Archaeological trial investigations evaluate medieval structures in Hexham priory church, suggesting preservation.
In November 2025, the Archaeological Practice Ltd was commissioned to carry out archaeological evaluation by excavation within the north-east corner of the nave of Hexham priory church in order to determine its archaeological sensitivity in advance of the proposed installation of an access ramp. In Trial Pit 1, significant in situ stonework was uncovered at shallow depths below the existing floor which included an east-west aligned, contiguous set of large sandstone blocks [108] running from the edge of the Trial Pit up to the Tower NW Pier. Although undiagnostic and possibly reused, these are considered likely to be associated with flooring of High Medieval origin or perhaps associated with construction of the Great Buttress in 1725. Stonework [109] identified directly beneath this level, observed on the same E-W alignment at a depth of 0.31m below the existing floor, although partially obscured, appears to match the position and, significantly, the depth of the east return of the Crypt North Passage as illustrated on Hodges' plan and transverse section of 1899, suggesting that it constitutes roof/capping fabric of the East Return of the Crypt North Passage. Further historic stonework [113] at the east end of the Trial Pit, extending northwards and possibly westwards from the north face of the Tower NW Pier, although difficult to interpret, is also considered of likely High Medieval origin. In Trial Pit 2, a possible medieval cross-wall [205][206] was found to extend for only c. 0.50m from the north wall of the Nave North Aisle, with much of the central portion of the trench around it found to comprise mixed rubble and cement of likely modern origin which obscured any in situ stone remains beneath. A single ashlar block [208] with an exposed squared western edge encountered at the western extent of [207] may be in situ, however, possibly associated with a linear feature heading eastwards, culminating in a chamfered block [209] revealed at the east end of the trench partly underlying the Tower Pier base. The position of this block of 12th century or conceivably earlier date beneath the 13th century North Respond just over one metre south of the 13th century North Nave Wall could indicate a conjectured narrower aisle, or an associated respond, belonging to the 12th century Nave. It is recommended on the basis of the above findings that any in situ fabric of suspected High Medieval or earlier date must be left in place during any subsequent development works. The latter includes an east-west aligned, contiguous set of large sandstone blocks [108] running from the edge of Trial Pit 1 up to the Tower NW Pier base, as well as stonework [109] directly beneath this level which matches the projected position and depth of the east return of the Crypt North Passage, as well as stonework [113] extending from the north face of the Tower NW Pier at the east end of the Trial Pit, thought likely to represent medieval fabric. In Trial Pit 2 the stub of a possible medieval cross-wall [205][206] extending from the north wall of the Nave North Aisle must be left in situ, along with a chamfered block [209] and possible contiguous blocks on the same alignment which may be of 12th century date. Modern infill identified as belonging to the Nave construction works of 1907-8 could potentially be removed under archaeological supervision if deemed necessary for the installation of the proposed new sloping floor. This includes stonework, south of the hearting duct and between the in situ stones noted above in Trial Pit 1, which almost certainly represents infilling associated with the construction of the Nave in 1907-8, along with deposits in the central portion of Trial Pit 2, continuing around the western and southern perimeter, comprising disturbed stonework [207] with a topping of mixed rubble and cement derived from the same Nave construction works.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marc Johnstone (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: