This is the full record of my excavations at Manor Farm 1997/1998

Manor Farm, Eastwell, Leicestershire ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank everyone who has contributed to this project, with special appreciation to the following: To the owners of Manor Farm Alan and Mary Haynes and also to Mrs. E. Haynes and Mr. Bernard Coleman. Thank you for your co-operation, patience and continuing interest in the research. David and Michael Stanley without whose help this project would not have existed. My thanks go particularly to the following: The Eastwell History Group. Dr. Richard Pollard of Leicestershire Museums Service for overseeing the project. Dr. Chris Brooke and Pat Hayes of Leicestershire Historic Buildings Conservation Unit for approving my excavation strategy and supplying listed building's analysis. Also Patrick Roberts from the same unit for conducting the geophysical survey. Dr Sarah Speight and Dr Jenny Alexander of University of Nottingham, School of Continuing Education for advice and encouragement. Cliff and John Rayner for the digital site survey and Paul Vane for his work on photogrammetry and contour plot with the assistance of Jonathan Orchard. The Melton Fieldworkers; Mike & Jenny Allsop for on-going advice, and Mary Hatton, Gerry Beever, Suzanne Elliot and John Young for their enthusiasm and skilful excavations. Joe Ecob gave a good insight into the pottery finds which were later confirmed and elucidated by Hilary Healey of Heritage Lincolnshire. Dr. Alastair Strang for tackling Trenches 2, 7 and Test Pit 2, and for advice on report writing, excavation procedure and coin identification. Dr Margaret Henry for excavation work, Latin translation and advice on the medieval period. The Belvoir Estate with special thanks to Mrs. D.A. Staveley for help with estate muniments. Dr Robert Laxton and Dr.Robert Howard of The University of Nottingham Dendro-chronology Unit. Steve Folkard for excavating while injured. John Clark of the Museum of London for his analysis of the horseshoe found in Trench 4. Graham Morgan of the School of Archaeological Studies, University of Leicester, for the analysis of the early horseshoe and decorated plaster. Tony Gouldwell of the same department for giving a valuable appraisal of vertebrate and molluscan finds. Dr David Thomas for advice on local geology. Eleanor Thomas (Cultural Development Officer) L.C.C. for her identification of the eighteenth-century gravy boat fragment found in the demolition context in Trench 4.Last but not least, my grateful thanks go to Bob Trubshaw for his assistance in compiling the complete dissertation from which this summary is derived. Congratulations are in order to Paul Vane who achieved a first class award B.Eng (H) in Engineering Surveying for his work at Manor Farm.

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND.

1.1 Introduction.
The Manor Farm project evolved from casual discussions during meetings of the Eastwell History Group. It transpired that local historian David Stanley had worked on the documentary evidence for some years and was already in contact with descendants of the original manor. As the site had never been archaeologically investigated, it offered the perfect opportunity to generate a new line of research as part of studies for the Advanced Certificate in Archaeology (University of Nottingham). The sequence of excavations were executed by the writer and a party of volunteers whose experience ranged from novice to professional, all of whom brought an enthusiasm which propelled the project forwards.
This original work was instigated to establish the precise location and ground plan of the destroyed medieval manor house thought to have been once owned by the Brabazon family between the 13th and 17th centuries.
Limited documentary evidence indicated the location to be 'Manor Farm' at SK 7774 2862 on the eastern side of the village of Eastwell in Leicestershire. This site lies at approximately 145m on the Ordnance Datum where the geology is composed of boulder clay overlying Middle Lias marlstone or ironstone (Maps 1 and 2).
Faced with an unusual 17th century house set amid an incoherent arrangement of earthworks, the writer was mindful of guidelines given by Taylor (1974.78);

' ..there is an unfortunate tendency to develop all kinds of fanciful ideas which usually have no relation to the truth. Worse, but still common, is the usually quite unnecessary tendency to make a site more important than it really is'.

1.2 Site description.
The present (Grade II listed) house stands within a roughly rectangular plot measuring 180m x 85m which is orientated (NNW/SSE) (Maps 2 and 3). To the north are road side developments occupying plots which can be traced back to the 18th century and obviously encroach upon the formerly larger plot. The River Devon forms the southern boundary of the property and once supplied a series of fishponds located to the east at SK 778 285 (SMR 72NE W). The eastern boundary is represented by the recently named Water Lane, which extends down hill to the river. This lane appears to bisect earthworks which, extend into pastures further east, parallel with the fishponds.
The western boundary adjoins an open pasture, which originally comprised of two parcels of land with Green Yard to the west and Dovecote Close nearest to Manor Farm. A small vegetable garden (33m x 12m) extends southwards from the house and shares the same orientation. The eastern boundary is straight, but the one to the west deviates at a distance of approximately 16 metres south of the house.
Among a variety of earthworks visible on the site are two hollow-ways, one entering the north pasture from Water Lane, and the other leading to the river in the southern pasture. Remains of a broad wall survive parallel to the western boundary adjoining Dovecote Close and to the south (aligned with the end of the present garden).
There is a small mound (Y) and a depression reminiscent of a dewpond (Z) adjacent to the north-eastern boundary.

1.3 Objectives.

A. Establish site within the Leicestershire
S.M.R. (Sites and Monuments Register).

B. Establish occupation sequence of Manor
site.

C. Locate enclosure wall and possible
entrances.

D. Retrieve datable evidence i.e. pottery,
coins etc..

E. Establish well site.

F. Excavate suspected cellar entrance.

G. Clarify general site features.

1.4 Prehistoric and Historical Background.
1.5
Prehistoric Period.
Local historian Michael Stanley has found large quantities of lithics since the early 1970s. Among the Stanley collection is a Levalloisian flake assignable to the Lower Palaeolithic and therefore the product of Neanderthal man (Homo neanderthalensis) (pers. comm. R. Knox 18/12/96) (Dyer 1990,18). This collection also includes lithic tools from the Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age, and suggests prehistoric man found the area much to his liking. The excavation of a multi-phase Bronze Age barrow at nearby Piper Hole Farm (SK 760265) (SMR 72NE), produced C14 dates of 1500+ 70bc (Har 3941) and 1480+ 80bc (Har 3942) (Clay 1981.44), which categorised the monument as Middle Bronze Age. Further to this, a field (now quarried for ironstone) close to the village was known locally as Round Hill (Stanley and Stanley 1977.2) and strongly suggests a possible former barrow site.
Evidence of Iron Age activity within Eastwell has not been identified, but a fort site exists 4 km to the north- east at (SK 795320) (Pickering and Hartley 1985,44,45,80.).

Historical Period.
The Romano-British settlement of Goadby Marwood lies 2 km to the south of Eastwell and has obvious connections with Green Lane or The Salt Way; an ancient trackway which bisects the two villages.
Anglo-Saxon settlement at Eastwell is indicated by the discovery of a Hanging Bowl escutcheon which was found to the north of the village at (SK 777294), and the survival of a double ditch parish boundary 1.2 km to the north-west. No documentation relating to the Anglo-Saxon period has come to light so far, but under Danelaw, villages in the counties of Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire were commonly comprised of two manors (pers. comm. Beryl Lott 1998).
The earliest vague record of Eastwell under Anglo-Saxon rule is referred to without source by Nichols (1795.166);

'Eastwell was held, in the time of Edward the Confessor (1005-1066), by Leuric the son of Leuin, with the privileges of sac and soc'*.

*Sake and Soke = Freehold tenure of land from the king.

Within the reign of Henry I (1100-35), 4 carucates of land in Eastwell were held by Robert de Insula under ownership of the king (Round 1905.3)
The Domesday Survey (1086) records that the 'Eastwell Hundred' was held by Geoffrey de Wirce as part of the de Mowbray manor and Aschil (the King's Sergeant)(Morris 1979.40.10). By the time of the 'Leicestershire Survey' c.1150, the land formerly held by Aschil was divided between the lords Robert de Ferrers and Robert de Lisle (Slade 1956,51).

THE EASTWELL HUNDRED.
DOMESDAY SURVEY 1086 LEICS SURVEY 1150
Geofrey de Wirce 6c.
Roger de Mowbray 6c
Aschil 5c.2b. Robert de Ferrers 2c. Robert de Lisle 4c.

TOTAL 11c.2b. 12c.
c.=carucate b.=bovate

The 1150 survey reveals that an extra six bovates were acquired from adjoining land during the transfer to de Ferrers and de Lisle (ibid). By the beginning of the reign of Henry II, the 4 carucates of land formerly held by Robert de Insula under the king appear to have passed to Albreda de Insula (Round 1905.3).

The Eastwell Charters.
These documents chronicle a sequence of land transactions occurring during the reign of Henry II (1154-89). The first charter records the transfer of four carucates of land from Ralf Pincerne to the Cistercian monks of Garendon Abbey in Leicestershire. This donation of land included; 'tofts, crofts, fields, pastures, waters, paths, roadways and everything within and without the estate', and appears to contain a large proportion of the 12th century village.
Also early in the reign of Henry II, William of Evermou grants by charter; four carucates of land 'and all that belongs in fields, pastures house and land', to Garendon Abbey. In addition, William declares himself as defender of the monks in the event of any complaint being made against them. The process of transient land ownership during this period required this particular arrangement to be continually reaffirmed.
The following charter dated 1162-1170, William of Evermou is engaged in a complicated land-deal involving Garendon, and at the end of which he guarantees protection of the monks established at Eastwell. By 1166, Hugh (Earl of Norfolk) is evidently a major landowner from whom William of Albemarle held five fees. This charter again confirms four carucates of land being donated 'free of service' to the Abbey of Garendon.
It may be construed from these charters that the villagers of Eastwell did not exactly welcome the influence of the Abbey upon their village. It is within the charter dated Easter 1181, that William Mandeville, the new owner of the now established estate of four carucates, takes the opportunity to reaffirm the deal with Garendon. The document also issues a stern warning to the people of Eastwell not to 'vex, disturb or harm' the monks. The 1181 charter is recorded as being drawn-up at Westminster in the presence of three leading nobles of the day, as well as the Bishop of Norwich, the King's Treasurer Richard and nineteen Barons.
As a result of William Mandeville's marriage to Hawisa (Countess of Albemarle), a further charter dated 1181 is drafted by Hawisa which again confirms a commitment to Garendon. (ibid 3-7) (translation by M. Henry 1998).
There appears to have been the need to reinforce the validity of this donation of land to the closed order of monks, as a second charter is later drawn-up around 1200 by Hawisa's son William de Fortibus confirming the deal (Nichols 1795.166).
Apart from an insight into medieval social friction, these charters demonstrate how Eastwell became the concern of senior government of the day. What also emerges is the division of land in Eastwell, on this occasion the Monks of Garandon hold a large proportion which, reflects the earlier tradition for two manors.
Within the charter dated 1211 (Round 1905.7) is the first indication of the geographical location of the four carucates of land held by Garendon. The charter records the monastery giving Robert Arraby a toft (homestead with arable land) located near the churchyard in exchange for six cultivation strips in an Eastwell field 'next (to) Westhengfurlane.'
The 1847 'Tithe Award' map of Eastwell parish (Stanley and Stanley 1977.18-19) reveals a concentration of fields to the west of the village named 'Westinghams' (Map 6). Medieval field systems recorded by Hartley (1987.55) (Map 7) feature an open area containing six ridges which compares accurately with the 1847 field known as 'Stone Pit Close', which in turn lies immediately next to Westinghams.
If it is accepted that 'Westinghams' is a corruption of 'Westhengfurlane' it can be deduced that monks held lands to the east of the parish and exchanged their property for land to the west.
Study of the parish map suggests the present Harby - Waltham road (Red Lane) once formed the demarcation between the disproportionate manors (pers.comm. D. Stanley 1998). The larger of the two manors appears to have been centred upon the site presently occupied by Manor Farm. Early in the 13th century, Eastwell is recorded in the nearby Croxton Abbey register as two fees; one belonging to Arraby and the other to Ferrers. At a later date (c.1240) a survey (Testa de Nevill) defines two landowners;
Edmeshoue = 4 ploughlands valued 32d.
Arraby = 3 Carucates. valued 2s 6d (Nichols 1795.166)
Mid-thirteenth maps drawn by the cartographer Matthew Paris show the main route from London northwards to include Belvoir as a major stopping point (Henstock in Samuels 1996.19). Eastwell lies directly on this route and may also have served as a resting-place for travelling dignitaries.

