COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING OF WORKS AT RUFFORD ABBEY’S WILDLIFE POND

NCA-049

Emily Gillott

December 2015

Contents

Page no.

List of figures and plates, Acknowledgements

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Site Location 1

3.0 Site Background 2

4.0 Archaeological Monitoring

4.1 Clearance Work

4.2 Pipe Trench

4.3 Observations in wider area

4

4

5

5.0 Conclusions and Advice 6

List of figures and plates

Page no.

Fig. 1 Location of Rufford Country Park in relation to Ollerton 7

Fig. 2 Location of the works within the Country Park 7

Fig. 3 Extract of Series 2 25 inch OS map showing gardens and riverside

path.

8

Page no.

Plate 1 Images of worked stone from wildlife area 9

Plate 2 Humic topsoil, gravels and clay 10

Plate 3 South facing section of pipe trench 10

Plate 4 Rough-faced sandstone from humic layer 11

Plate 5 Stone surface 11

Plate 6 Wider view of the stone surface 12

Plate 7 General overview of the trench prior to backfilling 13

Plate 8 Stonework observed at the base of the nearby bridge 13

Plate 9 Early 20th C photo of riverside walk 14

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the Environment Agency, Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and EMEC for

commissioning the work and their cooperation and assistance on site.

Written By Read by Signed off Report date

EG UMS UMS 2015

1

1.0 Introduction

The Environment Agency commissioned Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust (NWT) to undertake

works in the wildlife area at Rufford Abbey Country Park. Archaeological remains were not

known or expected from the area, but given the overall heritage significance of the Abbey

and its park and garden, monitoring was undertaken by Nottinghamshire Community

Archaeology to ensure that the works caused no damage to previously unknown

archaeological features.

The main works involved the excavation of a pipe trench between the wildlife pond and the

river Rainworth to create a new water inlet to the pond, thereby improving water quality

and flow. The pipe trench was sited at the narrowest point between the pond and the river

to minimise ground disturbance. It was approximately 0.6m wide and 11m in length, and

dug to a depth slightly below the water level in the river.

In addition a low area near the pond outlet was cleared of stumps and prepared for reed

planting. The depth of ground disturbance here was minimal and a watching brief

unnecessary, although the contractors were advised to set aside any stonework disturbed

by this work.

An NCC Community Archaeologist attended to monitor the excavations on Thursday 17th

December 2015.

2.0 Site Location

Rufford Abbey Country Park is located around 1.6 miles to the south of Ollerton village in

the parish of Rufford, and formerly in the Liberty of Rufford. It is centred on OC NGR SK

6467 6203. The wildlife area at Rufford Abbey is located in the south-east portion of the

Country Park and lies directly to the west of the river Rainworth. Gallow Hole Dyke joins the

Rainworth just to the east of the wildlife area.

2

3.0 Site Background

Rufford Abbey and Park was bought by Nottinghamshire County Council in 1952, and the

Abbey ruins transferred to the care of the Ministry of Works in 1956. The site is now jointly

managed by Nottinghamshire County Council and English Heritage, with the abbey remains

in English Heritage guardianship. 10.3 hectares of the Country Park is a Scheduled Ancient

Monument; this includes the areas known as Abbey Meadow, Abbey Lawn and Long

Meadow.

The underlying geology is the Nottingham Castle Sandstone Formation. To the east is a

valley formed by the Rainworth Water and Gallow Hole Dyke where superficial alluvial

deposits make the soil more fertile. Coal mining activities in the 20th century have led to

significant changes in ground level resulting in a number of flood alleviation and mitigation

works in the immediate vicinity of the park.

Rufford Abbey was founded in 1146 by Gilbert de Ghent, Earl of Lincoln, and completed in

1170. It was a Cistercian foundation dedicated to St Mary the Virgin. It was a fairly small

abbey, but moderately wealthy, and one of the first to be affected by the Dissolution in

1536. After the Dissolution it passed into the hands of the Talbot family and then to the

Saviles who built their country estate around the medieval ruins. Part of the medieval fabric

survives where it was incorporated into the grand house built by the Sixth Earl of

Shrewsbury. The West Cloister range has been described as the best preserved among all

the Cistercian abbeys in England (www.english-heritage.org.uk). The estate was auctioned

off in 1938, and partial demolition carried out in 1956, under the aegis of the Ministry of

Works.

