Historic Landscape Characterisation methodology

No Historic Landscape Characterisation has been completed for West Yorkshire, although such an exercise was started by the West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service after the research for this thesis was completed and is due to finish in 2015.

Unlike Roberts and Wrathmell’s settlement study, it was therefore impossible to validate the methodology by replication within the study area. Users of HLC methodology are encouraged to learn from previous projects, particularly those in neighbouring counties, when deciding on what character attributes to use.²⁶⁴ Chapter 1 demonstrated the similarity in the broad historical processes that have been at work in

262 J.F. Myers, Map of the Parish of Halifax in the West Riding of the County of York, showing the township, borough and manorial boundaries, from an actual survey made in the years 1834 and 1835.

[Scale, about 2 1/2 inches = 1 mile], (Warrington, Digital Archives, 2003).

263 Roberts and Wrathmell, Atlas of rural settlement, p.9.

264 English Heritage. Characterisation Team, Historic Landscape Characterisation: template project design, (London, English Heritage, 2002), pp.12-13.

124

the South Pennines. In order to test the validity of HLC as a method, it therefore seemed a reasonable hypothesis that the methodological detail of the Lancashire HLC, covering as it does the western side of the South Pennine area, would be equally applicable to the eastern Yorkshire side. It was noted earlier that one of the downsides of HLC was the application of the methodology almost entirely within the

administrative unit of the county, thus obscuring other possibilities such as its use within pays. Using the Lancashire methodology therefore had the additional advantage of testing the extent to which particular HLC methodologies are

transferrable to areas in adjacent counties with similar historical backgrounds. Two townships in the Upper Calder Valley were chosen as study areas for the application of the Lancashire HLC, Stansfield and Erringden. These were chosen on the

hypothesis that their very different tenurial histories, outlined in section 2.3.1 above, might have affected their landscape character and would provide two different types of testing ground for HLC methodology.

There is no single HLC methodology as was explained in section 2.1.2. As a result of the diversity of methods adopted in different projects, English Heritage commissioned a review of the methodology by Somerset County Council in order to determine best practice. The report of this was published in 2003 and puts the Lancashire

methodology in the wider HLC context.²⁶⁵

The Review compared the methodology of 29 projects while there was also more detailed comparative testing of four selected project methods.²⁶⁶ It was determined that the methodological development of HLC between 1994 and 2002 could be

265 Aldred and Fairclough, Taking stock of the method.

266 Ibid., pp.2-4.

125

divided into four phases or ‘waves’.²⁶⁷ The Review also classified the HLC projects encompassed within these developmental phases into ‘families’, based on how data was collected and used and how it was then interpreted.²⁶⁸ A summary table in Appendix 2 outlines these four families and the various methodologies utilised in the various HLC projects undertaken up to 2002.

The Review allowed the formulation of a Historic Landscape Characterisation Template Project Design which set out a broad methodology for use in future

county-wide HLC projects.²⁶⁹ Much of the document is concerned with project planning and documentation but detailed appendices are provided which set out some of the

potential methodological detail, such as lists of source data and attributes. However, it is only a prescriptive document at a high level and it stresses that the detail, such as attributes used, may have to be adapted to suit local needs.²⁷⁰

For the purposes of this research, the character attributes employed by Lancashire were used within the high level framework provided by the Template. Lancashire was a Wave 3 project and there is a fundamental difference in the approach used by Lancashire and that advocated by the Template. In Lancashire particular character areas, or polygons, were grouped into HLC Types, based on the assumption that

‘particular patterns and groupings of landscape attributes can be shown to be determined by their similar land use history’.²⁷¹ For example small irregular fields,

267 Aldred and Fairclough, Taking stock of the method, pp.6-14.

268 Ibid., p.15.

269 English Heritage. Characterisation Team, Template project design.

270 Ibid., pp.28, 32.

271 Clark, et al., Using Historic Landscape Characterisation, p.7.

126

winding lanes and footpaths, and an association with known medieval settlements and place names all indicate pre-1600 enclosure in the Lancashire HLC.²⁷²

The HLC type is thus derived from the attributes themselves in Lancashire and follows the descriptive model. More recent HLC projects have used a prescriptive approach which is now reflected in the Template. This uses a predefined list of broad HLC types or groups and a type is allocated as an attribute in itself to each polygon.²⁷³ These types are subdivided according to the project objectives and the landscapes studied to produce a hierarchical typology. The type ‘Enclosed land’ might be, as in the Devon HLC, divided into ‘Prehistoric fields’, ‘Medieval fields’, ‘Post-medieval fields’ and ‘Modern fields’. ‘Medieval fields’ for example is further subdivided into categories such as ‘Strip fields’ and ‘Medieval enclosures based on strip fields’.²⁷⁴