The Brabazon Family in Eastwell.
Both Nichols (1795.166) and Meredith (1965.50) confirm that Eastwell once consisted of two manors, the largest of which passed into the ownership of the Brabazon family in the mid 13th century. The family, variously spelt Brabacon, Brabancon and Brabanson were known chiefly as mercenaries prior to the Norman Conquest. Jacques de Brabazon of Brabazon Castle, Normandy is mentioned in the Roll of Battle Abbey having joined William the Conquerer in 1066 (see Appendix 3.).
Jacques' great grandson Thomas acquired an estate in Moseley, Leicestershire as the result of marriage to Amicia, heiress of John de Moseley. In turn, their son Roger acquired Eastwell in the same county and married Beatrix the eldest of three sisters and a co-heir of Mansel de Bisset; Roger Brabazon was the son of this couple and is recorded as being knighted in 1268.
The next in line came Roger (The Judge), known as 'a man of great learning' was knighted in 1300 and during his life, Roger was a commissioner in many counties until he was eventually elevated to the office of Chief Justice of England. On the 10th May 1291, Roger attended parliament at Norham, Northumberland to negotiate with the Scots on behalf of Edward I to argue in favour of John Balliol who was eventually crowned King of Scotland.
Roger resigned on 23rd February 1316 due to ill health and died the following year on 13 June 1317 and was interred within the cemetary of St Paul's Cathedral, London. The substantial legacy including lands throughout England and those of Eastwell failed to pass to Roger, the rightful heir as he died prematurely (Smith 1825.1-6).
Ultimately, the property passed to Matthew, brother of Roger, from whom the present Earls of Meath 'Barons Brabazon of Ardee' in Ireland are descended.
From the time of Roger up to the 17th century, the Brabazon dynasty represented a constant feature of Eastwell life until disaster eventually struck.
'...On 1 April 1652 his (Edward Brabazon's) estates were sequestrated, but on 7 Jan 1653 the Court of Articles ordered restoration of his property. He recovered only part of them, portions having been granted away. He alleged that he had lost œ40,000 by the rebellion; he had raised 1,500 men, all Protestants, and armed them at little cost to the State, and had entered into bonds for the support of the English army in Ireland, which had not been satisfied. He also claimed that he had to mortgage all his lands in Leicestershire and sell his ancient manor at Eastwell, which "had descended to him in a lineal line since Edward I [sic] and that sequestration had cost him at least £6,000' (Doubleday and de Walden 1932. 612-13).

'...on November 23rd 1653, he (Rowland Eyre) entered into an agreement with the Earl to purchase the Brabazon manor. In February the following year the deeds were executed.... the purchase price was £3,750.' (Meredith 1965.50)

Nichols (1795. 167) records the last heir to the Eastwell manor after Edward Brabazon:
'William Lord Brabazon, of Ardee, his eldest son was soon after created Earl of East Meath in Ireland, April 16 1617; and was lord of this manor (Eastwell) in 1630. Soon after this period, the two manors became united in the person of Rowland Eyre esq. who at first purchased some lands in Eastwell belonging to Mr. Blith March 1 1631 on the site whereof he built his house; and next the lord Brabazon's manor, the capital messuage whereof is that which in 1715 was occupied by Thomas Hourd'.

From the purchase of the manor in 1654, twelve years elapsed until the site is inhabited once again. Farnham (1930. 190) records that Edward Hurd (Hourd) paid no Hearth Tax in 1666, owing to his house being 'New Built'.
It is clear from the work of Meredith (1967.11) that the Hurd (Hourd) family were recognised as bailiffs to the Eyre estates elsewhere in Derbyshire. It is therefore likely that Rowland Eyre ordered the construction of Manor Farm to accommodate his Eastwell bailiff in a property befitting his social status.
Another useful document is the 'Probate Inventory' for Manor Farm on the death of Vincent Hourd (who is presumably father to Thomas) dated 28th June 1712. This inventory (Appendix 3.) gives us a detailed list of contents contained within rooms of the farmhouse and ancillary buildings.
The next important phase in the history of Manor Farm arises when the last of the Eyre family died leaving no heirs. This resulted in the manor being sold to the Duke of Rutland around 1805 (Stanley and Stanley 1977.6) when it became part of the Belvoir Estate until 1920 when it was finally sold to Mr. Mark Haynes, the present owner's grandfather.

EVALUATING AND RECORDING THE SITE
2.1 The early maps.
1799 (Map 5)
This map is the earliest available and at present is held by the Belvoir Estate. It represents part of an estate property survey and was conducted by William King. Although the topography is accurately drawn, building sizes are exaggerated for the purposes of the survey. This map shows the site to include a second dwelling to the north, various outbuildings and an orchard. The farmhouse is enclosed by an almost square boundary and there is a clear division of land extending from the orchard and down to the river. One valuable aspect of this map is the ground plan of Manor Farm which, is staggered in appearance and represents the farmhouse at the height of its development before demolition of the north range took place c.1800.

1847 (Map 5)
Many features remain but the square boundary around the house has been removed and replaced by a larger one that extends further northwards and southwards. A barn or stable has disappeared from the north-west corner of the site which has been divided into three separate parcels of land.

1884 (Map 5)
Here, the orchard boundary has been removed and the one enclosing Manor Farm to the south has been replaced by a vegetable garden which survives today. Once again the north- west corner becomes two plots but with a different boundary configuration. This area also acquires a small out-building probably relating to the second dwelling.

2.2 Aerial photography.
Post-war aerial photography of the site in the Leicestershire Museums archive indicates no features. Although, a combination of geology, seasonal conditions and obliquity of view may have resulted in negative evidence. A vertical view of the village was obtained from RCHME (Film No.OS/68030) and showed little useful detail apart from a possible feature immediately to the east of the vegetable garden and to the north of Trench 3.

2.3 Surveying technique.
Before any excavation proceeded, the site was accurately surveyed using electronic distance measuring (EDM) equipment calibrated to Ordnance Datum.

2.4 G.P.S. Contour plan. (Maps 3 and 4)
This plan was plotted at 20cm intervals and utilised the Global Positioning System (G.P.S.) which employs satellite data as its reference. The full technical specification for this is given in (Appendix 4.).

2.5 Geophysical survey. (Map 8)
The nature of the site immediately around the house was thought to negate the use of geophysics owing to the spread of demolition rubble. However, this was later to be proved wrong. The northern half of the site was grid mapped at 1m intervals and the resistivity measured by equipment which stored the data via an on-board chip.
The recorded values showing little variation in the field were later downloaded into a desktop computer for analysis. Whilst the initial results were inconclusive, adjustments to the plotting software enhanced features previously unrecognised.

2.6 Photogrammetry. (Fig 1 a,b,c and d)
Photogrammetry employing a Wild P32 camera and an Adam MPS-2 analytical stereoplotter provided an accurate record of the house elevations without erecting scaffolding. A full technical specification of the equipment is given in (Appendix 4)

2.7 Excavation modus operandi.
Seven evaluation trenches measuring approximately 2m sq were excavated by hand in accordance with the techniques promoted by Barker (1977). The recording system and guidelines were supplied by Leicestershire Museums, Arts and Records Service (Pollard 1996), from which context sequences were compiled (Appendix 2.), recording soil colour and texture by description; the term context will be abbreviated simply to (C) throughout the following text. Soil was sieved through a 10mm mesh where possible and a metal detector was employed at intervals to check for small metallic fragments. All finds of interest were given unique numbers and were logged into the 'Finds Index' (Appendix 2).
Profiles were drawn to a scale 1:10, whereas all plans were drawn 1:20 (Appendix 1). Excavated features were photographed using both colour transparency and black and white print film.
Whilst no machinery functioned on site, a variety of precautions were taken to avoid accidents in and around the excavations. Electrified fencing was employed to deter grazing livestock and access to visitors was restricted to guided tours.


3. THE HOUSE
3.1 English Heritage description.
Ministry ref. 37/360. List No. 32. (Fig.1a,b,c and d.)

'Farmhouse, now without a farm. Late C17, altered internally C20.
Brick, laid in Flemish bond. Roofs of pantiles and one slope of late C20 concrete pantiles. Originally T-Plan but north half of main range demolished 18th and an outshut constructed in its place. The stack at this point rebuilt as a partly external feature. 2 storeys and attics. Main north- south range has one blocked 3-light ovolo moulded stone mullioned window each floor, the lower window under a moulded hood. South gable with a 5-light similar mullioned window with the centre light blocked.
Remaining lights retain leaded glazing. One 3-light mullioned window to first floor and a similar 2-light window to attic. Moulded hoods as before. South face of west wing with an ironstone outshut to ground floor under sloping roof. One 2-light ovolo mullioned window above.
West gable of this wing with one blocked mullioned window to first and attic floors, the former of 3 lights, the latter of 2. C18 sloping outshut to north side with C20 casements. Rectangular partly external stack terminated in 3 diamond flues'.

3.2 General description.
The stone window frames inserted on all elevations display headers and sills belonging to an earlier period c. 15th/16th century (pers comm Alexander 1997) (Fig.2), the mullions in all cases appear to be replacements with a typology contemporary with the brick house (Alcock & Hall 1994: 38-9). Part of a stone hood is visible projecting above the roofline of the small outshut on the south-west corner (Fig.3a and b). Examination within this outshut revealed the remainder of the blocked window which matches one on the opposite side of the building (Fig.4).
Also visible within the outshut is a blocked doorway which would have originally accessed the ground floor of the west range.
The 17th century brick structure is built upon a marlestone cellar which would have originally measured 10 x 5 metres internally, the top course of which is still visible on the southern and eastern elevations (Fig.4). Although the English Heritage analysis is thorough, there is no mention of either the cellar or the splayed window at ground level on the southern elevation.

