Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Andrew Agate
UCL Institute of Archaeology
September 2006
Abstract
St Andrews Old Church, the London Borough of Brents only Grade I listed building, is
a redundant church and a largely forgotten building. Beginning with an assessment
of current knowledge of the site, this study aims to reassess the significance of the
church and its environs through a detailed research project, encompassing both a
topographical survey and an excavation project. The results of this fieldwork
suggest the site was a significant location to past inhabitants of the parish of
Kingsbury and also provides the first excavated archaeological evidence for SaxoNorman occupation at the site.
The wider utility of this research is discussed and it is proposed that sites and studies
such as this have a role to play in wider academic research; it is argued that St
Andrews Old Church is part of the corpus of churches which constitutes the Great
Rebuilding period of church construction. Meanwhile, the motivation behind the
reuse of Roman remains in lesser known sites such as this awaits further study. The
site is a case study in the need for heritage protection reform and it is argued that a
new designation is required for the site which encompasses the church and its
environs.
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract...............................................................................................................ii
Table of Contents................................................................................................ iii
Table of Figures ..................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgements..............................................................................................vi
1
Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
1.1
The parish of Kingsbury and St Andrews Old Church ................................ 1
1.2
The context of the study and its aims and objectives ................................ 1
1.3
The importance of this study: audiences and accessibility .......................... 3
2
Synthesis of past work and assessment of current knowledge ....................... 5
2.1
We love the place, oh God An introduction to St Andrews Old Church .. 5
2.2
A history of investigations and observations: 1757 2000 ........................10
2.2.1 Antiquarians at St Andrews Old Church ...............................................10
2.2.2 How old is that church? The Saxon/Norman debate..........................14
2.2.3 Archaeological Investigation ...............................................................15
2.3
Archaeological research in the 21st century ...........................................17
3
The topography of St Andrews Old Church.................................................19
3.1
The contour survey of the churchyard of St Andrews Old Church..............19
3.2
The wider topographical area .................................................................24
3.2.1 The church in its landscape setting......................................................24
3.2.2 The significance of the site to past inhabitants - further topographical
evidence .......................................................................................................29
4
Archaeological excavation .........................................................................38
4.1
A priest with one virgate........................................................................38
4.2
Summary of the excavation project.........................................................39
4.2.1 The earthwork test pits 1 and 2........................................................41
4.2.2 In and around the church test pits 3-5..............................................46
5
Discussion the utility of this study ...........................................................55
5.1
Academic research themes and St Andrews Old Church ...........................55
5.2
Heritage protection and St Andrews Old Church ......................................58
6
Conclusion ...............................................................................................61
Appendix one Summary of Sites and Monuments entries relating to the St Andrews
Old Church and its environs including Roman and Saxon entries for Kingsbury. .......63
References Cited ................................................................................................65
iii
Table of Figures
Figure 1 The Location of St Andrews Old Church, Kingsbury, within Greater London.
......................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2 St Andrews Old Church, Kingsbury: Summer 2006.................................... 6
Figure 3 Location of St Andrews Old Church ........................................................ 9
Figure 4 Stukeleys drawing of St Andrews Old Church..........................................11
Figure 5 Watercolour of St Andrews Old Church dated 1796..................................12
Figure 6 Watercolour of St Andrews Old Church dated 1800..................................12
Figure 7 St Andrews Old Church dated 1820 ........................................................13
Figure 8 St Andrews Old Church dated 1822 ........................................................13
Figure 9 Sketch drawing of 1970s ditch................................................................16
Figure 10 Photograph of 1970s ditch....................................................................16
Figure 11 Georeferenced contour model of survey area. ........................................21
Figure 12 (above) Section AB profile across southern bank ....................................22
Figure 13 (below) Section CD profile across eastern bank ......................................22
Figure 14 Wire-frame 3D model of the churchyard with the holloway in the
foreground. .......................................................................................................23
Figure 15 Old Church Lane a possible holloway. .................................................24
Figure 16 St Andrews Old Church at the centre of a possible enclosure. ................26
Figure 17 The British Geological Survey map with contours, waterways and field
boundary as in Figure 16. ...................................................................................27
Figure 18 The view across the Brent Valley...........................................................28
Figure 19 Kingsbury c. 957..................................................................................30
Figure 20 The location of Gore hundred within Middlesex ......................................31
Figure 21The Hovenden Map 1597. .....................................................................34
Figure 22 Detail from Hovenden Map Portfolio II No. 14 showing the church in an
enclosure, the Brante (sic) Bridge and the parallel ford ........................................35
Figure 23 Detail from Rocques map of 1746. .......................................................36
Figure 24 Vertical aerial photograph taken in 1954 showing the church, the Brent
crossing and the remnant of Wic Strt which can still be followed today ................37
Figure 25 Test pit (TP) locations at St Andrews Old Church ...................................40
Figure 26 TP1 west facing section drawing ...........................................................42
Figure 27 TP1 west facing section photograph ......................................................42
Figure 28 Recreating Storr Venters photograph ...................................................43
Figure 30 TP2 part of south facing section............................................................45
Figure 31 Photograph showing a break in the wall plate and a clear vertical line at
the point where the nave and chancel meet, suggesting two phases of building
activity ..............................................................................................................47
Figure 32 The location of TP 3 (photograph by A. Agate).......................................47
Figure 33 TP3 - south facing section. ...................................................................49
Figure 34 TP 4 - north facing section. ..................................................................49
Figure 35 TP3 west facing section.....................................................................50
Figure 36 TP4 west facing section.....................................................................50
iv
Acknowledgements
Throughout this research project I have enjoyed the help, encouragement,
cooperation and support of a great many individuals and organisations. Without
which the project would not have been possible.
