, within inverted commas, and also draws slightly more on my memory than it ought to do. Some other work was done at and near the chapel in 2004 and 2005. The observations made then are also reported. Excavation Calendar Sept. 2000 Excavation 2000

The full Southampton team was six students and myself. Two of the students were experienced excavators, and all the others had done at least three weeks fieldwork on departmental projects. Work ran from Monday Sept. 11 to Friday Sept. 22, 2000; the intention was to work every day, but a national petrol crisis prevented us from travelling on Thursday 14th, and we had to use the train on the 15th; time was also lost to bad weather, and to travelling over from Southampton, but excavation had been completed by Sept. 20, when Tom Cromwell from English Heritage took survey photographs; these are not in the archive, as they duplicate those copied for it. The agreement with the Trustees of the Chapel was that we should remove about a metre of the earth back from the nave. Because it was found that the buttresses

survived below ground level, and that there was therefore no subsidence risk, permission was given to go down to the level of the cellar floor. Towards the end of the work, it was agreed to create a scaffold ramp up to the south door, leaving the south wall visible (archive photo Bradford 2000 scaffold bridge). We backfilled the trenches to either side of the buttresses, scarping down to leave the tops of the buttresses visible, and putting a layer of small stones up against the wall faces. The scaffolding was put in, but proved expensive and unsightly. Consequently we were asked to fill in between the buttresses, which we did over a week-end, putting a layer of terram (?) between the wall and the fill. We left the top as a roughly paved surface, level with the buttress tops. Subsequently, the Trustees decided to restore to the original appearance, and this was done at some time in the winter. Records The naves wall faces were drawn on A4 planning film. Colour slides were taken by DAH; all those worth saving have been scanned and are in three files. Trenches An area was deturfed from a point 1m west of the west buttress and one metre east of the east buttress, extending 3m to the south. The first discovery was that the buttresses erected in the 1880s had not been reduced in thickness in 1933, as some records suggested, but only reduced in length. The foundations of the buttresses had not been grubbed out, but were found a few centimetres below the turf. Consequently the work divided into three areas. a. West of the west buttress (File labelled west of the west buttress contains drawings and photographs) Below a thin layer of turf was a mixed rubbly yellow layer, with some larger stones in it. At about half a metre, some stones in a line were found, but no footing trench etc. was found to suggest a feature even a drain. It was photographed and removed without further record. At about 0.80 m down the wall face, a very hard and uneven surface of yellow cement was found, extending back the whole 3m. As there was no reason to hack it out, and to do so might have damaged the wall face, this was not pursued. The only finds were fragments of brick and the like. (Subsequently, a record about regrouting in 1933 was found in the NMR archive, and what was seen in this area is fully consistent with work done at that time, and backfilled.) nave south wall, west side of west buttress Long plinth stone just above ground level, disguised by mortar, but seemingly two horizontal stones. Then two shorter plinth stones, running under pilaster, both seemingly Saxon though hard concrete mortar below them. These were both of similar thickness to the upper long stone. [These notes reflect concern over the extent of rebuilding of the Saxon fabric and its disturbance when the buttress was inserted.]

