If you have any comments or new information about this record, please email us.
CHER Number: | 01118 |
---|
Type of record: | Monument |
---|
Name: | Cottenham moated site |
---|
Summary
The monument includes the remains of a rectangular medieval moated enclosure.
Grid Reference: | TL 448 681 |
---|
Parish: | Cottenham, South Cambridgeshire, Cambridgeshire |
---|
Monument Type(s):
- MOAT (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
- HOUSE (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
- MALTINGS (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
- CANAL (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
- WELL (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
- DOVECOTE (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
- DOCK (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
- ENCLOSURE (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
- MOUND (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD)
Protected Status:
- Scheduled Monument () 1013882: Cottenham moated site
Full description
S1, Moat; mound at TL/4492/6807 (NR)
S2, Close to the NW side of Cottenham village, there is a double moated site on the S side of Broad Lane. The smaller of the two moated areas is nearly square, 120ft by 140ft, with a moat 40ft wide and 2ft deep, its excavated material having been used to raise the level of the enclosure by some 3ft. Adjacent, to the N is a larger rectangular area 375ft x 250ft surrounded by a slight bank some 2ft high. It would appear that the smaller area was occupied by a house while the larger one enclosed outbuildings. The space between them was once a wet moat not less than 75ft wide and must have been spanned by a wooden bridge. The moats were filled by a drain coming out of Little North Fen.
O3, It was on the death of this Ingulph that Geoffrey (or Geoffrid)prior of St Evroul in Normandy was summoned by Henry I, to succeed him at Croyland---To the Croyland Manor at Cottenham he is said to have sent Gilbert (de Cottenham (afterwards Abbot of Westminster. He died in 1140))---together with 3 companions...The particular habitation where they sojourned had been erected in 1032 by Brihtmer, the Abbot...The ground in question is a spot of considerable interest owing to the fact that it is none other than that which comprised the elevated earthwork surrounded by a moat---the remains of a feudal stronghold, which in all probability occupied a much earlier entrenched position, enclosed by a double moat (p66). It appears to have formed one of a series of defensive earthworks, a conspicuous example of which is to be found at Rampton(a little to the SE of the church and in line with the corresponding fortified enclosure at Cottenham).
O4, Possibly contemporary with 'Giant's Hill' (TL 46 07 NW) c C12O2, The large enclosure to the N has been destroyed by the construction of a sewage work. The remaining moat has been recut. See survey;
O6, The moat in question is the site of the capital messuage of the Cottenham Manor of Crowland Abbey. As such it is one of the most heavily documented of this type. A considerable part of the Crowland muniments (belonging to Queens' College, and now deposited in Cambridge University Library) deal with the affairs of this manor. This material was extensively analysed and used by Miss FM Page and Miss Wretts-Smith (see FM Page, The Estates of Crowland Abbey, CUP, 1934), and I used it myself in Liable to Floods, CUP,1974. In that work I have reproduced Stukeley's sketch of the site in 1731 (facing p 85). There is incidentally a good deal of information on the cultivation and sale of produce from the garden here in the Middle Ages. It was the collection and despatch point for produce from the three Crowland Cambridgeshire manors, where the Abbot's little barges were loaded for the journey by fen waterways to Crowland (p 438 - 458). This site was also the malting centre for the Abbey, and it had a maltster in the 'famuli'. (p 118).The Account Rolls for the mid-1450's show extensive re-building of farm buildings, and among the materials mentioned for the Kilnhouse are 'wall tiles', stones collected from the fields, stones from an old well, and large stones brought up by barge. One might reasonably hope that some of this may have survived. The present owner has collected small pieces of worked Medieval limestone from the site over a number of years---another part of the Medieval canal system, "The Waits", in the Old Rectory garden. There is a circular dried-up pond, and the hollow path leading in its direction appears to have once connected with the Lode at the bottom of the garden. This old cut is not shown on the map, but it was recognised some years ago by Dr Peter Eden as the Medieval canal, and the circular basin as the terminus where the fenland barges could turn round. I have found documentary evidence of this from the C15 - C19, as well as local legend. This was the deep water dock where the stone for building the church was unloaded.
