| Description |
A stone wall running south into southern edge of main cutting - 0.85 metres wide, a length of 1.75 metres protruded northward from baulk. Wall survived for a height of 0.9 metres. One stone tile was found in wall. When 103 was built, a foundation trench 70cm (?check) wide was carefully filled with stonework up to contemporary ground level on the east side, from which the wall proper is set back 15cm and continues up plumb. On the west side there is no such step but the wall throughout has a slight batter. The lowermost course of the foundation wherever seen was made of rectangular slabs of a tough cornstone, spanning the whole width of the trench. The rest of the foundation was of large pieces of purple-grey hard micaceous sandstone with several pieces of coarse sandstone/conglomerate, some soft yellow sandstone and some light grey fine-grained sandstone. Among the first of these was a stone labelled ‘voussoir.’ It seems to be exactly that, though not worked to the standard of ecclesiastical masonry, most faces bear fine tooling marks, mostly diagonal (no other worked stones were noticed). The wall proper (above the trench) was, at least in the southern part, beyond the limits-of excavation, made entirely of a good quality purple grey tabular sandstone, almost mica free and in naturally bedded smooth slabs 5-8cms thick. |
| Comment |
The mortar was a lime-less clay with, except near the edges and in the uppermost courses, a distinctly orangey cast. [FACT A]
Despite the lack of lime mortar, the standard of construction was very high. Laid to even courses, the facing course at front and back were brought to level at least every second course. Joints were thin and well fitted, and the core/infill painstakingly fitted.
Just beyond the east face of 301, as far down as, and even below the top of the foundation, were many stones lying at about 45º against the east side [FACT B] The lowest of these, lying at only about 20º and visible in CP 8 exposure? 14 abutted the wall and fitted together, showing deliberate placing so as to, I believe, protect the top of the foundation. All the angled stones higher up must be spill from demolition of the upper wall, the possibility that they were lost during construction in a gap between wall and trench is ruled out by: and such gap must have exceeded 9, allowing easy retrieval of good building stones; by there being many such angled stones implying a carelessness at odds with the wall’s general character; and by fact B above, rendered pointless if in trench. I regard it as beyond doubt that at both construction and demolition, the ground level on the east side was that of the top of the foundation. By the west side, on the other hand, there were no such angled stones, except one just inside the face of the Southern limit of excavation section 44. This latter however shows a wide line of demolition debris - stones and orangey mortar. The absence of this colour on the east side I attribute to greater atmospheric exposure which seems to bleach it yellow (see fact A above). All this seems to show that the west side of 301, at least at demolition, abutted a bank which sloped steeply down into our excavation area. While I only saw 301 from the edge of excavation southwards, i.e. in the hedge bank, here the east side was dead straight and neat; while the west side was less so, the batter giving a slight step to each course, and there was a distinct wobbliness of line and narrowing of wall width towards the south-west corner, probably indicating that even at construction 301 was built into a bank at this point. Now for the important question of whether the wall, after certainly being built into a bank in its lower courses, originally continued over it some distance south. While this could only have been settled conclusively by much more excavation in the hedge, I consider this possibility very unlikely. This 3-4 overlapping courses below the point of furthest projection south (see sketch section ) had no stone infill or core between the last stone in each face course but rather the same clean yellow-buff silt found in all directions at this point. Above this point, where the wall steps incrementally back to the north, there was stone infill, but much neater than I would expect had the wall continued south and been robed away. Despite exploration into the bank to through light on this question, there was no trace of demolition debris at the sides, nor stones from the core of an extension south left over, nor any change or edge in the matrix of clean silt. All the stones (apart from re-used voussoir and maybe a few others) are old red sandstone, and though better quality than most local, are likely to be from less than 10 miles away, and are quarried. I offer no explanation why the wall steps back if there was no robbing, nor why it was not all robbed, if as seems certain it stood in open air. Enok Sweetland |