Below the plinth, the rubble footings have been repointed with a hard white slick, which is also on the buttress. [Slick = hard grey cement, which had been used down to the bottom of the excavation.] These foundations were set back some 20 mm under the plinth, coming forward a little lower down to be flush with it. They are a good example of random rubble. Excavation stopped because of the cement across the trench see above. Cement had been pushed between the south wall and the buttress, obscuring the join. Some of the rubble clearly continues eastwards behind the buttress stones. If there were a crypt wall, its scar is not visibly reused by the buttress. If it exists, it must be one/two cm eastwards (as the rubble extends). west face of west buttress Immediately below the visible dressed stones of the buttress are squared and coursed but undressed stones. The face was vertical, in the limited part seen. To the south, the second course contained longer, apparently sawn, blocks. The undressed stones may have been reused from the school-masters house; the 1870s photographs suggest that its side walls were undressed rubble, its south front of big blocks. The long stones must have been brought in in the 1880s. Concrete mortar was noted at the time, and the photographs show that this means the same grey cement as on the south wall; the joints must have been refilled in 1933, when the footings were exposed. Archive file west of the west buttress photos: 1-2, south wall, with lowest plinth stone, visible at ground level, at the top 3, trench, buttress to right 4-5 angle of nave south wall and west buttress b. Between the buttresses (File labelled between buttresses contains drawings and photographs) This area was filled with loose rubble and mortar, with some large stones, many squared. No differences were observed in the texture of the fill during excavation. Several stones had plastered surfaces. Only one was recognisably Anglo-Saxon, mainly because it had a slot in it (below) and was clearly from one of the courses in the original east wall (photo 27). It was the only one recognisable as Anglo-Saxon from its geology, size and colour. (This stone was deliberately placed on top of the east buttress at backfilling, but its fate when the area was subsequently returfed is not known). Some of the stones turned out to be broken seventeenth-century gravestones. The plastered stones may have come from the school-masters house, but there is no direct evidence. Other finds were a few glass fragments, clay pipe-stems etc. When it was decided to excavate lower than originally planned, the north face of the trench was roughly sloped to try to prevent slippage, though this was always likely to happen. It was not safe to explore more than about half a metre of a hard white/black surface at the bottom, assumed to be the cellar floor or a surface for flagstones to be laid on. At the east end, part of this surface did not run up to the east and north walls. My notes record only Below the problem in the right corner is a rubble and mortar foundation. This appears to be Saxon, but much disturbed (the ?cellar floor in this

corner seems to have been cut through, as though to allow soil to percolate through). I now think that this was where stairs had come down from the floor above, and that the cellar floor lapped up to the bottom tread. The bottom of this hole was yellow clay and rubbly stuff; I now think that it was natural, but at the time thought that it might have been some sort of artificial build-up, perhaps Anglo-Saxon, or it may have belonged with the cellar. In the west corner was a patch of cement, which again it was not safe to explore. (Adrian Powell, local archaeologist, subsequently reported having picked up an eighteenth-century coin at the bottom of the area, either on the floor or on top of the rubble patch; this could only have fallen out of the edge of the rubble, though we saw nothing of its sort during excavation; perhaps it had fallen through a hole in his pocket!) east face of west buttress Stonework similar to the west face, but no record of sawn stones. A lot of cement smears. The west buttress east face has more recent cement smear in the joints, but seems to have black-flecked mortar behind, i.e. same build as east buttress. So east buttress not school-masters house, but 19th-century work (as the wall being to the east would imply). [i.e. the cellar wall had been slightly east of the face of the east buttress in its upper part. This was written because of discussion with Andrew Baring (anthropologist living in house opposite west end of chapel) about the east buttress, below.] My recording is not good enough here. I am not sure what cement is meant similar to the west side, or the grey stuff in the south wall, which looked different? I think that it is the latter; if the face of the buttress had been exposed in 1933, it would have shown in a having a cutting though the loose cellar fill, which I think that we would have noticed, since it would have been so obvious that stones had been dislodged in the process. In that case, however, I do not see why the black-flecked mortar simply did not run to the edge, as it did on the other buttress. Note added to elevation drawing, 28/10/2000: 6th stone ends at buttress. Trace of N.S. stone (Anglo-Saxon) into wall next to it, but seems to have been cut flush so has buttress stone abutting. This was an attempt to elucidate the bottom west corner, before backfilling. It is just possible that the very bottom of the west wall of the lower chamber survived, and is the bottom stone on the elevation drawing. Presumably 6th stone is the bottom one in the south wall. south wall of nave between buttresses The face is shown in outline by Irvine, but his details are not explicit. Below the concrete sill of the S. door is an inserted rectangular stone, but otherwise the masonry appears to be undisturbed apart from a possible disturbance in the right corner. [This means the east corner, where the floor was incomplete, above. The rubble is not significant, however, so far as the wall is concerned. In addition, there is a stone in the second course, slightly east of centre, which could possibly be an insertion, but I think that this is most unlikely, and that it looks a little different only

