PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF ERNEST CHARLES COLEMAN
FRGS
on behalf of VOCAT
(Villages Of the Cliff Against Turbines)
Archaeology
Planning Appeal via Inquiry against the refusal of planning permission by West Lindsey
District Council for a Wind Farm Development on land at Hemswell Cliff, Lincolnshire
LPA ref. 128940
PINS ref. APP/N2535/A/14/2217829
October 2014
1
Contents.
1.
Introduction including the report author’s background and experience.
2.
The proposed development and its affect upon archaeology.
3.
The National Planning Policy Framework and the Ancient Monuments and
Archaeological Areas Act of 1979.
4.
The Archaeological Evaluation Report by Pre-Construct Archaeological Services Ltd,
June 2013.
5.
Evidence of settlement on the site.
6.
The ‘undated linear of uncertain function’.
7.
The proposed archaeological mitigation.
8.
The concept of the Ritual Landscape and its application to the proposed
development site and its surrounding area.
9.
Conclusion.
10.
References.
11.
Figures.
2
1. Introduction.
1.1
This Statement of Evidence is based upon the research done in answer to the initial
application by the Appellant which was rejected by the West Lindsey District Council
Planning Committee on 30th October, 2013. Additional comment has been added to this
response in view of the 8-turbine application submitted by RWE Innogy LTD as part of their
appeal against the decision by the Planning Committee.
1.2
An additional area of research on the subject of ‘Ritual Landscape’ has been
introduced by kind permission of Professor David Hinton, the President of the Royal
Archaeological Institute, who has personally given his permission to Vocat to quote his
works on the subject, and to historians Doctor David Marcombe – the former Director of
Local Studies at Nottingham University - and Doctor Kate Holland whose dissertation was
entitled ‘Rediscovering the Historic Landscape of Spital-in-the-Street, Lincolnshire’ – both of
whom have spent decades researching the area at Hemswell Cliff.
1.3
The Statement author is a former Royal Naval officer who has had several books
published on naval, polar, and medieval history. In 2010, he was nominated for the
Mountbatten Maritime Literature Prize. He is the chairman of the Naval Historical Research
Association, and a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society. Between 1990 and 1996 he
mounted and led four Arctic expeditions in search of evidence from the 1845 Sir John
Franklin North-West Passage Expedition. During the expeditions, amongst other activities,
he carried out archaeological work on King William and Prince of Wales Islands, discovered
the probable site of the Franklin expedition dead, found one of the ship’s boats, surveyed a
Franklin search expedition camp-site, and located the ships used during the Franklin
expedition (confirmed by the Canadian authorities in 2014). The expedition records are held
by the Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge University, and artefacts were deposited
with the Northern Territories Heritage Centre, Yellowknife. Between 1997 and 2001, he
served as an independent member of the Lincolnshire Police Authority, and was elected
Chairman of Villages of the Cliff Against Turbines in 2012.
2. The proposed development and its affect upon archaeology.
2.1
As with all members of the action group ‘Villages of the Cliff against Turbines (Vocat)
the author of this report supports the concept of renewable energy. What is not supported,
however, is the destruction or damage of an irreplaceable asset in order to promote the
development of a wind farm which could easily be located in a more suitable location.
2.2
The peninsular provided by the northern section of the Lincolnshire limestone ridge,
with open water or swamps to its east and west, had for millennia been the only northsouth route available to both nomadic and settled populations. The supply of fresh water
3
governed the selection of just two sites for settled communities on the cliff top, that at
Lincoln, and in the area later known as Hemswell Cliff, north-west of the ancient cross-roads
at Caenby Corner. With the establishment of a Roman colonia, Lincoln began its ascent to
city-status, but the community some fifteen miles to the north had, at that time, an already
ancient past reaching into pre-history.
2.3
It was almost certainly the source of ‘sacred’ springs on Hemswell Cliff that led to the
area’s rise as a religious centre – a feature that continues to the present day. Inevitably, just
as monasteries attracted communities to settle in their vicinity, settlements that later grew
to become towns and cities, so the religious community at Hemswell Cliff – whether it be
various types of paganism, or later Christianity, would have been serviced by secular
settlement. It is inconceivable that, during the thousands of years from the first
communities; the creation of the Kingdom of Lindsey, the Roman occupation, the AngloSaxon settlement, the Norse invasion, the Norman expansion, and the activities of the
Templar and Hospitaler religious orders, the centuries of use as common land, to the late
18th century Enclosures; Hemswell Cliff does not contain archaeological features that would
be put at risk by turning the area into an industrial site.
2.4
Aerial photography, archaeological discoveries already made, known archaeological
sites yet to be excavated, and research by professional historians, clearly reveal that the
entire area around Hemswell Cliff deserves and requires an extensive historical and
archaeological survey which could provide new – and possibly unique – information, along
with new opportunities for the employment of local people. Such a survey is strongly
supported by the International Committee for the Management of Archaeological
Heritage which, at the 9th General Assembly in Lausanne in 1990, approved the following
statement ‘It is widely recognised that a knowledge and understanding of the origins and
development of human societies is of fundamental importance to humanity in
identifying its cultural and social roots. The archaeological heritage constitutes the
basic record of past human activities. Its protection and proper management is
therefore essential to enable archaeologists and other scholars to study and
interpret it on behalf of and for the benefit of present and future generations.’
3. The National Planning Policy Framework and the Ancient Monuments and
Archaeological Areas Act of 1979.
3.1
Due attention must be accorded to paragraph 4 of the Archaeology Mitigation Plan
contained in the 8-Turbine Environmental Statement. [1] It informs us that ‘The site is interpreted as of high archaeological importance, and in the terms
of the NPPF, potentially of equivalent significance to that of a Scheduled
Monument.’
3.2
What paragraph 139 of the NPPF actually says is –
‘Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are
demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be
considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.’ [34]
4
3.3
The ‘Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act of 1979’, Part 1, Section 2,
Paragraph 1 says –
‘If any person executes, or causes, or permits to be executed, any works to
which this section applies, he shall be guilty of an offence unless the works
are authorised under this Part of this Act.’ [41]
3.4
Paragraph 2 lists the offences ‘(a) any works resulting in the demolition or destruction of, or any damage to,
a scheduled monument;
b) any works for the purpose of removing or repairing a scheduled
monument or any part of it, or of making any alterations or additions
thereto; and
(c) any flooding or tipping operations on land in, on, or under, which there is
a scheduled monument.’ [41]
3.5
The only exclusions are if the accused person –
1.
Can prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all
due diligence to avoid or prevent damage to the monument. And 2.
Can prove that the works were urgently necessary in the interests of
safety or health. [41]
3.6
Neither of the exclusions applies in this case. If, however, the potential significance
noted at (3.1) above had been acted upon, all the offences in (3.4) above would have
occurred. The failure to declare the site to be a Scheduled Monument should not be used
as an excuse to risk the destruction of a ‘site of high archaeological importance’ (3.1) above.
3.7
The 1979 Act is supported in both letter and spirit by paragraphs 132 and 133 of the
NPPF –
‘132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the
significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to
the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the
weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or
destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As
heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and
convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed
building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of
designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled
monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed
buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage
Sites, should be wholly exceptional.’
133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total
loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities
should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial
harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh
5
that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:
● the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the
site; and
● no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the
medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its
conservation; and
● conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public
ownership is demonstrably not possible; and
● the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site
back into use.
3.8
The NPPF guidance follows that of the Planning Policy Guidance 16 (PPG16) –
Archaeology and Planning, 1990, and the Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) – Planning for
the Historical Environment, 2010.
4. The Archaeological Evaluation Report by Pre-Construct Archaeological Services Ltd,
June 2013.
4.1
Irrelevant and Misleading Information.
1. In the Summary [1], the Roman ‘Ermine Street’ passes ‘approximately 200m east of
the site’ (this is later modified to ‘less than 200m’ (5.5 [1]). In fact, Ermine Street is
separated from the site by no more than the width of a grass verge.
2. Mesolithic and Iron Age sites are summarily, and arbitrarily, dismissed as being ‘over’
2km (5.3 [1]), and ‘over’ 1.5km (5.3 [1]) from the site. There is a reluctance to reveal
any indication that the site may have considerable age, including an undisclosed
Mesolithic (8000-4000BC) ‘living and workshop’ site (HER 50968 [2.page 1])
excavated in 1932 at Willoughton Cliff which uncovered 4,000 worked flints and
several hearths.
3. A ‘possible Neolithic long barrow’ (HER 56331 [2, page 27]) actually on the site (but
recorded incorrectly as being ‘to the east of the site boundary’, and given an
incorrect HER number (para 5.4)), merits a single mention. No note is made of the
fact that the barrow is immediately adjacent to the proposed A15 vehicular entry to
the site and is, therefore, at risk of obliteration.
4. Part of a bowl recovered from Trench 11 during the excavation and described as
being a rare ‘La Téne’ vessel ‘appears to almost certainly represent mid- to perhaps
later - Iron Age activity on the site.’ [3] The fact that it could also suggest trading
links with the Continent is ignored.
5. The entire Anglo-Saxon/Danish era is practically dismissed despite the area being
closely surrounded by villages from that period. There is apparently ‘no record’ of
any activity in ‘the vicinity’ (para 5.7 [1]) during that time, and yet an important
archaeological discovery of Saxon bronze artefacts including part of a hanging bowl
and a bronze buckle (HER 50942 [2, page 2]) was recorded close to Kennington Farm
– which actually adjoins the north-west corner of the site.