I would like to acknowledge the Churches Conservation Trust for their support and
generous funding of reinstatement works after the excavation.
And the following,
At UCL: Dr Jane Sidell and Dr Andrew Reynolds, Dr Kris Lockyear, Duncan Mc
Andrew, Nick Golsen, Don Cooper and all of those who generously gave of their time
to assist with the fieldwork projects.
At St Andrews Old Church; Father John Smith, the members of the Parochial Church
Council and Robin Morgan - Chair of the Wembley History Society.
At English Heritage, Kim Stabler.
At Brent Council, Mark Smith and Geoff Hewlett
At Southampton University, Tim Sly.
At the LAARC, Roy Stephenson; MoLAS.
At the MoL and Diocese Advisory Committee, Dr John Schofield.
At the Greater London Sites and Monuments Records Barry Taylor and Steve
Ellwood.
The Warden and Fellows of All Souls College Oxford.
For the inking of drawings, patient proof reading and all those other things that made
this work possible - Pip Harrison.
This dissertation was completed with the aid of an award from the Arts and
Humanities Research Council
vi
1 Introduction
1.1 The parish of Kingsbury and St Andrews Old Church
London engulfs: once rural parishes such as that of Kingsbury in north-west
London, are now subsumed into Londons Boroughs. Kingsbury now forms part of
the London Borough of Brent (see Figure 1). Throughout much of its history
Kingsburys population was small, (VCH, 1976: 55): there were 98 communicants in
1547, 210 conformists and 1 non-conformist in 1676 and a population of 209 in the
1801 census. Following centuries of stasis, its population grew exponentially after
1911; from 821 in that year to 1,856 by 1921; 16,636 in 1931 rising to almost 42,000
by 1951, resulting in what Cherry and Pevsner (1991: 135) describe as,
Uneventful hilly early 20th century suburbia stretch[ing] north from the Brent
reservoir by the North Circular Road, enveloping a tiny ancient church.
The tiny ancient church is St Andrews Old Church, which, along with its
immediately surrounding graveyard (hereafter the site) is the subject of this study
(see Figure 2). Cherry and Pevsner continue, describing the building as secret in its
overgrown graveyard; more recently forty pupils from Kingsbury High School, who
visited the church during the archaeological project detailed below, unanimously
agreed on a starker characterization: forgotten.
1.2 The context of the study and its aims and objectives
Having been declared redundant (no longer required for public worship) on 9th
March 1977, the church is now in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust (CCT),
which is actively seeking an alternative use for the building. The 1.2 hectare
churchyard remains the responsibility of the Parochial Church Council (PCC) who
struggle against nature to maintain it. Researching the church it became clear that
past investigations had focused primarily upon establishing the date of the standing
building, whilst little attention had been paid to the archaeological potential of a
possible earthwork around the church and no investigations had attempted to place
the site in a wider topographical context. Finally, no attempt had been made to
consider any contribution the site might make to wider academic debate. For
example that which concerns the establishment of parochial churches and the cultural
horizon marked by this process (e.g. Blair, 2005: 415) or the re-use of Roman
material in ecclesiastical buildings (e.g. Bell, 1995 & 2005; Eaton, 2000).
It was considered that the current period of redundancy presented an
opportunity to revisit the site of St Andrews Old Church and develop an
archaeological research project which would be of benefit to the site in this modern
age of heritage assets. The aims and objectives of this study are as follows.
This study aims to assess the significance of the standing building and
environs of St Andrews Old Church, Kingsbury.
The study is structured around its four key objectives which are,
1. To assess of current knowledge concerning the site. This draws together past
investigations and provides the basis for the formulation of the research questions
which were addressed by the fieldwork projects (section 2).
2. To present the results of two fieldwork projects. The first of these (section 3)
considers the significance of the site as a topographical area, considering both the
micro topography of the site through a contour survey and the macro topography
of the wider area. This was considered through field observations and the
relevant documentary, cartographic and place-name evidence. Secondly, the
results of an excavation project at the site will be presented (section 4).
3. To consider the utility of such projects in the context of both future academic
research and the development of heritage protection (section 5).
4. To conclude the study by proposing a revised listings entry for St Andrews Old
Church (section 6).
With its attendant archive and a standing buildings survey, carried out by Debbie
Williams in 2004, it is believed that this study constitutes the most complete
investigation into this site undertaken to date.
Figure 1 The Location of St Andrews Old Church, Kingsbury, within Greater London.
The location is marked in red and the parish of Kingsbury is highlighted in blue
(Source: 2001 census, output area boundaries. 2003 Crown copyright material is
reproduced with the permission of the controller of HMSO)
12th to 13th century. Flint rubble with some Roman material, now cement
rendered. Simple church of nave with tower within the west end, and spire. C19
restorations and north vestry. Brasses. C13 font (National Monuments Record
number 54764).
The church is rectangular in form (see Figure 2), has no aisles and no
structural distinction between the nave and the chancel. The internal measurements
are approximately 18 metres long by 5.5 metres wide. In addition to the Roman
material found in the west front of the church there are also six complete box-flue
hypocaust tiles in the interior of the building.
both enlargement (Hewlett, 1987a; pp21-22) and destruction (see below) have
previously been mooted. By the 1930s the ever burgeoning population required an
even larger church and the new church of St Andrews was built less than a hundred
metres north of St Andrews Old Church. The new church is itself of historical
interest (see Cherry & Pevsner, 1991: pp 135-137); designed by Dawkes and
Hamilton it is one of the first examples of the neo-gothic building style and was
moved stone by stone to its current location from Wells Street in central London.