because it has more cement around it. Its underside may have been slightly damaged at some time.] Most of the top five courses have hard grey concrete/mortar between them, but a few stones have only quite soft lime mortar. In places, gaps up to 40 cm deep could be measured. [The lime mortar was very powdery I thought at first that I was going to push the ruler right through into a void behind, but fortunately not.] Some stones have holes bored in them; three at about the same height [in the second/third courses down], none below. There are traces of whitewash surviving on the lower courses. Mostly the bottom [two] courses do not have the hard grey concrete mortar but have a less hard yellowy mortar. The hard grey goes almost to the bottom on the left side and seemingly below one very low stone. [I thought that Irvine had not seen the bottom courses, but they would have been exposed in the cellar. I do not understand why the repointing was not complete.] On the right side, one-and-a-half stones in one course were cut back by approximately two centimetres [in the fifth course down. I would interpret this as a widening for the stairs. There is also a small patch taken out of the stone above, which may just result from an accidental knocking against it.] The course below is the one that has one [stone, later called stone 1] of the same size at right angles, bonded into the wall. Below that is a gap, a smaller less well-dressed stone. Under that is a stone with an L-shaped slot, which goes up into the next course. The scar in the south wall above the integral stone [1] is partly disguised, but has several stones forming its south face that have been roughly cut back. These show that there must have been a projecting crypt. Note: the small stone below the large regular course with buttress wall stone 1 in it is rebated, not a small stone with a large gap as above. It forms part of a [zig-zag] slot (described above as L-shaped). It stops at the buttress wall, but the two rather rubbly bits under it run on through. They have buttress wall stones below 1 butted against them, i.e. only 1 goes into the south wall. The bottom of the wall is difficult to unravel. There is a decent course of relatively shallow stones below the 1 course. The upper surfaces of the stone below that course are fairly flat, but their undersides are uneven. The two on the left are very long, and not square cut at the ends. There are small filler stones between them. The extreme left stone against the west buttress has no visible left end, and runs on behind the buttress. There seems to be a vertical scar in the wall, much filled by grey concrete etc., wider at the bottom than the top, so that the upper part seems to be filled by buttress stones. [This is an attempt to ascertain whether there was a wall scar, and if so, whether it was Saxon or cut for the buttress. The implication of the buttress not exactly fitting into is that it is indeed Saxon.] Below the two long base stones is mortary/rubbly stuff, partly obscured by a stone cemented in front of them, in the corner (part of a patch in this area, removed for most part, but this stone left because of possible damage to Saxon stones).

21 Sept. The bottom right corner quite clearly has slots for a stair case. Only 3-4cm and quite crudely chiselled, but [zig-zag ] slot with matching slit in buttress wall, with a wedge-hole below. No direct dating evidence, but nothing of it is in the [buttress] wall above. (But is that wall school-masters house, or is it all 19th-century? The black-flecked mortar implies the latter.) [Subsequent note that black-flecked mortar in west and east buttresses shows that they are of the same date] So east buttress not school-masters house but 19th-century work (as the wall being to the east would imply). So stair could be school-masters cellar. No the s-ms wall would have been farther to the east. Best measurable height for slot, 4 cm; ditto, depth, 3 cm; ditto total height [from underside of one slot to the top of the slot above it] 25 cm. [The discussion of the slots results from a long session with Andrew Baring. It reflects some uncertainty over whether the lower foundations of the east buttress could be the remains of the cellar wall, and the consequent possibility that the stairs could be Saxon, because they would also have been cut into the stones above otherwise. They are almost certainly part of the cellar, however. The Saxon floor would probably have lapped up to one or other of the two bottom courses anything lower, and there would have been no masonry at all where the floor met the wall. So if the slots were Saxon, the bottom slab would either have been at the level of the floor, or have rested on it, neither of which seems likely; the hole in the east corner is best explained as an area under the stairs, which the cellar floor did not need to cover. The east buttress is flush-faced, whereas Irvine shows the bottom, Saxon, courses projecting. Irvine mentions stairs in the cellar at this point, though he did not draw them in his surveys.] west face of east buttress The above-ground stones are square cut, as are the below-ground next courses. There is then rubble, and some squared stones, set in dark grey mortar with black flecks school-masters wall [written on the supposition that the cellar wall would have been reused for the buttress]. All these butt up to the south wall. There is then a roughly squared block (1 hereafter [added later]) that matches the course in the face of the south wall adjoining. This block clearly goes back into the south wall and must be original. Stone 1 has a large block next to it which appears to be school, as are those to its right. These have grey-with-black-flecked mortar all round them. Below 1 is a muchcut into block, butting the south wall. This, and the two to its right, only have lime mortar and appear to be Saxon. The jointing is very fine. Below is mortary rubble, difficult to interpret, made worse by a slick of hard grey concrete; this is not flat [horizontal], and can be explained as having been poured in from above, which is justifiable as slicks of it show on the stones above. [The concern here is that I was assuming that the 19th-century restorers would not have been working at this depth. The cellar floor appeared subsequently.]