6. A ‘high status’ – possibly Royal - burial at Caenby Corner (HER 50430 [2, page 2])
containing a skeleton, sword and silver armour mounts is briefly mentioned, but its
6
possible reason for being sited where it is, does not merit disclosure. Nor are
nearby, un-investigated, barrows mentioned.
7. Saxon finds from the actual site (HER 54103 [2], page 22) are ignored. And yet, after
a visit in 1992 to immediately adjacent fields, an archaeologist was able to write –
‘The most interesting feature to arise from our group’s fieldwalking there is the
collection of quite a large number of Anglo-Saxon sherds.’ [25]
8. A highly significant, omission in the report results from the description of large
samples of stone uncovered during the trenching. These are variously described as
‘Demolition deposits’ (or ‘layers’), ‘large limestone’, ‘limestone construction’,
‘Drystone wall’, etc. At no stage, however, is there any suggestion that these
samples have been examined to see if they have been ‘dressed’ or bear any
indication of previous use. An examination of the trench figures and photographs
clearly indicate that such a possibility cannot be excluded. Trenches 10, 11, 12, 13,
16, 23, and 26, all show samples that should have been closely examined.
9. Both the ‘undated linear’ (HER 55382 [2, page 24],[5 pages 3, 4]), and the damage to
a significant archaeological feature caused by the anemometer mast anchor, (Figures
5 – 6), (HER 54103 [2, page 22]), are ignored.
10. The proposed mitigation is based upon the unsaved (and therefore inoperative)
West Lindsey Local Planning Policy NBE 7. [42]
4.2
1.
2.
3.
4.
Concealed archaeological threats.
In order to deal with ‘an increased surface water runoff’ - a series of 1 square metre
trenches will have to be dug alongside both edges of all access tracks, turbine crane
pads, and the meteorological mast base and crane pad ([1] Appendix 9. Para 6.3).
These ‘infiltration attenuation trenches’ will be required to have a combined volume
of 3805 cubic metres in order to deal with a total 6-hour rainfall of 0.069m. No
archaeological survey has been carried out into any part of this significant and
extensive threat to archaeological remains throughout the site.
An underground cable of ‘approximately 5km’ length ([39] para 4.47) is intended to
be dug connecting the turbines to the onsite substation. There is no evidence of any
archaeological survey to any part of this proposed trench.
An underground cable of unknown (but, approximately 2km) length ([1]. Appendix
8.2. Environment Agency letter AN/2011/111698/01-L01 of 20 April, 2011, and [39]
paras 4.48-4.50) will have to be installed between the site and Hemswell Cliff
industrial estate. Again, there is no evidence of any plans for an archaeological
survey of the route.
The soil extraction requirements on the site (including the turbine foundations, but
not including the meteorological mast and its anchors, substation, compound, tracks
and entrance bell-mouths) for the 8-turbine mitigation are as follows (10-turbine reapplication figures are in parenthesis) –
Foundations
Turbines to substation cables
Grid connection cables
SuDs attenuation trenches
Total soil extraction
9,600 cu mtrs
5,760 cu mtrs
1,440 cu mtrs
3,805 cu mtrs
20,605 cu mtrs
(12,000 cu mtrs)
( 7,200 cu mtrs)
( 1,440 cu mtrs)
( 4,706 cu mtrs)
(25,346 cu mtrs)
This extraction would fill 4,479 (5,510) 6 tonne builder’s skips, and require the
removal of 26,974 tonnes (31,182 tonnes) of soil. If this amount of soil was formed
into a one metre square mound, it would stretch northwards from the site to a point
beyond Scunthorpe, or south to a point beyond Lincoln. To carry out any meaningful
7
archaeological investigation of this amount of soil extraction on a site of
‘archaeological sensitivity’ (see 7.8 below), either as a ‘Watching Brief’, or as a fullblown archaeological survey, would require dozens – possibly hundreds – of
archaeologists. The only outcome would be the destruction of the site as a prime
historical record.
4.3
A further attempt at concealment.
4.3.1 The undated ‘Appendix 7.3. Archaeology Mitigation Plan (8 Turbine Scheme) [1] –
states (para. 56) that the project archive will be deposited in a ‘recipient museum’ which
had yet ‘to be established.’ Paragraph 57 declares that
‘The archives will be deposited within twelve months of the completion of the site
works with the agreement of the Client.’
4.3.2 In ‘Appendix 7.2 – PCAS, March 2014, Archaeological Evaluation Report: Two
Trenches at Old Street Farm, Hemswell Cliff, Lincolnshire.’ [1], it states [para. 6.5] that –
‘A unique Lincolnshire Museums accession number was also assigned (2013.90); and
arrangements were made with the developers and Lincolnshire Museum, ‘The
Collection’, for the future deposition of the archive.’
4.3.3 Paragraph 6.5 also states that ‘an OASIS online record (No. 153615)’ was initiated
and was now ‘completed’. The record was then ‘submitted to the LHER (Lincolnshire
Historic Environmental Records) as part of the preceding report (PCAS 2013).’ This would be
as expected as PCAS 2013 was the report on the initial trench evaluation, and LHER is the
normal depository for records of archaeological activities in Lincolnshire.
4.3.4 However, paragraph 9.1 states that –
‘…it (the site archive) will be deposited with North Lincolnshire Museum within six
months of the end of this project under the PCAS Site code OSFE 13 and unique
Lincolnshire accession number 2013.90.’
This is repeated in paragraph 10 of Appendix 7.1 – PCAS, June 2013, Archaeological
Evaluation Report: Land at Old Street Farm, Hemswell Cliff, Lincolnshire.
4.3.5 Not only (as of 30th October, 2014) is there no such archive in the North Lincolnshire
Museum, there is also no explanation why an archive that details a Lincolnshire
archaeological activity, has been given a unique Lincolnshire accession number, and is part
of a continuing Lincolnshire archaeological operation should be deposited outside the
County under the control of a different administration. This contrary to professional
guidance which states that –
‘9.1 Advisors should seek to ensure that the archives of archaeological investigations
are deposited in a suitable repository.’ [36 Page 11]
4.3.6 There is also the serious concern that the commercial aims of the developer may be
seen to over-ride the legitimate interests of the professional archaeologist. Attention to this
area is drawn by international codes of conduct –
8
‘Archaeologists involved in contract archaeological work should ensure that
archaeological information is not suppressed unreasonably or indefinitely (by
developers or by archaeological organizations) for commercial reasons.’ (Principle
10 [38 Page 1]).
4.4
The post-completion ‘aims’ of the Report.
4.4.1 The ‘Written Scheme of Investigation’ for the archaeological work on the site
produced by Pre-Construct Archaeological Services Ltd (‘approved by Lincolnshire County
Council’ – para 1.1 [37], ‘agreed with LCC’ – para 6.1 [37], and ‘designed in collaboration
with the Historic Environment Officer for Lincolnshire County Council and with Lincolnshire
Museums’ - para 6.5 [37]) does not appear in the Archaeological Evaluation Report. Its
assumed outline, however, may be found in the Report’s Sections 2 – 6.
4.4.2 The main aim of the archaeological evaluation – clearly written after the evaluation
had been completed – was as follows –
‘The principal aim of the evaluation was to ensure that significant archaeological
remains within the development footprint were taken fully into consideration prior
to the development process, to ensure their proper recording in the county HER, and
to determine whether any further archaeological intervention is required in order to
mitigate any potential damage to the archaeological record (by preservation in situ
or by further investigation and recording). (Para 6.3 [37])
It will be noted that, not only does the aim exactly match the outcome, but there is not the
slightest hint that the outcome will stop – or even delay – the ‘development process’.
4.4.2 In addition (also written in the past tense) –
‘The subsidiary aim of the evaluation was to gather sufficient information to
establish the presence or absence, extent,, depth, condition, character, quality and
date of any archaeological remains on the site.’ (Para 6.4 [37])
As only a very small fraction of the site was evaluated, this subsidiary aim has signally failed.
5. Evidence of Settlement.
5.1
Despite the dismissive attitude taken in the report regarding early, pre-Roman,
settlement (paras 5.3 and 5.4 [1]), it is clear that the profusion of water supplies in the area
attracted settled communities over a long period. Several of the springs and wells were
designated as ‘sacred’ with, at least, one – ‘Spital Spa’ - being noted for its chalybeate
qualities. An, as yet, unrecorded ‘hengiform’ monument of up to 800m in diameter has
been identified centred just to the west of Ermine Street at Spital-on-the-Street, along with
an probable long barrow to the east.[26] Activity at Spital is also supported by the discovery
of an unused flint axe-head that showed evidence of being ritually broken, and a section of
flint decorated with a painted linear impression of an animal – possibly a deer.[26] A 6,000
year old enclosure has been recorded at Patchet’s Cliff between the western site boundary
and Middle Street (HER 54814 [2, page 23]), and a possible 4,500 to 6,000 year old long
barrow (HER 56331[2, page 27]) has been identified on the actual site. Iron Age pottery was
9
found on the Patchet’s Cliff site, and a 2,400 – 2,800 year old burial site was found northeast of Harpswell (HER 50980[2, page 14]).
