PAINSWICK ROCOCO GARDEN PAINSWICK GLOUCESTERSHIRE · 1.5 Painswick Rococo Garden is an extremely...

PAINSWICK ROCOCO GARDEN PAINSWICK

GLOUCESTERSHIRE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION: THE RED HOUSE

NOVEMBER 2005

For

PAINSWICK ROCOCO GARDEN TRUST

CA REPORT: 05176

PAINSWICK ROCOCO GARDEN PAINSWICK

GLOUCESTERSHIRE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION: THE RED HOUSE

CA PROJECT: 2080 CA REPORT: 05176

Author: David Cudlip

Approved:

Signed:

Martin Watts

…………………………………………………………….

Issue: 01 Date: 25 November 2005

This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeology accepts no responsibility or liability to any third party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report entirely at their own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission.

© Cotswold Archaeology

Building 11, Kemble Enterprise Park, Kemble, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 6BQ Tel. 01285 771022 Fax. 01285 771033 E-mail: [email protected]

Painswick Rococo Gardens: Archaeological Investigation

1


CONTENTS

SUMMARY........................................................................................................................2

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 3

The site ................................................................................................................ 3 Archaeological background.................................................................................. 3 Archaeological objectives .................................................................................... 4 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 5

2. RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 6

Trench A (Fig. 2) .................................................................................................. 6 Trench B (Figs 2, 4 and 5) ................................................................................... 6 Trench C (Fig. 2).................................................................................................. 6 The Finds ............................................................................................................. 7

3. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................... 7

4. CA PROJECT TEAM ........................................................................................... 8

5. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 8

APPENDIX 1: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS...................................................................... 9 APPENDIX 2: THE FINDS................................................................................................ 9

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1 Site location plan (1:25,000)

Fig. 2 Trench location plan (1:100)

Fig. 3 Detail of Thomas Robins’ 1748 painting of the garden, the Red House far right

Fig. 4 Section of trench B (1:10)

Fig. 5 Trench B, view to north-west. Scales both 1m


2


SUMMARY

Site Name: Painswick Rococo Garden

Location: Painswick, Gloucestershire

NGR: SO 3865 2106

Type: Investigation

Date: 9-10 November 2005

Location of Archive: To be deposited with Painswick Rococo Garden Trust

Site Code: PRG 05

An archaeological investigation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in November

2005 at the request of Painswick Rococo Garden Trust at Painswick Rococo Garden,

Gloucestershire. Three trenches were excavated around the Red House as part of an

ongoing programme of investigation designed to enable further interpretation of the garden

and the reconstruction of key features.

The investigations were carried out to clarify a number of issues surrounding the Red House

and its depiction in Thomas Robins’ 1748 painting of the garden. It is unclear if this painting

represents the garden ‘as planned’ or ‘as existing’. Although the Red House is clearly shown

its base is fuzzily drawn, possibly indicating a rockwork structure. There also appears to be a

flight of steps leading up to the terrace on which the Red House stands, running at right

angles to the current steps, and paths leading away from either side of the terrace. None of

these features are apparent today.

The investigations found no evidence for any rockwork foundations, or for the steps or paths

as depicted by Robins. The nature of the material encountered in front of the Red House

suggests that this was part of the 18th-century garden landscaping, that there was no

rockwork substructure and that the steps, if ever present, were rather insubstantial.

However, it is possible that this deposit was part of a later episode of landscaping and that

evidence may survive for both a rockwork base and original steps beneath the modern brick

pavior surface directly in front of the Red House. The absence of evidence for paths to either

side of the terrace may be due to a reduction in ground level of up to 0.25m, apparent from

the exposed foundations of the Red House. Four sherds of residual Roman pottery were

recovered from the foundation terrace, along with other artefactual material broadly dating to

the 17th to 19th centuries.


3


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In November 2005 Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out an archaeological

investigation for Painswick Rococo Garden Trust (PRGT) at the Red House,

Painswick Rococo Garden (centred on NGR: SO 3865 2106; Fig. 1). The

investigation was undertaken to seek evidence for possible structures apparent in

Thomas Robins’ painting of 1748, which portrays the garden. In particular, attention

was focused on a possible rockwork foundation structure in front of the Red House,

a possible flight of steps leading up to its entrance from the south-east, and two

paths approaching it from the south-east and north-west (Fig.3).