Note written on elevation drawing: Stone 1 has top edge exactly aligned to course in south wall. It is 25 cm deep resting directly on the stone below, which has slot in it. Its bottom is 1 to 2 cm higher than bottom of equivalent stone in south wall. There were differences between the footings of the east buttress and those of the west, which was one reason why it was thought that the school-masters house cellar wall had been reused. There was also the near-absence of cement in the jointing. The face is flush all the way down, however, while Irvine shows and states that the lower part projected. The loose stone with the slot in it found in the fill could only have been knocked off the top of the remaining Saxon wall, which must therefore have been exposed by having had the cellar wall above completely removed first. Archive file between buttresses photos: 1-2, south wall of nave part-revealed 3, whole of south wall and part of flooring; hole on right probable location of cellar stairs 4-5, junction of west buttress east face and nave wall; darker stones at bottom of buttress probably Anglo-Saxon 6-26, various views of south wall, east buttress and its Anglo-Saxon foundation stones 17, 21 and 22, surviving course (large white stone, stone 1) bonding into south wall: darker stones are all buttress 27, loose Anglo-Saxon stone found in rubble c. East of east buttress (File labelled east of the east buttress contains drawings and photographs) Most of this area had much more soil and less rubble in it. It also had more finds eighteenth- and nineteenth-century pottery, clay pipe-stems and bowls, and lead pencils, presumably from the school. There was no cement to prevent excavation, and the north end was taken down to over a metre, to reveal the bottom of the foundations. The bottom was a sticky yellow clay, presumed to be natural, which could be seen running under the south wall of the nave and under the east wall. As the former was shallower, some of the clay had been scraped away. Above it was a layer about 80mm thick of ashy black material. Although this contained a pipe stem, it was sampled in case it was the remnants of a charcoal burial. Fortunately, investigation by Gill Campbell (English Heritage) subsequently identified anthracite in it. (Burder in 1910 reported finding a lot of coal-dust in the area in front of the chancel, and that the stable had been used for storing coal.) Irvines south elevation shows about a foot thickness of earth between the schoolmasters cellar and the stable. When the latter was built, if not before, it seems likely that the whole stretch of wall east of the house was cleared down to the stable-floor level, down to the yellow clay, which is taken to be natural. The space between house and stable then accumulated some layers of dirt, including a lot of coal spillage. In 1872-3, the ground on the south side was built up with earth brought round from the north side (Taylor 1972, 114). We ought to have observed a foundation trench subsequently cut through it for the 1880s buttress, but didnt. Perhaps it was more than a metre wide, but more likely was backfilled with the material shovelled out in digging it, and we missed the subtlety.

east face of east buttress The buttress east face has large squared blocks interspersed with smaller ones immediately above ground level. Below is irregular but mostly coursed rubble, almost vertical. There are larger, squared blocks at the bottom, projecting c. 2 [sic!]; could be porticus. The bottom courses only have lime mortar surviving around them. Above, the stones have black-flecked mortar. Those at the very bottom are fine-jointed and (although smeared) a fairly white stone. The second-from-bottom is less certain; not so fine jointed, but lime mortar between. [west buttress]. So east buttress not school-masters house, but 19th-century work (as the wall being to the east would imply). [The last comment probably refers to the way that the cellar walls face was shown by Irvine as east of the plinth layers.] The ??porticus stones (buttress) and the yellow mortary rubble in the south wall come down onto a bright yellow clay/mortar layer. Immediately over this was a very black ashy layer, c. 3 thick; this had 19th-century clay pipe etc. in it [see above]. There is a deep vertical scar in the south wall. The dressed [buttress] blocks do not go into it. Some of the rubble below appears to do. The big second-from-bottom course has a large block that certainly goes into the scar; the bottom one may do. The implication of this scar is that there was a crypt; the school-masters cellar would have had a wider scar of even depth, not had a shallow outer part and deeper inner. Note: the lower two courses do not seem to have mortar at the face. The upper ones are mortared with a dark hard mortar (not concrete) mixed with a lot of black flecks. The face of the buttress and ?house foundations are almost vertical. The bottom two courses form a plinth, projecting about 4 cm each (= 8 total). [The problem of what is 1880s and what might have been surviving cellar is reflected in the last note.] nave south wall east of east buttress Agreed with Andrew Baring that Saxon south porticus east wall line is shown by small infill stones on left side of pilaster. [This is clearly shown in Taylor 1973.] Very large plinth stone (split) is original; stone to its west below pilaster is set back and is two parts could be Saxon reused with a smaller slab above it [if not original]. Below the original plinth are rubble stones, larger than to west of west buttress, vertical at first, then bulging out. Below the inserted plinth is a roughly dressed block. Another, rougher stone below that could also be inserted, and the whole has a lot of hard grey concrete mortar, with a brick in it. The whole part below the pilaster may be later than the part below the original plinth; or the very large bottom stone may be original as well. Below it is c. 9 of uneven yellow/rubbly mortar. The new part could be school-masters house.