5.2
By 100AD, the Patchet’s Cliff site had expanded to become a ‘Romano-British
settlement, based on a mixed farming economy’ (HER 54814[2, page 23]). The settlement
was unlikely to be an isolated community. Indication of an eastern habitation drift in the
direction of Ermine Street can be found in trenches 10 and 12. The archaeology revealed
evidence of ‘a late Roman stone structure’ (‘Summary’ [1]), a metalled surface that could
have been part of a track, and ‘a relatively high occurrence of fine Roman tableware usually
found in association with towns and villae’ (‘Summary’ [1]). This latter find was considered
to be ‘of particular significance.’ (‘Summary’ [1])
5.3
There was clearly enough human activity on the site to merit the possible
establishment of a metal-working industry (para 7.2.12). The widely experienced
archaeologist and former Regional Officer for the Royal Commission on the Historical
Monuments of England, Professor Paul Everson, noted that, for metal production in
Lincolnshire as a whole, ‘Evidence is lacking for production in the medieval period.’ [4] The
discovery of slag (Trenches 10, 11, 12, and Appendix 6) – although assumed by the
archaeologists to be Roman – may be of considerable significance. Large quantities of slag
have been found in the area which could suggest a ritual (magic) element associated with
the early production of metal. On the other hand, with an abundance of limestone as a
local building material, burning may also be an indicator of lime kilns used for the
production of lime mortar (such kilns were discovered at Ancaster Quarry, on the ridge to
the south of Lincoln, and at nearby Hibaldstow, and were probably commonplace). Such a
possibility is not considered in the Archaeological Evaluation Report.
5.4
It is also infrequently realised that a settlement on the site would have been the sole
settlement on the Cliff top between Lincoln and the Humber - the vital peninsular formed by
the elevated north-south limestone ridge with the Cliff edge and the Trent flood plains to
the west, and the practically impassable alluvium Ancholme Valley to the east. Situated just
to the north of Caenby Corner, and overlooking the Roman road, the settlement would have
played an extremely important strategic role in the administration and governance of the
area. Furthermore, the area is a perfect site for an undefended Iron Age oppidum – the
Roman term for an existing pre-invasion administrative centre. The need for large,
constructed, defences being obviated by clear, long distance, views to the south from an
east-west ridge to the south of the site (along which the Trent to Bishop Bridge track – the
modern A631 – ran), and the high ground just to the east of the north-east corner of the site
which gave wide views as far as the Humber. To the west, the cliff edge bordered the site
and allowed views to the Trent, whilst to the east, the dip-slope gave long views over the
marshes as far as the Wolds. The hill just to the south of the site (later possibly ‘Aslac’s Hill’
or ‘Aslacoe’) provided an obvious final defensive position, whilst the name ‘Blyborough’ –
adjacent to the north of the site – suggests a ‘fortified place’. (See Figure 5)
5.5
A Roman fort, or mansio (a place of rest for official travellers alongside a road), was
located on the south-east slope of Aslac’s Hill (see William Stukeley’s comments below). At
some stage during the site’s settlement, a substantial track was created running north-west
across the site from the site of the fort. It passed over the top of the hill and continued on
to a point on Old Leys Lane close to the north-western corner of the site. From there it
possibly links up with the Hollowgate Hill access to Willoughton, or continues northwards to
other known Roman sites. The track does not have a direct bearing between these points,
but has a modest north-eastern bulge for much of its middle distance. This curvature would
indicate a deviation around some considerable structure or inaccessible property. When
10
investigated by archaeologists (HER 54103[2, page 22]), the track was declared to be
possibly ‘of considerable antiquity’. ‘Rectilinear field boundaries’ were located alongside
the track along with Roman and later finds. The parallel edges of the track appear from the
geophysical findings to be about 10 metres apart, thus making the track a significant feature
– possibly a main thoroughfare through a large settlement. The SEI Report [1], however,
states (7.1.9 Trench 14) that the parallel edges are ‘anomalies’ which are possibly ‘wheel
ruts’. This is later modified (7.1.16 Trench 24) to ‘modern wheel ruts’ (this would help in
any explanation why one of the anemometer anchors was driven through the track –
although producing a vehicle with a ten-metre axle might prove difficult). The path of the
track can be clearly seen on the majority of the maps in the Appendix F section of Appendix
8.1[1] and on Figure 5 below.
5.6
Anglo-Saxon settlement on the site (probably from the second half of the 5 th
century) would have been prompted by exactly the same reasons as those for the previous
occupants – water (especially ‘sacred’ springs), land with agricultural qualities (arable,
pasture, and woodland), access to a major road, and a naturally defencible site. The water
supply alone may have been enough to have prompted one Saxon King of Lindsey, Edwin, a
Christian convert, to carry out one of his constant charitable acts at the site –
‘That king took such care for the good of his nation, that in several places
where he had seen clear springs near the highways, he caused stakes to be
fixed, with copper drinking-vessels hanging on them, for the refreshment of
travellers; nor durst any man touch them for any other purpose than that for
which they were designed, either through the great dread they had of the
king, or for the affection which they bore him.’ [28]
5.7
The pre-Christian period would be unlikely to provide significant structural remains
of the Saxon occupation with buildings almost entirely restricted to being constructed of
wood and thatch. The introduction of Christianity by Paulinus around 627 led, fifty years
later, not only for the requirement of a Bishop, but also for a centre for the Diocese or
Bishopric – and that, in turn, needed more substantial buildings. Oolitic limestone quarries
were near at hand, lime kilns were easily procured, and stonemasons were readily available,
especially from the continent. Furthermore, the site was likely to be well-known thanks to
regular traffic along the road, and its rare prominent feature in the shape of a large rounded
hill (later ‘Aslacoe’ or ‘Aslac’s Hill’ – the name being applied in the 10th century to the entire
‘Wapentake’).
5.8
It is equally possible that evidence of settlement on the site was known in 803 as
‘Syddensis Civitas’ [27] by the Anglo-Saxons, a name which later developed into
‘Sidnacester’ (pronounced ‘Sidnachester’). Both names are recorded, but the actual site has
been lost to history for over a thousand years. Most Roman sites were referred to by the
settlers as ‘Castra’ or – more correctly - as ‘Castrum’ (singular). ‘Sid’ was a Saxon-Germanic
word meaning ‘wide’, ‘ample’, or ‘spacious’, and appears as ‘sidne’ in the sentence ‘Ic berre
sidne scild’, meaning ‘I bear a broad shield.’ The village name of ‘Sydenham’, found in
several parts of England, usually comes from the Old English and means ‘wide water
meadow’. The Dorset village of Sydling St Nicholas appeared in the Domesday Book as
‘Sidlince’, meaning ‘Broad Ridge’. Consequently, ‘Sidnacester’ could mean ‘Large
settlement’ – an entirely appropriate name for a site that stretched from Middle Street in
the west to Ermine Street in the east, and was the only settlement of any size on the ridge
between the Humber and Lincoln. The name, however, has long been attached to the
Bishopric of Lindsey (see ‘The Ritual Landscape’ below). Established in 677-8, Sidnacester
may have been chosen simply because of the obvious advantages of the area along with
11
fortified sites with their own water supply close by at Blyborough and Spital. Whatever the
reason for the disappearance, an expert in English cathedrals has noted that, in searching
for the lost site of Sidnacester –
‘Probably only archaeology could settle this problem.’ [27]
5.9
The probable destruction and abandonment of the site following Mercian and
Danish depredations (the Report’s frequently-used adjective ‘burnt’ could also indicate the
remains of aggressive destruction), the isolation caused by the Knights Templar’s blocking of
the Roman road, and the inundation by early 14th century sand storms (sand is frequently
mentioned in the report, but never explained), would explain the relinquishment of the high
ground. Afterwards, the site reverted to heathland and was used for sheep pasture until
the 18th century Enclosures. Nevertheless, it should be noted that, in his 1724 ‘Itinerarium
Curiosum’, William Stukeley commented on the area around ‘Spittle on the Street’ as ‘great
foundations all around, some of which are probably Roman.’ [31]
5.10 Stukeley’s ‘foundations’ may have been the remains of the fort, or mansio, at the
site, and the source of a large number of linear features detected by aerial photography
which appear to curve around the southern and western slopes of Aslac’s Hill. In a group
almost 200m long and up to 50m wide, the features have ditches and field boundaries
branching off to the north and south (HER 50352[2, page 4]).
5.11 There are many other barrows, cropmarks, and archaeological features both on and
in the near vicinity of the proposed site. Few have been excavated – some , such as the
Bronze Age ring ditch and barrow to the north of Norton Place (MLI50852 [5, page 2]), and
the prehistoric enclosures north of Atterby Lane (mis-named as ‘Norton Lane’ in the
reference [5, page 2]) (MLI50832[2, page 2]) are described as ‘likely to be of prehistoric
origin, with significant archaeological potential.’ [5, page 2]
5.12
The site and its immediate surrounding area has a record of producing large
amounts of pottery items from Blyborough in the north to Spital-in the-Street in the south,
and from Middle Street to Ermine Street. Although the archaeological excavation trenches
covered less than 1% of the proposed site, 610 pottery items were recovered. If that figure
was extrapolated across the entire proposed development site, it would suggest over
60,000 pottery items are awaiting discovery. That, in turn, suggests a population of
considerable size.