3.3 The cellar. (Plan 1)
The present space measures approximately 5.5 x 4.8 metres (internally) and is constructed entirely of finely squared, dressed and coursed marlstone blocks. The fireplace foundations form half of the north wall with abutted masonry either side; the section of wall to the east of these foundations corresponds to (C.042) exposed in Trench 4.
Abutting both the eastern and western walls are two butresses (X and Y) supporting a massive central beam which is part of the upper chamber flooring; It was noted that buttress (Y) followed the horizontal curvature of the inwardly bowing east wall (Fig.5).
There is a flight of steps in the south-western corner which is constructed of a conglomerate of stone, brick and re-used timber. The wall on the south-eastern corner has additional abutted stone facing which gives an overall wall thickness of 1 metre.
The southern wall is pierced by a slightly splayed window (b) measuring 120cms wide x 65cms high. In the south-west corner above the steps is a blocked aperture (a) with a timber lintel (Figs 6 and 7.), a similar feature (c) can also be found on the eastern wall located to the south of the buttress (Fig.5) (pers. comm. Haynes 1998).
The wall area above the steps clearly shows the transition from stone to brick. Unlike the neatly coursed masonry outside the building, here the interface is irregular. There is evidence of re-use visible on the western wall (Fig.8).

3.3 Internal features and re-used materials.
The decorated beam.(Fig.9)
Within the northern outshut is a re-used timber beam currently acting as a main support for the roof. The beam measures approximately 4 metres in length and has sectional dimensions of 15 x 17cms. The beam is decorated with carving analogous to billet which is a design commonly found on masonry of the Norman period (c.f. Parker 1905: 162- 3)(Fig.10). The beam also has a series of stud mortices on the underside. There is also evidence of a crown post location on the upper surface. As this beam is decorated on one side only and includes stud mortices, it may be interpreted as an end beam or partition.

Principal wall post
A large timber visible on the ground floor extends vertically into the northern outshut. This timber bears a strong resemblance to a principal wall post used in medieval box frame construction (Alcock et al 1996.F3.k)(Fig.11).
The removal of wallpaper to facilitate coring revealed a squared recess designed to carry a wall plate (Fig.12).

Cellar timbers
There are two obviously re-used timbers supporting the main beam spanning the cellar ceiling, these also appear to be remnants of timber building construction but are from an unknown context. The central timber (Fig.13) seems to be part of a wall plate as it has two recesses which would have provided the base for a pair of rafters and two mortices designed to receive vertical stud timbers (pers. comm. R. Laxton) (Alcock et al 1996.F33.A)). The other timber (Fig.5.) is less obvious as it has an open recess suggesting the female element of a lap joint, from which extends a groove containing a mortice slot design to accept a through tenon (ibid. F28.q/r)(Fig.14).
Also in the cellar, the upper four treads of the stairs are formed from various re-used timbers. Similar material appears to have been used to pack beneath the principal ceiling beam in association with the western buttress (Fig.13).


4 SITE INTERPRETATION
4.1 Summary of excavations.
(see Appendix 1. for full description and summary drawings)
Test Pit 1.
Although the masonry found in this excavation coincides with a boundary wall shown on the 1799 map, the construction style resembled building foundations rather than those of an enclosure wall. Further evidence of possible building foundation were later produced from Trench 3.

Trench 1.
Despite the lack of medieval evidence, this excavation did expose traces of walls which pre-date 1799 and appear to be built without foundation trenches. Geophysical analysis of the area around Trench 1. related the location to that of an earlier pond.

Trench 2.
Excavation uncovered evidence of massive foundations which may have formed a defensive southern perimeter wall (Fig.15), the masonry of which was robbed to the east of this trench which initially suggested an opening. But upon investigation this area proved to be an aperture serving a drainage system found on the north side of the wall (Fig.16). Sherds of Saxo-Norman pottery were recovered only from contexts south of the wall-line which suggests that refuse was habitually thrown outside the enclosure.

Trench 2A.
The inferred opening through the wall foundations in Trench 2. promoted a further trench to investigate the possibility of an opposing gate wall. This work revealed the 'true' western half of an entrance which corresponds directly with a holloway entering the site from the south (Fig.17). Excavators encountered a sequence of cobbled surfaces which culminated with a layer of squared marlstone flags (Fig.18) containing 12th/13th century pottery within the jointing which may indicate a t.p.q. for this context.

Trench 3.
With the knowledge of foundations discovered in Test Pit 1, this trench was designed to establish the extent of a wall- line to the east. Removal of a Victorian garden wall revealed a context of black humic soil, beneath which lay large squared, dressed and coursed masonry. The configuration of the stonework forms a return angle and
relates directly to the wall found in Test Pit 1. Again, the nature of construction resembled that of a building rather than a boundary (Fig.19). Quantities of medieval pottery were recovered together with fragments of reject roof tiles.

Trench 4.
This trench was originally planned to expose a flight of stone steps which once gained access to the cellar (pers. comm. A. Haynes 1997). Although these steps were never found, the evidence that the cellar originally extended beyond the present house plan was proved conclusively (Fig.20a). The exposed wall-line displayed a robbed-out window (d) and an entrance indicated by a return angle (Fig.20b), these features together with an established corner discovered in Trench 4A lead to the hypothesis that the cellar once formed part of a medieval camera-block (see 5.1). Recovered pottery sherds included quantities of Saxo- Norman ware, 12th and 13th century green-glaze ware and those used by the inhabitants of the late medieval manor.

Trench 5.
The suggestion of a seasonal grass parchmark prompted this narrow trench which hoped to establish the line of a northern perimeter wall. Below humic top soil lay a uniform context of marlstone rubble which suggested a possible raised feature, this rubble was removed to expose a surface of crudely laid cobbles which overlay a further humic layer containing Saxo-Norman pottery. This information combined with geophysical data suggests the area formed a cobbled courtyard lying to the east of a dwelling (see Map 5)

Trench 6.
An obvious wall-line parallel to the western boundary of the site was chosen to study construction methods and extract dating evidence. The wall foundations proved to be composed of dressed and coursed masonry measuring 70cms in thickness, the stonework apparently stepping inwards at the excavated base (Fig.21). A variety of animal remains were recovered together with a range of medieval pottery sherds dating mostly to the 12th century. Clearly, from the appearance of this wall, the purpose was rather more than that of stock control. The construction style in association with quality ceramics suggests the feature is part of a high status settlement.

Trench 7
A further section of wall was investigated to confirm construction technique and the direction of alignment.
The exposed masonry appeared to be of a much finer quality compared to that found previously, and that the foundations lay within a clearly defined bedding trench which extended to a greater depth (Fig.22). The pottery range was biased towards Saxo-Norman 'Stamford' ware but green-glazed 'Developed Stamford' and 'Nottingham' wares lay predominantly within the middle contexts (077 and 081).
Large quantities of butchered vertebrate remains were recovered from base layers on both sides of the wall together with mollusc shells including those of marine mussel were discovered at the base of the wall. Removal of a section of masonry to the base of the trench demonstrated the quality of stonework which was tightly keyed and bonded with a yellow clay-like material which may possibly be decayed mortar. Final stones of the foundation were removed to reveal a context of blue-grey clay containing added marlestone fragments. Sealed beneath this foundation was a single nodule of indeterminate slag (083.323), a fragment of carved marlstone (080.334) and a large sherd of sharp-edged Early Stamford-Ware pottery (083.304) which provides a possible t.a.q. for construction.
However, study of stratification and ceramic distribution throughout the trench profile suggests an original surface onto which broken Saxon and Saxo-Norman pots were deposited. A foundation trench was excavated to accomodate the wall and in doing so created a bank of spoil containing pot sherds either side of the wall-line. It appears that the foundation trench was not immediately back- filled, but instead functioned as a midden for kitchen refuse which largely consisted of animal bones. The foundation trench slowly filled by the process of slippage which produced an amalgam of Saxo-Norman pottery mixed with middle to later medieval sherds.


4.2 Location of the well.
The main water supply was located on the eastern side of the site and apparently functioned as such until the middle of this century (pers. comm. A. Haynes 1997)(Map 3). Proof of a mechanism for drawing water was recovered by metal detector (EMF16 Pump piston ring).

4.3 Interpretation of the earthworks. (Maps 3 and 4)
From the earliest site visits to Manor Farm, the temptation to speculate freely upon the mounds, ridges and platforms was avoided without supporting evidence. However, since the
execution of the trenches and preparation of the contour plan, it is now possible to make some judgement of the earthworks.
The hollow-way extending southwards from the site strongly suggests a main thoroughfare, and if seen in context with the discernible paved gateway discovered in Trench 2A this may indicate the main access to the manorial complex from the south.
The other obvious holloway can be seen entering the north pasture from the east. Earthworks visible in fields eastwards of Water Lane imply a former nucleated settlement associated with the manor which would therefore have been connected by a trackway and gate.
There are various areas highlighted by the contour plot which are worthy of further investigation. Firstly, a conspiciously flat area (W) located within the southern perimeter wall. Secondly, a raised square platform of land (X) in the north-west corner of the site. And lastly, a shallow depression (Z) in the north-east corner.
Feature (W) may represent the building platform of one of the manorial service buildings such as a brewhouse or bakery. The tantalising ripple visible on the the contour plot (X) could indicate a possible chapel site. In view of the discovery of slag in Trench 7, the depression (Z) may be the collapsed remains of either a bowl kiln for pottery manufacture or a furnace for ore roasting and smelting iron ore (Clarke 1984.159-164); This may account for the ubiquitous quantities of 'reddened' marlestone recovered from most of the trenches, as this colouration only occurs on exposure to high temperatures.

4.4 Interpretation of the geophysics. (Map 8)
Much of the site registering as high resistance appears to be either demolition material or metalled trackways. However, the survey also reveals the location of a dwelling recorded on the 1799,1847 and 1884 maps which is located immediately by a kidney-shaped pond. Further to this, a possible extra range may be defined extending northwards from the present farmhouse, and two other structures may have existed to the north and west of the site.

4.5 Possible chapel site.
One area of high resistance in the north-west corner of the site (Map 3. item X) and could represent a private manorial chapel as indicated by fine masonry found in the adjacent garden (EMF11/12)(Figs 23 and 24). Information from the Brabazon archive (anon) records that Roger Brabazon (the
Judge) was summoned to a variety of parliaments during the late 13th century. One of which included Salisbury where the cathedral was under construction between 1220 and 1328 (Cocke & Kidson 1993), it may be possible that this contact may have influenced the similarity in the stone carving of the suspected chapel.
If this is proved to be the case, the distance of approximately 300m between Manor Farm and the church of St. Michael will be accounted for, viz. St. Michael belonged to the neighbouring manor. The existence of a second church or chapel at Eastwell, (or more specifically on the site of the Brabazon manor) is also suggested by instructions contained within the Will of John Brabson (Farnham 1930.188). This document dated 10th February 1548 states:

'My body to be buried in the chapel of the parish church of St. Goodlack of Eastwell, where my grandfather lyeth'.

It is hard to believe that such an important instruction would erroneously name the church as St. Goodlack rather than St. Michael. One explanation may be that the private Brabazon chapel was in fact dedicated to St. Goodlack and also functioned as a family vault.
The name 'Goodlack' may be a corruption of 'Guthlac' who was the Anglo-Saxon saint and founder of the mighty Lincolnshire abbey at Crowland (English 1868.35). It is noticable that two churches found at the nearby villages of Stathern and Branston are dedicated to this saint, with none elsewhere in Leicestershire (Map 7).