Irvine (Taylor, 1972, pl. XVII) shows cracked plinth stone. Irvine saw approx. 4.5 5. We saw base at (7 cm) 1.40 m. [This note is dated 23 Sept., but seems to be referring to the elevation drawing, not a measurement on site. Base means trench bottom, not the bottom of the foundations, which were roughly 1.1 m from the bottom of the plinth.] Archive file west of the west buttress photos: 1-5, trench; yellow clay natural below nave and below soil. Nearly vertical, east buttress east face on left, with two courses of Anglo-Saxon masonry at base. Nave wall at top 7, junction of buttress/nave; plinth of nave at top, including the split stone measured by Irvine. 6, 8-25, various views of the foundations Observations a. North side (photographs in files labelled April 24, 2004 (Lindsay Doulton) and Jan. 22-3, 2005) In 2004, the Trustees of the Chapel decided to provide new floodlighting on the south side, which required a trench to be dug from the north porticus, round the north side, down the east end, and through the made-up ground on the south side. Subsequently, a lightning conductor was added on the north side, which required a hole for the earth. The cable trench was dug in April 2004. On the north side, it gave an opportunity to observe the foundations underpinned by A. W. N. Burder in 1908. The work was recorded by an MA student, Lindsey Doulton, on April 19, 2004. Her notes confirm the report published by Burder (1910, 322-3) that he had underpinned the walls to considerable depth, and at a depth of 0.64 m had inserted a ceramic field drain alongside them. No Anglo-Saxon foundations can therefore be seen Burder recorded that there were none, anyway. Lindseys section drawing records faced foundations, but her notes clarify that this refers to concrete with brick etc. at its base. The backfill material was described as chalk; there were no archaeological inclusions. The rest of the cable trench was dug in the following days. Photographs (by LD; file labelled April 24, 2004) 1: looking west, shows ceramic drain with large stone slab over it, and gutter along foundations of naves wall at north-east corner, i.e. Burders work. 2-3: trench north of north porticus dug by contractors through made-up ground north of the north porticus. Looking west 4: ditto, looking east. 5: as 1, looking south. Burders foundation for nave below gutter and behind ceramic drain. A second exploration on the north side of the chancel was undertaken on 22/23 January, 2005, when the lightning conductor was added to the north side, on the nave wall. This gave a second opportunity to observe the foundations, eastwards from the part seen by Lindsey (Photographs labelled Jan. 22-3, 2005). A stepped trench, 2.5 m long x 1m wide measured from the bottom of the nave and chancel plinths, was excavated by DAH and students, starting 1.5 m east of the east