5.13
With regard to trenching as a means of archaeological surveying, it is worth
pointing out at this stage, that the President of the Royal Archaeological Institute, in
describing a 1953-62 archaeological survey, wrote in 2001 that the ‘….excavation method now seems old-fashioned. Whereas today
archaeologists tend, if they can, to open out large areas, (the archaeologist)
dug a series of square or rectangular trenches across the site, separated by
unexcavated 'baulks'. The sides of these trenches had the advantage of
preserving the stratigraphy, but the baulks inevitably obscured parts of many
of the features.’ [6]
6. The ‘undated linear of uncertain function’.
12
6.1
The SEI Report [1] makes no mention of the ‘undated linear’ (HER 50574 [2, pages 9,
9]), nor of the dressed stones used as foundation for the Ermine Street (A15) entry to the
site (Figure 8). The ignoring of such a feature, with its possible continuation on to the site,
could lead to the destruction of a vital source of information about a unique part of English
and European history. In 1275, the Brethren of the Templar Preceptory at Willoughton
were accused of – amongst other things – of having ‘raised a wall on the king’s highway’.
[20] The barrier is confirmed on a mid-14th century map (the ‘Gough Map’). In addition, a
14th century tax return for the area contains the place name ‘Hemswell le Bar’. The
archaeologist in charge of the 2006 watching brief that revealed the feature noted that ‘The works had the potential to disturb remains relating to the Roman road
thought to run along the same line as the A15, Ermine Street, and any
associated archaeological features. The area was also generally held to have
high potential for the survival of multi-phase archaeological remains,
spanning the prehistoric to modern periods.’ [5]
7. The proposed archaeological mitigation.
7.1
Whilst lodging their appeal against the West Lindsey rejection of the 10-turbine
application, RWE also proposed an alternative 8-turbine plan to remove the threat to
archaeological remains in the area of the proposed compound area. The proposed plan
(Appendix 7.2 of [1]) consisted of the removal of the two most easterly turbines (numbered
4 and 5), and the re-siting of the proposed construction compound to the site of the former
Turbine No 5.
7.2
The relocation site had previously been archaeologically evaluated by the digging of
two trenches (Trenches 16 and 17) in June, 2013. Trench 17 (30 metres long, 2 metres wide,
and oriented north-east to south-west) was declared to be archaeologically sterile. Trench
16 (50 metres long, 2 metres wide, and orientated north-west to south-east) revealed a
‘steep-sided linear trench with a square profile’ (para 5.3) along which was placed a 40cm
wide ‘irregular wall or structure built of limestone fragments laid vertically within the
trench’ (para 5.3) (Figure 9). The feature was considered by the report writer to be ‘a
minimal sequence of likely post-medieval date’ (para 5.3) with no reason given why that
particular dating was considered ‘likely’. Although almost certainly a foundation for a
substantial stone wall, no attempt has been made to identify the feature beyond its
imprecise dating.
7.3
In March, 2014, two further trenches were dug ‘in response to the results of the
previous evaluation’ (ie. Trenches 16 and 17) despite there being no ‘results’ from Trench
17. A new ‘Trench 1’ was dug to the west of Trench 17, and a new ‘Trench 2’ dug to the
north of Trench 17. Neither Trench 1 nor Trench 2 was dug in relation to the feature
uncovered in Trench 16. (Figure 10)
7.4
It is quite clear that there was no intention of further investigating the role of the
Trench 16 feature or its extent. Furthermore, no evidence of a single plough scar was
reported despite both trenches being dug to 40cm (15⅔ inches). (Figures 11 – 12) Normal
depth ploughing rarely exceeds 20cm, but deep ploughing – used to counter soil waterretention problems – normally exceeds 50cm.
7.5
No reason is given for the minimal depth of the ‘complete’ trenches 1 and 2 apart
from - in both cases - the removal of the topsoil revealing ‘the natural limestone brash
substrate’. Geological ‘brash’ is made up of rock fragments which, in the case of the brittle
13
limestone of the Lincoln Edge, are to be expected on such a site. In archaeology, the word
‘natural’ can have a specific meaning, and is sometimes referred to as the ‘natural horizon’ –
a substrate on which there is no evidence of human activity. However, to use such a finding
as a definitive reason to stop an archaeological survey has become less acceptable in recent
years. A leading expert in archaeological excavation has noted –
‘Care must be taken in the use of the word ‘natural’ as a synonym for the
undisturbed subsoil, since many layers on archaeological sites are natural in origin.
Some may be so thick and free from artefacts that they may be deceptively like the
subsoil. Gravel re-deposited by flood water, for example, may seal occupation layers
under many metres of entirely clean material. Even down-wash from a nearby
hillside can cover archaeological features with ‘natural’ silt. And, of course, the
earlier the periods being excavated, the more likely it is that the remains of human
occupation will be embedded in the natural strata, so that Palaeolithic archaeology is
carried out in what specialists in later periods would call the ‘natural’.’ [29]
7.6
The chief reason behind the need for an attempted mitigation was the trialtrenching carried out in May, 2013. This work revealed that, of the 28 trenches excavated,
nine contained archaeological features ranging from a 4 metre wide (over 13 feet) ditch
(Trench 4) and a 2 metre wide metalled track (Trenches 11 and 12) , to 4th century Roman
coins (Trench 10) and rare fine tableware (Trench 10).
7.7
Despite the wealth of archaeological information and artefacts being retrieved from
a very small proportion of the site, and regardless of the known history supporting the
findings, an arrangement was made to mitigate the problem provided by the known
archaeology in a manner that would allow the development to proceed. For this to succeed,
it is necessary for the mitigation to be implemented in direct opposition to its own
‘Mitigation Plan’ which states that –
‘No wind farm infrastructure proposed, and no excavations to be carried out at the
location of identified archaeological sensitivity.’ [30]
7.8
In a letter to a West Lindsey Planning Officer, a professional archaeologist and
Historic Environment Office with Lincolnshire County Council wrote that –
‘The proposed Hemswell Cliff Windfarm site is an area of archaeological sensitivity as
is identified within the EIA.’ (Environmental Impact Assessment) [32]
There can be no doubt that the whole site – and the general area beyond for a considerable
distance (see Section 8 below) is a ‘location of identified archaeological sensitivity.’
7.9
The mitigation proposed for the ‘areas of known archaeological sensitivity’ is a
combination of ‘Preservation in situ’ – a system which simply re-buries the archaeological
remains, and ‘Preservation by record’ which uses a sub-system known as ‘Strip, Map and
Record’. The combination of systems bears all the features of a ‘file and forget’ approach
which gives the impression of granting the archaeology a token recognition whilst
encouraging the construction of a wind farm on the site.
7.10 Neither the planned mitigation proposed for the known archaeology, nor the
attempt to justify the re-location of the construction compound, deserves the title
‘mitigation’. When combined with the insertion of 8 or 10 turbines, each with concrete
foundations weighing approximately 1,100 tonnes (which the developer intends to leave in
14
the ground on decommissioning), new tracks, hard standing areas, and grid-connection and
surface run-off infiltration trenches, they merely serve as a smoke-screen to provide cover
for the probable destruction of a landscape that contains a vast, unique, historical
document that has yet to be discovered, interpreted and translated. If allowed to proceed,
its obliteration will prove to be a national humiliation, and an international disgrace.
8. The concept of the Ritual Landscape, and its application to the proposed development
site and its surrounding area.
8.1
It is clear that there has been organised human activity on and around the proposed
development site since the Neolithic – and probably Mesolithic – ages. Any early farming
would have been consolidated through the Iron Age and expanded during the Roman period
with several villas, farms and communities. This settlement would have been aided by the
ample supply of water – including mineral springs – fertile soil, woodlands, and good
communication to the north and south (modern B1398) and to the east and west (modern
A631). In time, the north-south Roman road (later ‘Ermine Street’, modern A15) was
constructed. This gave -not just access - but commercial opportunities and military support,
all vital elements in social expansion.
8.2
There is one single thread which connects social activity in the area from the Stone
Age to the Reformation and beyond. From the start of loose nature worship, through
organised Paganism to Christianity, the area has held the key elements needed for
structured religion – social sustainability and social organisation. This, in turn, has given rise
to the high probability that the area should come under the overall designation of a ‘Ritual
Landscape’.
8.3
Over the last few decades the concept of Ritual Landscape has received growing
attention and status. Sites in England such as Stonehenge, Avebury, Boscombe Down,
Durrington Walls, Sutton Hoo, and Woodhenge, are well-known, but such sites can be found
all over the world. This widespread recognition may be demonstrated by the description of
such sites by a Nepalese anthropologist with Kirtipur University. He wrote –
‘Rituals play a vital role in people's socio-cultural and economic life of the
community. People perform rituals in a particular place. The selection of that
particular place is culturally conditioned and its meanings subjectively
understood by the community.’ [7]
The Principal Lecturer and specialist in Landscape Heritage and Geoarchaeology at Bath Spa
University noted that Ritual Landscape –
‘….concerns extensive 'sacred' tracts which were seemingly dedicated to
ceremonial purposes by an ascendant ritual authority in the Neolithic and
early Bronze Age (roughly 3500-1800 BC). In these 'ritual landscapes' the
evidence for contemporary settlement is often sparse or absent, but that for
non-utilitarian structures and deposits is abundant.’ [8]
The lecturer in Archaeology at Liverpool University, recorded that ‘…prehistoric monuments tended to cluster around certain natural landscape
features (especially caves and hilltops).’ [9]
15
8.4
With the exception of Lincoln Cathedral, 17 miles to the south, the site at Hemswell
Cliff is the predominant feature of the entire northern section of the ‘Lincoln Edge’. This
position on the limestone ridge is also the first point north of Lincoln where an abundant
water-supply is available on the top of the feature (Spital-in-the-Street is the first
community on the ridge north of Lincoln). Several springs emerge to flow in a mainly
eastern direction. Other springs rise along the eastern dip slope, or along the lower parts of
the western cliff. One of the springs – known as ‘Aisthorpe Spring’ (previously ‘Spital Spa’)
became a well-known ‘rag well’ whilst the contiguous emergence of three springs at
Hemswell appear to have been the site of a Pagan temple before becoming the site of St.