The new church was opened in 1934.
By 1976 the parish could no longer maintain the old church and sought a
declaration of redundancy. The building was inspected on 28th January 1976 by an
assistant from the Council for Places of Worship (CPW) under the Pastoral Measures
who reported,
His next camp was at Kingsbury: it is now the churchyard and still visible enough.
Its situation is high and near the River Brent. The church stands in the middle of
it.
The title of the engraving demonstrates that Stukeley noted the Roman tile in
the fabric of the church, which he believed to originate in Verulamium, near St
Albans. Stukeleys work has provided the starting point for the majority of
subsequent investigations.
10
11
12
13
14
similar to long-and-short work, but only similar, stating that the walls are more
probably Norman than Saxon adding that were they Saxon, they would be the only
stone remains in Middlesex of so early a period. Cherry and Pevsner (1991: 135)
add that the 12th century south doorway is much restored. Vince (1990: 68),
whose subject is Saxon occupation in London, dismisses the church as having no
early features. Pervading the literature is a sense that the church would be somehow
more significant if it had a Saxon provenance. Sullivan (1994: 67), whilst considering
this debate, believes that this issue should be resolved. The continued application
of typological analysis based on architectural style has focused attention on the
standing building and detracted from an appreciation of the site in its wider setting.
2.2.3 Archaeological Investigation
The site has also been the subject of archaeological investigation; an
excavation project was carried out in 1973/4 by the WHS and latterly a desktop
assessment was undertaken by the Oxford Archaeology Unit (OAU) (OAU, 2000).
The excavation is recorded in an NMR entry (NMR 647842) which states that
the archive rests with the Grange Museum. However, after making enquiries it is
clear that this archive is now lost (Storr Venter, excavation director, pers comm;
Vicky Barlow, grange museum, pers comm). There are, however, a number of
summary reports. The excavation is summarised in the London Archaeologist
Church Lane (Storr Venter, 1974a: 187). A drawing and photograph of this ditch
also exists (see Figure 9 and 10 below). In addition there is passing mention to
excavation outside both the east and west ends (Storr Venter, 1974b: 178) along
with a report of several hundred sherds of 13th- and 14th- century pottery being
recovered.
16
new research. Writing in the 1970s about the possibilities of undertaking research at
St Peters, Barton-on-Humber, Taylor (1974: 373) reflected, it is very much hoped
that full opportunity will be taken of the present period of redundancy and so it is
today at St Andrews Old Church. The gap between vestment in the CCT and the
change of use presented the opportunity to initiate a research project which could
bring employment to the redundant.
18
19
The contour model, Figure 11, shows that the churchyard covers an area
approximately 60 metres east west by 45 metres north south. Together the
contours and profiles shown in Figures 11 13 suggest that a bank exists on the
south and east sides of the site, despite heavy landscaping of the eastern side
adjacent to the bank. With reference to Figures 12 and 13, it was noted that the
profile of the bank has a different character on the south and east sides. On the
south side the bank rises just over 2 metres over almost 9 metres, whilst on the
eastern side the rise is more gradual; a 2 metre rise is achieved over about 14
metres. On the west side a slight bank may survive, however, graves have been
inserted along its entire length. There is no trace of a bank on the north side nor is
there any evidence for a ditch at any point around the churchyard. Interestingly, the
survey was able to locate the probable site of the 1970s excavation which trenched
across the bank running parallel to Old Church Lane on the south side of the
churchyard. The contours show a depression in the ground surface possibly caused
by the slumping of the backfill from the excavation. This is marked as point G on
Figure 11.
In addition to the contour model a 3 dimensional wire-frame model was
produced (Figure 14). The relatively small area of the survey means that this model
is not instructive concerning the interior of the churchyard, however, it does highlight
the nature of Old Church Lane which runs parallel to the southern side of the
churchyard. It would appear that Old Church Lane is a holloway (see also Figure
15). The implication of this is that the earthwork feature on the southern side of the
church may not be the result of the up-cast from a ditch but may have been created
by the erosion of the road which leads to the church.
20
21
Figure 11 Georeferenced contour model of survey area.
Contours are at 0.2m intervals. 1m intervals are in red. Profiles AB and CD are marked
22
23
Figure 14 Wire-frame 3D model of the churchyard with the holloway in the foreground.
The view is looking from the south-east (model produced by Barry Taylor, GL SMR)
23
Further examination of the topography shows that the spur is created by two streams
which run parallel along its western and eastern sides draining into the River Brent. The
western stream is now culverted whilst that on the east remains open. The small valley cut
by the stream can be seen to be about 5 metres wide and 2 3 metres deep. The two
streams and the River Brent describe a finger of land which is thus protected by natural
barriers on three sides. It is interesting to note that the 1896 map shows a field boundary at
the base of the spur where the streams first run parallel. It is possible to speculate that the
addition of a palisade or earthwork at this point would fully describe an enclosure which
features St Andrews Old Church at its central and highest point. There is no evidence that
the palisade existed, neither has past exploration revealed any primary evidence for Saxon
occupation at the site; however, the name Kingsbury is taken to mean the Kings manor or
stronghold (Gover et al, 1942: 61) and this area must be a candidate for that site.
25
26
Figure 17 The British Geological Survey map with contours, waterways and field boundary as
in Figure 16.