4.6 The Fishponds.
Dennison and Iles (1985.34) describe the importance of fish as a food source in the medieval period and that keeping and rearing fish in ponds was restricted to the wealthier members of society. This practice probably carried the same social status as owning a deerpark or dovecote.
Fish would have been caught from river fisheries then transferred to the pond system for fattening. The smaller, shallower ponds were called stews and would have been used for breeding and/or holding small quantities of fish for immediate consumption, while larger ponds could have held greater numbers ready for future use.(ibid: 36)
'In Eastwell are remains of a group of four fishponds. One of them at least has a stone facing to the dam. Another pond existed a little way downstream at SK 783.287.' (Hartley 1987.8-9,28.) (Fig.25). Two smaller rectangular ponds at the western end of the main complex may represent stews and therefore would have been the ponds nearest to the manor complex.
The closest resemblance to the Eastwell fishponds can be found at the Augustinian Abbey at Owston, Leicestershire (c.1161-1536). This complex of ponds is composed of three progressively smaller ponds extending from the water supply, with a large reservoir nearest the Abbey (Shackley et al. in Aston 1988.302.Fig.1).

5. INTERPRETATION OF BUILDING DEVELOPMENT
5.1 Evidence for a cellar/camera. (Plan 2.)(Fig.26A)
Whilst the term camera simply means 'room or chamber' in a medieval architectural context - the term refers to a lord's private accommodation. This building was separate from the public hall and was variously referred to as bower, bur, buras, brydbur, or camera-bur in Anglo-Saxon literature (Beresford 1997.53-4). During this period, the camera would have largely been constructed of timber (Fig.27), although excavated evidence at Penhallam, Cornwall indicated the re- use of earlier masonry to construct the 12th century camera block (Beresford 1974.100)(Fig.28)
The size of the the original building measuring 10.4 x 4.8 metres (internal) compares closely to the Norman house at Boothby Pagnell, Lincolnshire (Fig.29)
Examples of camerę in England.

Name Date Dims ft. Dims metres

Manor Farm ? 35 x 16 10.40 x 4.80
Boothby Pagnell 1200 35 x 20 10.60 x 6.09
Donington 1280 41 x 16 12.49 x 4.87
Penhallam 1180/1200 42 x 20 12.60 x 6.10
King John's
Hunting Box 1230-40 32 x 17 9.75 x 5.18
Moigne Court 1270-80 30 x 21 9.14 x 6.40
Wharram Percy 11/1250 40 x 20 12.00 x 6.00

At Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire, the excavated cellar of the Chamberlain manor measured 12 x 6 metres and formed the lower half of a camera building which dated to the 12th and 13th centuries (Hurst 1988.221-2)(Fig.30)
This Yorkshire example featured access to the cellar via a ramp and doorway at the south-western corner and may be analogous to the apparent entrance discovered in Trench 4. (C.065/067). Both the Wharram Percy and Penhallam buildings appear to have had three centrally placed posts which supported the span of the upper floor. Manor Farm may have had a similar arrangement as a present make-shift support occupies the precise point where one of three posts would stand (Fig.13).
The walls of the cellar are finely squared, dressed and coursed, which suggests that the surface was intended for display, and the coursing of the wall in the north-east corner corresponds to the excavated section (C.040 in Trench 4). The stone dressing conforms to the 'striated' finish defined by Stocker (1993.23) as being pre-thirteenth-century, although dating based upon tooling style is specious as the survival of techniques varies regionally. Dressing was evidently produced using an axe rather than a boaster and mallet (Fig.48), and the tool is further identified as an axe by Rockwell (1993.31);
'Axe marks show a clear impression of the tool but do not make long smooth lines as the tool passes along the stone; the surface is choppier’.

It is estimated that earth around the building foundations has risen approximately 70 cms which would place the old ground surface level with the ledgement course discovered at the base of Trench 4. Saltzman (1967.89) describes this form of construction thus;

'While the inner surface of a wall was usually carried up in one flat unbroken plane, the outer surface was generally in two or more planes, divided by courses of thin flat stones known as 'tables' or 'ledgements'. the first of these, where the wall was set back at or near the surface of the ground, to form a plinth, was known as the ground, earth or grass table.'

Although the thickness of the cellar wall the present ground level measures only 50 cm, it does not immediately give the impression of a typical twelfth or thirteenth century structure. Wood (1974.77) illustrates the less massive proportions of a variety of domestic buildings of the period, particularly when timber floors were employed for the upper chambers. Only when vaulted ceilings were constructed would the need for thickened walls and pilaster buttresses be called for. Alternatively, the lightness of wall may imply a timber upper storey as may have been the case at the Castle hall, Devizes and the hall of the Priors of Lewes, Southwark (ibid.71). It should be noted however that the thickness of the Manor Farm masonry increased to 68cms below the original ledgement course and may be even thicker at depths not reached in Trench 4.
The internal buttresses (X and Y) clearly abut the cellar wall, with buttress (Y) (Fig.5) being obviously built to accommodate the conspicuous bowing of the north-eastern corner. This implies that the wall defect was already an established feature and is good proof that the cellar was indeed far earlier than the 17th century house.
Abutted masonry also applies to the steps and the walls either side of fireplace foundations. This suggests that these features were added at a later date.
The presence of windows in context with the cellar indicates this chamber functioned in a different way to that commonly accepted. Windows (a),(c) and (d) appear to be of narrow design and may be evidence of loops. Wood (1974.82) observes that loops were of a 'defensive character' and were commonly used as lighting for ground-floor Norman buildings.
If a comparison is drawn between with the camera-block at Boothby Pagnell (Fig.31) and the Manor Farm example, the latter would have consisted of a semi-subterranean cellar chamber above which would have been open to the roof apex. These upper chambers functioned as private apartments for the lord of the manor and presumably would have been decorated to a high standard.
The thickened wall in the south-east corner of the cellar may represent the foundations for the fireplace above.
Access to the upper floor is likely to have been via a set of timber steps as indicated at the comparative site at Donington-le-Heath, Leicestershire (Dornier 1972,30)(Fig.32).

5.2 The timber-framed hall
Re-used timbers within the present house may be remnants of a timber aisled hall which, feasibly stood in association with the camera, thus supporting the hypothesis presented by Blair (1993.2-5) regarding domestic planning between 1000 and 1250. Evidence of a sequence of timber halls culminating with a 12th century hall/camera arrangement at Goltho, Lincolnshire (Beresford 1987.74-82), presents the possibility that the Manor Farm camera may have evolved from an Anglo-Saxon sunken-feature bulding.
Whilst the camera may be assignable to the thirteenth century as indicated by the masonry dressing (compared with sample Fig. 48b) and the excavated ceramic record, the major re-used timbers located within the northern outshut are demonstrably late fifteenth/early sixteenth century, having recently been dated by dendrochronology (see dating). The suspected principal wall post proved undoubtedly to be such a timber and revealed a felling date of 1482 (Ref.). The decorated beam unfortunately offered insufficient tree-rings to construct an accurate felling date, but a margin of twenty years (1515- 1535) was proposed (Ref.). The nature of the tree-ring data also implies the timbers to have originated in the southern counties of England during this period (pers. comm. R Laxton 9/6/98)
In addition to dendrochronology, the decorated beam can be compared to analogous timbers visible in two timber- framed buildings in Newark, Nottinghamshire. The prime example is part of 'The Old White Hart Inn' where an elaborate frontage includes a bressummer (main horizontal beam) which displays an exact 'bratished' moulding design. This beam has been dated by dendrochronolgy to 1463 (Charles in Samuels 1996.36-37). The other example is 'The Governor's House' which is thought to date to 1474 (pers. comm. M. Johnson 5/6/98).


5.3 Demolition of the medieval building.
By the time Rowland Eyre purchased the manor in 1653, we can assume that the buidings including the camera block were in a poor state of repair, and in the absence of Lord Edward Brabazon (Earl of Meath), a degree of stone-robbing would have occurred.

5.4 Building/demolition sequence since 1666.
There are two features which may indicate the form of the earliest brick phase at Manor Farm. Firstly, the colour of brickwork in the eastern elevation appears to change above a level defined by the ground floor window hood (Fig.4a and b). Secondly, the window contained within the south-west outshut (Fig.3b) is likely to have functioned before the addition of the stairs. From this we may conclude that the house began as a single storey/garret structure built directly upon the earlier marlestone cellar. This phase incorporated stone window hoods and sills reclaimed from an earlier building which may have stood on the site. If this hypothesis is justified, it is possible to present a sequence of construction based upon archaeological evidence.
A faint 'A' pattern on the north side of the chimney- stack (Fig.33) is indicative of a former roof-line. Reconstruction based upon the pitch of this roof-line may provide an insight into the scale of the original brick building (Fig.26B).
Once the single-storey building was erected, a second phase of construction involved the south wing being raised to two storeys (Fig.26C). In order to do this, the builders needed to raise two dividing walls either side of the chimney stack to accomodate the difference in height between the two wings. Foundations for these walls effectively separated the cellar into two chambers, with the newly formed south cellar requiring a flight of internal steps (Fig.13), whilst the north cellar remained accessible from the outside.
Stairs were erected to access the new first floor and in doing so crossed the three-light window in the south-west outshut. Presumably, the window was bricked-up at this point because of the obstruction of light (Fig.3b).
The next phase following quickly was the construction of the western range (Fig.26C) which features two mullioned windows on the gable and one on the south elevation (Fig.34). Those on the gable must have been blocked from the time of construction because they are bisected by internal floor levels. We can surmise the function was either purely decorative or a device for economising on the use of expensive brick.
Internally, the western brick wall of the earlier phase appears to have been removed and replaced by a timber partition. The groundfloor room lies at a lower level to the main house and displays a blocked doorway on the south elevation.
Based upon the 1799 Belvoir Estate map (Map 5), the ground-plan of the farmhouse is known to have had a stepped appearance, probably the only explanation for this is a further range being attached to the north-west side of the building (Fig.26D). Reconstruction suggests a roof-line matching that of the north wing which would allow a groundfloor chamber with a garret above (The 1712 inventory refers to the kitchen with rooms above). Evidence of foundations of this range may have been encountered in recent years when the garden was enlarged to the west (pers. comm. A. Haynes 1997).
Demolition of the north wing and a later north-west range in the early 19th century revealed the remains of a first floor fireplace in the brickwork which can be seen today (Fig.33). Also evidence of former construction can be clearly seen scarring the northern corner of the west range gable (Fig.34).
At this juncture, the north cellar was completely filled with demolition material (C.035) containing the horseshoe (035.093 ) and the Creamware gravy-boat fragment (035.107) (t.a.q. no earlier than 1780), and the northern outshut was constructed directly onto newly made ground without foundations (Fig.26E). It transpires that the ground floor to this outshut has suffered subsidence over past decades (pers. comm. A.Haynes 1997), which implies infill material in the process of settlement possibly due to earthworm activity. It was during the process of constructing the northern outshut that the decorated beam discussed previously (3.4) was re-used.
This survey is based upon personal observation and research and without the assistance of a professional historic buildings consultant.