Helen’s church (now lost).
8.5
The tallest feature on Hemswell Cliff is the squat, broad-shouldered, hill just to the
south of the proposed development. This hill is almost certainly the ‘Aslacoe’ (‘Aslac’s Hill’)
that gave its name to the Saxon wapontake for the area.
8.6
The starting date for Ritual Landscapes is usually found in the Neolithic period. The
large number of stone axe heads (Museum of North Lincolnshire) found to the east of the
area (from Waddingham in the north to Normanby in the south) clearly indicates settlement
in the area. Further still, the largest number of greenstone axes found in Britain has been
found in North Lindsey (‘The Collection’, Lincoln). As the axes came from West Wales,
Ireland, the Lake District, and Cornwall, such finds can only indicate a flourishing trade.
Several worked flints were discovered just to the north-west edge of the site in 1964 along
with a flint gouge (HER 50972 [2, page2]). Further Mesolithic discoveries on the same site
revealed 4,000 worked flints and several hearths whilst, at Blyborough, north-west of the
proposed site, numerous flint implements have been unearthed. Several ploughed-out
barrows at Spital have been revealed by aerial photography, whilst others nearby wait to be
excavated. It is, therefore, quite possible to begin the development of the site from a date
in the region of 8-10,000 years ago.
8.7
During the Neolithic Age, the region was the site of ‘concentrations of Neolithic Long
Barrows in specific geographical areas’ [12] which included ‘the eastern flank of the
Limestone ridge and the Ancholme and Witham river valleys.’ [12] A possible Neolithic
barrow remains to be excavated on the actual site of the proposed development. Another,
undated barrow, to the east of the site between Bishop Norton and Glentham is classed as a
‘Scheduled Monument at risk’ (No. 1017333 [40. Page 47]).
8.8
It is not unusual to find a cursor and a henge associated with ritual landscapes.
Evidence of a ‘hengiform monument’ of considerable size has been located with Spital-inthe-Street at its centre. [26] This gives rise to the possibility that the Roman Ermine Street
may, for part of its length, be following the route of an earlier cursor which passed through
the centre of the Spital henge. This idea is supported by a change in direction of the Roman
road about 3½ km to the south. The road veers a few degrees to the north-west as if to line
up with a pre-existing track.
8.9
There is an enormous amount of straight lines, curves, and circles on the site and the
surrounding area that have been revealed by aerial photography and still remain uninvestigated (Figures 1 – 4, 7). Many may have been created by the Romans who settled in
in high-status buildings in the area. There is even an entire Roman road (HER 50576[2, page
2]) just to the eastern edge of the site that has yet to be fully examined. It would, of course,
be unthinkable to suggest that the Romans settled in the immediate area without any
continuation of religious practises. One academic expert who has studied the area in great
16
detail over many years has declared that “The amount of potential archaeology is huge.”
[26]
8.10 It is often forgotten that Christianity also existed in Britain during the time of the
Roman occupation. In 314, three bishops left Britain to attend the Council of Arles. Despite
‘an unhappy slip of the pen’ [10 – page 271], most sources agree that one of the bishops,
Adelphius, came from Lincoln. However, with little or no Christian community in 4th century
Lincoln, it is more likely that the bishop came from the Lindsey bishopric at Sidnacester.
Bede is of no help over the question of Bishop Adelphius as he did not recognise any Roman
period bishops and stated that Eadhaed was the first bishop of Lindsey – appointed in 678.
Eadhaed’s successor, Ethelwin, was noted by Bede as taking his chair at Sidnacester. It is
not unreasonable to consider that both Eadhaed and Ethelwin would have chosen a site
with a long history of ritualised religion – especially with previous Christian connections –
and with good communications both by land and water. [28]
8.11 Important earlier Christian connections may also be deduced from the discovery of
part of a lead tank or cistern which was found in a field between the site and the nearby
village of Bishop Norton (and now on display at the ‘Collection’ museum in Lincoln). The
large vessel was discovered to be an example of a rare series of cisterns that had been
found only in England. They were all clearly from the Roman occupation period, of a similar
pattern, often bearing Christian symbols, and, almost invariably, found close to ancient
Christian sites. A study into such tank’s origins stated –
‘…it is more than likely that they served the needs of local Christians at the
localities where they have subsequently been found.’ [11 – page 122]
Furthermore,
‘….a bishop might well choose to keep the increasingly-conventional
instruments of baptism – a portable, Christian ornamented font, and chrism
in particular – under his immediate control and at his own church.’ [11]
8.12 Such cisterns were discovered close to ancient churches at, for example, Silchester,
Richborough, and Ickenham, and are believed to have been used in ‘affusion’ baptisms
where the adult candidate stood in the tank (up to 55cm deep) and had baptismal water
poured from a jug over their head and body.
8.13 It is not known for certain whether or not there was any Christian church in the
garrison town of Lincoln during the time of the Romans. The discovery of the section of lead
tank at Bishop Norton, however, strongly suggests the very early existence of Christianity on
the top of the Lincoln Edge during the early part of the 5th century.
8.14 A further impression of the size and influence of area at the time of the Romans may
be gathered from an 18th century account of the village of Spital-in-the Street –
‘…so called, because it is built on one of the Roman highways, and in
latter times, had a hospital erected upon it for poor diseased persons. It is a
considerable village, and through every part of its neighbourhood many
Roman antiquities have been discovered, from which we may infer, that it
was a place of great repute when they were in the island, although its ancient
name is lost in the ruins of time.’ [19 – page 486]
17
8.15 With the arrival of the pagan Anglo-Saxons, the invaders took over the Hemswell
Cliff site and the surrounding area site for the same reasons as the earlier occupants –
water, defence, agriculture, and communications. The return of Christianity, sometime
around 628, saw the traditional Irminsul (totem pole – and likely source of the name
‘Ermine Street’) taken down, only to be re-erected in the settlement of Hemswell where its
descendent is still in use today as a Maypole (the Old English word ‘helmes’ means ‘the
summit of the hill’).
8.16 Five miles north of the site, 1,100 mainly cremation burials were discovered at the
position of the lost Saxon village of Cleatham. Such a large burial site was usually created to
service the needs of a larger establishment in the area – the sole example of which would
have been Sidnacester.
8.17 The arrival of Bishop Paulinus in the area around 628 is usually linked to activities in
Lincoln and the River Trent. Both are highly unlikely when compared to the Hemswell Cliff
site. There was already a small Celtic Christian community at Lincoln, and not only was the
River Trent deep and fast-flowing, and a considerable distance from Lincoln, but it was also
the Lindsey-Mercia border. Any mass gathering on its eastern banks could have had unlooked for repercussions.
8.18 The most likely site for the baptisms is Bishop’s Bridge on the nearby River Glen - the
previous name for the River Ancholme. (Figure 13) The route between Sidnacester and the
river was well established with a small Anglian settlement – Glentham – close by.
8.19 There is every likelihood that Paulinus built (or converted) a church near to a pagan
site. The chapel at Spital-in-the-Street is close to former sacred springs and streams with
one ‘rag well’ still in use until the 19th century. Even the local official, Blæcca, supposedly
converted in Lincoln [28], held an office that extended throughout Lindsey. Consequently,
there is every reason to suppose that he could be found in an important, active, and
growing, religious centre at Hemswell Cliff.
8.20 The probability of a temple and a totem pole, and the strong likelihood of large
buildings suggested by stone foundations, can be found both in the well-researched Ritual
Landscape at Yeavering in Northumberland, and at Hemswell Cliff. The fortified position at
Yeavering can be represented at Hemswell Cliff by the adjacent Blyborough (from ‘Bliburc’,
‘Bli’s fortified enclosure’). Far greater links, however, can be seen in the story of Paulinus
visiting Yeavering to convert the pagans. At Yeavering, he baptised his converts in the
waters of the River Glen - a tributary of the River Till. Hemswell Cliff has a nearby River Glen
with its own ‘Bishop’s Bridge’ and, to the south, a River Till flows beneath a Roman Road
(Tillbridge Lane).
8.21 Yeavering was finally abandoned, probably by 686. Sidnacester, however, had, by
then, its own bishop and was about to play a significant part in the history of England.
8.22 By 678, after being converted to Christianity by Paulinus, and suffering from
Mercian/Northumbrian conflicts over possession of the kingdom, the site was peaceful
enough to become the base for the new ecclesiastical See of Lindsey – its position ideal,
particularly with regard to its communications. The communications were of exceptional
importance when it was decided that the King of Mercia (which, by then, included Lindsey)
would host a series of church synods which were, in effect, the first Parliamentary system to
have operated in Britain. With senior clergy arriving from Canterbury in the south and from
Durham in the north, both could arrive at the Humber by sea and either make their way
18
down the Roman road to the settlement, or they could sail up the Trent to modern day
Gainsborough, and take the road to the east. The Archbishop of York merely had to sail
down the River Ouse to the Humber before deciding whether to go by road or into the River
Trent.