The area of the monitored works is known to have been in an area of ornamental gardens

associated with the country house, and is depicted on contemporary mapping as laid out in

a grid of pathways with central features and including a well. Shown adjacent to this on the

Series 2 25 inch:1 mile OS map is a riverside walkway (Fig. 3). A roughly contemporary early

20th C photograph (Plate 9) may show this feature in detail. Photos, maps and accounts

attest to extensive formal and informal gardens with a variety of water features, including,

canals, ponds, wells, waterfalls and fountains in the extensive gardens that surrounded the

house. Some of these water features may have been adapted out of pre-existing features

created by the monks, whom we now believe to have had an extensive and very complex

water management system possibly extending over many hectares.

To the north east of the area of works there is a former watercourse (HER; L5517) which

runs parallel to the Rainworth Water and is visible as an earthwork. This was the subject of

archaeological investigation in 1987 when work was carried out to remedy mining

subsidence. These investigations uncovered the remains of a substantial structure, with

faced sandstone blocks, bricks and large timbers. One in-situ wall was revealed, held

together with green-grey clay and pinkish mortar. At the time this was interpreted as a

3

revetment for the artificial watercourse; it may alternatively have been part of the

foundations of a Medieval mill. This structure was associated with a dump of wasters and

other CBM, which indicated that there was a Medieval tile kiln somewhere close by. On the

1st Edition O.S. map of the area a rectangular structure is marked straddling the channel,

while a mill is depicted here on the 1725 estate map.

To the south and west of the wildlife area there is a large earthwork dam (L4107) suspected

to be medieval in origin, across the top of which runs a former water channel and the

current access road. It is no longer in use but appears on several maps.

Between the dam and the river is Snake Pond which includes a dam, stone wall and sluice

(M18349 and L11764).

4

4.0 Archaeological Monitoring

4.1 Clearance work

The work was carried out on the 17th December 2015 under dull but dry conditions. In some

of the initial clearance work in the wildlife area the contractors had recovered a large piece

of faced sandstone with an associated iron brace or strap (Plate1). This was recovered from

a low area being cleared near the pre-existing outlet. It appears it may have been designed

to be sunk into the ground; the more slender portion of the stone is cleanly faced, whereas

the bulkier portion is rough-faced and perhaps intended to anchor the stone into the

ground. Fragments of concrete or mortar are attached to the sandstone. This worked stone

was moved to the stone store at Rufford.

4.2 Pipe trench

A trench was dug at the narrowest point between the wildlife area pond and the river

Rainworth, for the laying of a plastic pipe of around 40cm diameter. The channel was dug

by mini digger using a 50cm toothed bucked and working from the pond to river. The final

width of the excavated trench was around 65cm on average. The sections were not cleaned

but several discrete layers were observed.

The topsoil along the length of the trench was dark blackish-brown sandy silt, with a high

humic content. This layer appears to be a combination of rotting leaf mould and river

dredgings.

Immediately below the topsoil at the pond end were yellowish -brown sandy gravels

appearing to overlay clean grey clay (Plate 2). This latter material is interpreted as lining for

the wildlife pond.

Moving away from the pond more distinct layers were observed (Plate 3). The clay pond

lining petered out, while the sandy gravel above it continued. The section was not cleaned,

due to access issues, but contained alternating bands of rich humic and leached humic

material, presumably dredged from the river. Sandier layers were also noted, and the

whole became very dry and sandy at the lowest parts of the excavated area. The darkest

layer, around 30cm from the surface, contained a significant amount of rough-faced

sandstone at a distance of around 2m from the river (Plate 4). This stonework was

surrounded by humic material dredged from the river and may indicate a demolished

structure in the vicinity such as the retaining wall visible in Plate 9.

5

The only other finds were a few fairly modern tiles, of which a sample was bagged. These

were recovered at a depth of from approximately 80 cm, suggest a considerable amount of

ground disturbance and show that none of the layers observed are of great age.

