Summary
The site of a medieval village founded in the C11 and a C12 Cistercian Priory, a post-Dissolution mansion and gardens and a field of associated ridge and furrow to the south-east.
Reasons for Designation
The medieval village, Priory, post-Dissolution mansion and gardens, and ridge and furrow at Lower Catesby is scheduled for the following principal reasons:
* Survival: for the extensive earthworks and parchmarks depicting the form and plan of the Priory, post-Dissolution mansion and gardens, settlement and associated features, and the well-preserved ridge and furrow which demonstrates the relationship between settlement and agricultural activity which underpinned the medieval economy;
* Potential: for the stratified archaeological deposits which retain considerable potential to increase our understanding of the physical characteristics of the buildings of both the Priory and settlement. Buried artefacts will also have the potential to increase our knowledge and understanding of the social and economic functioning of the monument within the wider medieval landscape;
* Documentation: for the exceptional level of historical and archaeological documentation pertaining to the settlement’s evolution. Extensive research drawn from contemporary records matched by the interpretation of archaeological remains provides an unusually in depth and comprehensive understanding of the monument and its occupants throughout its long-lived occupation, adding considerably to its national historic and archaeological importance;
* Diversity: for the range and complexity of features such as building platforms, crofts, trackways and the fish ponds, and the foundations of Priory buildings, water management features and the post-Dissolution house and gardens which, taken as a whole, provide a clear plan of the settlement and retain significant stratified deposits which serve to provide details of the continuity and change in the evolution of the settlement and Priory, the status of its inhabitants and the decline in its fortunes;
* Group value: the village, Priory, post-Dissolution mansion and ridge and furrow are closely associated functionally and historically. They have considerable group value as an ensemble and also with the listed buildings in Lower Catesby.
History
The village, comprising a small group of houses (tofts), gardens (crofts), yards, streets, paddocks, a manor and a church, sometimes a green, occupied by a community devoted primarily to agriculture, was a significant component of the rural landscape in much of lowland medieval England, much as it is today. Our Introduction to Heritage Assets on Medieval Settlements (May 2011) explains that most villages were established in the C9 and C10, and exhibit a variety of plan-forms, from the highly irregular at one extreme to planned villages with tofts and crofts running back from a main road, often linked with a back lane around the rear of the crofts, and typically having a church and manor house in larger compartments at the end of the village. In recognising the great regional diversity of medieval rural settlements in England, Roberts and Wrathmell (2003) divided the country into three broad Provinces on the basis of each area's distinctive mixture of nucleated and dispersed settlements; these were further divided into sub-Provinces. The Northamptonshire settlements lie in the East Midlands sub-Province of the Central Province, an area characterised in the medieval period by large numbers of nucleated settlements. The southern part of the sub-Province has greater variety of settlement, with dispersed farmsteads and hamlets intermixed with the villages. Whilst some of the dispersed settlements are post-medieval, others may represent much older farming landscapes.
Although many villages and hamlets continue to be occupied to the present day, some 2,000 nationally were abandoned in the medieval and post-medieval periods and others have shrunken. In the second half of the C20, research focused on when and why desertion and shrinkage occurred. Current orthodoxy sees settlements of all periods as fluid entities, being created and disappearing, expanding and contracting and sometimes shifting often over a long period of time. Abandonment may have occurred as early as the C11 or continued into the C20, although it seems to have peaked during the C14 and C15. In the East Midlands sub-Province, Roberts and Wrathmell identified that the sites of many settlements, most of which were first documented in Domesday Book of 1086, are still occupied by modern villages, but others have been partially or wholly deserted and are marked by earthwork remains. Research into Northamptonshire medieval villages highlights two prevalent causes of settlement change, namely the shift from arable farming to sheep pasture in the C15 and C16 (requiring larger tracts of land to be made available for grazing), and the enclosure of open fields from the late C16 through to the mid C19 for emparkment or agricultural improvement. Despite the commonly held view that plague caused the abandonment of many villages, the documentary evidence available confirms only one such case in Northamptonshire, the former settlement of Hale, in Apethorpe.