wall of the porticus. This confirmed Lindseys observations of Borders work, but also extended far enough northwards to show that the natural is only 0.16 m below the grass/topsoil (it is even shallower in other parts of this area), and consists of yellow clay and stone. The ceramic drain is laid at c. 0.96 m on natural yellow clay at the west; my notes record stone slabs laid over natural in the chancel area; the plan drawing shows them on the north side of the drain, but at the nave/chancel angle, where the drain briefly leaves a gap between itself and the concrete foundation, the photograph strongly suggests that the slabs are there as well; I think that they may be natural, not laid. Like Lindsey, we saw nothing archaeological in the backfilling, only stone rubble and white-ish material, probably chalk used in the cement. Photographs (1-4 taken by a student, 5 by DAH, both using hand-held cameras: file labelled Jan. 22-3, 2005) 1: looking west, nave wall and its NE. plinth-stone to left. Burders open drain above grey concrete apron, ceramic field drain at bottom; rubble backfill behind rod; natural to right below grass; large stone slab placed above drain at the angle, electricity cable above. 2: looking south, chancel north wall plinth at top (junction with nave out of shot); slabs below drain. 3: looking south, nave wall at top; slab over field drain. 4: looking north-west, before exposure of ceramic drain; nave wall corner on left; shows natural below grass, and contrasting backfill. 5. looking west along whole trench. b. East side (photographs in files labelled April 30, 2004) Foundations of what was presumably a dove-house had been excavated in the garden of Horton House by Adrian Powell in 1999-2000, overlain on its west side by the south-east corner of the current chapel precinct wall. The dovecote appeared to cut through a north-south wall, which to judge from the photographs which Adrian sent me was drystone, about 0.80m wide. I do not know how much further north it was pursued; possibly no further than the new garden terrace wall constructed by Mr and Mrs Seekings, the owners of the house. It appears to have petered out southwards, about 1m from the precinct corner. I do not recall seeing a ditch on either side of it, and the photographs do not indicate one. There were burials further south, so far as I recall to the west of the projected wall-line. Assuming that the dove-house is part of the double dovecote held with a Chapel annexed in 1614, the north-south wall has a terminus date. Adrian reported in a fax to me that he found coarse pottery associated with it, which he described as possibly Saxo-Norman. I do not recall seeing these. At the depth in which it would be inserted, the electricity cable would have gone through ground disturbed by post-medieval buildings and by Burder in 1908. It was not going to be adjacent to the east end foundations, and I was not therefore concerned about it. It was suggested in late April, however, that Adrian Powell should be given permission to excavate this trench to a lower level than was necessary, as an opportunity to observe any earlier work. He was given permission by the Trustees, provided that I agreed, which I did. When I visited on 26/4/04 I observed that the ground at the north end had all been disturbed much as anticipated, Burder in 1908

having dug to considerable depth for his field drain as well as to underpin the foundations (1910, 322-3). Apart from rubble, two thin slabs set horizontally N-S (depth not recorded), were perhaps part of a drain or soakaway. Nothing to date this was found. At the south end of the chapel, 0.60 m below the top of the 1908 concrete gutter, Adrian found an approximately east-west drystone wall, possibly clay-bonded, with three extant courses, 0.55 m wide at the top, the lowest course creating a slight plinth. I visited on April 30 (with V. H. Gibbs, architect for Trustees, and R. Canham, county archaeologist). I measured the underside of the bottom stone as about 1.04 m from the top of the gutter. On the east side of the cable trench, the 1908 ceramic drain was immediately above the wall. On the west side, Adrian extended the trench at a right angle, to see more of the wall, and exposed it up to the 1908 concrete gutter, which is 0.30 m wide. Because of the surface and roof-water drains here, it was not feasible to undercut the gutter, so the relationship of the wall to the chapel foundations was not seen (and it might in any case have been obscured by Burders underpinning apron); it could have run under the chapel, or simply abutted its south-east corner. The walls alignment, insofar as it could be projected from the 0.7 m exposed, suggested that its centre line would about have met the chapel corner, so its south face would have been about 0.2 m south of the corner. On the south side of the wall, at its base, were two stones, c. 0.35 m wide, that appeared to be whiter, more square and thicker than those of the wall, and were not bonded into it. They might have been something earlier on approximately the same alignment, but were not mortared and may simply have been a later curb. Photographs were taken by Adrian Powell, who passed the negatives on to me. It was pouring with rain throughout my visit, so I did not make any drawings. Photographs taken by AP for DAH: 9, looking north 10, looking west 1908 gutter and drain outlet at top; rubble below gutter is flush with the edge of its concrete face 11-13, vertical views 14, looking south 15, looking north; grass overhang obscures drain visible on 10 16, looking north Burder must have seen the east-west wall at the south-east corner of the chapel in 1908, but made no mention of it in his report, which is quite full and careful. If it ran under the chapel, he would probably have observed it and referred to it. It is not possible to be precise, but Irvines drawing of the stables and sheds abutting the south side of the chapel shows that some 5 foot of earth below the plinth had been removed from the south side of the chancel at some time. The base of the wall seen in 2004 would thus have been a foot or more higher than the floors of the stables. Interpretation depends partly upon the foundations seen in 2000 east of the east buttress; these showed underpinning, presumably in the 1880s rather than by Burder in 1908, as he dealt only with the east end. These footings were presumably built up from the natural sloping ground surface to create a level platform, not inserted into a very deep trench. Consequently it has to be assumed that the Anglo-Saxon work

