painswick rococo garden painswick gloucestershire

PAINSWICK ROCOCO GARDEN
PAINSWICK
GLOUCESTERSHIRE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION:
THE RED HOUSE
For
PAINSWICK ROCOCO
GARDEN TRUST
CA REPORT: 05176
NOVEMBER 2005
PAINSWICK ROCOCO GARDEN
PAINSWICK
GLOUCESTERSHIRE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION:
THE RED HOUSE
CA PROJECT: 2080
CA REPORT: 05176
Author:
David Cudlip
Approved:
Martin Watts
Signed:
…………………………………………………………….
Issue: 01
Date: 25 November 2005
This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeology accepts no responsibility or liability to any
third party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report
entirely at their own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission.
© Cotswold Archaeology
Building 11, Kemble Enterprise Park, Kemble, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 6BQ
Tel. 01285 771022
Fax. 01285 771033
E-mail: [email protected]
Painswick Rococo Gardens: Archaeological Investigation
© Cotswold Archaeology
CONTENTS
SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 2
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 3
The site ................................................................................................................ 3
Archaeological background.................................................................................. 3
Archaeological objectives .................................................................................... 4
Methodology ........................................................................................................ 5
2.
RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 6
Trench A (Fig. 2) .................................................................................................. 6
Trench B (Figs 2, 4 and 5) ................................................................................... 6
Trench C (Fig. 2).................................................................................................. 6
The Finds ............................................................................................................. 7
3.
DISCUSSION....................................................................................................... 7
4.
CA PROJECT TEAM ........................................................................................... 8
5.
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 8
APPENDIX 1: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS...................................................................... 9
APPENDIX 2: THE FINDS................................................................................................ 9
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 1
Site location plan (1:25,000)
Fig. 2
Trench location plan (1:100)
Fig. 3
Detail of Thomas Robins’ 1748 painting of the garden, the Red House far right
Fig. 4
Section of trench B (1:10)
Fig. 5
Trench B, view to north-west. Scales both 1m
1
Painswick Rococo Gardens: Archaeological Investigation
© Cotswold Archaeology
SUMMARY
Site Name:
Painswick Rococo Garden
Location:
Painswick, Gloucestershire
NGR:
SO 3865 2106
Type:
Investigation
Date:
9-10 November 2005
Location of Archive:
To be deposited with Painswick Rococo Garden Trust
Site Code:
PRG 05
An archaeological investigation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in November
2005 at the request of Painswick Rococo Garden Trust at Painswick Rococo Garden,
Gloucestershire. Three trenches were excavated around the Red House as part of an
ongoing programme of investigation designed to enable further interpretation of the garden
and the reconstruction of key features.
The investigations were carried out to clarify a number of issues surrounding the Red House
and its depiction in Thomas Robins’ 1748 painting of the garden. It is unclear if this painting
represents the garden ‘as planned’ or ‘as existing’. Although the Red House is clearly shown
its base is fuzzily drawn, possibly indicating a rockwork structure. There also appears to be a
flight of steps leading up to the terrace on which the Red House stands, running at right
angles to the current steps, and paths leading away from either side of the terrace. None of
these features are apparent today.
The investigations found no evidence for any rockwork foundations, or for the steps or paths
as depicted by Robins. The nature of the material encountered in front of the Red House
suggests that this was part of the 18th-century garden landscaping, that there was no
rockwork substructure and that the steps, if ever present, were rather insubstantial.
However, it is possible that this deposit was part of a later episode of landscaping and that
evidence may survive for both a rockwork base and original steps beneath the modern brick
pavior surface directly in front of the Red House. The absence of evidence for paths to either
side of the terrace may be due to a reduction in ground level of up to 0.25m, apparent from
the exposed foundations of the Red House. Four sherds of residual Roman pottery were
recovered from the foundation terrace, along with other artefactual material broadly dating to
the 17th to 19th centuries.
2
Painswick Rococo Gardens: Archaeological Investigation
© Cotswold Archaeology
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
In November 2005 Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out an archaeological
investigation for Painswick Rococo Garden Trust (PRGT) at the Red House,
Painswick Rococo Garden (centred on NGR: SO 3865 2106; Fig. 1). The
investigation was undertaken to seek evidence for possible structures apparent in
Thomas Robins’ painting of 1748, which portrays the garden. In particular, attention
was focused on a possible rockwork foundation structure in front of the Red House,
a possible flight of steps leading up to its entrance from the south-east, and two
paths approaching it from the south-east and north-west (Fig.3).