8.23 Taking their name from the squat, rounded, hill just to the south of the site and
forming the highest point of the northern section of the limestone ridge, the Synods of
Clofesho (from the Saxon for ‘hill on the cliff’), discussed everything from Church ritual and
Papal commands to the dress of the clergy and banning of ‘fools, buffoons, or jugglers’ from
being in the company of bishops. [14]
8.24 Like Sidnacester, the site of Clofesho has vanished from the historical record. The
Venerable Clifford Offer, a former Archdeacon of Norfolk Cathedral and distinguished
medievalist, described Clofesho as –
‘The most famous lost place in Anglo-Saxon England.’ [15]
8.25 Just to the south-east corner of the site, at Caenby, a high status burial-barrow was
built in the early 7th century (HER 50430[2, page 2]). Larger than the Sutton-Hoo ship-burial
mound, the site was opened in 1849 and revealed, not only the richest grave to be
discovered in the Kingdom of Lindsey, but also the possible remains of a royal inhumation.
The positioning of the barrow suggests the desire to be buried close to (and thus be
associated with) a site of considerable significance.
8.26 It all came to an end, however, with the Danish invasions in the latter part of the 9th
century. Eventually, no Bishop was appointed until around 958 when it was decided to
move the Bishopric to Dorchester-on-Thames where it remained for the next century and a
half before moving to Lincoln. Whilst his cathedral was being built, the new Bishop of
Lincoln probably used the monastery at Stow as his base (one of his palaces was built there),
thus giving rise to the, now widely-recognised misconception, that Sidnacester was, in fact,
sited at Stow – a misconception probably supported by the fact that the church at Norton
(later ‘Bishop Norton’) formed part of the episcopal manor of Stow, and a later link was
established between Stow and Spital-in-the-Street.
8.27 The Viking raids drove the people from the Cliff site. The refugees gathered in small
communities at the bottom of the Cliff’s western slopes - Harpswell, Hemswell,
Willoughton, Blyborough, and Grayingham. They survived by paying a ‘Geld’ tax to the
Vikings, several of whom had settled in the newly-established villages of Snitterby, Atterby,
and Norton (later Bishop Norton).
8.28 The arrival of the Normans in the 11th century meant little more to the local people
beyond the imposition of new Lords of the Manor and a new destination for their taxes,
with the king effectively the owner of the whole country. The Norman land owners around
Hemswell Cliff were, however, not casual land-seekers amongst the minor nobility. The
Domesday Book reveals that the king himself took land surrounding the site at Glentworth,
Hemswell, Harpswell, Snitterby, and Grayingham (he also established a Royal Manor to the
north at Kirton-in-Lindsey). The Archbishop of York took land in Harpswell; whilst the
Bishop of Durham helped himself to Blyborough. The Bishop of Bayeux favoured
Glentworth, Hemswell, Glentham, and Normanby by Spital; as – not to be outdone - the
Bishop of Lincoln claimed land at Caenby, Bishop Norton, Glentham, and Grayingham. [18]
It would be unthinkable that the sovereign himself, along with the leading figures in the
Church, would have chosen land topping a limestone ridge covered by a thin layer of soil,
19
and bordered to the east and west by marshland, without good reason. The reason was,
that Hemswell Cliff and the surrounding area hosted a well-established Christian site that
was a key element in the nation’s religious, diplomatic, and commercial activities.
8.29 Another great change came with the establishment of a Knights Templar preceptory
at Willoughton somewhere between 1135 and 1154. A religious military order, the
Willoughton Templars achieved great power by becoming the administrative centre of the
Order in the north of England. They also used Willoughton as the main stud farm for their
battle-horses (a similar activity continues to this day) and may have wished to use the wideopen spaces at the top of the Cliff as a training area. The problem, however, would have
been the ruins left by the long-departed departed Bishopric. The answer was simple. In the
early 13th century the Knights allowed (or insisted) that the villagers used the stones from
the old buildings to build new churches or to improve already established ones.
8.30 Harpswell already had a stone-built church, but made significant alterations. New
churches (possibly replacing wooden churches) were built at Hemswell, Willoughton,
Blyborough, and Grayingham. Suggestion that the stone-built churches replaced earlier
wooden ones comes from the fact that two of them – St Radegund at Grayingham, and St
Alkmund at Blyborough are dedicated to Saxon saints. The Harpswell church was already
dedicated to the Saxon saint, Chad. The chapel at Spital-in-the Street is named for another
Saxon saint – St Edmund. There is also a hint that there was a (now lost) ‘Spital Priory’
which could also have benefited from the excess stone. [16] There is also a possibility that
other churches took advantage of the wholesale stone removal. A 19th century clergyman
at Kirton Lindsey wrote that the Priest’s door to the church had a Saxon stonework frame
surmounted by a Saxon tympanum which, he claimed, was from Sidnacester. Bishop Norton
church (largely re-built in the 18th century) has a Norman (possibly Saxon) tympanum fixed
to its west wall. There is no doubt that such removal of stones from the site could have
removed all obvious remaining evidence of building from the site. A survey of local
archaeological sites in Grimsby recorded that the 16th century ‘robbing’ of St Leonard’s
Nunnery in Grimsby left ‘….no trace of the church except a single voussior with dog-tooth ornament.’
[17 – page 229]
(Nevertheless, see the Stukeley comment at (5.9) above).
8.31 In all probability, the Knights Templar also took advantage of the stone available to
build their ‘wall on the King’s highway.’ [20] It is not known how long the barrier remained,
but it was still there a hundred years after its erection. When it was eventually pulled down,
there was every likelihood that the stones were re-used yet again – some being used as
foundations for a gateway onto the site just metres from where the barrier had been built
(Figure 8).
8.32 When the Knights Hospitallers took over the site (by now, in part, despoiled by
sandstorms) after the abolition of the Templars, they would still have had a need for horses
but – with the changing political and cultural circumstances - nothing like the amount the
Templars would have used. The land probably became Common Land available for the use
of the villagers of Hemswell Parish, a situation likely to have remained unchanged through
the 16th century dissolution of the monasteries (which included the preceptories of the
remaining military orders). In 1792, an Enclosure Act was passed by Parliament and the
common land at the cliff top was taken over as arable land. [21].
20
8.33 The ‘ritual landscape’ connection, however, remained unbroken at the Reformation.
Instead of being handed out to favourites of the king, or purchased by the wealthy, St.
Edmund’s chapel at Spital-in-the-Street, was allowed to continue to have the Chapter at
Lincoln Cathedral as its patron.
8.34 Long before the Reformation, the site of the chapel was known as ‘herdwick’, which
could indicate an area of pasture set aside for the use of livestock, usually belonging to a
monastery or a large domestic establishment. Alternatively, ‘herdwick’ could also mean
‘meeting place of the people’ which would account for the development of Spital as the
centre of the Aslacoe wapontake.
8.35 At some stage – possibly under the direction of Paulinus – a church or chapel was
built which, after 870, was dedicated to the ‘King and Martyr’ – St. Edmund. The chapel
could have been burnt down by the Danish settlers, but was more likely adapted for
domestic use, itself forming the nucleus of a small settlement. With the return of
Christianity, and the availability of building material from the old site of Sidnacester, a
stone-built chapel could have replaced the wooden one. By 1204, the Curia Regis Rolls has
the first mention of a ‘Hospitale’ adjoining the chapel – almost certainly intended as a place
of rest for travellers along Ermine Street. In 1323, the chapel come under the supervision of
the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln Cathedral and, in1349, a priest, John Atte Bek, was
recorded as being the incumbent of the chapel at ‘Hospitali Super Stratem’. [22]
8.36 The change of name at some stage from ‘Herdwick’ to ‘Spital-in-the-Street’ was
probably prompted by the recent arrival of the Knights Hospitaler to take over the
Preceptory at Willoughton from the now-defunct Knights Templar. After a period of
decline, the hospital was refounded in 1397 by the Archdeacon of Stow, Thomas de Aston.
Within 200 years, the settlement had become large enough to host a market, a fair, and the
Sheriff’s meeting place.
8.37 Towards the end of the 16th century, the judge and Speaker of the House of
Commons, Sir Christopher Wray, considered Spital-in-the-Street to be important enough to
build a Quarter Sessions law court close to the hospital and the chapel. Now, in the 21st
century, St. Edmund’s Chapel remains a religious establishment where, amongst other
services, an annual Requiem Mass is sung for Richard III.
8.38 It would, of course, be unthinkable, for hundreds – possibly thousands – of years, for
the wide area of the Ritual Landscape on and around Hemswell Cliff to have existed without
accruing one or two mysteries. One concerns the two tympani said – at least, in the case of
the one over the Priest’s door at Kirton-in-Lindsey – to have come from the site of
Sidnacester, and the contemporary tympanum at the west end of Bishop Norton church. If
a line was extended directly in the direction both tympani are facing (south from Kirton-inLindsey, and west from Bishop Norton), the lines would cross exactly on the site of the
proposed development.