The Template requires three fundamental sets of attributes: broad HLC groups;

present day HLC attributes; and previous HLC attributes.²⁷⁵ Although one of the principles of HLC is that the whole landscape should be considered and not just parts of it, the purpose of the present exercise is not to complete a full HLC but to test the validity of the methodology as it pertains to field and settlement aspects of the landscape. These aspects only are set out below in Figure 2.6 together with some of the detailed attributes used in Lancashire in connection with enclosed land. Template requirements are in bold.

272 Ede and Darlington, Lancashire Historic Landscape Characterisation Programme, p.27.

273 English Heritage. Characterisation Team, Template project design, p.28.

274 Turner, Devon Historic Landscape Characterisation, pp.36-9, 57.

275 English Heritage. Characterisation Team, Template project design, pp.27-9.

127

Figure 2.6: Attributes used in the Lancashire HLC HLC Groups:

 Unenclosed (or Unimproved) land

 Enclosed land

 Interpretation and indicative features o Unenclosed (or Unimproved) land

 Moorland o Enclosed land

 Reverted moorland

 Ancient Enclosure (pre-1600)

 Post-medieval enclosure (1600-1850)

 Modern enclosure (1850 to present) o Woodland

 Ancient and post-medieval woodland (pre-1850)

 Modern woodland (1850 to present) o Settlement

 Ancient and post-medieval settlement (pre-1850)

 Modern settlement (1850 to present)

 Period

o Post-first edition OS 1:10560 survey date (c.1850) o 1600-first edition OS 1:10560 survey date (c.1850) o Pre-1600

o Prehistoric and Romano-British

 Confidence o Certain

o High likelihood of certainty o Good basis for certainty o Probable

 Sources

o Basic sources (consistent coverage)

 Field morphology

 First edition OS 6 inch maps

 Modern OS maps

128

o Other sources (used for specific information)

 Place-name evidence

 Victoria County History

 Township and parish studies

 Lancashire SMR Previous HLC attributes:

As evidenced by earlier OS or other maps, or by ‘informed interpretation’.²⁷⁶ This uses the same set of attributes as for the present day HLC.

The interpretations of enclosed land that were used by Lancashire are broad dated categories rather than the more detailed interpretations, such as strip fields or intakes, that have been used by many other HLCs.²⁷⁷ Also unusual is the emphasis on the relationship of field patterns with settlement and communication features in order to define the category. As these characteristics are fundamental to the categorisation they are given below in Figure 2.7:

Figure 2.7: Enclosure characteristics used in the Lancashire HLC²⁷⁸ HLC enclosure

 Sinuous or wavy-edged field boundaries

 Winding lanes or tracks connecting settlements

 Dispersed settlement pattern of isolated farmsteads and small villages/hamlets

 Field boundaries a variety of mixed species hedges, banks, walls, and drainage ditches

Post-medieval enclosure (AD 1600-1850)

 Most enclosures bounded with straight edges; 4% wavy edged

 Straighter roads and tracks than Ancient Enclosure

 Tendency to medium sized enclosures but with significant percentage of small enclosures

 More regular landscape appearance than Ancient Enclosure

 Present on OS 1st edition maps

276 English Heritage. Characterisation Team, Template project design, p.29.

277 For example Turner, Devon Historic Landscape Characterisation, pp.10-14.

278 Ede and Darlington, Lancashire Historic Landscape Characterisation Programme, pp.97-118.

129 Modern

enclosure (after AD 1850)

 Straight sided enclosures

 Mostly medium sized fields

 Generally an irregular pattern of enclosure but 34% with regular layout

 New field boundaries, mainly of fences and quickset hedges

 Not on OS 1st edition maps

Polygons are defined by the Template as groups of modern land parcels that possess the same general historic landscape character.²⁷⁹ Although the Review suggested that the preferred size of polygons was a mean of between c.25 to 50 ha, the Template is not prescriptive but merely warns against the use of small areas. The reason for this is the county-wide scale of the exercise. In principle, where a small area is being studied it is obviously more feasible, and desirable, to define smaller polygons so that finer levels of characterisation can be included. However, as the purpose of this project was to validate a county wide methodology it was appropriate to use a county wide scale.

Although Lancashire did not discuss the size of their polygons, the same level of scale was used based on an impressionistic assessment of the Lancashire HLC map.