1.2 The investigation was carried out in accordance with a brief prepared by PRGT

dated September 2005, and with a subsequent detailed Written Scheme of

Investigation produced by CA (2005). The fieldwork also followed the Standard and

Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluation issued by the Institute of Field

Archaeologists (1999), and the Management of Archaeological Projects II (English

Heritage 1991).

The site

1.3 The Red House lies at the head of a small, steep-sided valley, which provides a

commanding view across the gardens to the rear of Painswick House (Fig. 2). It

stands at approximately 185m AOD on a small terrace cut into and protruding from

the natural hill slope The base of the Red House today features a flowerbed sloping

at c. 45˚ degrees, planted with shrubs and perennials, and with some stone placed

to form a rockery.

1.4 The underlying geology of the area is mapped as landslip and foundered limestone

strata (British Geological Survey 1975).

Archaeological background

1.5 Painswick Rococo Garden is an extremely rare survival of a mid 18th-century

Rococo garden. The Rococo period was part of an 18th-century transition in garden

design from formal and regular gardens, usually close to the house, to the larger

scale ‘English landscape garden’ that incorporated the local countryside. The

Rococo garden saw elements of both the formal and informal, with often-ephemeral

structures constructed in a variety of building styles. The garden layout at Painswick

was recorded in 1748 by Thomas Robins, who may have designed the garden


4


himself. As such, it is unclear if the painting represents an ‘as existing’ or an ‘as

planned’ record of the garden.

1.6 The garden was maintained until the 1950s but, being unable to afford the upkeep,

Lord Dickinson planted a wood across the garden in 1965. Interest in the garden

was renewed following an exhibition of Robins’ paintings in 1976, and work began in

1984 to restore the garden to its original form.

1.7 Archaeological investigation (published in 1993) has already confirmed the survival

of significant garden features and elements of the layout, some of which do not

conform exactly to the 1748 painting. Archaeological work carried out by Cotswold

Archaeological Trust in 2001 enabled further interpretation of the garden, and

allowed a greater understanding and reconstruction of key features (CAT 2001).

1.8 The Red House is shown in the extreme right hand corner of Robins’ painting. The

base of the Red House lacks clarity, but it may indicate a rockwork structure; if so,

this has been removed or covered up as no 18th-century rockwork is apparent

today. The painting also appears to depict a flight of steps leading up to the house

terrace from the south-east, and paths leading away from either side of the terrace.

As with the rockwork, none of these features are apparent today, and the terrace is

reached via stone steps leading up from the south-west.

Archaeological objectives

1.9 The objectives of the investigation were to establish the original construction of the

Red House terrace and adjoining paths. The trenches were located to look for:

• Evidence of any rockwork foundations, how the terrace of the Red House was

originally constructed and its alignment (trench B);

• Evidence for steps from the end of a path which approached the terrace from the

south (trench B);

• The positions, levels and type of construction of the two paths shown by Robins

as extending off to either side of the terrace (trenches A and C).


5


Methodology

1.10 The fieldwork comprised the excavation of 3 trenches in the locations shown in Fig.

2. Trenches A and C measured 2m x 0.5m; trench B measured 2m x 3m.

1.11 Excavation of the trenches was undertaken by hand. Initially, this involved the

careful removal of topsoil and continued until the first archaeological horizon or

natural substrate was revealed (whichever was encountered first). Removal of any

planting within agreed areas of excavation was undertaken by PRGT prior to

excavation. Spoil was temporarily stored adjacent to each trench on plastic sheeting

at agreed locations and with due consideration for the immediate garden

surroundings.

1.12 Trenches A and C were moved further away from the Red House than originally

planned following consultation with PRGT and the observation that the terrace area

immediately in front of the Red House had at some time been reduced by at least

0.25m, probably removing any evidence of the flanking paths close to the house.

This is apparent from exposed foundations at the base of the main elevation of the

house.

1.13 All archaeological features revealed were planned and recorded in accordance with

Technical Manual No. 1: Fieldwork Recording Manual (CA 2005). Each context was

recorded on a pro-forma context sheet by written and measured description;

principal deposits were recorded by drawn plans (scale 1:20 or 1:50 as appropriate).