6.FINDS
6.1 Metalwork.
The horseshoe. (035.93)(Fig.35)
Superficially, this shoe conforms to a Type 1 (Early Norman) design (Sparkes 1989.6-10) and is classified as such by the Museum of London (Clark 1995.85, fig.61): 'These shoes are generally of crude appearance, rounded and broad (with an overall width about 100mm), wide-webbed but of thin (3-4mm) metal. Nail-holes usually three to each branch'. The Eastwell shoe has the added feature of a pointed calkin at the end of the undamaged branch which indicates a rural variant (ibid).
Clark (pers. comm. 10/12/97) provisionally agreed that the Eastwell ironwork resembled a Type 1. horseshoe but reserved judgment until an X-ray could be obtained which would reveal diagnostic nail-hole information. A line drawing derived from an X-ray plate prepared by G. Morgan was submitted to Clark (pers. comm. 30/4/98), who concluded that: 'The small, closely-placed (rectangular) holes of the Manor Farm horseshoe - particularly with four on one branch of a small shoe - suggest a later date (perhaps 16th/17th century)'.
The form and size of the Eastwell shoe are indicative of Early Norman design, unfortunately, the nail-holes are rectangular and not round as was normal for the period. However, this ironwork may represent a regional variant where the 11th century Blacksmith had a preference for rectangular hole punches.
Filigree fragment (18th C.)(Unstratified find EMF14)(Fig.36)
Finger ring (Medieval?) (Unstratified find EMF15)(Fig.37a)
Water pump piston ring (Unstratified find EMF16) (well site).

6.2 Coins and Jetons.
Roman coin. (Unstratified find EMF17)(Fig.38)
Type RIC 270
Radiate of 'Gallic Emperor' Tetricus II, 270-273 A.D.
Debased coinage, copper - as little as 1% silver content.
Denomination = Antoninianus.
Obverse, radiate head, inscribed C PIV ESV TETRICUS CAES
Reverse, figure of Spes (godess of hope) in dress with branch in outstretched hand. Inscribed SPES AUGG.
Mint mark - none.
Size: 20mm.
(pers. comm. A. Strang 1998)
Copper Farthing. (Find 024.59)
Badly worn example
Dated c.1620
Size: 23mm.
(Pers. comm. G. Beever 1997)

Anglesey Penny. (Unstratified find EMF13)
Dated c.1787. The Anglesey Copper Mining Company.
Obverse, depicts the profile of a Druid.
Reverse, are interlaced company initials.
Size: 28mm.
(pers. comm. G.Beever 1997)

The Jeton. (039.131) (Fig.39)
Very thin and possibly silver with a small fragment missing. Obverse, well preserved with a central roundel containing an orb motif with a cross mounted on top, this motif is immediately enclosed by a downward pointing triangle with semi-circles adjoining on each side.
Reverse, unfortunately almost blank, but a faint design can be determined. There is also the remains of a hole piercing the coin which suggests the object may have been worn as decoration.
Size: 24 mm.
(pers. comm. Knight 1997) led to a source reference concerning 'Nuremberg Jettons' (Standish 1900.1-12). The Eastwell Jetton or counter would have been struck to order by one of four German families who held a monopoly over their manufacture between the mid-sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Of the four families: Schulz, Koch, Krawinkle and Laufers, Krawinkle seems the likely originator (ibid 7-8).
Amongst comparable Jetons found at The Palace of Kings Langley (Neal 1977: 147), one example is described as: 'Normal' type (Reichsapfel (orb) in trilobe/three crowns and three lys and garbled Lombardic ledgends). Large orb and careful details: may be one of the earliest of its kind (c. 1510?) Diam. 22 mm. Very thin fabric'. This description compares very closely with find 131 and may suggest an earlier date than that proposed by Standish.
Unlike regular coinage, Jetons were minted as counters to be used in conjunction with a large board known as an Abacus Plate (Fig.40), and were used by estates and institutions to calculate accounts, rents and taxes. Many jetons carry mottos or inscriptions which refer to the owner, an example of which is recorded:


Nummus Calculus Camera Rationibus Brabantia. (Standish 1900. 1.)
Nummus = Small coin
Calculus = Counter
Camera = Chamber
Rationibus = Accounts (by plans and measurement)
Brabantia = Of the ancient principality - now part of Belgium.

(translation M. Henry 1997)

6.3 Pottery.
The collection was initially examined by Mr. Joe Ecob who has specialist knowledge of locally produced medieval pottery types. Following this, Hillary Healey of 'Heritage Lincolnshire' was consulted owing to the high proportion of identifiable Lincolnshire wares.
A full analysis of pot sherds recovered from trenches 1- 7, plus those from the last intervention (Test Pit 2) has produced a clear picture of the dominant forms, and by inference, a chronology of the site (see Pottery Index for key. Appendix 2.).

ROM EM SN Med PM NTW STW LTW MP MY NOR TOTAL
2 3 17 30 23 28 80 2 19 3 2 209

Of the 280 sherds recovered, only 209 were suitable for identification. However, from this sample it is possible to define an increase in deposit during the medieval period.

Identification.
The key method of identification is through typology (shape, size and design). Unfortunately, many of the Manor Farm sherds were too small to apply this method. Instead, colour, texture and finish helped categorise the wares.
There is one factor active in the process of pottery manufacture which can produce a black, grey, pink or white vessel. This factor relates to the amount of oxygen allowed to enter the kiln during firing and is referred to as 'Oxidation and reduction'. A kiln rich in oxygen produces brown, pink or beige pottery, the colouration being dependant upon the the formation of ferric oxide (Feż0_). Contrary to this, a reduction of oxygen promotes the formation of ferrous oxide (FeO) which results in black or grey wares (Haslam 1984.7). Texture and finish are

determined primarily by the clay source which may be rich or otherwise in sand. Further to this, the addition of ground shells known as 'tempering' gives pottery a corky texture and is indicative of early, low temperature firing (ibid.8).
The dominant form of pottery evident at Manor Farm is clearly 'Stamford type ware'. This lightly glazed, fine, beige-white ware was principally manufactured at Stamford but was also copied at a number of other kiln-sites in the East Midlands. Samples of Stamford origin have been archaeomagnetically dated to as early as 850 +50 and it is evident that manufacture continued throughout the Saxo- Norman period (850-1150) (McCarthy and Brooks 1988.156). Contemporary with industrially produced wares would have been those produced by small rurally-based potters. Their vessels were largely cruder and usually shelly in nature, thus indicating primitive firing techniques.
Stamford ware eventually progressed to a form known as 'Developed' which appeared in the early-mid 12th century and is recognised by its fabric and speckled green glaze (ibid 255). Evidence suggests that Developed Stamford ware continued to be manufactured throughout the 12th century, after which time the potters appear to have moved to Nottingham in the 13th century (Haslam 1984.16).
The resulting Nottingham ware known as Splashed-glazed ware) manifested itself in the form of jugs, pitchers and bowls. Kiln sites identified at various locations within the precinct of the medieval town produced evidence for 13th century splashed-glaze manufacture (McCarthy and Brooks 1988. 276)
The proportion of Stamford type, Nottingham type and generic medieval sherds discovered at Manor Farm indicates the use of high quality pottery between the 9th and 13th centuries.
Various fragments extracted from (C.46) in Trench 4 appear to be a hard fabric known as Midland Purple. This ware is dated c.1375 -1550 and represents technological advances in pottery manufacture in the late medieval period. Vessels including jars, cisterns, bowls and jugs were produced at monastic sites such as Chilvers Coton, Warwickshire and Ticknall, Derbyshire (Woodland 1981.81- 125). Sherds (39.127 and 139) also from Trench 4 are examples of Cistercian Midland Yellow ware. This material being a yellow glazed pale fabric is likely to have originated from the Derbyshire pottery at Brackenfield and dated c.1400 (McCarthy and Brooks 1988.428).
There are a few finds from the ceramic record which are of specific interest. Firstly, there were two sherdspositively identified as Roman (009.026) and (030.081). However, both pieces are small and therefore represent a residual deposit.
Find (079.300) is a coarse, shelly fabric with mica inclusions which indicates a ware attributable to the Anglo- Saxon period (pers. comm. P. Liddle 13/10/96).
Sherds (011.20) (081.261) and (087.351) are identifiable as parts of Stamford type ware spouted pitchers (Fig.41) (McCarthy and Brooks 1988:153-6). Also of the same source is a neatly squared fragment of pot which was evidently used as a gaming counter (039.178)(Fig.37c) (pers. comm. H. Healey 1998)
The decorated pottery fragment recovered from trench 4 (035.107) represents part of a Creamware gravy-boat manufactured c. 1780-1800 (pers. comm. E. Thomas 1998). This piece has helped date a demolition phase of the house.

6.4 Roof tiles.
Fragments of roof tiles occurred in Trenches 2A, 3 and 4 and ranged in colour from terracotta to dirty brown tinged with green. One fragment (029A.102)(Fig.37a) apparently having a dense coating of bubbled glaze also has a fashioned nib to hang the tile from roofing laths.
Whilst processing finds, a detailed examination of the batched contents of the Victorian midden within Trench 2A. revealed a large fragment of ceramic roof tile (022.108)
with the suggestion of olive green glaze which matches samples recovered from Trenches 3 and 4. This fragment also displays a moulded nib similar the example on 029A.102. Expert examination of these fragments identified them as wasters or reject tiles from the process of on-site manufacture. The apparent glazed effect is the product of over-firing, the action of which causes compounds within the clay to melt and rise to the surface. With this in mind, a future search using Magnetometry equipment has been recommended to locate a former kiln site (pers. comm. H. Healey 1998). The source of the clay for the manufacture of these tiles is likely to be the an area immediately north of Manor Farm (Map 2).
From tile fragments, it is possible to categorise the form as 'Thaktyle' or 'flat' (plane) (Salzman 1967.229).
It is also possible to reconstruct the general size of these roof-tiles from various fragments, the result being approximately (268 x 160 x 16mm). These dimensions conform to those of a Rosemary tile (10«" x 6¬" x _") which are enshrined within an Act of Parliament of 1477 and define a standard size (ibid. 230).

6.5 Mortar.
Salzman (ibid.153) refers to a document dated 1519 which reads: 'Some men wyll have wallys plastered, some pargetted, and whytlymed, some rough caste, some pricked, some wrought with playster of Paris', this account may well shed light upon finds recovered from Trench 4.
A fragment of roof-tile (068.214)(Fig.42) was recovered complete with decorated plaster or mortar attached to the underside. External and internal surfaces can be defined by the nib which would have projected inwards, although on this find the detail is lost and only a broken stump remains.
The material is embellished with a regular 'pricked' design using a variety of comb-type implements. The range of tools used for this process is evident on the numerous fragments (46.181)(Fig.43) which have timber joints and wood grain details impressed on their reverse sides.
The initial impression was that this material originally formed a substrate on to which a finer plaster finish would key. This interpretation was challenged however when a fragment (046.225) was excavated showing the pricked surface to be the intended finishing layer. All of these fragments were derived from contexts outside the defined eastern elevation of the house and showed no traces of colourwash or sooting.
It is reasonable to assume that this textured decoration would have been visible in a chamber that was open to the roof apex. With this as a consideration, the absence of sooting supports the hypothesis of a first floor hearth and chimney as indicated by foundations within the cellar (Plan 2)
As many of the fragments were recovered from contexts bearing Saxo-Norman pottery sherds, it is tempting to conclude that this material originates from the same period. E.C. Rouse (in Beresford 1974.138) describes 12th century mortar and wall plaster as 'often having a strong, yellowish colour'. The Manor Farm samples are composed of ochre tinted lime mortar which evidently included hair as a binding agent (pers. comm. G. Morgan 20/04/98).
Lastly, this decoration has no known parallel to the writer apart from one local example recorded by J. Allsop (pers.comm. 1/5/98). This relates to pricked plaster discovered during the refurbishment of 'The Anne of Cleves' restaurant, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire (Fig.36.). This material is set within the context of timber construction in association with documentary evidence dated February 1384 (Hunt 1965.74).