The Lynch Hill Gravel deposit at the church site lies inside the suggested enclosure (BGS,
2006).
27
28
3.2.2 The significance of the site to past inhabitants - further topographical evidence
It has been argued that the church occupies a significant location in the landscape in
relation to the physical geography and geology of the area. However, this does not address
the attitudes of past inhabitants; did they view the site as significant? And if so why? In the
following discussion the question of ritual activity at the site is set aside for later discussion
(see section 5) whilst a hypothesis is tentatively put forward to explain why past inhabitants
during the Saxon period may have regarded this as a significant location. Relevant
documentary, cartographic and place-name evidence is presented in order to propose that a
key feature of this site is its proximity to a major post Roman communication route known as
Wic Straet. Figure 19 is provided as reference to the roads, rivers, river crossings and places
discussed.
29
Gumeningas certainly occupied the area around modern Harrow and probably had their
pagan temple or hearh, (from which the name Harrow is derived (Gelling, 1984: 2)) at
the site of St Marys Church, Harrow-on the-Hill (Meaney, 1995: 31). Bailey (1988: 179)
speculates that this group may have occupied a wider area, including Kingsbury, which, by
the early 10th-century had become the Saxon administrative area, or hundred, known as Gore
(See figure 19). Bailey (1988: 181) also suggests that the Gumeningas may have been
confined to Harrow and that a separate group whose name is now lost occupied a
territory centred upon Kingsbury.
30
Kyngesbyrig in a writ of King Edward dated 1044 X 1046 (Gelling, 1979: No 240, p116).
Gelling (1979) states that all three documents are authentic. The place-names Tunworth and
31
Wic Street are both highly relevant to the significance of this site.
The English Place-Name Society (Gover et al, 1942: pp62-63) resolves Tunworth as
Tunnas farm and places it in the north of the parish, based on a surviving field-name HighTunworth of 1536. However, a recent study (English, 2002) gives cause to question this
location. Examining worth place-names in a landscape context, English has shown that in
Berkshire, Surrey and Hampshire a study group of 67 settlements with the place-name
element worth all occurred in small areas which were at variance to the dominant geology.
Thus, in areas predominantly of clay, a gravel location might be favoured. Additionally,
worths appear to occur in one of two mutually exclusive locations; either near dry valleys or
set next to rivers or streams. Where the location is riverine the setting often encompasses
an area of flat land. Referring to the discussion in 3.2.1 above and figure 16 which shows
the flat land of the Brent Valley to the south of the spur it is clear that from a landscape
perspective the area around St Andrews would be a good candidate for a worth location.
There is no such site in the north of the parish. Worth the name appears in the early
eighth-century certainly seems to mean enclosed farm (Hooke: 1981:297) and English
(2002: 49) suggests that these sites may indicate the spread of arable agriculture and
settlement into previously less favourable areas. However, establishing if the model may be
imported into Middlesex would require further study, with the parishes of Isleworth,
Harmondsworth and Hanworth as a suggested starting point.
Wic Strt is commonly taken to mean the road to the market, (e.g. Greater London
SMR No. 51047), whilst the designation Strt may mean that the road was metalled and
possibly thought of as Roman (Gelling, 1984: 82). Gelling also suggests that for Strts
which are at the centre of hundreds, as Wic Strt is, the term High Street may be a more
acceptable rendering. This interpretation is supported by research undertaken by Balkwill
(1993: pp 5-12) who suggests that since the word wic entered the language via the Latin
word vicus it is likely to have been adopted at a time of contact between Anglo-Saxon settlers
and native Britons. Balkwill notes that wic- names often appear at the centre of hundreds, as
in this case, or at their boundaries. This correlation, combined with Gellings suggestion that
vicus was a Roman term for an administrative district, is employed to suggest that wicnames represent both a Roman administrative centre and its territory. Thus, Wic Strt is the
32
High Street through the territory. Balkwill further suggests that these Romano-British
districts become centres for early English settlement and survived due to the emplacement of
hundredal meet places, or moots, at their centres (Balkwill: 1993: 11); it is apposite to note
that the moot of Gore Hundred lay on Wic Strt (Braun, 1937a) (see Figure 19). The
relevance of Wic Strt to this study is the course it takes and its proximity to St Andrews Old
Church.
Watling Street was a major Roman road and was utilised in Middlesex as an estate
boundary (Sullivan, 1994: 89). This is true for all Middlesex estates which abut the road
except where the road passes through neighbouring Kingsbury and Hendon. Figure 19 shows
that there is a correlation between the river crossings and the estate boundaries; the charter
of AD957 details the Silk stream as Tunworths eastern boundary, whilst Hendon crosses to
the west side of Watling Street between the bridge locations. Harrison (2004: 32) suggests
that most Roman timber bridges, unless maintained, would have become unusable by the
end of the fifth century, requiring traffic to divert to nearby fords. An option at this location
was a diversion onto Wic Strt, which crosses the Brent at a fordable point c. 400 metres
south-west of the church and passes within 300 metres of the site as it continues north. The
proximity is shown on a remarkable map (Figure 21) drawn in 1597 by Robert Hovenden of
All Souls College, Oxford. As shown in figure 22 this is also the first evidence that the church
was in an enclosure. The ford is shown next to a footbridge and the location of the site
overlooking the crossing would have afforded an excellent vantage point from which to
control it. The Trimoda Necessitas, the three obligations of bridge work, fortress work and
military service are brought to mind.
33
34
By 1746, when Rocques survey was published (Figure 23)Wic Strt had gone out of
use perhaps reflecting Watling Streets return to importance. The line of Wic Strt can still
be seen running through local parkland as shown in figure 24 and was evidenced by a
holloway as late as the 1930s (Braun, 1937b). Rocque depicts the church on high ground
and in an enclosure. There is another interesting feature of both Hovendens and Rouques
maps which has not drawn any attention to date; Old Church Lane not only goes to the
church but also passes it. This is also shown in the 3D model created after the topographical
survey (Figure 14). This suggests that either people approached the church from both
directions or the lane led elsewhere for other reasons. Having established that the site was
highly likely to have been thought of as a significant location in the past it is appropriate to
refocus upon the church and its immediate environs.
Figure 22 Detail from Hovenden Map Portfolio II No. 14 showing the church in an enclosure,
the Brante (sic) Bridge and the parallel ford
(Source, All Souls College, Oxford. Hovenden Portfolio II No. 9 by permission of The Warden
and Fellows of All Souls College, Oxford).
35
36
Figure 24 Vertical aerial photograph taken in 1954 showing the church, the Brent crossing
and the remnant of Wic Strt which can still be followed today
(Source, NMR archive - sortie RAF/82/1006 Frame 124).
37
4 Archaeological excavation
It has been shown that the church occupies a significant location in the landscape and
further that, notwithstanding its ecclesiastical role, the site may have been significant to the
local population. This section refocuses upon the church and its environs and examines the
results of an excavation project. This is not intended to be a full excavation report, rather a
summary of new and salient data which advances understanding of the significance of the
site. It is interesting to reintroduce the church with a brief examination of the first
documentary evidence for Christian worship in Kingsbury.
4.1 A priest with one virgate
The first documentary reference to Christian worship in Kingsbury is found in its
Domesday Book entry which records a priest with a virgate of land (Morris, 1975: pp9-10).
This is an oblique reference to a church; however the equation of church and priest is
apparent (Morris, 1989: 141; Blair, 2005: 369). The reference does not locate the church in
the landscape, thus it cannot be taken for granted that the entry refers to the current church
site let alone the current church. However, in a key observation, a colleague (Duncan
McAndrew, pers comm) noted that the three fields directly north of the church are named
Church Fields in 1587 (Cunnington, 2000: 42; VCH, 1976: 52). These three fields, which lie
between Fryant Farm and the church (see Figure 16), have an area of approximately 32 acres
and may be equated with the caveat below to the Saxon virgate which, in Middlesex, is
taken to be about 30 acres (Sullivan, 1994: 51). It should be noted that the discussion
concerning the difficulties of equating the Saxon hide to a physical area of land has a long
pedigree; for Middlesex the discussions by Bailey (1988) and Sullivan, (1994: 46-54) are
useful starting points. However, the observation stands and the equivalence is some
evidence for linking this site to the Domesday Book entry.
Despite the arguments put forward above there is a lack of primary evidence for Saxon
occupation at the site. The Greater London SMR details four sites in Kingsbury relating to the
Saxon period (See appendix 1). Two of these (GL SMR Nos. 050297 and 221188) note a lack
of evidence for Saxon occupation, whilst the remaining two (GL SMR Nos. 51047 and 053087)
38
are based upon documentary rather than archaeological evidence. The architectural evidence
from the church is inconclusive and would, in Taylors analysis (1978: 736), be secondary
evidence. Primary evidence consisting of contemporary documentary evidence, evidence
from archaeological study of the fabric or from archaeological excavation, is lacking. Thus, in
order to complete the research an excavation project was undertaken.
4.2 Summary of the excavation project
Planning the excavation was an educational experience and probably more suited to
retelling at an after dinner speech than in an academic paper! Suffice to say that over time
the necessary permissions and support were obtained from the CCT, the PCC, the Diocese
Advisory Committee, the Church of England (CoE) (in the form of a Faculty from the Diocese
of London), English Heritage and the conservation and planning officers of Brent council. The
support and encouragement received and particularly the generous funding provided by the
CCT is gratefully acknowledged.
The excavation took place between the 4th and 30th June 2006 and the archive from
the excavation will be lodged with the Museum of London Archaeological Archive and
Research Centre (LAARC). The site code is ODL06.
Six test pits were excavated and their locations are shown in Figure 25. The aim was
to investigate the broad questions outlined at the end of section two above; the origin and
development of the church and the character and date of the earthwork. Additionally, each
test pit has a number of specific research questions.
39
40
Figure 25 Test pit (TP) locations at St Andrews Old Church
40
41
42
43
44
45
Considering the evidence from the two test pits and the topographical survey
together it is argued that the impression that the church sits inside an earthwork was
created by three factors,
1. The natural topography the site is on natural eminence and the church is
located at the edge of the highest point.
2. A holloway accessing the church via Old Church Lane created a holloway with a
drainage gully (context 1106). This accentuated the elevated position and
created the impression of a southern earthwork.
3. Gravel extraction and dumping creating the impression of an earthwork to the
east of the church.
It remains possible that Stukeley did observe a continuous earthwork which
has not survived, whilst the cartographic evidence is clear that the church was in an
enclosure although not necessarily an earthwork. However, based on the new data
it would appear that the alternative interpretation, outlined above, is likely.
4.2.2 In and around the church test pits 3-5
Two test pits were excavated abutting the external walls of the church (TP3 &
4) whilst TP5 overlapped TP 4 internally. The aim of each was to record the
stratigraphic sequence of the foundations and to address the following issues,
TP 3 (Figures 31-33 & 35) - The relative phasing of the nave and chancel and the
recovery of dating evidence.
