Pulborough Churchyard Geophysical Survey January 2012 Ver4

8/3/2019 Pulborough Churchyard Geophysical Survey January 2012 Ver4

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pulborough-churchyard-geophysical-survey-january-2012-ver4 1/7

Pul12 (Jan) Project Report, Ver 0.4

Horsham District Archaeology Group

Pulborough Churchyard Geophysical Survey 13th

/14th

January 2012.

1. Introduction.

1.1 Following a request from Dr Robert Hutchinson of the Sussex University Centre for

Community Engagement, the Horsham District Archaeology Group undertook aresistivity survey at Pulborough Churchyard on Friday 13

thand Saturday 14

thJanuary

2012. The opportunity was also taken to provide training for a number of members

of the society on the setting-up and use of the resistivity meter and to processing of

the data, and also in the use of a Chanton NL20 survey level and staff to bring an OS

benchmark on to site from elsewhere in order to set up a temporary datum point.

.

2. Site location and Geology.

2.1 The site lies at c 30m above Ordnance at grid reference TQ 0467 1875 on a small hill

formed of a soft, micaceous yellow sandstone named the Pulborough Sand Rock,

which forms part of the lower Greensand series, and which commands a prominentposition on the escarpment overlooking the wildbrooks of the river plain.

.

3. Archaeological background.

3.1 The churchyard is bordered by Stane Street and overlooks a crossing on the Arun.

On the HER1

there is an interesting but very old brief report of a mass of Roman tile

having been found at the southern (nearest the river) edge of the churchyard, and

there is supposed to be, or once had been, some IA/RB pottery on display in the

church itself. Winbolt, writing in 19292, reported that in the Sexton’s rubbish corner

of the churchyard, among lumps of stone and other oddments of digging, was found

a large number of fragments of heavy Roman flanged roof tiles (tegulae), which mayfairly be taken as evidence of a substantial Roman building in the churchyard.

Furthermore, a report dated 1908 announced that a 3¼ inch high bronze statue of

Hercules was recovered from the river somewhere at the foot of the scarp3. The

churchyard sits on the very edge of the sandstone ridge, with a drop of several

metres from the south end of the churchyard to the garden of a property to the

south. Some archaeological evaluation in that garden several years ago found

nothing, only evidence that the garden had seen much previous landscaping. The

slope itself on the southern side appears to have been artificially steepened and it is

suspected that there were some prehistoric earthworks there. In the light of the HER

report, and the fact that Roman tiles have turned up in grave digging, and coins have

been found in the adjoining field, it is thought that a Roman temple may have

existed on the site prior to the construction of the present church.

3.2 Also on the site, a medieval mortuary chapel is believed to have once stood in the

grounds which documentary evidence4

indicates was also dedicated to St Mary. It

was demolished in the 18th

century and monuments moved inside the church. Some

of its masonry was reused to build the south porch of the main structure. Medieval

floor tiles have been found in grave diggings alongside the probable site, which were

thought to have been debris from Reformation cleansing of the chapel fixtures and

fittings.

1SMR No 2328 – MWS2912

2

SAC 70 (1929), 220; VCH (Sussex) 1935, 63.3SAC 112 (1974), 101

4‘Publow-Pusey’, A Topographical Dictionary of England (1848), pp 618-621.





3.3 In addition there exists a curious feature on the south wall of the chancel, on the

south-east corner of the structure. It is suspected that this is the location of a former

possible anchorite cell and a magnetometer sweep suggested some buried masonry

on the outside. However, the presence of an ironstone cobbled pathway may have

distorted the readings.

4. Survey Areas.

4.1 Approximately a total of 0.02ha of resistance survey (using a TRCIA Resistivity

Meter) was carried out over three separate targets. The grids and surveys were

undertaken by the Field-Unit team of the Horsham District Archaeology Group.

Samples were taken at 0.5m intervals throughout. The location of the survey areas

can be seen in Figure I.

4.2 The survey grids and immediate area were tied in to the Ordnance Survey (OS) gridby Mr Peter Skilton of the Worthing Archaeological Society using a Leica TCR407Total Station.

Whilst the Mortuary Chapel is visible in the resistance data, evidence for the Romano-British

Temple/Mausoleum is less clear and unfortunately it is not possible to ascertain 100% whether or not an

Anchorite Cell lay to the north.

Figure 1: Areas of Survey. Red dots indicate gravestones.

5. General Considerations: Complicating factors.

5.1 Conditions for survey were adequate but not ideal. Although much of the chosen

areas for survey remained reasonably clear of clutter, gravestones tended to

impede surveying, which made walking with the instruments difficult. These

difficulties were exacerbated by heavy frost, which made the ground very hard early

in the mornings although conditions improved as the day wore on.





6. Area 1: Mortuary Chapel.

6.1 A 20m x 10m grid was set up running S-N with the start-point at NGR 504675

118721. The results indicate that at least the northern, southern, and eastern wall

footings survive, neatly defined as linear areas of high resistance (delineated in

yellow). We were unable to ascertain whether the Western footings remain due to

the presence of trees and a shed to the west of the survey area which prevented anextension of the grids in that direction. The area of high resistance delineated in red

at top left-hand side of the image was due to the presence of a large grave-slab

which was lying down flat on the ground at that point. The extreme thickness of the

structure at the eastern end may well indicate the presence of a buried vault.

Figs 2 & 3: Grid A, site of Mortuary chapel, & interpretation

6.2 It is interesting to note that when viewed from the roof of the church tower, there is

a clearly defined house-platform that would appear to be lying along this axis.