Large quantities of plaster impressed by reed wattle (035.113) were recovered from within the excavated cellar wall. On inspection of the surviving cellar, the writer witnessed identical material falling from the ceiling.

6.6 Stratified and unstratified masonry.
Carved marlestone. (080.334)(Fig.46)
This fragment recovered from the deepest context of Trench 7
displays a distinct straight groove on one face and appears to be a piece of window tracery or jamb. This find is the only stratified evidence of destroyed carved stone.

The Decorated Stone. (EMF11)(Fig.23)
Recovered from the garden of School Cottage was a dressed block of stone (31 x 17 x 9cms) incised with an ornate running motif of either Poppies or Lilies set inside a trefoil headed frame. This design is assignable to the 13th century (Jones 1986 100-1) and the stone type was identified as Ancaster oolitic limestone (pers. comm. (Allsop 1997. Thomas 1997).The frame of this masonry is also reminiscent of the parapet of Salisbury Cathedral (Parker 1905.187) (Fig.45) which also dates to the 13th century.

Stone Sill. (EMF12)(Fig.24)
Three further fragments of carved Ancaster limestone were recovered from the garden of School Cottage which matches the fabric of the piece previously revealed. These fragments fit together and appear to form a sill with a drip-channel carved on the underside and the vestiges of a mullion base in the upper side (pers. comm. J. Alexander 1998)

6.7 Lithics. (Fig.47)
Whilst evidence of prehistoric activity on the site is not relevant to this study, their presence may indicate a tradition for settlement which was repeated through successive periods.

6.8 Vertebrate and molluscan remains.
A batched sample of bone fragments mixed with Saxo-Norman pottery (taken from the deepest contexts of Trench 7 C.80 and 82), were identified as Bos sp. (cattle), Equus sp. (horse), Sus sp. (pig) and Ovis sp. (sheep) (pers.comm. T. Gouldwell 1998); all of which were clearly butchered with some samples showing evidence of rodent gnawing. Samples of mussel shells (080.239 and 081.268) compared closely reference material derived from excavations at Lindisfarne which confirmed their species as (Mytilus) or marine mussel (pers.

comm. A.J. Gouldwell 20/04/98). Bond (in Aston 1988.79) reports that archaeological evidence for shellfish consumption on monastic sites seems to be concentrated earlier in the Middle Ages. This fact may support the hypothesis that this material was discarded between the twelth and thirteenth centuries, and so in turn may indicatea date for the construction of the western boundary wall.
There are two possible explanations for the discovery of marine mussels; firstly the shells represent discarded kitchen refuse or secondly they may have been intended as a crushed 'tempering' additive used in pottery manufacture. The latter is quite possible, as quantities of burnt stone were recovered together with a nodule of siliceous slag (see 6.9).

6.9 Slag. (Find 083.323)
Dr. Graham Morgan (University of Leicester) dismissed this material as evidence of metal-working. Instead, it was defined as residue from kiln firing which could be that of either tile or pottery manufacture.


7. APPRAISAL
7.1 Discussion of results.
The combination of surveying and open excavation has produced a wealth of information regarding the archaeology of Manor Farm, Eastwell.
Building foundations and a perimeter wall found to exist in close proximity to the present farmhouse appear to be placed within a medieval context. The perimeter wall includes a formal entrance which, was found to align with a deep earthwork hollow-way and suggests the original access to the complex. Excavation of the wall on the western side of the site produced large quantities of butchered animal remains from the deepest levels and in context with twelth and thirteenth century pottery. These deposits, which included samples of marine mussel shells are thought to represent a midden composed of kitchen waste. The well site was established by personal communication with the owner and was confirmed by the recovery of a water pump piston ring at that position. Resistivity produced evidence of three demolished structures to the north of the present house and also indicated an extra range extending from the north-east corner of the house itself.
This technique also revealed possible chapel foundations which is supported by architectural fragments and documentary evidence which alludes to such a structure on site.
Topographic features highlighted by the contour survey include the possible locations of ancillary buildings and a suspected bowl kiln.
The ceramic record and the discovery of a suspected Early Norman horseshoe indicate development of the Manor Farm site during the Saxo-Norman and Norman periods. The presence of reject medieval roof tiles within contexts close to the house signifies on-site manufacture of the roof covering, and the recovery of decorated mortar in association with these tiles invites the supposition that the materials are remains of a high status medieval building.
Further evidence of habitation prior to the 1666 house comes from the presence of monastic pottery dated to between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, and the discovery of a sixteenth century Jeton or counter from a sealed context in Trench 4. Analysis of the timbers surviving within the present house produced a late fifteenth/early sixteenth date.

7.2 Conclusions.
This work links the site through documentary evidence directly to the ancient Norman lordship of Brabazon which was forced to release the land in the 1630's after almost four hundred years of local supremacy.
Prior to the arrival of the Brabazons, this manor being the largest of two within the parish of Eastwell, was held and inhabited by the Cistercian monks of Garendon, Loughborough, who evidently enjoyed marine shellfish and were probably responsible for fishpond construction.
Before monastic dominance, a succession of Norman and Saxon lords held the village in a variety of land divisions.
The excavations conducted between July 1997 and April 1998 revealed habitation evidence in the form of ceramics which, appears to concentrate during the Saxo-Norman period. Archaeological work also exposed a substantial perimeter wall, formal gated opening and foundations of buildings assignable to the medieval period.
Whilst the seventeenth-century house is of great interest, the stone cellar upon which it partially stands may represent a far earlier structure. Examination of the masonry style, blocked widow apertures and structural distortion of the internal walls, implies the rare survival of a thirteenth century domestic structure known as a camera or private apartment. Also within the present house, exist a variety of re-used timbers identifiable as components of a medieval box frame building.
The hypothesis being presented here is one of an evolved site dating from Anglo-Saxon times, which evidently flourished during the thirteenth-century. Evidence based upon the ceramic record, palaeography and comparative building morphology brings the writer to the conclusion that the private apartment 'bower' or 'camera' was upgraded to stone during this period, and the cellar beneath the seventeenth-century house is believed to be the surviving remains of such a structure. This camera may have formed the nucleus of manorial complex composed of a timber hall to the west, a possible private chapel to the north-west and a variety of ancillary buildings dispersed around a semi-defensive enclave.
Following the premature death of John le Brabazon at the battle of Bosworth Field (22nd August 1485), Roger, the eldest of four sons evidently embarked upon a campaign of re-building. The work must have continued after his death when the third brother 'John' inherited the manor by default in 1512. This phase appears to have included a timber-framed hall which, survives as an in situ principal wall post and a decorated beam dated to the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Timber fragments contemporary with the early years of Henry VIII's reign may also exist within the cellar of Manor Farm.
The exercise has achieved all the objectives outlined in section 1.3 but in true archaeological tradition, more questions have been generated than answers. The site has great potential for future research, with the area immediately surrounding the house containing early foundations. If comparisons are drawn with the Cumbrian manor site of Birdoswald (Wilmott in Breeze et al 1989.288- 291), the complete removal of the vegetable garden could produce evidence of suspected Anglo-Saxon habitation.
8. GLOSSARY

Bellarmine 18th century earthenware jugs.
Billet Norman architectural feature ('little log') a staggered formation of half-cylinders).
Boaster Broad chisel used to dress stone.
Bovate Team of oxen.
Bower Private apartments (see also camera).
Bowl kiln Primitive kiln excavated from the ground.
Box frame Form of timber construction in which roof-russes are carried on a frame composed of
wall posts, tie beams and wall plates.
Bratished Architectural term for decoration usually found along the cornice of a building.
Carucate The amount of land eight oxteams can plough in one year.
Camera Vaulted or private chamber.
Croft House enclosed by small plot of land worked by the occupier.
Crown post Upright timber standing on a tie beam.
Curtilage Enclosed area of land adjacent to a dwelling.
Garret Attic (14th century French).
G.P.S. Global Positioning System employing satellite data.
Ledgement (grass table) stepped foundation course.
Loop Norman architectural feature (narrow window opening).
Marlestone (Ironstone) iron-rich limestone.
Messuage Dwelling with its outbuildings, curtilage and adjacent lands.
Mullion Vertical member between lights of a window opening.
Outshut Chamber added to the main body of a building.
Ovolo Mullions: referring to rounded (egg-like) moulding.
Pargetting Incised ornamental plaster or mortar.
Pilaster buttress Norman architectural feature (flat rectangular thickening of the wall).
Photogrammetry Method of recording standing buildings using photography and computer data.



CONTEXT INDEX
Context Area Below Description Plan No Sect No Sheet
001 01 - Black humic/coarse sandy soil 1 1-5
002 01 001 Brown-grey/silty sandy soil 2 1-5
003 01 002 Brown silty sand and clay 3 1-5
004 01 003 Yellow sand/grey clay - 1-5
005 01 003 Robbed-out wall core 3 3
006 01 001 Coursed ironstone 1-4 2
007 01 001 Robbed-out wall core 2&3 1
008 02 - Dk grey humic/coarse sand 1&2
009 02 008 Grey-yellow silty clay & stone 2
010 02 008 Grey-yellow clay (gully) 3
011 02 009 Grey-yellow silty clay & frags 3
012 02 011 ditto 3
013 02 012 ditto 3
014 02 008 Assemblage of stones and clay 1-2
015 02 014 Yellow and grey clay 3
016 02 008 Assemblage of stones 1-2
017 02 016 Yellow and grey clay 3
018 02 008 Wall 1-3
019 02 018 Foundations 3
020 02 018 ditto 3
021 02A - Grey sandy/stony soil 1
022 02A 021 Victorian midden 1
023 02A 022 Metalled surface 1
024 02A 023 Large stone infill/cobbled layer COMPILATION IN PROGRESS
025 02A 024 Cobbled layer to N. clay to S.
026 02A 025 Ironstone flags
027 02A 026 Grey clay
028 02A 021 Wall
029 03 Brown humic sandy soil
030 03 029 Brown-grey sandy clay
031 03 030 Yellow sandy soil
032 03 029 Wall
033 04 - Black sandy humic/rough rubble
034 04 - Black humic stony clay
035 04 033 Yellow silty sand/demolition
036 04 034 Dk grey clay with mortar frags.
037 04 033 Ironstone wall abutting 0040
038 04 033 Sandy rubble/brick floor
039 04 036 Dk grey sandy clay
040 04 033 Wall
041 04 - House brick wall
042 04 033 Wall foundation abutting 0040
043 04A Black humic sandy with rubble
044 04A 043 Rubble-filled trench
045 04A 044 Large stones, rubble and drain
046 04 039 Black soil/compact silty clay
047 06 - Black humic sandy soil
048 06 047 Large roughly shaped stones
049 06 047 Demolition layer
050 06 047 Uniform stone rubble layer
051 06 047 Adjoining wall core
052 06 049 Yellow sandy soil/large stones
053 03 032 Black humic clay soil (10cms)
054 03 053 Large dressed/coursed ironstones
055 05 - Lt brown humic sandy soil
056 05 055 Uniform ironstone rubble layer
057 04 038 Adjoining wall/step?
058 04 038 Black humic sandy soil
059 04A 045 Foundations
060 04A 045 Large stone infill
061 06 048 Dressed/coursed ironstone wall
062 06 050 Large undressed stones
063 06 052 Yellow-grey clay
064 06 052 Curvilinear gully (tree root)
065 04 033 Rubble in-fill
066 04 038 Stone steps?
067 04 033 Return angle of wall 0040
068 04 034 Rubble in-fill
069 03 031 Yellow-grey silty clay
070 03 069 Large coursed ironstones
071 06 062 Yellow-grey clay (unstratified)
072 05 056 Layer of ironstone boulders
073 05 072 Yellow-brown humic silty soil
074 03 069 Grey clay
075 07 - Topsoil
076 07 075 Wall
077 07 075 Grey clay/ironstone
078 07 075 Posthole
079 07 077 Stoney/grey clay/flint
080 07 077/9 Compacted stone frags and bone
081 07 075 Amalgam of demolition stone/clay
082 07 081 Yellow-grey clay/ironstone
083 07 082/74 Blue-grey clay/ironstone frags.
084 TP2 - Topsoil
085 TP2 084 Ironstone rubble
086 TP2 085 Yellow-Grey clay/ ironstone
087 TP2 086 Clay/burnt ironstone