05, Moated site W of Broad Lane approximately 114m x 76m Interior platform approximately 2m above moat enclosing an area of 0,44 Ha.There is evidence of a counterscarp bank to SW x SE. Moat is wet and fringed with hawthorn from 1m - 3m wide. Interior scrub, nettles with some walnut. This type of site is rare on the Fen edge. It is well recorded in documentary sources as being the capital messuage of the Cottenham Manor of Crowland Abbey. Account Rolls for mid C15 show extensive rebuilding and materials used. Worked Medieval limestone has been recovered from the site over a number of years . The site is undisturbed and could yield valuable information.
O8, "Cottenham put in a medieval spin". Villagers living in Cottenham are angry over what they claim is the destruction of a Medieval moat. They claim a construction firm is digging up one side of the moat to widen its access - even though it is protected by a Preservation Order. But the owner of Donnelly Construction, Mr. Vince Donnelly, has denied he is interfering in any way with the moat. And he is claiming in turn that the complaint is merely a smokescreen for the residents real worry - the number of his firm's vehicles passing their homes in Broad End. "They don't know what they are talking about," he said. "All I'm doing is putting hardcore on top of my access road. I'm not extending the access. "The medieval moat is four-sided and Mr. Donnelly owns the right of way next to one side. Villagers fought for and succeeded in getting a Preservation Order on the moat last year after Mr. Donnelly put in a planning application to build new units on the neighbouring industrial site. The plan was rejected, he said, because of traffic problems. "I offered to refurbish the moat and was prepared to spend thousands of pounds to put it right," he said. "Admitted" - Parish councillor Mr. Dave Norman said residents were worried about the potential damage to an archaeological site. "It is the only historic structure in the village. We're most anxious it isn't destroyed." Mr. Norman said villagers were also "up in arms" about the noise and general chaos caused by heavy vehicles from the construction site. "They are concerned about the possibility of even more traffic. The local residents are not at all happy about the whole situation," he said. Mr. Donnelly admitted putting pipes in a ditch to drain away water but added: "I haven't done anything to the moat. The residents haven't got the decency to ask me what's going on. I haven't been confronted by anybody. They haven't got the guts," he added. The owner of the moat, Mr. Leslie Norman, of High St, Cottenham, said he didn't see what all the fuss was about. "I am in sympathy with my neighbour for wanting to improve his right of way. I have lived here for about 50 years. I think there's been only one person to look at the moat in that time." A group of villagers have now got together and will be putting circulars through people's doors, asking them to write to South Cambridgeshire District Council to "voice their dissatisfaction with the general state of affairs."
O6, Visits by AT and D Sherlock led to the promised removal of drainage pipes. The sides of the ditch have been cleared and there is some felling in the interior, but no other works. Cambient are discussing management.
07, Architectural fragments in the owners garden (146 High St, Cottenham) are probably worked limestone reported above. Mr. Norman also mentioned that there were documentary references to a dovecote in the field (now ploughed) immediately E of the moat.
08, Called Dovehouse Close Moat, near village, at fen edge; not manorial; raised interior; ditch 10m wide by 1m deep to water; the site is a private conservation area; part of the ditch is swollen into a pond.
010, This site seems to have been an ordinary double moat and there does not appear to be any evidence for its status as a castle, having no resemblance to Burwell or Rampton. It is at present overgrown and impenetrable. Half destroyed. Remaining half.