8.39 Well before the wind turbine application, experts in Sacred Geometry took a look at
Willoughton and Blyborough. In both cases, instead of finding relevant patterns centred on
their target (as at Temple Bruer, to the south of Lincoln), a sacred symbol emerged directly
over the proposed development site at Hemswell Cliff. As a distinguished specialist in
landscape heritage and geoarchaeology has noted, ritual landscapes –
“….are equally relevant to the earth mysteries fraternity and are not the sole
property of archaeologists.” [8]
21
8.40 Finally, a small settlement in Warwickshire was visited in 1600 by Sir Walter Raleigh
who had an area around a small chapel dug up to explore the tradition that the Ark of the
Covenant – or, at least, the two slabs brought down from Mount Sinai on which the Ten
Commandments were carved – had been buried there by the Knights Templar. Of course,
nothing was found. The name of the site was made up of two elements which once
featured strongly on Hemswell Cliff. The village was called ‘Temple Herdewyke’. Could
Raleigh have been digging in the wrong place? Should he have been looking at part of a
Sacred Landscape whose name had been changed from ‘Temple Herdwick’ to ‘Spital-in-theStreet’ three centuries earlier? Someone else may certainly have thought so.
8.41 The Member of Parliament and High Sheriff of Lincolnshire, Sir William Wray, was
the son of a Speaker of the House of Commons and Lord Chief Justice of England. His
father, in order to stop the chapel at Spital being used as a local court of law, had built the
Sessions House nearby. However, shortly after his father’s death, Sir William pulled the
chapel down (it was rebuilt six years later by the Sub-Dean of Lincoln Cathedral). A man
noted for his strong religious beliefs, Sir William’s reason for destroying the chapel is not
known, but it is not beyond the bounds of credibility that he was also looking for the same
relics as Sir Walter. In the 1772 Enclosures, a descendant of Sir William, Sir Cecil Wray, took
52 acres alongside Ermine Street opposite Aslac’s Hill and, twenty-two years later, took a
further 335 acres surrounding – and including – Spital-in-the-Street.
8.41 The site of Yeavering in Northumbria, mentioned earlier, was referred to by
Professor David Hinton, the President of the Royal Archaeological Institute, as ‘perhaps the
most dramatic site of the Anglo-Saxon world.’ [6] The distinguished archaeologist Anna
Ritchie, called the site ‘an iconic yardstick for early medieval archaeology in north Britain.’
[24] The specialist in Northumbrian archaeology, Dr Clive Bell, noted Yeavering as the
‘continuity of cultural memory’. [24]
8.42 Hemswell Cliff and the surrounding area, a Ritual Landscape of considerably longer
duration than Yeavering, is an historically valuable site which remained undisturbed at any
depth for seven centuries until its ancient pathway was broken through by the anchor of a
meteorological mast. Hidden in the Hemswell Cliff Geophysical Report is a wholly ignored
warning that –
‘The materials encountered and samples obtained during on-site intrusive
investigations represent only a small proportion of the materials present on-site. It
should be accepted, therefore, that the interpretation from remotely sensed
geophysical data may be inconsistent with that arising from direct methods of
investigation.’ [33]
8.43 Hemswell Cliff is an archaeologically abundant site which produced 610 pottery sherds
from trenches that covered just one of half of one per cent of the site area - yet is dismissed
as ‘of low archaeological potential.’ [1] This conclusion can only have come from the
archaeologist’s view that the value of the site to archaeology, history and heritage is limited
to the artefacts found in the selected trenches opened up on the site – despite their clear
indications of a wealth of discoveries waiting to be unearthed. Such an attitude again runs
counter to the international codes of conduct for archaeologists involved in contract
archaeological work ‘Archaeologists involved in contract archaeological work should be conscious of the
need to maintain the academic coherence of archaeology, in the face of a tendency
22
towards fragmentation under a contract system of organization.’ (Principle 11 [38
Page 1])
At Hemswell Cliff, it is the archaeology that has suffered fragmentation at the expense of
the much wider, and much deeper, picture.
9.
9.1
Conclusion.
In paragraph 8.10 of the Archaeological Evaluation Report, it states that –
‘The eastern side of Trench 12 contained a complex sequence of
archaeological features (ditches, pits and postholes) dating from at least the
2nd century AD to the late 3rd/early 4th centuries. These were succeeded by a
metalled surface or trackway cut by a single posthole.’ [1]
Paragraph 8.12 noted that –
‘…the evaluation produced good evidence for Roman occupation across parts
of the site in the form of enclosure ditches, pits and structures dating from
the late 1st to the 4th century, with an emphasis on the 3rd and 4th centuries
AD. The evidence suggests that some of the ditches encountered were of
Iron Age origin, but appear to have been infilled during the late 3 rd to 4th
centuries AD.’ [1]
In paragraph 8.13 it is recorded that –
‘The presence of a late Roman stone structure in Trench 10 combined with a
relatively high occurrence of fine Roman tablewares usually found in
association with towns and villae is of particular significance.’ [1]
The above comments were drawn together in a single sentence found in paragraph 9.1 ‘Clear evidence of Roman occupation spanning at least two centuries was
found, with additional evidence of iron-age enclosures pre-dating this.’ [1]
9.2
It cannot be over-emphasised, that the above discoveries were not made during the
process of a large, wide-ranging, archaeological excavation, but during a ‘trial trenching’
exercise that covered approximately one half of one per cent (0.5%) of the entire proposed
development site.
9.3
The report’s recorded results were resolved into a suggestion of Iron Age
involvement and a confirmation of a Roman presence. In doing so, and despite considerable
evidence held in the Lincolnshire Heritage Environment Record (HER), the Palaeolithic,
Mesolithic, Neolithic, Anglo-Saxon, Danish, Norman, and the activities of medieval military
Orders, have all been ignored or dismissed. This is despite the work of a former Senior
Investigator with the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England), also with
English Heritage, and Vice President of the Medieval Settlement Research Group, who has
made a special study of the limestone ridge, including the proposed development site. He
wrote that –
23
‘…the growing body of aerial-photographic evidence already has made it clear that
this is a landscape of ancient and extensive exploitation, as witnessed, for example,
by traces of major multi-ditched linear boundaries (presumably major land division)
on the limestone ridge. Within it there were religious and funerary focuses – most
obviously long barrows and round barrows commonly in large complexes – that may
in some instances have remained visible and significant at least into the post-Roman
period. At the same time details that are emerging about the Roman landscape may
suggest that it presented an intensively organised and exploited pattern. It is within
this complex inherited landscape, difficult as it is for us to piece together through the
overlay of medieval and later land-use, that Anglo-Saxon settlement developed.’ [35]
9.4
The ‘intensively organised and exploited’ landscape could, in terms of time-scale, be
part of the Ritual Landscape at any stage over the last 8,000 years – but, it must be stressed
- only part. If, as is now believed, [26] a hengiform exists with Spital-in-the-Street as it
centre, its influence – as with other, similar, hengiforms – must extend considerably beyond
its outer boundary. To add to the natural assets of water, communications, construction
materials, and defence, must be added a continuous stream of variable, but linked, religious
observation that continues into the 21st century. It is absurd to imagine that the best part of
a hundred centuries of human activities have passed without leaving behind a significant
historical footprint. It is equally irrational to assume that a large number of giant turbines
seated on huge concrete bases could be embedded on the site without obliterating the
inherent sanctity of an ancient, sacred, landscape, and destroying the clearly existing, and
obviously irreplaceable, buried evidence of our national heritage.
9.5
The ‘cut and paste’ mitigation plan has been poorly thought out, and executed in
such an inept manner that it will do nothing to secure any archaeological achievement in an
area of considerable potential and promise. The proposed scheme of re-burial and
recording may well suit the discovery of an abandoned Victorian sewer discovered beneath
a Council allotment, but it should have no place as a response to evidence of stone
structures, metalled roads, 3rd and 4th century mortaria, coins, pits, ditches, metal working,
Iron Age and Roman pottery, postholes, ring ditches, limestone wall capping, and linear and
curvilinear features – all obtained from widely scattered excavations on the proposed site.
Each is part of a narrative covering centuries of history - all are part of our national and
cultural heritage.
9.6
It is clear that there can be no archaeological mitigation in an area such as Hemswell
Cliff. All that can be confidently assured is that, if the proposed development is permitted
to proceed, it will lead to the destruction of an extremely important, unique, and
exceptional, heritage site. This is because, by its very nature, archaeology is finite,
irreplaceable, and non-renewable, and the proposed mitigation contravenes the
fundamental ethos of archaeology which states that –
‘The study of a site is an unrepeatable experiment.’ [29]
However, what was once defenceless against cultural vandalism, now finds protection
against damage and loss through the protection of enlightened legislation. Such protection
urgently needs to be deployed for the sake of our national heritage.
9.6
The site and its history need to be thoroughly researched with a much higher degree
of positive expectation than has been demonstrated in this report. There is no sense of
anticipation, no feeling of achievement, and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for any other
result than that leading to the industrialisation of the site. The harm that will be caused if
24
consent is granted is significant, is contrary the policy, and is not overcome by the need for
renewable electricity generation. Mr Marcroft deals further with the planning balance, but
on this matter alone, the Inspector is respectfully requested to dismiss the appeal.
References:
[1]
Environmental Statement. Hemswell Cliff Wind Farm. 8 Turbine Scheme.
RWE Innogy UK Ltd. Further Environmental Information Report. Volume 3bAppendices-Chapters 7 – 13. April 2014.