involved mounding-up earth to hide the foundations below plinth level. This madeup ground might not have been very substantial, and could easily have eroded away. That would account for the lowering of the ground that eventually led to the sheds being built at such a low level. It is possible but unlikely that an Anglo-Saxon wall would have survived amidst all the subsequent ground lowering that went on around it. Although it seems to be narrower, its construction is similar to that of the north-south wall in the Horton House garden, so the two may have been connected (with a corner lying under the modern boundary wall), and if there really is Saxo-Norman pottery directly associated with that north-south wall, an early medieval date would nevertheless have to be accepted; stratigraphically or rather, in the absence of direct stratigraphy - it could predate the chapel, but the pottery would if actually Saxo-Norman suggest something later than c. 1000. Another possibility, assuming that the pottery is not related, is that both the N-S and E-W walls belong to the phase of late medieval reorganisation of the churchyard when Thomas Horton bought Abbey Yard, said to have been in 1496. According to Beddoe (1907, 145-6), a 1629 survey has Gifford Yerbury holdeth by copy of Court Roll dated [9 Dec. 1614] one fair messuage with a chapell annexed, one double Dove-house , so the chapel was certainly in secular hands by then. c. West side (no photographic file) In May 2005, John Seekings asked me to advise on excavations in the garden of 12 Glebe Cottages, on the opposite side of the lane from the west end of the chapel, to be conducted by Adrian Powell. I was unable to do this because of examinations and other commitments. In August, both Mr Seekings and Adrian Powell contacted me to say that work was in progress and that burials were being found. I visited on August 20; a W-E cist burial, slab-lined and -covered, had been excavated; its east end had been disturbed, but otherwise it was intact. The west end of the cist was a single carved stone apparently with a triangle cut out of one side for the head recess; the carving did not appear to be medieval, and I was told that Mark Corney had identified it from a photograph as probably Roman, with a parallel at South Shields. One other stone may have been reused also, but the others looked as though they were newly quarried when buried. The skeleton was well preserved; it rested directly upon yellow clay. The head recess implies that there was no coffin. Adrian reported that there had still been voids when he excavated the grave, so presumably a shroud had gradually disintegrated, accounting for the lower jaw being a long way from the rest of the skull. The wife of the owner worked in the dental section of a local infirmary/hospital, and had had teeth x-rayed. One had a closed root canal, others were very worn, and the socket of a third molar had grown over, all suggesting an elderly person. Adrian subsequently sent me two photographs, which Dr Sonia Zakrzewski looked at for me. So far as it was possible to tell from the pictures, she thought that the skeletons pelvic notch, mandible and robust long bones are all indicative of a male. Adrian subsequently sent me a report by the Oxford Laboratory on the bones (presumably three different ones), which gave slightly different dates, with the possibility of burial before AD 1000, but as likely to have been a little later.

No measurements etc. were taken by me, but I noted that visually the natural ground surfaces seemed to be no lower than the north wall of the chapel; if that is correct it would appear that the ground on that that side of the chapel had indeed been terraced back for the building, so that the burials were cut into naturally sloping ground. Bibliography Beddoe, J. (annotated and brought up to date by, 1907). Bradford-on-Avon: a History and Description, by Rev. W. H. Jones, Bradford-on-Avon, Wm. Dotesio, The Library Press. Burder, A. W. N. Notes on the parish and Saxon churches, Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine, 36 (1910), 318-23. Hinton, D. A. 2009. Recent work at the Chapel of St Laurence, Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire, Archaeological Journal, 166, 193-209. Hinton, D. A. 2010. The Anglo-Saxon chapel at Bradford-on-Avon, 339-59 in C. E. Karkov and S. Larratt Keefer, eds, Cross and Cruciform in the Anglo-Saxon World, West Virginia University Press. Taylor, H. M. 1972. J. T. Irvines work at Bradford-on-Avon, Archaeological Journal, 129, 91-118 Taylor, H. M. 1973. The Anglo-Saxon chapel at Bradford-on-Avon, Archaeological Journal, 130, 141-75

You might also like