TP 4 and TP5 (Figures 34, 36, 37 & 38) The possibility of a blocked door opposite
to the Saxon Door, the possible extension to the west end, evidence for earlier
structures.
46
TP3 straddled the break point between the nave and chancel. Some
depictions of the church (e.g. Figure 7) and the architectural evidence (RCHME,
1937) suggest that the nave and chancel represent two phases of building. This was
reinforced by a photograph (Figure 31), which was lit to emphasise any lumps and
bumps in the wall. A clear vertical line was revealed below a break in the wall plate.
47
A burial was found in the western half of the test pit; this was recorded and
left in situ. The foundations of the church and the lowest level of flintwork were also
recorded (figure 33) and show no evident break in the sections of either the
foundations or the flint wall. The construction of the foundation and the wall can be
compared to that in TP 4 on the north side of the church (Figure 34). It would
appear that the construction method was very similar; a foundation trench, filled with
compacted pebbles and stones, on top of which a similar layer is differentiated only
by mortar fleck inclusions. Above this is the lowest level of flints; in TP3 these were
bedded in brown sand, with little evidence of mortar, whilst In TP4 the flints were
bonded in a yellow sandy mortar. The different bonding methods appear to be the
only differences in the construction method as an aside from the excavated
evidence, yellow mortar has been observed in the chancel bonding a Roman box flue
tile; this awaits further investigation. From this evidence it is not possible to say
conclusively that the nave and chancel represent different phases of building, indeed
the absence of any clear evidence of a break in the wall at this crucial juncture is
highly suggestive that the building is of one phase.
48
49
50
51
52
sherds entered this context freshly broken. This would link them directly with the
construction phase of the building, making them perhaps broken and discarded
vessels belonging to the workmen: the 11th century equivalent of the stash of
stoneware ginger beer bottles found by workers in UCLs main quadrangle during
2005. From TP6 (Figure 39), where the ground was much disturbed by burials and a
gas pipe, numerous sherds of domestic wares, mostly within an 18th-century date
range, were recovered. Residual finds from this TP of a further sherd of EMFL and
two sherds of south Hertfordshire-type greyware (SHER dated 1170-1350)
demonstrates that domestic wares have found their way onto this site over a broad
date-range.
Figure 39 TP6 south facing section with gas pipe in the centre
53
It is suggested that the pottery evidence from TP4 provides a Terminus Post
Quem (a date after which the pottery was deposited) of 1100 for the construction of
the footings. Stretching this point further, a late 11th-century date raises the
possibility that this building, or at least the foundation, is contemporary with the
Domesday entry discussed above. The primary significance of these finds is that they
represent the first archaeological evidence for 11th- century occupation at the site.
Figure 40 The five sherds of Early Medieval flint-tempered London ware (AD9701100)
recovered from TP4 - context 4110 (photograph by A. Agate).
54
A high proportion of English churches crossed the vernacular threshold, the line
above which a structure is sufficiently well built for future generations to maintain,
adapt or enlarge it rather than simply replace it. (Blair, 2005: 411).
Blair believes that in archaeological terms this period represents a cultural
horizon, as does the replacement of as Iron-Age native farm by a Roman villa
(Blair, 2005: 415). It is proposed that the significance of St Andrews Old Church,
with its endowment of a virgate of land, does not rest on a Saxon provenance; rather
it belongs to that corpus of churches constructed during the cultural horizon styled
The Great Rebuilding.
There are other corpora of churches to which St Andrews belongs within
academic research. For example, the Roman remains in the fabric of the church,
which thus far have been viewed with a Nelsonian eye, deserve attention. The reuse
of Roman material in churches has received some attention in recent years and it is
possible to briefly examine how St Andrews may contribute to that research.
From churches situated in the London Basin John Potter (2001) has compiled a
corpus of those which contained Roman brick or tile. His list, which includes St
Andrews, identifies 309 churches. In addition, Potter has detailed whether or not the
tile has been used in a structurally significant manner, i.e. in doors, windows, quoins
or wall course work. Analysing the list it is apparent that of the total, 229 (74%) are
judged to use Roman brick and tile in a non-structural capacity and St Andrews is
one of these.
More recently Bell (2005) has examined the reuse of Roman structures (villas,
mausoleums and forts) as sites for churches, compiling a gazetteer of such sites.
From this it has been possible to identify 28 sites which are also on Potters final list.
Of the 28 sites that are associated with Roman remains and have Roman brick and
tile in them only 50% use it structurally. The fact that such a small number of
56
Potters churches are associated with Roman structures supports Morris (1989: 102)
observation that,
Roman materials were far more commonly taken to the site of a church than
were sites of churches taken to the materials.
Also raised is the question why was Roman tile used in church construction?
Tim Eaton (2000) has addressed this question, considering the extent to which the
use of Roman material in Saxon churches legitimised Christian worship through a link
to Rome. However, his examples are drawn from well known, monumental sites, for
example Hexham and Ripon. As Reynolds (2003) has pointed out within the context
of Anglo-Saxon settlement studies, incorporating lesser known sites into the data set
allows comparison with more well known examples and may allow broader patterns
to be extracted. There is clearly an opportunity for further research concerning the
non-structural re-use of Roman material based upon a corpus of less well known
sites. St Andrews provides an example; the builders incorporated six complete
Roman hypocaust tiles into the internal walls of the church. One is in the nave next
to the Saxon Door (at one time the principle entrance/exit) whilst five flank the altar
at the rear of the chancel: the most sacred part of the church. In addition to
bolstering the argument that the nave and chancel are of the same phase of
construction, the presence of such material raises other questions. Were the tiles
simply functional storage holes as has been suggested (Storr Venter: 1975: 2) or was
there some ritual relationship between the Roman tile and the arrival and/or
departure of the congregation? Was the presence of Roman material in the chancel
intended in some way to legitimise the Christian use of the site? It is not possible to
address these questions by studying St Andrews in isolation and a broader research
project would be required.