Photographs (monochrome print; colour transparencies) were taken as appropriate.

All finds were bagged separately with unique numbers relating to the context record.

All artefacts were recovered and retained for processing and analysis in accordance

with Technical Manual 3 Treatment of Finds Immediately after Excavation (CAT

1995). Deposits were assessed for their palaeoenvironmental potential; in this

instance none were considered to have any such potential, and so no samples were

taken. Levels were taken from a spot-height of 182.48m AOD on the path

immediately to the south of trench B.

1.14 The archive and artefacts from the evaluation are currently held by CA at their

offices in Kemble. Subject to the agreement of the legal landowner the site archive

(including artefacts) will be deposited with PRGT.


6


2. RESULTS

2.1 This section provides an overview of the investigation results; detailed summaries of

the recorded contexts and finds are to be found in Appendices 1 and 2 respectively.

Trench A (Fig. 2)

2.2 Trench A was located about 5m to the west of the Red House on ground which

sloped fairly steeply to the south. The natural substrate 101 was encountered at

0.3m below the present ground level. This was sealed by topsoil. No deposits or

artefacts of archaeological significance were revealed. There was no evidence for

any terracing of the natural slope, and the upper horizon of the natural substrate

would not have provided a suitable path without modification.

Trench B (Figs 2, 4 and 5)

2.3 Trench B was located about 2m to the south of the Red House. The earliest deposit

encountered was layer 202, a bank constructed from what appeared to be

redeposited natural substrate. Excavation of this deposit ceased at a depth of 0.95m

in consultation with PRGT. Had any evidence of rockwork foundations or steps been

present, it would have been encountered by this point as the height of the path

immediately to the south of the trench is considered to be very close to its original

level (Paul Moir, pers. comm.). Roman pottery was found within this layer 202,

although its association with post-medieval artefacts indicates that it was residual

and so of little archaeological significance (Section 2.7, below). Deposit 202 was

butted at its south-western edge by retaining walls 203 and 204, and then sealed by

topsoil 201, which was covered by brick pavoirs 200 forming the modern, reduced-

level terrace surface in front of the Red House.

Trench C (Fig. 2)

2.4 Trench C was located about 4m to the south-east of the Red House, across a slight

terrace running north-south along the contour of the valley, which was considered to

be a likely position for the path present in Robins’ painting. Within trench C natural

substrate 301 was encountered at 0.8m below present ground level at the north-

eastern end of the trench, and 0.2m below present ground level at its south-western

end. The profile of natural substrate 301 was more level than that of the topsoil

sealing it, but showed no signs of the modification that would have been required to

make it usable as a path. Evidence of disturbed path material was also absent from

the topsoil itself.


7


The Finds

2.5 Quantities of artefactual material comprising pottery, vessel glass and clay pipe

were recovered from layer 202. Four abraded sherds of Roman pottery were

recovered as residual finds (appendix 2). All derive from a single Severn Valley ware

vessel, probably a jar, which is broadly dateable to between the later 1st and 4th

centuries AD. The remaining finds, consisting of fragments of clay tobacco pipe and

green wine/spirits bottle glass, date to the post-medieval or modern periods,

between the 17th and 19th centuries.

3. DISCUSSION

3.1 The archaeological investigations found no evidence for flanking paths in trenches A

and C, or for steps or stone foundations in trench B. However, the absence of

evidence for these features does not necessarily indicate that they never existed.

3.2 In trench B, the assemblage of finds from deposit 202 has too broad a date range to

assign it confidently to any phase of works at the garden. The cleanness and

homogeneity of this deposit suggest that it has not been greatly disturbed or

reworked subsequent to its construction, perhaps indicating that it was part of the

original terrace for the Red House. If so, the lack of evidence for rockwork

foundations and steps indicates that these structures never existed, or were rather

insubstantial.

3.3 Alternatively, deposit 202 may have been part of a later re-organisation of the

terrace slope in front of the Red House, which included the construction of stone

steps leading directly up from the principal vista through the garden. Robins’ painting

seems to depict a narrower terrace in front of the Red House than is found today,

perhaps indicating that the terrace was also enlarged at this time. If so, then

evidence for rockwork foundations and steps may survive buried beneath the

modern brick surface directly in front of the Red House. However, there was no

evidence within trench B for the path that would have led to a flight of steps in that

location.