1.2
The investigation was carried out in accordance with a brief prepared by PRGT
dated September 2005, and with a subsequent detailed Written Scheme of
Investigation produced by CA (2005). The fieldwork also followed the Standard and
Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluation issued by the Institute of Field
Archaeologists (1999), and the Management of Archaeological Projects II (English
Heritage 1991).
The site
1.3
The Red House lies at the head of a small, steep-sided valley, which provides a
commanding view across the gardens to the rear of Painswick House (Fig. 2). It
stands at approximately 185m AOD on a small terrace cut into and protruding from
the natural hill slope The base of the Red House today features a flowerbed sloping
at c. 45˚ degrees, planted with shrubs and perennials, and with some stone placed
to form a rockery.
1.4
The underlying geology of the area is mapped as landslip and foundered limestone
strata (British Geological Survey 1975).
Archaeological background
1.5
Painswick Rococo Garden is an extremely rare survival of a mid 18th-century
Rococo garden. The Rococo period was part of an 18th-century transition in garden
design from formal and regular gardens, usually close to the house, to the larger
scale ‘English landscape garden’ that incorporated the local countryside. The
Rococo garden saw elements of both the formal and informal, with often-ephemeral
structures constructed in a variety of building styles. The garden layout at Painswick
was recorded in 1748 by Thomas Robins, who may have designed the garden
3
Painswick Rococo Gardens: Archaeological Investigation
© Cotswold Archaeology
himself. As such, it is unclear if the painting represents an ‘as existing’ or an ‘as
planned’ record of the garden.
1.6
The garden was maintained until the 1950s but, being unable to afford the upkeep,
Lord Dickinson planted a wood across the garden in 1965. Interest in the garden
was renewed following an exhibition of Robins’ paintings in 1976, and work began in
1984 to restore the garden to its original form.
1.7
Archaeological investigation (published in 1993) has already confirmed the survival
of significant garden features and elements of the layout, some of which do not
conform exactly to the 1748 painting. Archaeological work carried out by Cotswold
Archaeological Trust in 2001 enabled further interpretation of the garden, and
allowed a greater understanding and reconstruction of key features (CAT 2001).
1.8
The Red House is shown in the extreme right hand corner of Robins’ painting. The
base of the Red House lacks clarity, but it may indicate a rockwork structure; if so,
this has been removed or covered up as no 18th-century rockwork is apparent
today. The painting also appears to depict a flight of steps leading up to the house
terrace from the south-east, and paths leading away from either side of the terrace.
As with the rockwork, none of these features are apparent today, and the terrace is
reached via stone steps leading up from the south-west.
Archaeological objectives
1.9
The objectives of the investigation were to establish the original construction of the
Red House terrace and adjoining paths. The trenches were located to look for:
•
Evidence of any rockwork foundations, how the terrace of the Red House was
originally constructed and its alignment (trench B);
•
Evidence for steps from the end of a path which approached the terrace from the
south (trench B);
•
The positions, levels and type of construction of the two paths shown by Robins
as extending off to either side of the terrace (trenches A and C).
4
Painswick Rococo Gardens: Archaeological Investigation
© Cotswold Archaeology
Methodology
1.10
The fieldwork comprised the excavation of 3 trenches in the locations shown in Fig.
2. Trenches A and C measured 2m x 0.5m; trench B measured 2m x 3m.
1.11
Excavation of the trenches was undertaken by hand. Initially, this involved the
careful removal of topsoil and continued until the first archaeological horizon or
natural substrate was revealed (whichever was encountered first). Removal of any
planting within agreed areas of excavation was undertaken by PRGT prior to
excavation. Spoil was temporarily stored adjacent to each trench on plastic sheeting
at agreed locations and with due consideration for the immediate garden
surroundings.
1.12
Trenches A and C were moved further away from the Red House than originally
planned following consultation with PRGT and the observation that the terrace area
immediately in front of the Red House had at some time been reduced by at least
0.25m, probably removing any evidence of the flanking paths close to the house.
This is apparent from exposed foundations at the base of the main elevation of the
house.
1.13
All archaeological features revealed were planned and recorded in accordance with
Technical Manual No. 1: Fieldwork Recording Manual (CA 2005). Each context was
recorded on a pro-forma context sheet by written and measured description;
principal deposits were recorded by drawn plans (scale 1:20 or 1:50 as appropriate).