12, The monument includes the remains of a Medieval moated enclosure. The enclosure is rectangular in form measuring some 77m by 55m inclusive of the 8m wide surrounding ditches. Entrance to the moated island is provided by a ramped causeway on the SE side. The interior of the island is raised some 2m above the surrounding land. There are no visible earthwork remains of Medieval buildings or features on the moated island. An outer scarp surrounds part of the ditch and can be seen along part of the SW and SE arms and also along the NW side of the moat, although here its is largely obscured by recent dumping. The NE side is bounded by a very gradual slope, leading almost up to the modern drain. The remains of an outer moated enclosure formerly recorded as attached to the NW side of the moat are no longer visible and are not included is the scheduled area. Cottenham moated enclosure survives as a well-defined earthwork. This type of site is considered rare in its Fen Edge location and its significance is increased by the range of historical documentation relating to it.
Classification:
Status: manorial
Building: no
Occupied:
Water supply: surface
Associated mill no
Surface finds Medieval, Mod,
Aerial photos no
Enclosure plan single
Enclosure type rectangular
Enclosure banks none
Wet moat
Size: width: depth:
Appendages: no
Ridge and furrow: none
14. It appears to have formed one of a series of Defensive earthworks, a conspicuous example of which is to be found at Rampton [TL 46 NW 7 a probable 12th adulterine castle] and in line with the corresponding fortified enclosure at Cottenham.
15-16. The moats are visible on air photographs or lidar, the smallest more well defined moat centred at TL 4492 6808 and the larger centred at TL 4488 6816. The southern moat has maximum internal dimensions measuring 36 metres by 45 metres. Only part of the east and southern sides of the larger moat are visible, suggesting a length of at least 103 metres. This larger enclosure was partly truncated by a post medieval extractive pit on the 1947 vertical photography and appears to have been completely levelled by the latest 2010 lidar, whereas the southern moat appears to be largely recut or remodelled in recent decades, previously being under dense tree cover. A ramped entrance on the south-east face of this small moat also appears to be modern.
17. The large enclosure to the north has been destroyed by the construction of a sewage work. The remaining moat has been recut. See survey
<1> Stallwood, B.R., Field Investigator Comments (Verbal communication). SCB63858.
Mr Stripe, Information from finder (Verbal communication). SCB7543.
<2> Baird, J., Field Investigator Comments, 19/11/71 (Verbal communication). SCB62256.
<12> Fox, C, 1920, Scheduling notes (Unpublished document). SCB16668.
<13> 1958, OS 6 inch map (Map). SCB8918.
<14> Salzman, L.F (ed), 1948, The Victoria County History of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely. Volume 2 (Bibliographic reference). SCB14649.
<15> SW Cambridgeshire project 2014 (NHPP), 2016, RAF/CPE/UK/1952 RS 4053 25-MAR-1947 (Unpublished report). SCB47904.
<16> LIDAR TL4468 DSM 18-OCT-2010 (Aerial Photograph). SCB63856.
<17> Evelyn-White, C. H., 1906, VII. The story of Cottenham, Co. Cambridge. IN TCHAS 2.1: 55-97 (Article in serial). SCB63857.
Sources and further reading
<1> | Verbal communication: Stallwood, B.R.. Field Investigator Comments. |
<R1> | Verbal communication: Mr Stripe. Information from finder. |
<2> | Verbal communication: Baird, J.. Field Investigator Comments. 19/11/71. |
<12> | Unpublished document: Fox, C. 1920. Scheduling notes. |
<13> | Map: 1958. OS 6 inch map. |
<14> | Bibliographic reference: Salzman, L.F (ed). 1948. The Victoria County History of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely. Volume 2. |
<15> | Unpublished report: SW Cambridgeshire project 2014 (NHPP). 2016. RAF/CPE/UK/1952 RS 4053 25-MAR-1947. |
<16> | Aerial Photograph: LIDAR TL4468 DSM 18-OCT-2010. |
<17> | Article in serial: Evelyn-White, C. H.. 1906. VII. The story of Cottenham, Co. Cambridge. IN TCHAS 2.1: 55-97. |
Search results generated by the HBSMR Gateway from exeGesIS SDM Ltd.