[2]
Lincolnshire Historic Environment Records.
[3]
Appendix 2 – Prehistoric and Roman Pottery Assessment - of Chapter 7 of [1]
above. I M Rowlandson, June 21st 2013.
[4]
East Midlands Archaeological Research Framework - An Archaeological
Resource Assessment of Medieval Lincolnshire - ‘Metal Working’ (Page 16) by
Paul Everson. Undated.
[5]
Archaeological Watching Brief of Improvements to A15 Bishop
Norton/Norton Lane (BNNL06). Report for Lincolnshire County Council by
Katie Murphy BA (hons), MA. November 2006.
[6]
Great Sites, David Hinton on the 7th Century Royal Site at Yeavering.
Published in British Archaeology, Issue 58, April 2001.
[7]
Agriculture and Ritual Landscape by Man Bahadur Kattri. Published in
‘Occasional Papers in Sociology and Anthropology, Volume 8, 2003.
[8]
The ‘Ritual Landscape’ concept in Archaeology by John G. Robb. Published in
‘Landscape Research’ Volume 23, No.2, 1998.
[9]
Prehistoric Surveyors, Measured Landscapes’ by John Hill. Published by
‘Antiquity’ Volume 8, No. 312, June, 2007.
[10]
Roman Britain and the English Settlements page 271, by R G Collingwood FBA
and J N L Myres. Published by Bibi. O and Tannen, New York, I.S.B.N. 0-81961160-3
[11]
Christianity in Roman Britain to AD500 by Charles Thomas. University of
California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
[12]
Lincolnshire. An Archaeological Resource Assessment of the Later Bronze
and Iron Ages (First Millennium BC) in Lincolnshire by Steven Membury.
Published by East Midlands Archaeological Research Framework: Resource
Assessment of 1st Millennium BC Lincolnshire. 2002.
[13]
Delete
25
[14]
Glimmerings in the Dark, or Lights and Shadows of the Olden Time, by F.
Somner Merryweather. Published by Simpkin, Marshall, & Co. London.
1850.
[15]
In Search of Clofesho – The Case for Hitchin, by Clifford Offer. Published by
Tessa Publications, Norwich. 2002.
[16]
The History of the County of Lincoln, volume II. Published by John Saunders,
Junior, London and Lincoln, 1834.
[17]
( 6) by Neil Loughlin and Keith Miller 1979 A survey of archaeological sites in
Humberside carried out for the Humberside Joint Archaeological Committee
[18]
The Lincolnshire Domesday and the Lindsey Survey, Edited by C W Foster and
T Longley. Published by the Lincoln Record Society, Volume 19. 1924.
[19]
The Complete English Traveller, or a New Survey and Description of England
and Wales by Nathaniel Spencer Esq. Published by The King’s Royal License
and Authority. 1772.
[20]
‘A History of the County of Lincoln, Volume II’ Edited by William Page.
Published by Victoria County Histories. 1906.
[21]
An Act for dividing and enclosing the Open Fields, Meadows, Pastures,
Commons, and Waste Lands within the Parish of Hemswell, in the County of
Lincoln. May 1792. Published in the Journal of the House of Lords, Volume
39, 1790-1793.
[22]
Lincolnshire Parish Clergy c.1214-1968. Part: The Deaneries of Aslacoe and
Aveland by Nicholas Bennett. Published by Boydell and Brewer Ltd for The
Lincoln Record Society. 2013.
[23]
Deleted
[24]
Review of ‘Yeavering, People, Power and Place’ Editors, Frodsham and
O’Brien, by Anna Ritchie. The Antiquities Journal, Volume 86. September
2006.
[25]
Letter from Humberside Archaeologist Ben Whitwell of Humberside County
Council Archaeology Unit to Graeme Paterson. 4th July, 1992.
[26]
Personal communication – Dr D Marcombe to E C Coleman, October, 2014.
[27]
England’s Other Cathedrals by Paul Jeffrey. Published by The History Press,
Stroud, Gloucestershire, 2011.
[28]
Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England by the Venerable Bede. Published by
Christian Classics Ethereal Library on
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bede/history.pdf
[29]
Techniques of Archaeological Excavation by Philip Barker. Published by B T
Batsford Ltd, London. 1996.
26
[30]
Appendix 7.3 – para 13. Archaeology Mitigation Plan (8 Turbine Scheme) of
Chapter 7 of [1] above.
[31]
Itinerarium Curiosum by William Stukeley. Published by Baker and Leigh,
Covent Garden, London. 1776.
[32]
Undated letter from Mrs Karen Waite, Historic Environment Officer,
Lincolnshire County Council, to Mr R Clarkson, Planning Officer with West
Lindsey District Council.
[33]
RWE NPower Renewables Ltd, Hemswell Cliff Geophysical Report, Project no.
293611. March 2013.
[34]
National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and Local
Government. March 2012.
[35]
Paper by Paul Everson MA, FRA in Viking Settlement in Lindsey. Published by
City of Lincoln Archaeology Unit, Lincoln. 1993
[36]
Standard and Guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment
services. Published by the Institute for Archaeologists, University of Reading.
August 2012.
[37]
Appendix 7.1 – PCAS June 2013, Archaeological Evaluation Report in [1]
above.
[38]
The EAA Principles of Conduct 2000-08-16 for Archaeologists involved in
Contract Archaeological Work. European Associations of Archaeologists. 26
September 1998.
[39]
Environment Statement, Volume 1. RWE npower renewables Ltd. 2012.
[40]
Heritage at Risk Register 2014. East Midlands. Published by English Heritage.
2014. List Entry 1017333
[41]
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Part I Protection of
scheduled monuments Section 2.
[42]
West Lindsey Local Plan NBE 7
27
PROPOSED WIND FARM AT HEMSWELL CLIFF – PLANNING REFERENCE 128940. PHOTOGRAPHS OF
THE AREA CONCERNING ARCHAEOLOGY ON AND AROUND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE.
Figure 1. This aerial photograph was taken in the late 1970’s by Professor Paul Everson, a senior
archaeologist researching the area. The road running across the top left-hand corner of the image is
Norton lane, and the field itself is about half a kilometre from the eastern boundary of the proposed
development site. The image clearly shows parallel lines, possible tracks, building outlines, and
boundary pits. The crop marks suggest that the field was part of a suburban area related to the
main site on the development site. Note the continuation of crop marks in the adjacent fields.
Figure 2. This photograph shows the field directly to the north of the field in Figure 1. Once again,
the number of lines shows the extent of human occupation.
28
Figure 3. A Google image of fields north of Old Leys Lane and above the village of Willoughton. In
the centre of the upper half of the image a curving crop mark suggests a segment of a henge. The
curve is also reflected in the south-east border of the field. In the field below, lines indicate
enclosures whilst a rectangular crop mark suggests the site of a building. The straight line running
nearly north-south is the path of a 20th century pipe-line. To the left of the image is the B1398 road.
The faint route of a trackway – which may be an extension of the path in Figure 8 – appears to curve
around the field containing the henge segment.
Figure 4. A similar Google image to Figure 3, but taken at a different time of year. The crop growth
has hidden almost all the potential archaeological sites, but the ‘henge’ segment still remains
prominent.
29
Figure 5. The ancient pathway crossing the site is shown as a dotted line on this Ordnance Survey
map. Despite being considered by archaeologists ‘of considerably antiquity’, one of the
Meteorological Mast’s anchors has already destroyed a section.
30
Figure 6. The two parallel lines show the route of the ancient footpath seen in Figure 4. The
Metrological Mast anchor can be clearly seen. There is no evidence of any archaeological
investigation having been carried out to prevent any damage to the path. (Image from the
Magnetometry Survey Fig 5. Sheet 2 of 9. Found in Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI)
– Volume I part 2B. 4 June 1913).
Figure 7. A Google image of an unrecorded linear feature at the eastern edge of the proposed
development site. The yellow dot is shows the site of a possible Neolithic long barrow. The red dot
marks the site of an unidentified feature that is probably the remains of a known Knights Templar
barrier across Ermine Street (A15). The eastern entry on to the site is just to the south of the red
dot, and will have to be opened out to accept the large turbine components.
31
Figure 8. The site of the eastern entrance to the proposed development (the entrance barrier can be
seen at the top of the image). This photograph, from the 2006 archaeological watching brief, shows
a layer of dressed stones being used as foundations for the entrance. The most likely place for the
stone’s origins was the ‘undated linear of uncertain function’ just a few metres to the north beneath
the Ermine Street (A15) - the likely site of the Knights Templar barrier.
Figure 9. The wall foundation uncovered in Trench 16.
32
Figure 10. The diagram shows Trench 16 (red) – containing a wall foundation, Trench 17 (yellow) –
declared empty, and Trenches 1 and 2 – purportedly dug to investigate the find in Trench 16.
Figure 11. The complete Trench 1, dug to a depth of 40cm (15 inches).
33
Figure 12. The complete Trench 2, again dug to a depth of 40cm (15 inches).
Figure 13. The River Ancholme (formerly the River Glen) looking south from Bishop Bridge. To the
north of the bridge, the river was broadened out into a wide drain capable of accommodating river
traffic but, at the time of Bishop Paulinus, the entire river would have been the width of the river in
34
the image. This width, and with the probable site of Sidnacester nearby, would have made mass
baptisms a practical proposition.
35