POTTERY INDEX

Context Area Find Frag Comments Era
0003 01 002 1 Panchion ware (PM)
0003 01 003 1 Staff slip (PM)
0003 01 004 1 Panchion ware (PM)
0003 01 005 1 Buff rim, unglazed (PM)
0003 01 008 1 Panchion ware (PM)
0003 01 009 1 Panchion ware (PM)
0003 01 012 1 Panchion ware (PM)

0008 02 030 1 Orange fabric (Med)

0009 02 013 1 Cream-orange/grey core/green glaze (NTW)
0009 02 014 1 Lt orange/grey core/green glaze (NTW)
0009 02 015 1 Black shelly (Med)
0009 02 016 2 Pale orange-brown/Lt grey core/green glaze (STW)
0009 02 017 3 Pale orange ext./cream int.
0009 02 018 1 Pale orange/grey core/trace lead glaze (STW)
0009 02 024 1 Buff (wheel-turned)/yellow glaze (STW)
0009 02 025 2 Lt grey-blackened/pale core (Med)
0009 02 026 1 Blackened int.ext./grey-buff core (ROM)
0009 02 031 1 Smooth cream fabric (STW)
0010 02 045 1 Stoneware (PM)
0010 02 046 1 Rim. Lt orange/LT grey core (NORTH)
0010 02 048 1 Lt orange ext./buff int./
no core/trace glaze (NTW)
0010 02 049 1 Brown-grey fabric (MP)

0011 02 019 1 Brown-red shelly/pale core. (Med)
0011 02 020 1 Buff fabric. spout from pitcher (STW)
0011 02 021 1 Orange fabric/grey core
0011 02 022 1 Pale yellow-pink/no core (STW?)
0011 02 023 1 Buff ext./pink int./yellow-green glaze (STW)
0011 02 027 1 White fabric/yellow-green glaze (STW)
0011 02 028 1 Orange sandy fabric/trace glaze
0011 02 029 1 Lt orange/grey core
0011 02 032 1 Mid-grey fabric/no core/green glaze (NTW)
0011 02 033 1 Buff-pink/grey core/green glaze (NTW)
0011 02 034 1 Lt grey ext. Dk int./Lt core (STW)

0011 02 035 1 Smooth cream fabric as 031 (STW)

0012 02 036 1 Orange int.ext./mid-grey core
0012 02 037 1 Orange-brown shelly/darker core (LTW)
0012 02 047 1 Lt grey ext./Lt orange int./no core (STW?)


Context Area Find Frag Comments Era
0013 02 039 1 Dk orange ext./ Dk grey int./
grey core/shelly (Med)
0013 02 040 1 Pink-orange gritty fabric/no core
0013 02 041 1 Dk orange thoughout/ shelly (Med)
0013 02 042 1 Orange-brown ext.and core/
Dk int./ shelly (Med)
0013 02 050 1 Orange fabric/mid-grey core
0013 02 053 1 Buff-grey sooted int.ext. (STW)

0015 02 051 1 Rim. mid-brown shelly (SN)

0017 02 056 1 Lt orange throughout
0017 02 061 1 Buff fabric/yellow glaze (MY)
0017 02 063 1 Pale fabric/glazed found with tooth (STW)

0024 02A 052 1 Pot base (MP)
0024 02A 058 1 Mid-brown/treacle glaze (PM)

0025 02A 006 1 STONE (not pottery)

0026 02A 065 1 Brown shelly/ darker one side (Med)
0026 02A 066 1 Grey ext. orange int./green glaze (NORTH)

0029 03 064 1 Rim. Lt orange/grey core
0029 03 067 1 Coarse orange ext. lighter int./grey core
0029 03 068 1 Grey fabric/green glaze (NTW)
0029 03 069 1 Buff fabric/brown glaze int. (MP)
0029 03 071 1 Rim. mottled brown glaze. (PM)
0029 03 076 1 Orange fabric/green glaze (NTW)
0029 03 096 1 Salt-glazed stoneware (Bellarmine) (PM)
0029 03A 099 1 Orange fine fabric
0029 3A/B 100 2 Handle frags.Col.coat
Dk orange ext.Lighter int. (PM)
0029 03A 103 2 Plant pot (PM)
0029 03 126 1 Rim.Orange fabric/lighter ext. (MP)

0030 03 073 2 Panchion (PM)
0030 03 074 1 Buff fabric/brown glaze int. (as 069) (MP)
0030 03 080 1 (as 069,074,126) (MP)
0030 03 081 1 Lt grey-orange/sooted int. (ROM)

0031 03 077 1 Lt orange fabric/brown-green glaze
0031 03 078 1 Grey fabric/buff slip int. (NTW
0031 03 084 1 Lt brown shelly/darker ext. (LTW)
0031 03 085 1 (as 069,074,080,126) (MP)
0031 03 121 2 Buff fabric/green glaze (NTW)
0031 03 122 1 Pale fabric/yellow glaze (MY)

0031 03 123 1 Rim. buff fabric/sienna glaze (PM)

Context Area Find Frag Comments Era
0031 03 135 1 Coarse grey ?
0031 03 195 1 Abraided buff fabric/grey int. (NTW)
0034 04 087 1 Body/handle sherd (MP)
0034 04 088 1 Lt purple-brown ext. purp glaze int/ beige core
0034 04 089 2 Beige fabric sooted one side/no core (EM)
0034 04 091 3 Mortar

0035 04 107 1 White glaze jug frag.(found near 093) (PM)

0036 04 105 1 Rim. terra-cotta/no core (Pantile) (PM)
0036 04 109 1 Rim. white fabric (fire damaged porcelain) (PM)

0039 04 117 1 Beige fabric/no core/ green-grey glaze ext.
0039 04 118 1 Shelly/sooted ext. red int./grey core. (Med)
0039 04 119 1 Buff fabric/sooted ext. (STW
0039 04 120 3 Brown sandy fabric sooted ext.grey core (EM)
0039 04 126 1 Buff-grey ext. orange int. grey core.
0039 04 127 8 White fabric/yellow glaze as 139 (MY)
0039 04 132 3 Buff-grey fabric Lt int.sooted ext.
0039 04 133 4 Black ext. mid-grey int. Lt grey core (STW/ROM?)
0039 04 139 3 Base/body/rim Lt beige/yellow glaze (MY)
0039 04 146 4 1 brown sooted ext. (Med)
3 light fabric/yellow glaze (STW)
0039 04 178 1 Dk grey ext.core/orange int.
(cut as counter) (STW)
0039 04 179 1 Orange ext.core/grey int.core/green glaze

0046 04 136 1 Hard brown-purple fabric. (MP)
0046 04 137 1 Rim. orange ext/black glaze int. (PM)
0046 04 142 1 Orange fabric/clear glaze int.
0046 04 148 1 Pink-orange fabric/green-brown glaze int.
0046 04 152 1 Hard brown fabric/Dk orange ext. (MP)
0046 04 155 1 Base. (MP)
0046 04 156 2 Brown-orange fabric/lighter core/
0046 04 157 3 Brown-grey fabric/black glaze/no core (MP)
0046 04 170 1 Orange/Dk speckled brown glaze ext (MP)
0046 04 172 1 Beige fabric sooted int./
green glaze ext.grey core (NTW)
0046 04 173 2 Hard brown fabric/ Dk orange ext. (as 152) (MP
0046 04 174 1 Sooted ext./Dk brown int./Dk grey core
0046 04 175 1 Sooted ext./Lt orange int/Dk grey core ( (NTW)
0046 04 176 1 Rim. brown-grey core/blackened int./ext. (STW)
0046 04 177 1 STONE
0046 04 197 1 Buff fabric/no core/ green glaze (NTW)
0046 04 198 2 Lt grey fabric/white int. (STW)
0046 04 199 2 Buff fabric/yellow glaze int./ext. (STW)
0046 04 200 2 Lt Brown fabric/glazed int.

0046 04 201 1 Brown-purple fabric glazed int.(as 136) (MP)

Context Area Find Frag Comments Era
0046 04 202 1 Grey fabric/glazed int. (MP)
0046 04 203 1 Lt brown fabric as 156) (MP)
0046 04 204 2 Orange fabric/brown glaze ext.
0046 04 205 1 Lt orange fabric/sienna glaze int. (PM)
0046 04 206 1 as 200) (MP)
0046 04 207 1 Lt grey fabric/Dk grey int.
green glaze ext. (NTW)
0046 04 208 1 Beige fabric/darker ext. (STW)
0046 04 211 1 Lt orange fabric/clear glaze ext. (STW)
0046 04 212 1 Buff fabric/sooted ext./int. (STW)
0046 04 213 1 Buff fabric/sooted ext. (STW)

0047 06 115 1 Buff fabric/blackened int./
green glaze ext. (STW)
0047 06 116 1 Rim. Lt orange int./ext./mid-grey core

0052 06 150 2 Dk coarse fabric?
0052 06 147 1 Gritty brown fabric/darker ext.

0053 03 079 1 (as 069,074,080,085) (MP)

0061 06 167 1 Bone (not pot)

0062 06 134 1 Buff fabric (lost)
0062 06 165 1 Lt orange fabric, slightly darker int.
0062 06 166 1 Dk grey fabric/white slip/
green glaze (lost) (NTW)
0062 06 218 1 Buff fabric/incised green glaze ext. (STW)
0062 06 219 1 Base sherd.Lt brown shelly (Med)
0062 06 220 1 Lt beige throughout
0062 06 221 1 Pink-grey fabric throughout
0064 06 140 1 Lt brown shelly/ sooted ext. (Med)
0064 06 154 1 STONE
0064 06 171 1 Gritty fabric/blackened int.

