Ancient Monuments

History on the Ground

This site is entirely user-supported. See how you can help.

Coatham Mundeville medieval village, fishpond and areas of rig and furrow

A Scheduled Monument in Coatham Mundeville, Darlington

We don't have any photos of this monument yet. Why don't you be the first to send us one?

Upload Photo »

Approximate Location Map
Large Map »

If Google Street View is available, the image is from the best available vantage point looking, if possible, towards the location of the monument. Where it is not available, the satellite view is shown instead.

Coordinates

Latitude: 54.5791 / 54°34'44"N

Longitude: -1.5594 / 1°33'33"W

OS Eastings: 428575.857831

OS Northings: 520517.048206

OS Grid: NZ285205

Mapcode National: GBR KHKH.59

Mapcode Global: WHC5Q.05PG

Entry Name: Coatham Mundeville medieval village, fishpond and areas of rig and furrow

Scheduled Date: 26 March 1997

Source: Historic England

Source ID: 1016109

English Heritage Legacy ID: 28551

County: Darlington

Civil Parish: Coatham Mundeville

Traditional County: Durham

Lieutenancy Area (Ceremonial County): County Durham

Church of England Parish: Great Aycliffe

Church of England Diocese: Durham

Details

The monument includes the shrunken remains of the medieval village of Coatham
Mundeville, situated on the East Durham Plateau. The earliest known reference
to the settlement is contained in a document of AD 1200 in which it is
referred to as `Cotum super Scryne'. The Amundeville family held the manor
from an early time until Thomas Amundeville sold it to Galfrid Russell. The
medieval plan of the village is a type well known in County Durham in which
two parallel lines of houses face onto a broad rectangular village green with
narrow crofts or garden areas to the rear. Coatham Mundeville has been
occupied down to the present day and its basic medieval plan has been retained
with some of the original plots currently occupied by buildings. This type of
village in northern England is thought to have been a result of intentional
planning by the Normans attempting to exert control over a rebellious region
during the 11th and 12th centuries.
The shrunken remains of the village are visible as a series of earthworks
situated to the north, south and west of the present village. The south row of
the village has been largely depopulated, and at its western end the former
line of the street is visible as a broad linear earthen bank containing the
remains of several rectangular house platforms. Immediately to the rear there
are the earthwork remains of several elongated crofts, orientated north to
south. They are defined by prominent earthen banks 3m wide and 0.6m high. The
line of the street continues through the fields immediately east of Glebe
Farm; to its south an area of rig and furrow cultivation extends down to the
stream. The north row of the medieval village is still largely occupied except
at the western end. Here, it is visible as a prominent linear scarp and it
also survives as a slight earthwork in the southern part of the field
immediately north east of Coatham Hall Farm. The earthworks on the north side
of the village are less pronounced than those on the south and hence no house
platforms are visible, although they are thought to survive immediately to the
rear of the street front.
The two rows of houses face onto a broad rectangular village green, now partly
occupied by Brafferton Lane. The southern part of the green is visible as a
slightly concave open space containing the remains of earthen banks and
hollows. With the exception of the extreme western end, however, its northern
part has suffered from later village encroachment.
Immediately north and east of Coatham Farm there is a large area of ridge and
furrow cultivation orientated north to south. At its northern end there are
the remains of an elongated pond. This is interpreted as a fishpond 34m long
by 10m wide and up to 1.6m deep, with a prominent earthen bank 6m wide
flanking it to the north. A ditch up to 1m deep flanks the pond to the west
and this continues north for 66m, accompanied for part of its course by a
slight earthen bank. This ditch is interpreted as a leat which fed water into
the pond at its northern end. Immediately to the east of the first pond, a
similar elongated depression is thought to be the remains of a second pond,
although the exact relationship between this depression and the surrounding
rig and furrow cannot be established. Some 50m south of these ponds a large
irregular depression may be the modified remains of another water related
feature.
Further ridge and furrow is visible at the extreme eastern end of the village
which at its southern end appears to overlie earlier village earthworks.
A number of features within the area are excluded from the scheduling; these
are all buildings associated with Glebe Farm including the barn and small
stone shed at the extreme western side of the monument, as well as all fences,
walls and hedges, although the ground beneath all of these features is
included.

MAP EXTRACT
The site of the monument is shown on the attached map extract.

