Archaeology Management Plan
June 2007
Gareth Browning
On behalf of The Wild Ennerdale Partnership
Page 1 of 12
Contents
Contents
2
Introduction
3
Wild Ennerdale
3
Survey Work
4
Principles of Management
6
Monitoring
8
Implementation
8
Review
8
Appendix 1 - Map Showing Location of all 23 Archaeological Sites
9
Appendix 2 - Principal Sites Management Plans
10
Appendix 3 - Principal Sites Monitoring Schedule
11
Page 2 of 12
Introduction
The range of monuments and features within the Ennerdale valley demonstrates how the
landscape has been influenced and altered by man for over 11000 years. Over five hundred
individual archaeological sites have been recorded through survey work, many of which are of
regional and national importance. Importantly Ennerdale is home to the most impressive collection
of valley bottom Bronze Age and Non Monastic mediaeval Archaeology in the Lake District.
This document is aimed at describing how the archaeological record in Ennerdale will be managed
so that it is protected for future generations whilst allowing the valley to continue to develop and
respond to change.
Wild Ennerdale
‘Wild Ennerdale’ is a partnership between the three main landowners in the valley:
The Forestry Commission, National Trust and United Utilities. The partnership vision
is:
“to allow the evolution of Ennerdale as a wild valley for the benefit of people,
relying more on natural processes to shape its landscape and ecology”
After 5 years of discussion, consultation and development the partnership published the Wild
Ennerdale Stewardship Plan in 2006. This extensive document illustrates (through maps, text and
photographs) how the partners propose to allow Ennerdale to evolve as a ‘wild’ valley. This is not a
typical ‘management plan’ with prescriptive targets and deadlines. As emphasis is on moving away
from ‘management’ in the traditional, ‘controlling’ sense, this plan demonstrates the broader
concepts for change in Ennerdale. Any boundaries on maps are indicative of what could happen,
not what will, as nature is unpredictable. The Stewardship Plan will be regularly reviewed and
updated as the development process unfolds.
Supporting the vision are eleven key principles:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
The sense of wildness experienced by people will be protected and enhanced;
The valleys landscape and habitats will be given greater freedom to develop under
natural processes, allowing robust and functioning ecosystems to develop on a
landscape scale
Public support and engagement will remain central to the Wild Ennerdale process
Intervention will only occur if complementary to the vision, or where a threat to the
vision is posed
Opportunities will be sought to develop greater public enjoyment and social benefit;
The historical and cultural assets of the valley will be conserved and protected;
Management and decision making will be focused more at the holistic landscape
scale;
Wild Ennerdale will be offered as a demonstration to others by sharing results and
information;
Opportunities will be sought for businesses that are sustainable within the vision;
Monitoring and assessment of change will be carried out on a large scale and over
a long period of time;
An element of set-up and higher level intervention may be required to facilitate
natural processes, recognising our starting point is influenced by past activity;
Page 3 of 12
Survey Work
In 2003 the Wild Ennerdale Partnership commissioned Oxford Archaeology North to produce a
Historic Landscape Survey of the whole valley. This work followed on from three previous
campaigns of survey. The aim of this survey was to improve the shared understanding of the local
historic environment and devise a series of management recommendations designed to protect
and conserve significant archaeological sites and landscapes. The survey is available in full on the
Wild Ennerdale website at www.wildennerdale.co.uk.
The survey report concluded that the “archaeology of Ennerdale can be set apart from other
Lakeland valleys because of the diversity, complexity, and survival of its archaeological remains.
As Ennerdale has no extensive ring-garth and has been subject to only limited valley bottom
enclosure, the archaeological resource has not been adversely impacted upon by the same level of
intensive land improvement that is found in other Lakeland valleys. In part as a result, Ennerdale
contains a remarkable survival of settlement and industrial remains that extend back to at least the
Bronze Age, and there are remains from the subsequent periods, albeit with some discontinuities