Photographs (monochrome print; colour transparencies) were taken as appropriate.
All finds were bagged separately with unique numbers relating to the context record.
All artefacts were recovered and retained for processing and analysis in accordance
with Technical Manual 3 Treatment of Finds Immediately after Excavation (CAT
1995). Deposits were assessed for their palaeoenvironmental potential; in this
instance none were considered to have any such potential, and so no samples were
taken. Levels were taken from a spot-height of 182.48m AOD on the path
immediately to the south of trench B.
1.14
The archive and artefacts from the evaluation are currently held by CA at their
offices in Kemble. Subject to the agreement of the legal landowner the site archive
(including artefacts) will be deposited with PRGT.
5
Painswick Rococo Gardens: Archaeological Investigation
© Cotswold Archaeology
2.
RESULTS
2.1
This section provides an overview of the investigation results; detailed summaries of
the recorded contexts and finds are to be found in Appendices 1 and 2 respectively.
Trench A (Fig. 2)
2.2
Trench A was located about 5m to the west of the Red House on ground which
sloped fairly steeply to the south. The natural substrate 101 was encountered at
0.3m below the present ground level. This was sealed by topsoil. No deposits or
artefacts of archaeological significance were revealed. There was no evidence for
any terracing of the natural slope, and the upper horizon of the natural substrate
would not have provided a suitable path without modification.
Trench B (Figs 2, 4 and 5)
2.3
Trench B was located about 2m to the south of the Red House. The earliest deposit
encountered was layer 202, a bank constructed from what appeared to be
redeposited natural substrate. Excavation of this deposit ceased at a depth of 0.95m
in consultation with PRGT. Had any evidence of rockwork foundations or steps been
present, it would have been encountered by this point as the height of the path
immediately to the south of the trench is considered to be very close to its original
level (Paul Moir, pers. comm.). Roman pottery was found within this layer 202,
although its association with post-medieval artefacts indicates that it was residual
and so of little archaeological significance (Section 2.7, below). Deposit 202 was
butted at its south-western edge by retaining walls 203 and 204, and then sealed by
topsoil 201, which was covered by brick pavoirs 200 forming the modern, reducedlevel terrace surface in front of the Red House.
Trench C (Fig. 2)
2.4
Trench C was located about 4m to the south-east of the Red House, across a slight
terrace running north-south along the contour of the valley, which was considered to
be a likely position for the path present in Robins’ painting. Within trench C natural
substrate 301 was encountered at 0.8m below present ground level at the northeastern end of the trench, and 0.2m below present ground level at its south-western
end. The profile of natural substrate 301 was more level than that of the topsoil
sealing it, but showed no signs of the modification that would have been required to
make it usable as a path. Evidence of disturbed path material was also absent from
the topsoil itself.
6
Painswick Rococo Gardens: Archaeological Investigation
© Cotswold Archaeology
The Finds
2.5
Quantities of artefactual material comprising pottery, vessel glass and clay pipe
were recovered from layer 202. Four abraded sherds of Roman pottery were
recovered as residual finds (appendix 2). All derive from a single Severn Valley ware
vessel, probably a jar, which is broadly dateable to between the later 1st and 4th
centuries AD. The remaining finds, consisting of fragments of clay tobacco pipe and
green wine/spirits bottle glass, date to the post-medieval or modern periods,
between the 17th and 19th centuries.
3.
DISCUSSION
3.1
The archaeological investigations found no evidence for flanking paths in trenches A
and C, or for steps or stone foundations in trench B. However, the absence of
evidence for these features does not necessarily indicate that they never existed.
3.2
In trench B, the assemblage of finds from deposit 202 has too broad a date range to
assign it confidently to any phase of works at the garden. The cleanness and
homogeneity of this deposit suggest that it has not been greatly disturbed or
reworked subsequent to its construction, perhaps indicating that it was part of the
original terrace for the Red House. If so, the lack of evidence for rockwork
foundations and steps indicates that these structures never existed, or were rather
insubstantial.
3.3
Alternatively, deposit 202 may have been part of a later re-organisation of the
terrace slope in front of the Red House, which included the construction of stone
steps leading directly up from the principal vista through the garden. Robins’ painting
seems to depict a narrower terrace in front of the Red House than is found today,
perhaps indicating that the terrace was also enlarged at this time. If so, then
evidence for rockwork foundations and steps may survive buried beneath the
modern brick surface directly in front of the Red House. However, there was no
evidence within trench B for the path that would have led to a flight of steps in that
location.