Immediately adjacent to the river, and around 10cm below the water level, the work

uncovered a dressed sandstone flagstone and parts of at least three others (Plates 5 and

6). It was possible to measure the thickness of one at the western edge, revealing a

thickness of only 8cm, but it was not possible to confirm that on any other edges. The full

east-west spread of the feature was at least 1m, but it was not possible to measure this

more accurately. It is not known how far the feature extends to the north or south. This

was tentatively interpreted as a surface or path of unknown age but likely to be part of the

19th and early 20th C garden features; and this interpretation appears to be supported by

photographic evidence (Plate 9). The feature was cleaned as well as was possible within the

confines of the trench and with water constantly seeping in. There were very clear, square

tooling marks visible on the stone, and in places the surface was beginning to shear off. This

was left in-situ after the contractors were able to amend the works to accommodate the

pipe over the stonework.

4.3 Observations in the wider area

Further stonework was observed in the immediate area of the work and is worthy of a note

here (Plate 8). The stonework is located at the base of the nearby bridge, just to the south

of where the work was taking place. Large, faced sandstone blocks form the lower courses

of the bridge. The upper courses are constructed in concrete and modern brick. The

character of the sandstone blocks is similar to the stone revetment uncovered in the dry

canal at the eastern end of the Orangery garden, investigated as part of the summer of 2015

season’s excavations (report pending). The stonework investigated in the summer is

thought to be monastic in origin, and it is possible that the stonework associated with the

bridge could have a similar origin. It was not possible to investigate more closely and it is

not known whether this stonework is in-situ or has been reused in a later structure.

In addition one of the contractors observed that there appeared to be a surface in the river

below the silt build-up to the north of the work, where the current pond outlet cuts through

to join the river. This was obscured by silt but had been felt underfoot by the contractor

when crossing the river in waders. This could not be further investigated because of the

water levels.

When the above observations are combined with the tumble of stone from the river, and

the flagstone surface seen in the pipe trench it is clear that there are remnants of former

structures or features in this area of which we previously unaware.

6

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

The watching brief appears to have uncovered a stone flagged path, which may be that

shown on mapping from the early 20th Century, and seen in detail on a roughly

contemporary photograph.

Prior to this work it had been assumed that many former garden features and earlier

structures had been dug out or otherwise destroyed as part of the many phases of

groundworks which have taken place in this area in the last 50 years. This work, however,

raises the possibility that this is not the case. It is well documented that ground levels have

changed at Rufford, in some places very dramatically and by a matter of metres. It is

entirely possible that the level of the land has in places dropped and that, contrary to

previous theories, the ground level has subsequently been raised considerably in order to

control flooding and channel the course of the river. This would account for the fairly

modern tile that was encountered at a depth of 80cm, and for the character of the discrete

layers observed in the section of the pipe trench.

The work has shown that there is the potential for preservation of archaeological features

here that was previously not expected. Plans for future work in the area should take this

into consideration and ensure appropriate mitigation measures are in place.

7

Figures

Fig 1: The location of Rufford Country Park in relation to Ollerton. (Source www.openstreetmap.org)

Fig 2: The location of the works within the County Park. (Source www.openstreetmap.org)

8

Fig 3: Extract of Series 2 25 inch OS map showing gardens and riverside path.

9

Plates

Plate 1: Images of the recovered worked stone from the wildlife area.

10

Plate 2: Humic topsoil gave way to gravels and then clean clay. This is interpreted as lining for the

wetland pond.

Plate 3: A portion of the south facing section of the trench showing bands of humic and sandy

material.

11

Plate 4: A sample of the rough-faced sandstone pieces recovered from a dark layer.

Plate 5: The stone surface. Note the nearby sandbag that was placed in an attempt to prevent

water ingress from the river.

12

Plate 6: A wider view of the surface which demonstrates just how close it is to the river, and shows

clearly that it lies below the water level.

13

Plate 7: A general overview of the trench shortly before the pipe was placed.

Plate 8: Stonework observed at the base of the nearby bridge.

14

Plate 9 Early 20th C photo of riverside walk, photographer unknown.

All photos by Emily Gillott (Nottinghamshire County Council) unless otherwise stated.