of settlement, through to the present; its medieval remains in particular are very well preserved.
Some site groups, such as the Gillerthwaite medieval settlements and the sites associated with
mineral extraction and processing are undoubtedly of national importance, but the greatest
archaeological importance of the valley is its collective archaeological resource, which reveals the
complex mechanisms of the valley’s development”.
Each archaeological site or landscape examined was rated in a national context. They were
considered in terms of their rarity, group value, and by comparison with examples elsewhere in the
region. The criteria used in assessing importance appears below.
Importance Key:
1
2
3
4
High Importance (this is restricted for sites or landscapes of national importance that
are scheduled or of definite schedulable quality).
Moderate Importance
Limited importance
Low importance / Poor survival or condition
In addition, each archaeological site or landscape was assessed in terms of how significant they are
within the context of the development of the valley. In many cases this correlates with the site’s
importance factor: for example the enclosed settlement is both very important, and is also significant
in terms of the development of the valley. In some cases, however, sites such as the valley bottom
enclosure, may not be a rare monument type, but are significant within the context of the valley. The
criteria used to describe significance is as follows:
Local Significance Key:
1
2
3
High Local Significance
Moderate Local Significance
Low Local Significance
In total 23 separate archaeological sites/landscapes were identified and rated according to the
above criteria. The full details of each site can be found in the full Historic Landscape Survey
Page 4 of 12
pages 51 to 58. Table 1 below lists the sites and their ratings whilst a map showing their locations
can be found in Appendix I.
Site name
EF II (Smithy Beck Bloomery)
EF III and EF IV (Smithy Beck Long House Group)
EF VI and EF VII (Woundell Beck Cairnfield)
EF VIII, EF IX, EF X and EF XI (Gillerthwaite Settlements)
EF XIII (Gillerthwaite Putative Vaccary)
EF XIV (River Liza Enclosed Settlement and Cairnfield)
EF XVI (Great Cove Shielings)
EF I (Smithy Beck Cairnfield)
EF V (Latterbarrow Cairnfield)
EF XV (Dubs Quarry)
Great Cove Iron Mines
Ennerdale Water Bloomeries (Sites 90, 169, 170 and 181)
Revelin Crag Shielings (Sites 159-161)
Clewes Gill Iron Mines (Site 184)
EF XVII (Herdus Field System)
Valley Bottom Enclosures and Farms
The Side (Site 177)
Herdus Surface Extraction (Sites 104 and 185)
Ennerdale/Buttermere Watershed Boundary
Red Beck to Stair Knott Coppicing
Unimproved/Unenclosed Moorland Pasture
Forest Plantations
Brown How Coppice Woodland (Site 114)
.
Page 5 of 12
Importance
Local
Significance
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
3
2
3
Principles of Management
The conservation of archaeology in Ennerdale encompasses many individual sites where there are
usually multiple objectives. These other objectives may include allowing natural processes to
develop, species and habitat conservation, recreational access and interpretation. These
objectives are not always mutually exclusive and it is often the case that by treating each
site/location on its merits multiple objectives can be achieved.
Broadly speaking the best vegetation cover for archaeological conservation is grassland. The
presence of grazing, linked in some locations with climatic conditions, restricts the establishment of
scrub and tree cover, which through their roots can damage sub surface artefacts.
Where important archaeological features are now situated in woodland, either as a result of
planting or natural expansion, particular conservation challenges are posed. This is the case in
Ennerdale where many of the archaeological features are situated in a woodland environment
which has been established for up to 80 years. Experience demonstrates that a “trees on, trees off
“ approach to conservation does not always provide the best long term effective conservation
solution. A variety of effects resulting from tree clearance e.g. increased erosion, rapid scrub
encroachment and destabilising neighbouring tree cover all need to be considered. In addition
there needs to be an acceptance that tree retention does not significantly add to the subsurface
damage that has already taken place.
The following principles will be considered when deciding upon local actions. (Text highlighted in
blue explains how the Wild Ennerdale Partnership has responded to each principle.)