Recent attention on the evidence for medieval agricultural practices, typically found in the hinterland of the settlements, has highlighted the vulnerability of the earthwork remains of ‘ridge and furrow’. Aerial photography is particularly useful in identifying its survival in the county and has contributed much to our understanding of the resource and the threats to it. Analysis of the attrition and survival of the Midlands’ open fields were published in ‘Turning the Plough’ by David Hall, currently being revised by Historic England. The Introduction to Heritage Assets on Field Systems explains that the origins of ridge and furrow cultivation can be traced to the C10 or before. By the C13, the countryside had acquired a widespread corrugated appearance as settlement developed into a pattern of ‘townships’ (basic units of community life and farming activity). The cultivated ridges, individual strips known as ‘lands’, were incorporated into similarly aligned blocks known as ‘furlongs’, separated from each other by raised ridges known as ‘headlands’ which, in turn, were grouped into two, three or sometimes four large unenclosed ‘Great Fields’. These fields occupied much of the available land in each township but around the fringes lay areas of meadow, pasture (normally unploughable land on steep slopes or near water) and woodland. The characteristic pattern of ridge and furrow was created by ploughing clockwise and anti-clockwise to create lines of flanking furrows interspersed with ridges of ploughed soil. The action of the plough, pulled by oxen, takes the form of a reversed ‘S’-shape when seem in plan. The furrows enabled the land to drain and demarcated individual farmer’s plots of land within the Great Fields. The open-field system ensured that furlongs and strips were fairly distributed through different parts of the township and that one of the Great Fields was left fallow each year.
The 1982 survey of Northamptonshire by the Royal Commission on the Historic Monuments of England (RCHME) and the Northamptonshire Historic Environment Record (HER) summarise the history of the former village of Lower Catesby, and documents the archaeological evidence for its interpretation and survival. Archaeological and documentary research into Lower Catesby, undertaken by Brian Giggins and Jane Laughton and published in Northamptonshire Past and Present (2001 and 2003), gives further detail, and is summarised below. The use of aerial photographs further enhances our understanding of the site and its extent. Glenn Foard in Laughton (2001) explains that aerial survey of 1996 revealed surviving buried remains of medieval peasant houses and buildings related to the priory and to the later country house and its formal gardens. Aerial photographs taken by Historic England in 2013 confirm the continuing survival of archaeological deposits.
The history of Lower Catesby is linked with that of Upper Catesby to the south-east and Newbold to its north. All of these settlements are shrunken, or in the case of Newbold, abandoned and damaged in the late C20 by ploughing, but their history appears to be amalgamated in documentary sources. Upper Catesby is likely to have its origins in the Saxon period, and was probably established by the C9, but is first mentioned in Domesday Book of 1086 when it was listed as a four-hide estate with a population of 25, including a priest, held by Sasfrid de Esseby. It seems likely that the settlement at Lower Catesby was founded in the medieval period when de Esseby’s grandson, Robert, founded a Priory of Cistercian nuns here, although it is possible that a watermill already existed here in 1086. The Priory was granted the church at Catesby, the chapel at Hellidon and the villages of Upper and Lower Catesby and Newbold. It is recorded that between 1175 and 1316 a cell of Augustinian Canons was attached to the Priory and that in 1229 the King granted wood from Silverstone Forest for the building of the Priory church. Most of the written evidence for the layout of the Priory comes from C15 documents, but at this period it is known that the precinct wall was constructed of stone and contained an inner area of claustral buildings, subsidiary structures presumably located in an outer court. An indication of the line of the precinct wall is given by details of repairs carried out in 1449 which describes stretches of wall on the boundary wall next to the roads to Hellidon and Shuckborough, and north of St Edmund’s Barn (probably located on or near to the site of Home Park). Giggins and Laughton suggest that the wall lay on the same alignment close to, but not on, the position of the rear garden boundary of Northgate House, the Clocktower and the Old Coachouse at the east. It followed the alignment of the mill leat to the south and west, turning eastwards just to the south of the fishponds. They suggest a secondary gate near to the north-west corner (and close to the former Shuckborough and Newbold road, now a hollow way) and the main entrance, the Prioress’s Gate on the north-east side, south of the medieval village site.