7
Painswick Rococo Gardens: Archaeological Investigation
3.4
© Cotswold Archaeology
The works associated with the construction or redevelopment of the Red House
appear to have disturbed Roman deposits in the vicinity, although this conclusion
must remain a tentative one, as landscaping material could have been imported.
3.5
The absence of evidence for paths in trenches A and C should likewise be treated
cautiously. It is clear that ground level in front of the Red House had been reduced
by up to 0.25m, and this may have removed all evidence for the paths for some
considerable distance to either side. The paths may also have been insubstantial,
working with the natural topography of the valley rather than grossly modifying it, a
technique which although central to the Rococo ethos, makes it difficult to trace
some features archaeologically.
3.6
The results of the investigation suggest that Robins’ painting of Painswick Rococo
Garden is, as regards the Red House at least, a visualisation of the potential of the
area rather than an accurate portrayal. The investigation also hints at an intriguing
earlier phase of activity in the area suggested by the presence of residual Roman
potsherds in the bank immediately south-west of the Red House. The original
provenance of these remains obscure, however.
4.
CA PROJECT TEAM
Fieldwork was undertaken by David Cudlip, assisted by Andrew Loader. The report
was written by David Cudlip. The illustrations were prepared by Lorna Gray. The
archive has been compiled by David Cudlip, and prepared for deposition by Ed
McSloy. The project was managed for CA by Martin Watts.
5.
REFERENCES
BGS (British Geological Survey) 1975 Solid and Drift Sheet 234: Gloucester
CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2005: Painswick Rococo Gardens: Written Scheme of
Investigation for an Archaeological Investigation
CAT (Cotswold Archaeological Trust) 2001 Painswick Rococo Garden, Painswick,
Gloucestershire: Archaeological Evaluation CAT report no. 01008
8
Painswick Rococo Gardens: Archaeological Investigation
© Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX 1: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS
Trench A
100
101
Topsoil. 0.3m deep.
Angular oolitic limestones in a light brown sandy clay matrix. Natural. 0.2m to limit of excavation (L.O.E).
Trench B
200
201
202
203
204
Brick pavoir. Dates to 1970s works (pers. comm. Paul Moir).0.15m deep.
Topsoil. 0.2m deep.
Redeposited natural. Angular oolitic limestones in a light brown sandy clay matrix. 0.7m deep to L.O.E.
Unworked limestone rockery base. Dates to 1970s works (pers. comm. Paul Moir). 0.15m deep
Unworked limestone path edging. Dates to 1970s works (pers. comm. Paul Moir). 0.15m deep
Trench C
300
301
Topsoil. 0.8m deep
Angular oolitic limestones in a light brown sandy clay matrix. Natural. L.O.E.
APPENDIX 2: THE FINDS
Context
202
Description*
Roman pottery: Severn Valley ware
Vessel glass: bottle glass
Clay pipe: stem fragments
Oyster shell
Count
4
1
3
3
9
Wt (g)
80
9
5
130
Spot-date
Post-med
Reproduced from the 1998 Ordnance Survey Explorer map with the permission
of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office
c Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeological Trust 100002109
N
Site
0
2.5km
COTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGY
PROJECT TITLE
Gloucestershire
Painswick Rococo Garden
Painswick, Gloucestershire
FIGURE TITLE
Site location plan
SCALE
1:25,000@A4
PROJECT NO.
2080
FIGURE NO.
1
N
A
A
A
B
C
0
10m
COTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGY
PROJECT TITLE
evaluation trench
Painswick Rococo Garden
Painswick, Gloucestershire
FIGURE TITLE
Trench location plan
SCALE
1:100@A4
PROJECT NO.
2080
FIGURE NO.
2
3
COTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGY
PROJECT TITLE
Painswick Rococo Garden
Painswick, Gloucestershire
FIGURE TITLE
Detail of Thomas Robin's painting
SCALE
not to scale
PROJECT NO.
2080
FIGURE NO.
3
Section AA
brick
pavoir
200
SW
183.5m
AOD
NE
topsoil
201
bank
202
wall
203
modern
path
wall
204
0
2m
5
COTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGY
4
Section AA
5
The section, looking north-west
PROJECT TITLE
Painswick Rococo Garden
Painswick, Gloucestershire
FIGURE TITLE
Trench B; section and photograph
SCALE @ A4
1:20 and n/a
PROJECT NO.
2080
FIGURE NO.
4&5