Other recent studies are a reminder that new techniques and typologies are
constantly being developed; Potters (2006) recent work examining Saxon quoins
from a petrological viewpoint and Pringles (2006) hypocaust box flue tile typology
57
a process that would manage its future (DCMS, 2004: 16). It should not be
confused with a statement of significance which is normally employed in the context
of drawing up conservation and management plans. Whilst all new designations
since 2005 have a summary of importance attached to them the task of writing such
documents for old designations will be undertaken in a piecemeal fashion as and
when circumstances allow. It is proposed that the current listing entry (see section
2.1 above) does not fulfil the role of a summary of importance and that this research
project provides an opportunity to revise the listing to encompass the site and to
provide a draft summary of importance. Under HPR proposals the church and its
environs could be encompassed in a single listing, as a Grade 1 historic asset
(DCMS, 2004: 15). A draft summary of importance is presented below (section 6) in
anticipation of such a revised designation.
Through this study it has been possible to communicate to the CCT the notion
that the church and its environs should be regarded as a unified site and not just as a
building. This concept has already been incorporated into their conservation
statement, which explicitly refers to the graveyard in its title even though the CCT
do not own or have any jurisdiction over the graveyard the essential element of the
buildings setting is well understood. The concept was also a key ingredient of the
CCTs shared vision document (CCT, 2006b) which was part of a presentation to the
Heritage Lottery Fund, whose representative visited the site during the excavation.
One might even view the success of the project in uniting the site as a mini exercise
in joined-up heritage.
As a final thought, we should reflect upon Brauns (1970: 220) view, stated
earlier, that buildings are the embodiment of peoples wishes. The level of statutory
protection designated to a building is not necessarily a reflection of the protection it
enjoys in practice; St Andrews Old Church has the highest level of protection that the
state can bestow upon a building but this does not protect it from graffiti and broken
windows. Brauns statement is not just applicable for a buildings original
59
construction and use; ultimately the level of protection afforded to a heritage site will
be the embodiment of peoples wishes.
60
6 Conclusion
The aim of this study was to assess the significance of the standing building
and environs of St Andrews Old Church, Kingsbury. The initial task was to assess
current knowledge of the site by drawing together past investigations spanning the
last 250 years. This revealed a myopic concern with dating the standing building and
an underlying sense that the building would be somehow more significant if a Saxon
provenance could be established. In addition, the work of William Stukeley
overshadows the site with past investigations taking his interpretation as a starting
point: the apparent desire to prove or disprove a Stukeleyan hypothesis has
hampered past investigations.
The current redundant status of the church presented an opportunity to
initiate a new research project, taking an approach which has not previously been
employed at St Andrews. The site has been studied within its topographical area and
this has allowed a wide range of evidence to be considered. An excavation project at
the church revealed new dating evidence for the standing building and has produced
the first evidence of Saxo-Norman occupation at the site.
In addition to being an isolated study it has been proposed that this work has
a wider utility. The methodology employed, that of topographical survey combined
with limited and targeted archaeological investigation, might be usefully employed at
other sites. Meanwhile, there are questions concerning this type of lesser known site
which cannot be addressed through isolated study and wider research projects are
required; the example of the reuse of Roman remains has been used. Further, the
site exemplifies the need for heritage protection reform. It is proposed that the
protected area should be widened to encompass the graveyard of St Andrews Old
Church in order to bring a unified approach to heritage management at the site.
61
Based upon the evidence from this project the significance of St Andrews Old
Church and its environs is presented below in a draft summary of importance in
anticipation of a review of the heritage protection designation for this site .
Draft Summary of Importance
The church and churchyard of St Andrews Old Church occupy a place of
special interest on account of their association with Saxon settlement in north-west
London. The graveyard has produced the only archaeological evidence in the parish
for Late Saxon Early Norman occupation. It is possible that this location may be
the remnant of an area linked to Middle Saxon agriculture and settlement, which later
became a defensive site possibly protecting the local road network and nearby
crossing of the River Brent, which the site overlooked in the past.
Archaeological evidence indicates that the latest date for the construction of
the current church is end of the 11th-century. Although much restored by the
Victorians it is possible that the main fabric is contemporary with the Domesday Book
entry for the area; it may be the oldest surviving stone building in Middlesex. The
building belongs to a nationally important group of churches which were built at a
time when there was a resurgent interest in building permanent structures. The
desire to build permanent structures in quantity is not in evidence since the Roman
period and the building is therefore indicative of a wider cultural change in England.
Roman remains may be seen both inside and outside the building; these are not a
structural element of the building and their origin and purpose are not yet
understood.
The church and churchyard mark a central point for the early development of
settlement at Kingsbury. The aspect of the site is now diminished due to suburban
encroachment; however, together they are an excellent example of a rural parish
church and churchyard surviving in modern suburban London.