The earliest buildings within the precinct may have been of timber, many were destroyed by fire in 1251. Further indulgences were granted in 1301 to reconstruct the priory church, and for paving the cloisters in 1312. Near the church and enclosed by a stone wall was the cemetery. From the evidence to hand, it is possible that the cloister was south of the church, with a chapter house in the east range and a refectory in the south range over a vaulted undercroft which survived until 1849, and was incorporated into Catesby Abbey, the mansion built on the site of the Priory. Payments to masons suggest that the buildings were latterly built of stone; the chapter house, the cloister and the gallery facing the prioresses hall were roofed with tiles. Reference to St Edmund’s Hall, presumably where high ranking visitors were received, as having expensive cloth covering the table, indicate that it was a prestigious building, rebuilt in 1453-4 perhaps as an independent structure. A new kitchen was built at the same time; Laughton suggests that it was located close to the mill, bakehouse and brewhouse. As a double house, buildings were also provided for the canons, lay brothers and their master, including a master’s stables and chamber, a canons’ dorter, hall and chapel. Documents do not indicate where the canons’ buildings were located, but it has been suggested that they lay to the south of the precinct close to the mill leat. A number of agricultural buildings stood within the precinct including stables; cart sheds; housing for oxen, cattle and pigs and barns. In the early C15, there was a horse mill within the precinct, two water mills (upper and lower) and there may have been a fishery, possibly located outside of the precinct.
The Northamptonshire Extensive Urban Survey records that in the mid C12, a ‘market village’ was planted at the gates of the Priory, probably located on land to the north of Catesby Road. In 1246 prioress Margaret was granted a weekly market at Catesby; this settlement became known as ‘Shopes’ and continued to be known as such for several centuries before it acquired the name Lower Catesby. The market village still functioned in 1275-6 and probably continued until the 1440s, although the market had ceased by that time and the village was in decline. Documents describe cottages as standing on the south side at the end of the vill, next to the road to Hellidon and Pillory Lane. Documents state that there was a market place with shops, a pillory, communal bakehouse, almshouses, well, fish pond and weir, and a tannery; it is said to be the best documented of Northamptonshire’s medieval market villages.
In 1301, 13 taxpayers were listed for Catesby and Newbold and 172 paid the Poll Tax in 1377, dropping to 126 in 1379. In the early C15, much of the parish was used for sheep pasture, confirmed by the Priory’s accounts for the period which indicate that considerable sums of money were derived from wool production. The village declined from the beginning of the C14, the reasons for which are complex and developed over a long period of time but include the decline in the market and fortunes of the priory, the plague outbreak of 1349 when the prioress died and the subsequent slow decline in population, leading to the deterioration of the village buildings. The decline was exacerbated by the mid-C15 agricultural slump. In 1444-5 nine tenants occupied the 14 cottages that remained; the bakehouse, the smithy and four other cottages laid in ruins. By 1448, the whole village was said to be ‘devastate’. In 1453 the village was in the hands of the prioress. In 1495, the prioress of Catesby destroyed 14 houses at ‘Catesby’ (probably at both Lower and Upper Catesby and possibly Newbold too), evicting 60 people, enclosing land and converting it to pasture. A further 60 were evicted in the three settlements between 1517-1518. At the time of the Priory’s dissolution in 1536, the parish church was at least partially destroyed, but it is said that 5 houses remained. The site of the village of ‘Shopes’ became an enclosed field of 2.5 acres, leased out as pasture.
The site of the Priory and its lands were sold to John Onley in 1537, whose family held it until the early C17 when it passed to the Parkhursts. The Onleys built a large mansion house on the site, incorporating elements of the Priory buildings and laid out pleasure gardens around and to the east of the house. An estate map of 1638 (2003, Fig.5) indicates the position of the Onley mansion (possibly known as Catesby Abbey from this time) on the position of the Priory, with a central courtyard and gardens further to the east. The Priory fish ponds to the north and south-east are present, and the southern boundary of the immediate grounds were formed by an irregular channel with two buildings on its course. Giggins and Laughton suggest that these buildings, located near to a section of watercourse described as ‘millbanck’, were one of the two water mills, linked to the ‘old pond’ on the east side of Hellidon Road (now backfilled). Bridges, in his History of Northamptonshire of 1791, records that an engraving of the house in c 1720 suggests that it was arranged around a central courtyard, perhaps the original cloister of the Priory, but that in 1700 the main west elevation was remodelled and given projecting wings. Eyre’s map of 1791 shows a formal garden to the east of the house with rectangular ponds and intersecting footpaths. The estate map of 1801 by Cullingworth shows a wooded park segmented by walks to the east, adjacent to the Hellidon Road, with an apparently enlarged Catesby Abbey at the centre comprising three wings around a courtyard open to the north. The south range of the house incorporated medieval fabric, thought to be the kitchen and vaulted cellar beneath it and a probable medieval window. An illustration of 1859 by Sir Henry Dryden shows a section of C14 wall aligned east-west with blind, ornate arcading, a doorway, piscina and possibly a window incorporated into the east wing. It has been interpreted as part of the Priory (Nun’s) Church, probably located between the Church choir and sacristy in the east range of the cloister garth. The church is known to have had a tower, presumably at the west end, and it is likely that the cloister was located to the south of the church and the refectory opposite the church on the south side. This putative plan accords with the location of the south range of Catesby Abbey with its illustrated kitchen cellars and medieval window. Standard monastic plans would place the chapter on the east side of the cloister and the Prioress’s Hall on the west. Laughton suggests that the kitchen and bakehouse were located in the south-west of the cloister as the accounts suggest that both were sited close to the mill.