8


3.4 The works associated with the construction or redevelopment of the Red House

appear to have disturbed Roman deposits in the vicinity, although this conclusion

must remain a tentative one, as landscaping material could have been imported.

3.5 The absence of evidence for paths in trenches A and C should likewise be treated

cautiously. It is clear that ground level in front of the Red House had been reduced

by up to 0.25m, and this may have removed all evidence for the paths for some

considerable distance to either side. The paths may also have been insubstantial,

working with the natural topography of the valley rather than grossly modifying it, a

technique which although central to the Rococo ethos, makes it difficult to trace

some features archaeologically.

3.6 The results of the investigation suggest that Robins’ painting of Painswick Rococo

Garden is, as regards the Red House at least, a visualisation of the potential of the

area rather than an accurate portrayal. The investigation also hints at an intriguing

earlier phase of activity in the area suggested by the presence of residual Roman

potsherds in the bank immediately south-west of the Red House. The original

provenance of these remains obscure, however.

4. CA PROJECT TEAM

Fieldwork was undertaken by David Cudlip, assisted by Andrew Loader. The report

was written by David Cudlip. The illustrations were prepared by Lorna Gray. The

archive has been compiled by David Cudlip, and prepared for deposition by Ed

McSloy. The project was managed for CA by Martin Watts.

5. REFERENCES

BGS (British Geological Survey) 1975 Solid and Drift Sheet 234: Gloucester

CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2005: Painswick Rococo Gardens: Written Scheme of

Investigation for an Archaeological Investigation

CAT (Cotswold Archaeological Trust) 2001 Painswick Rococo Garden, Painswick,

Gloucestershire: Archaeological Evaluation CAT report no. 01008


9


APPENDIX 1: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS

Trench A 100 Topsoil. 0.3m deep. 101 Angular oolitic limestones in a light brown sandy clay matrix. Natural. 0.2m to limit of excavation (L.O.E). Trench B 200 Brick pavoir. Dates to 1970s works (pers. comm. Paul Moir).0.15m deep. 201 Topsoil. 0.2m deep. 202 Redeposited natural. Angular oolitic limestones in a light brown sandy clay matrix. 0.7m deep to L.O.E. 203 Unworked limestone rockery base. Dates to 1970s works (pers. comm. Paul Moir). 0.15m deep 204 Unworked limestone path edging. Dates to 1970s works (pers. comm. Paul Moir). 0.15m deep Trench C 300 Topsoil. 0.8m deep 301 Angular oolitic limestones in a light brown sandy clay matrix. Natural. L.O.E.

APPENDIX 2: THE FINDS

Context Description* Count Wt (g) Spot-date 202 Roman pottery: Severn Valley ware

Vessel glass: bottle glass Clay pipe: stem fragments Oyster shell

4 1 3 3

80 9 5

130

Post-med

Gloucestershire

SCALE PROJECT NO.

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

COTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGY

N

FIGURE NO.

0 2.5km

Site

Painswick Rococo GardenPainswick, Gloucestershire

Site location plan

1:25,000@A4 2080

Reproduced from the 1998 Ordnance Survey Explorer map with the permissionof Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeological Trust 100002109 c

1

A

BC

0 10m

SCALE PROJECT NO.

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE


FIGURE NO.

N


Trench location plan

1:100@A4 2080 2

evaluation trench

A

A


SCALE PROJECT NO.

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.

3


Detail of Thomas Robin's painting

2080not to scale

3

183.5mAOD

SW NE

topsoil201

bank202

wall203

wall204

brickpavoir200

modernpath

0 2m

SCALE @ A4 PROJECT NO.

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE


FIGURE NO.


Trench B; section and photograph

1:20 and n/a 2080 4&5

4 Section AA

5 The section, looking north-west

5

Section AA

PAINSWICK ROCOCO GARDEN PAINSWICK GLOUCESTERSHIRE · 1.5 Painswick Rococo Garden is an extremely...

Documents

Transcript of PAINSWICK ROCOCO GARDEN PAINSWICK GLOUCESTERSHIRE · 1.5 Painswick Rococo Garden is an extremely...