62
Source of
evidence/
map ref
WHS excavation
TQ 2064 8687
Period
Roman
221188
TQ 2064 8686
Roman
050296
Observation
TQ 2064 8687
Roman
50297
050350
WHS Excavation
TQ 0265 8686
050295
(Old Church Lane)
050299
(Salmon Street)
50294
(Buck Lane)
Chance finds
TQ 2050 8670
Chance finds
TQ 2010 8694
Chance finds
TQ 2050 8860
Medieval
- 1066
AD to
1539 AD
Roman
?Roman
Roman
63
50876
(Roe Green)
53087
(Kingsbury Rd)
Chance Finds
TQ 2018 8880
TQ 2000 8850
Roman
ROMAN POTSHERDS
Saxon
64
References Cited
Bailey, K. 1988, The Hidation of Middlesex, Transactions of the London and
Middlesex Archaeology Society, 39, pp 165-186.
Balkwill, C.J. 1993, Old English Wic and the Origin of the Hundred, Landscape
History, 15 pp5-12.
Bell, T. 1998, Churches on Roman Buildings: Christian Associations and Roman
Masonry in Anglo-Saxon England Medieval Archaeology, 42 pp 1-18.
Bell, T. 2005, The Religious Reuse of Roman Structures in Medieval England, British
Archaeological Reports, British Series 390, Oxford: Archaeopress.
BGS (British Geological Survey), 2006, England and Wales Sheet 256 North London,
Bedrock and Superficial Deposits 1:50 000, Nottingham: Keyworth.
Birch, W de Gray, 1885, Cartularium saxonicum: a Collection of Charters Relating to
Anglo-Saxon History, London: Whiting & Co.
Blair, J. 2005, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bloice, B. 1974, Excavation Round-up - 1973 London Archaeologist, 2 (6) p133.
Braun, H. 1937a, The Hundred of Gore and its Moot-Hedge, Transactions of the
65
CCT (Churches Conservation Trust) 2006a, St Andrew Old Church and churchyard,
Kingsbury, London, Conservation Statement, unpublished report.
CCT (Churches Conservation Trust) 2006b, The Shared Vision for St Andrews,
Kingsbury, unpublished document.
Cherry, B & Pevsner, N. 1991, Buildings of England, London. 3 North-West, London:
Penguin Books.
CPW (Council for Places of Worship), 1976, Kingsbury, St Andrew (Old Church)
(London), unpublished report, National Monuments Record BL 54764.
Cunnington, W.E. 2000, The Field-Names of Kingsbury, English Place-Names Society
Journal, 32 pp 41-46.
DCMS, 2004, Review of Heritage Protection: The Way Forward, London: DCMS.
Eaton, T. 2000, Plundering the Past: Roman Stonework in Medieval Britain, Stroud:
Tempus.
Eftec (economics for the environment consultancy), 2005, Valuation of the Historic
Environment, URL: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.9091 date
accessed.
EH (English Heritage), 2006, Buildings at risk register, URL: http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1424 date accessed 14 August 2006.
English, J. 2002, Worths in a Landscape Context Landscape History, 24 pp 45-51.
Frith, J. 1906 Middlesex, London: Methuen.
Gelling, M. 1979, The Early Charters of the Thames Valley: a catalogue,
Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Gelling, M. 1984, Place-names in the Landscape, London: Phoenix Press.
Gover, J. E. B., Mawer, A. and Stanton F. M. 1942, The Place-names of Middlesex
Apart from the City of London, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guildhall Library, 2006, URL
http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external/SearchResults&sp=Z
kingsbury accessed 16 August 2006.
66
Harrison, D. 2004, The Bridges of Medieval England; Transport and Society 400-1800
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hewlett, G. 1987a, Old St Andrews, Kingsbury: A struggle for Survival, London:
Wembley History Society.
Hewlett, G. 1987b, The Bells of Old St Andrews Kingsbury: Their History and
restoration, London: Wembley History Society unpublished pamphlet.
Hooke, D. 1981, Anglo-Saxon Landscapes of the West Midlands, British
Archaeological Report , British Series No. 95, Oxford: Archaeopress.
Johnson, C.G. 1956, Old St. Andrews Kingsbury Wembley History Society Journal,
1(1), pp15-20.
Meaney, A. 1995, Pagan Sanctuaries, Place-Names and Hundred Meeting-Places,
Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 8 pp 29-42.
Morris, J. 1975, Domesday Book 11, Middlesex edited from a draft translation
prepared by Sara Wood, Chichester: Phillimore .
Morris, R. 1989, Churches in the Landscape, London: Phoenix.
OAU (Oxford Archaeology Unit), 2000, Kingsbury, St. Andrew Old Church
Archaeological Assessment, unpublished document.
Pevsner, N. 1951, The Buildings of England, Middlesex, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Potter, S. 1928, Old Kingsbury Church (2nd edition) London: Mowbray.
Potter, J.F. 2001, The Occurrence of Roman Brick and tile in Churches in the London
Basin, Britannia, 32 pp 119-142.
Potter, J.F. 2006, No Stone Unturned a re-assessment of Anglo-Saxon Long-andShort Quoins and Associated Structures, Archaeological Journal, 162 pp177-214.
Pringle, S. 2006, Early Box Flue Tiles from London, London Archaeologist, 11(5),
pp124-129.
RCHME, 1937, Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England): An Inventory
of the Historical Monuments in Middlesex, London: HMSO.
67
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/redchurches/annualreport2
005.doc date accessed 14 August 2006.
68
Walford, E. 1883, London: A Narrative of its History, its People and its Places,
London: Cassell & Co.
WHS (Wembley History Society), 1977, Committee meeting minutes of 2nd September
1977, unpublished document.
WHS (Wembley History Society), 1978, Old St Andrews Kingsbury in 1844 Wembley
History Society Journal, IV (7).
69