To the north of Catesby Abbey was a detached linear range (the current Home Park and Priory Cottage), with the former priory fish ponds to the north. Along with the possible watermill, the water features shown to the south of the house in 1638 appear to have been filled in, although some sections appear to survive and there is an additional narrow pond aligned approximately north-south and fed by a narrow channel to the river, to the south-east of the house. The main tree-lined drive ran to the north of the house, in approximately the same position as the drive to Home Park, Priory Cottage and the church today. Relict tree avenues are shown leading from Hellidon to the south, north from the fishponds and east towards Upper Catesby opposite the drive to the house. The house was demolished in 1863, the salvaged building materials being used in the new Catesby House to the east. The Church of St Mary and St Edmund was rebuilt at the same time on the foundations of the C17 chapel to the house, and is thought to stand close to the site of the priory church; it incorporates some medieval stained glass, the sedilia and piscina of c 1300 from the Priory church and some C17 interior features, but clearly not in situ. Other elements of the Priory thought to have been included in the Onley mansion include medieval undercrofts and the kitchen range (see above). Home Park and Priory Cottage may also incorporate medieval fabric; Home Park may include masonry of St Edmund’s Hall, the priory’s guesthouse, and dendrochronological analysis of roof timber indicate a mid-to late C16 date, suggesting that they may have been re-roofed when remodelled as the service range to the Onley house. These properties were subdivided into tenements in the C19 and were allocated kitchen gardens to the south of the drive, west of the church. The kitchen garden is in use as a pig paddock. Both these properties have landscaped gardens, approached by a graded drive.
The east part of the village site, to the north of the Priory remains, was partially destroyed by ploughing in c 1977. The land on either side of the road to Upper Catesby, to the south-east of the Priory site, and the land surrounding the area of assessment have been improved resulting in the levelling of earthworks of archaeological origin. Nevertheless the aerial photograph of 1997, which showed extensive parchmark and earthwork survival, resulted in renewed analysis of the archaeological origins of the priory and village site. The combination of this non-invasive archaeological investigation, and Laughton’s in depth documentary research, prompted Giggins and Laughton (2003) to plot the combined earthwork and parchmark data and suggest a putative layout for the priory and village, some of which is described above. The earthwork and buried archaeological deposits that survive are detailed below.
Details
PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS
Lower Catesby lies on Lower Lias Clay at the bottom of the broad valley of the River Leam. The scheduling includes the earthworks and buried archaeological remains of the medieval village of Lower Catesby, the Cistercian Priory of St Mary and St Edmund and the C16 manor house and gardens constructed by the Onley family. An area of ridge and furrow, part of the village’s common fields used by the Priory, is included in the scheduling, but in a separate area of protection.
DESCRIPTION
The remains of the village are located to the north of the Priory site, in a linear arrangement centred at SP51519651. The earthworks of the west section of a hollow way are aligned east-west, probably the former main street of the village, and remains with rectangular crofts containing house platforms or tofts lie to the north and south of it. Aerial photographs show that the hollow way continues west towards the Leam, curving around the valley side before heading north, presumably leading to Newbold originally. Sub-rectangular earthworks immediately to the north of Home Park and Priory Cottage are likely to be the remains of fishponds, linked to the relict water channel to the west and the existing, remodelled rectangular fish pond to the east. It is suggested that the rectangular fish pond at the southern boundary of this field has medieval origins. Laughton suggests that it is probably the Pillory Water, a documented feature of the village, but its regular form suggests that it has been remodelled at a later date, which is likely to have compromised its archaeological potential and it is therefore not included in the scheduling. The field to the south of the fish pond, north of the drive to the Church and cottages, has slight earthworks generally of indeterminate form and function but interpreted as mounds and channels; a shallow linear feature leading from the south-west corner of the fish pond probably represent the buried remains of a water channel. Laughton suggests that this may have been the location of the village market place, a significant topographical feature of the village. For the survival of the earthworks and this potential historic importance, this field is included in the scheduling.