Source: Historic England

Reasons for Scheduling

Medieval rural settlements in England were marked by great regional diversity
in form, size and type, and the protection of their archaeological remains
needs to take these differences into account. To do this, England has been
divided into three broad Provinces on the basis of each area's distinctive
mixture of nucleated and dispersed settlements. These can be further divided
into sub-Provinces and local regions, possessing characteristics which have
gradually evolved during the past 1500 years or more.
This monument lies in the Humber-Tees sub-Province of the Central Province
which comprises a great fertile lowland, with many local variations caused by
slight differences in terrain, but generally dominated by market towns,
villages and hamlets. The dispersed farmsteads between these are mainly of
post-medieval date, created by the movement out of villages and on to newly
consolidated holdings following enclosure. Some, however, are more ancient
dispersals, the result of manors, granges and other farmsteads being moved out
of villages in the Middle Ages; others have become isolated by the process of
village depopulation, which has had a substantial impact in the sub-Province.
The Tees Valley local region is a rich agricultural lowland, with varied
soils on glacial and alluvial deposits once supporting dense concentrations of
market towns and villages. Depopulation has thinned the numbers of villages,
while enclosure in the 17th and 18th centuries has brought scatters of
isolated farmsteads to landscapes once dominated by great expanses of open,
communally organised townfields.

A fishpond is an artificially created pool of slow moving freshwater
constructed for the purpose of cultivating, breeding and storing fish to
provide a constant and sustainable supply of food. They may be dug into the
ground, embanked above ground level, or formed by placing a dam across a
narrow valley. Groups of up to 12 ponds variously arranged in a single line or
in a cluster and joined by leats have been recorded. The ponds may be of the
same size or of several different sizes with each pond being stocked with
different species or ages of fish. The size of the pond was related to
function, with large ponds thought to have had a storage capability whilst
smaller, shallower ponds were used for fish cultivation and breeding.
Fishponds were maintained by a water management system which included inlet
and outlet channels carrying water from a river or stream, a series of sluices
set into the bottom of the dam and along the channels and leats, and an
overflow leat which controlled fluctuations in water flow and prevented
flooding.
Buildings for use by fishermen or for the storage of equipment, and islands
possibly used for fishing, wildfowl management or as shallow spawning areas,
are also recorded.
The tradition of constructing and using fishponds in England began during the
medieval period and peaked in the 12th century. They were largely built by
the wealthy sectors of society with monastic institutions and royal residences
often having large and complex fishponds. The difficulties of obtaining fresh
meat in the winter and the value placed on fish in terms of its protein
content and as a status food may have been factors which favoured the
development of fishponds and which made them so valuable. The practice of
constructing fishponds declined after the Dissolution of the Monasteries in
the 16th century although in some areas it continued into the 17th century.
Most fishponds fell out of use during the post-medieval period although some
were reused as ornamental features in 19th and early 20th century landscape
parks or gardens, or as watercress beds.
Documentary sources provide a wealth of information about the way fishponds
were stocked and managed. The main species of fish kept were eel, tench,
pickerel, bream, perch and roach. Large quantities of fish could be supplied
at a time. Once a year, probably in the spring, ponds were drained and
cleared.
Fishponds are widely scattered throughout England and extend into Scotland and
Wales. The majority are found in central, eastern and southern parts and in
areas with heavy clay soils. Fewer fishponds are found in coastal areas and
parts of the country rich in natural lakes and streams where other sources of
fresh fish were available. Although 17th century manuals suggest that areas
of waste ground were suitable for fishponds, in practice it appears that most
fishponds were located close to villages, manors or monasteries or within
parks so that a watch could be kept on them to prevent poaching. Although
approximately 2000 examples are recorded nationally, this is thought to be
only a small proportion of those in existence in medieval times. Despite
being relatively common, fishponds are important for their associations with
other classes of medieval monument and in providing evidence of site economy.

The shrunken remains of the medieval village of Coatham Mundeville are well
preserved and retain significant archaeological deposits. The village is a
good example of its type and taken together with the remains of the open field
system will add greatly to our knowledge of medieval settlement in the region.

Source: Historic England

Sources

Books and journals
Fordyce, W, History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham: Volume I, (1857), 522
Roberts, B K R, 'Geographia Polonica' in The Regulated Village in Northern England, , Vol. 38, (1978), 246-52
Other
1487 & DMV Survey of Darlington, (1994)
DSMR 1487,

Source: Historic England

Other nearby scheduled monuments

AncientMonuments.uk is an independent online resource and is not associated with any government department. All government data published here is used under licence. Please do not contact AncientMonuments.uk for any queries related to any individual ancient or schedued monument, planning permission related to scheduled monuments or the scheduling process itself.

AncientMonuments.uk is a Good Stuff website.