Have a suitable scale plan of the feature/area to be conserved. In partnership with the Lake
District National Park Authority and Oxford Archaeology North a detailed survey of all
archaeology features has been completed and is available to all three landowners, the public
through the partnership website, printed copies and within a Geographic Information System.

Impacts of machinery and operations. When felling make sure appropriate mitigation for access
routes is in place. Implementation of the Wild Ennerdale Stewardship Plan will see a significant
move away from clearfell and restocking towards less intensive thinning and regeneration thus
significantly reducing the use of large machines to manage the forest. The Forestry
Commission has a detailed Operations Planning system for all operation sites which includes
identifying and protecting archaeological features.

Have an understanding of the likely nature of archaeological features and deposits associated
with the site to be conserved. Appreciate the probable impacts of previous and current land use
on these. For example bracken infestation or tree root impacts may have limited archaeological
survival. Site visits and photographs of the top 14 sites for which management plans have been
drawn up detail the current and historic vegetation covering the sites.

On large areas identify which are the key features which may require special attention e.g.
structures. This is particularly important when other conservation values e.g. woodland SSSI
need to be taken into account. See Implementation section - each of the 14 site management
plans should identify features requiring special attention.

Allow for the effects of the removal of shading tree canopy. Most tree species provide a very
effective suppression of ground vegetation often contributing to the enhanced visibility of
archaeological features. The site surveys and management plans recognise sites already
Page 6 of 12
within a woodland environment and comment on the appropriateness for allowing woodland to
continue.

Intense early action can save long term resource commitment. Following tree removal there
may still be a viable seed source present that can contribute to rapid regeneration if not
addressed. Where tree clearance has occurred follow up action can reduce long term risk and
resource commitment. The site management plans recognise this with recommendations for a
one off clearance of young regeneration proposed for EFV Latterbarrow and EF XIC&D
Gillerthwaite Settlement.

Link management action to the time scales of vegetation growth in relation to the conservation
objective. Where site visibility (e.g. for visitors) is an objective then activities such as scrub
cutting will have to be more frequent than if simply managing to limit rooting or windblow
impacts. This management plan includes a monitoring schedule which will see all the important
sites visited once every 7 years. Some scrub cutting of key features adjacent to well used
routes is to be tried.

When grazing is used as an instrument of conservation ensure that stock levels do not
contribute to erosion. Grazing will be monitored through the management plan photos. Trial
extensive cattle grazing of the Gillerthwaite Fields east of the EF VIB will include EF XIC, XID,
XIVC and XIVB is proposed to start in may 2008. This will be monitored through fixed point
photography and site visits.

The conservation of historic landscape character involves identifying the capacity for change
and understanding the effects of any proposed actions on temporal and spatial scales. The
monitoring work through the management plans, photography (fixed and aerial), 5 yearly
review of the Stewardship Plan, community and visitor surveys will help understand the effects
of allowing the valley to develop as a wilder place and the subsequent effects on the historic
landscape.

Monitoring and commitments to relevant actions should be a part of any conservation plan. The
monitoring schedule, management plans and photography will ensure that this happens.
Page 7 of 12
Monitoring
With over five hundred individual archaeological features ranging widely in importance and
significance it is impractical to have a management plan for every feature. Management of all the
archaeological features will be guided by the principles detailed earlier, however to ensure that the
most important sites are protected it is proposed to have management plans and a monitoring
schedule for those features with an importance rating of 1 or 2. This amounts to 14 Principal sites.
The management plans will briefly describe the site, provide a map and explain the recent history,
current setting, and propose work in keeping with the principles listed in the previous section and
the Wild Ennerdale Guiding Principles. The completed management plans will be provided in
Appendix 2 and the photo surveys available on a separate CD.
To ensure that each of the 14 Principal sites is visited regularly a monitoring schedule has been
drawn up and is presented in Appendix 3. This schedule recognises the slow speed of change and
sets a practical return period of seven years thus requiring two sites to be reviewed each year.
Those sites which have work proposed in their management plans have been scheduled for review
earlier so as to ensure the outcome of the work is monitored
Monitoring visits will involve the landowners, their advisers, the Lake District National Park
Authority and English Heritage.
Implementation
Monitoring visits will be agreed annually with the following year's date agreed in advance. Normally
this will be in the summer to enable better assessment of vegetation and ensure safe access to
higher elevation sites.
Where the monitoring visits identify the need for work to be carried out this will be carried out as
soon as is practical given the availability of resources.
Normally work will be carried out by partnership staff under the land owners supervision.
Harvesting work may be carried out by contractors but these will also be closely supervised and
work covered by constraints and individual sites marked out. Where work is proposed on a
scheduled monument, approval will be sought from English Heritage in advance of starting any
operation listed as potential damaging.
Where potentially damaging work such as mechanised harvesting is planned across any of the 14
principal sites, large areas and/or multiple sites Archaeological advice will be sought from the
National Trust and/or Lake District National Park Authority. Where only individual features are
affected by low impact work such as pulling young regeneration archaeological advice is unlikely to
be needed.
Review
This Archaeology Management Plan will be reviewed every 5 years usually in the 12 months
following the 5 yearly review of the Stewardship Plan. The Stewardship Plan will include a map
showing achievements, which will incorporate work completed under the Archaeology
Management Plan monitoring process.
The 14 Principal Sites will be reviewed individually according the Monitoring Schedule and every 5
years in the context of the review of the whole Archaeology Management Plan as described above.
Page 8 of 12
Appendix 1
Map Showing Location of all 23 Archaeological Sites
Page 9 of 12
Appendix 2
Principal Sites Management Plans
Page 10 of 12
Appendix 3
Principal Sites Monitoring Schedule
Page 11 of 12
Page 12 of 12