The site of the Priory and the C16 Onley house and gardens lie to the south of the drive centred at SP51535954. A number of localised C19 and C20 features here are not included in the scheduling; these are noted under the Exclusions later on. Nevertheless, the earthworks, parchmarks and aerial photographic evidence indicate that the buried remains of many of the Priory buildings survive, overlain by the foundations of post-Dissolution house and its associated garden features. The current church is believed to be built on the site of the Priory church, thus the conventual buildings lay to the south of it. Contemporary documentary evidence and antiquarian records of the mid-C19 strongly indicate the layout of the Priory and are detailed in the History section of this entry. The medieval stonework within the east range of the main house, photographed in 1861, probably formed part of the Nun’s church, located between the church choir and sacristy in the east range of the cloister garth. The Nun’s church known as St Mary’s had a west tower; the cloister would have been located to the south of the church and the refectory located on the opposite side of the cloister to the south. It is standard in monastic plans for the chapter house to be located on the east side of the cloister and the Prioress’s hall on the west and this interpretation is suggested by the Priory’s accounts. The Canon’s buildings included a chapel, dorter, hall, kitchen, buttery and privy all of which are mentioned in C15 and C16 accounts. Some of the Canons buildings are represented by parchmarks to the south of the current church, closer to the former mill leat diverted to the north of the Leam.
The parchmarks and earthworks of a significant terrace to the south-west of the church, recorded by the RCHME as standing at approximately 2m high and clearly apparent on recent aerial photographs, probably marks the position of the Onley mansion. To the west and north are earthworks, partially destroyed by the pig pens, which probably represent further buildings associated with the mansion or part of the Priory. A large ditch marks the western boundary of the site and is very likely to be medieval in origin and part of the water management system fed by the Leam for use in the Priory fishponds and later garden features. It probably served as a leat for a mill, one of two recorded in contemporary documents, one of which is probably identified on the 1638 map as lying to the south of the church. The RCHME recorded that the ditch is up to 2m deep, and that its outer bank is faced with stone rubble at the western end, although the stone may be imported from elsewhere. Linear features and depressions of basins to the east of the church are probably features of the mansion’s pleasure grounds overlying buried structural remains of the Priory buildings. To the south of the garden remains is an earthwork of a large pond which may have been a Priory fish pond or part of the mill’s water management system.
One field to the east of the road from Hellidon centred at SP51605904 has well-preserved broad ridge and furrow with interlocking furlongs, and represents the medieval system of agriculture which supported the settlement.
EXTENT OF SCHEDULING
The scheduling is defined by two separate areas of protection; the largest including the fields to the north of the drive leading to Home Park, Priory Cottage and the church and south of the remodelled fish pond. The second area, containing the surviving ridge and furrow, is situated east of the track leading northwards out of the existing hamlet, centred on SP5175 5928.
At the west end of the pond, the scheduling boundary heads north until approximately SP51615973 then arcs in a gentle curve westwards to the easternmost bank of the river Leam taking in the earthworks and buried remains of the village and hollow way. The scheduling follows this bank of the Leam south and eastwards until the fenced boundary with a small yard to the south of the Old Coach House. The scheduling then heads northwards following the line of the rear garden boundaries of The Old Coach House, The Clocktower and Northstead House but not including the boundary fences themselves, until its junction with the drive to the church. The scheduling then heads westwards to the pig pens and follows the pens fence line, and the west, north and east boundaries of the gardens to Home Park and Priory Cottage, but not including the fences.
The drive to Home Park and Priory Cottage, their front, rear and side gardens; the pig pens to the south and the gardens at the rear and to the south of the Old Coach House, the Clocktower and Northstead House are not included in the scheduling.
The field of ridge and furrow is defined by a modern water course to the north and east, a fence line to the south and the road to Hellidon to the west.
There is considerable potential for undesignated heritage assets to survive outside of the scheduled area. These may take the form of standing structures or buried deposits but are considered to be most appropriately managed through the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and are not therefore included within the scheduled area.
EXCLUSIONS
All modern fences and fence posts and paths are excluded from the scheduling. The church and enclosing ha-ha are excluded too, but the ground beneath the church and churchyard (not currently used for burials) is included in the scheduling as it is believed that the current church is on the site of the Priory church.