Fig 4: Site of house-platform.





7. Area 2: Romano-British Temple/Mausoleum

7.1 Two grids were laid, adjacent to each other, one 20m x 10m, and the other 10m x

10m. The results may indicate that a structure of some kind no longer survives and

that it has been lost over the edge of the scarp due to erosion and removal of soil to

improve the camber of the main road below. However, it is pushing the very scant

archaeological evidence much too hard to jump to the idea that these are theremains of a building, Roman or otherwise, let alone a temple. Extensive areas of

high-resistance are shown on the southern edge of the grids, extending from the

scarp-face, well into the grid(s). This presumably is rubble debris, and is situated on

or about the area that the Sexton had found Romano-British building ceramics. Yes,

there is a deposit of Roman CBM, including tegulae – and this may indicate a Roman

building, but Roman building material was often incorporated into medieval

churches, so, there is the possibility that this be the remains of a medieval church

builders' dump of building material, scavenged from nearby Roman buildings, e.g.

Borough Farm Villa or the Broomershill Roman tower-temple, the latter containing

much CBM. A small trench may well confirm one way or the other, but the Field-Unit

was unable to perform this investigation due to the lack of time available.

Fig 5: Grid B. Romano-British Temple/Mausoleum site A

Fig 6: Grid B, Interpretation. Large areas of debris to south of grid. The white rectangles are

gravestones & other obstacles.

Figs 7 & 8: Grid C. Romano-British Temple/Mausoleum site B with interpretation. White rectangles are

graves; red area is scarp face where the ground has eroded away.





8. Area 3: Anchorite Cell

8.1 One 5m grid of resistance data was collected at the south-eastern corner of the

Church sanctuary at a point where an aperture had been inserted into the

sanctuary wall and which had been subsequently sealed-up, in an attempt to clarify

the plan details of an anchorite cell. Unfortunately, the presence of a brick-lined

gutter, buttress, an ironstone cobbled path, and the base of a mausoleum-tombbadly hindered the recording of the readings. The results failed to provide any

positive information; though a hint of two adjacent pairs of high-resistance

measurements (delineated in yellow), may indicate a cell measuring 3.5m x 3.5m

(possible projection delineated in red), lining up with the wall-opening, the

thickness of the wall itself being 0.5m. Only a discreetly placed test-pit at this point

would clarify whether the anomaly is archaeological or an artifact of the survey

software. The Field-Unit did not have sufficient time available to investigate further.

A cursory investigation of the masonry around the opening in the wall revealed a

surviving bar-slot, which supports the notion of a hermit’s view to the high-altar

though vertical bars.

Figs 9 & 10: Grid D, Anchorite Cell & interpretation

Fig 11: View of Grid D area of survey. Note the many obstacles.

9. Conclusions.

9.1 The geophysical survey was successful in pinpointing the general footprint of the

Mortuary Chapel together with a possible surviving subterranean vault, however,

confirmation of the presence of a Roman temple was more tenuous and in the light

of the evidence which presented itself here, there is still nothing firm to support

the contention that such a building existed on the site. Although one cannot rule





out the possibility that the church was built on the site of a Roman building, and

the "hallowing" of pre-Christian ceremonial/ ritual sites through church building is a

commonplace occurrence - Samuel Winbolt certainly assumed a Roman building on

this site. But archaeologically, casual finds of a number of fragments of flanged

Roman tiles, unstratified, do not prove the existence of a building. However, it has

to be said that although a Roman Temple is one possibility, it is only one several

possible explanations for the presence of large quantities of Romano-British CBM.e.g. Roman villa, bath house, temple, Roman tilery dump (no wasters mentioned by

Winbolt but the presence of these cannot be ruled out, although not very likely,

because this site is on sandstone and not on clay), or even a medieval builders'

building materials dump, - A Roman temple here remains only a possibility, but is

not proven. It may well be that further investigation might provide better evidence

for such a contention.

9.2 Although the survey has added considerable archaeological detail to the plan and

layout of the site, the work has not resolved the exact location and size of the

Anchorite cell.

10. Grid Co-ordinates:

Fig 12: Geo. Grid Points

10.1 Grid A, Mortuary Chapel.

GA1 504675.314 118721.481 H 29.279

GA2 504676.539 118741.047 H 29.815

GA3 504696.838 118739.551 H 29.971

GA4 504695.152 118719.784 H 29.113

10.2 Grid B, Romano-British temple/Mausoleum site A

GB5 504673.957 118701.173 H 28.5

GB6 504669.392 118720.493 H 28.788

GB7 504689.137 118725.084 H 29.26

GB8 504693.539 118705.692 H 29.024

10.3 Grid C, Romano-British temple/Mausoleum site B – only three points were

surveyed, as the 4th

point would have been beyond the scarp face.

GC1 504693.717 118707.612 H 29.04

GC2 504691.383 118717.31 H 28.965

GC3 504701.053 118719.438 H 29.076





10.4 Grid D, Anchorite Cell.

GD1 504713.94 118759.384 H 30.035

GD2 504719.025 118757.888 H 29.854

GD3 504719.014 118754.738 H 30.126

GD4 504713.886 118754.582 H 30.138

Richard Symonds

Field Unit Manager


20th

January 2012

Pulborough Churchyard Geophysical Survey January 2012 Ver4

Documents

Transcript of Pulborough Churchyard Geophysical Survey January 2012 Ver4