0065 04 128 1 Buff fabric/green glaze (NTW)

0068 04 182 1 Hard brown fabric/brown glaze (MP)
0068 04 183 1 Orange fabric/darker ext.
0068 04 184 1 Grey fabric/white slip/green glaze (NTW)
0068 04 185 1 Grey-brown fabric/brown glaze int./ext.
0068 04 186 1 Brown-orange fabric
0068 04 210 1 Rim. Dk brown fabric/black glaze

0069 03 141 1 Rim. orange-brown fabric (G.R.E.) 16th c.
0069 03 149 1 Combed green glaze ext./
buff int./lighter core (NTW


Context Area Find Frag Comments Era
0071 06 161 1 Orange fabric/sooted ext./ochre glaze ext.
0071 06 165 1 Lt orange fabric/lighter int.
0071 06 222 1 Beige fabric/incised green glaze ext.
0071 06 223 1 Grey fabric/white slip/green glaze ext. (NTW)
0071 06 224 1 Lt grey ext./core Lt orange int.(lost)

0072 05 187 1 Buff fabric/blacked int./ ext. (SN)
0072 05 188 1 Orange int./black ext./ green glaze (STW)
0072 05 189 2 1. Lt buff/green glaze ext.
2. orange fabric (NTW)
0072 05 190 1 Dk brown shelly. (Med)
0072 05 191 1 STONE

0074 03 143 1 Lt grey fabric/core/ Dk brown glaze int.
0074 03 158 1 Orange ext./Grey int.
0074 03 159 1 Orange ext.green glaze/
Lt grey int. and core. (LTW)
0074 03 160 1 Orange ext./sooted int. (NTW)
0074 03 162 1 Orange ext./ buff int. (STW)
0074 03 163 1 Grey fabric/green glaze ext./ sooted int. (NTW)
0074 03 164 1 Sooted ext./Lt grey int. (STW)
0074 03 168 1 Grey ext. buff int. no core. (STW)
0074 03 169 1 Lt buff sandy fabric.(STONE)
0074 03 182 2 Hard purple fabric/no core. (MP)

0075 07 227 1 Tile (PM)

0076 07 275 1 Lt Orange fabric (Med)

0077 07 225 1 Brown shelly/no core (SN)
0077 07 226 1 Rim. orange fabric (Med)
0077 07 228 1 Buff fabric/green glaze ext. sooted int. (STW)
0077 07 229 1 Orange int.grey ext/ mica inclusions (Med)
0077 07 230 1 Grey fabric int. pale slip/green glaze ext.(NTW)
0077 07 231 1 Green glaze ext/pale core/orange int. (STW)
0077 07 232 1 Lt brown shelly/darker int. (SN)
0077 07 233 1 Pale orange int/ green/yellow glaze ext (STW)
0077 07 235 1 Orange fabric/green glaze ext. (NTW)
0077 07 236 1 Buff fabric/green glaze ext. (STW)
0077 07 237 1 Grey fabric/white slip/green glaze ext. (NTW)
0077 07 238 1 Beige fabric (STW)
0077 07 240 1 Flask neck/black-grey fabric/white slip/gg (NTW)
0077 07 241 1 Beige fabric/grey int. (STW)
0077 07 242 1 Buff fabric/white int./clear glaze ext. (STW)
0077 07 243 1 (as 242) (STW)
0077 07 244 1 Dk brown shelly (SN)
0077 07 245 1 Buff fabric/darker int. (STW)

0077 07 246 1 Lt orange sandy fabric/Lt grey core/ (Med)

Context Area Find Frag Comments Era
0077 07 247 1 Lt orange/ clear glaze ext. (Med)
0077 07 248 2 Buff fabric/green glaze ext. (STW)
0077 07 249 1 Buff-pink fabric/green glaze ext. (STW)
0077 07 250 1 White fabric/pale glaze ext. (STW)
0077 07 251 1 Dk grey fabric/pale slip/green glaze ext. (NTW)
0077 07 252 1 Buff fabric/sooted ext. (STW)
0077 07 253 1 Orange brown shelly (SN)
0077 07 254 1 Rim. Lt brown shelly (SN)
0077 07 255 1 (as 250) (STW)
0077 07 256 1 Orange int-ext./grey core/gritty (Med)
0077 07 257 1 (as 256) (Med)
0077 07 270 1 Buff fabric/sooted ext./lighter int. (STW)
0077 07 271 1 Beige fabric/thick green glaze ext. (STW)
0077 07 273 1 Panchion ware (PM)
0077 07 274 1 Ochre fabric//white slip/gg ext./grey int. (NTW)
0077 07 275 1 Lt orange fabric (Med)
0077 07 276 1 Orange fabric/no core/sooted int. (STW)
0077 07 277 1 (as 274) (NTW)
0077 07 278 1 Lt orange/shelly/Lt grey core (SN)
0077 07 279 1 Beige fabric/sandy/yellow-green glaze (NTW)
0077 07 280 1 Lt orange sandy fabric (Med)
0077 07 281 1 Pinkish-beige fabric/green glaze ext. (STW)
0077 07 282 1 Lt orange fabric/sandy/no core. (Med)
0077 07 283 3 Beige fabric//sooted ext. (STW)
0077 07 284 1 Lt orange/sandy fabric/no core (Med)
0077 07 287 1 Tiny fragment/beige -
0077 07 292 1 Grey sandy fabric/green glaze ext. (NTW)
0077 07 297 1 Beige fabric/pale glaze ext. (STW)
0077 07 298 1 Orange-beige fabric/sandy/no core (Med)
0077 07 301 1 Buff fabric/no core (STW)
0077 07 318 1 Orange shelly (SN)
0077 07 319 1 Pink fabric/green glaze ext. (STW)
0077 07 320 1 Lt brown coarse shelly (SN)
0077 07 322 1 Lt brown shelly/no core (SN)
0077 07 332 1 Beige fabric/sooted ext. (STW)

0078 07 270 1 Buff fabric/sooted ext./lighter int. (STW)
0078 07 272 1 Coarse shelly/sooted ext.pink-orange int. (SN)
0078 07 317 1 Coarse shelly mid-brown (SN)

0079 07 285 1 Brown shelly/lighter core/Dk ext. (SN)
0079 07 288 1 Beige fabric/green glazed + sooted ext. (STW)
0079 07 289 1 Buff fabric (STW)
0079 07 294 1 Lt grey/pink + sooted ext. (STW)
0079 07 295 1 Orange fabric/clear glaze ext. (Med)
0079 07 299 1 Beige-pink/sooted int./sandy (Med)
0079 07 300 1 Coarse Dk grey shelly/mica inclusions (EM)


Context Area Find Frag Comments Era
0080 07 286 1 Beige sandy fabric (Med)
0080 07 290 1 Ironstone (not pot) -
0080 07 302 1 Brown shelly/no core (SN)
0080 07 316 3 Lt orange sandy/grey core (Med)
0080 07 324 2 Beige fabric/glazed + sooted (STW)
0080 07 325 1 Lt orange sandy fabric/slight core (Med)

0081 07 234 1 Orange fabric int./ext./grey core (Med)
0081 07 258 1 White fabric/pale glaze ext. (STW)
0081 07 259 1 Buff fabric (STW)
0081 07 260 1 Buff fabric/pale glaze ext. (STW)
0081 07 261 1 Buff fabric/darker int.yellow glaze ext. (STW)
0081 07 262 1 Buff fabric/sooted ext. (STW)
0081 07 263 1 Buff-pink fabric/sooted ext. (STW)
0081 07 264 1 Buff fabric/Lt grey ext.hint of glaze ext. (STW)
0081 07 265 1 Beige fabric/brown-green glaze ext. (STW)
0081 07 266 1 Buff fabric sooted ext. (STW)
0081 07 267 1 (as 258) (STW)
0081 07 305 1 Panchion ware (PM)
0081 07 305 1 Panchion ware (PM)
0081 07 307 1 Panchion ware (PM)
0081 07 309 1 Panchion ware (PM)
0081 07 310 1 Buff fabric/Lt green glaze ext. (STW)
0081 07 311 2 Dk orange sandy fabric (Med)
0081 07 312 1 Orange sandy fabric/mid-brown glaze (PM)
0081 07 326 2 Lt orange/ slight glaze ext. (STW)
0081 07 327 1 Lt orange sandy-shelly fabric (Med)
0081 07 331 1 Rim sherd/pink-orange/glazed ext. (Med)

0082 07 308 1 Lt orange sandy fabric/slight glaze ext. (Med)
0082 07 328 1 Beige fabric/ no glaze (STW)
0082 07 329 1 Coarse Lt brown shelly/no core (SN)
0082 07 330 1 Buff fabric/slight glaze ext. (STW)

0083 07 304 1 Beige fabric/sooted ext. (STW)

0084 TP2 337 1 Panchion ware (PM)

0086 TP2 340 2 Lt orange fabric/slight green glaze ext. (STW)
0086 TP2 342 1 Terracotta shelly (SN)
0086 TP2 343 1 Buff fabric (STW)
0086 TP2 344 1 Buff fabric/Dk green glaze ext./grey int. (STW)
0086 TP2 345 1 Beige fabric/sooted int. (STW)
0086 TP2 346 1 Buff fabric/yellow glaze int.+ext. (STW)
0086 TP2 348 1 Buff fabric/slightly pink int. (STW)

0087 TP2 350 1 Grey-buff fabric/orange ext./Lt brown int. (STW)

0087 TP2 351 1 White fabric/spouted pitcher handle (STW)

Context Area Find Frag Comments Era
0087 TP2 352 1 Buff fabric (STW)

UNSTRATIFIED FINDS
0009 02 EMF2 1 Lt brown shelly/Dk brown ext./Lt brown int.(Med)
0009 02 EMF3 1 Orange fabric/int./green glaze ext. (STW)
0009 02 EMF5 1 Dk red-black (Pot sherd?)

0011 02 EMF6 1 White fabric/pale yellow glaze (STW)
0011 02 EMF8 1 Shelly/Dk brown ext./red-brown int. (NORTH)
0011 02 EMF9 1 Purple fabric/green glaze ext./orange int. (NTW)
0011 02 EMF10 1 Pink-orange fabric/grey int. (NTW

Key:
ROM = Roman
EM = Early Medieval
SN = Saxo-Norman
Med = Medieval (unspecified)
PM = Post Medieval
NTW = Nottingham Type Wear
STW = Stamford Type Ware
LTW = Lincoln Type Wear (Potter Hanworth)
MP = Midland Purple
MY = Midland Yellow (17th century)
NORTH = Northampton Type Wear

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Alcock, N.W. & Hall, L., 1994. Fixtures and Fittings in Dated Houses 1567-1763.
Council for British Archaeology. York.

Alcock, N.W. et al., 1996. Recording timber-framed buildings: an illustrated glossary.
Council for British Archaeology. York.

Aston, M. (ed)., 1988. Medieval Fish, Fisheries and Fishponds in England.
BAR British Series 182 (i) and (ii). Oxford.

Barker, P.,1977. Techniques of Archaeological excavation. Batsford. London.

Beresford, G., 1974. 'The medieval manor of Penhallam, Jacobstow, Cornwall'.
Medieval Archaeol., 18, London. 90-145.
Beresford, G., 1987. Goltho: The development of an Early Medieval Manor c. 850 - 1150.
HBMC(E) Arch. Rep., 4, London.

Blair, J., 1993. 'Hall and Chamber: English Domestic Planning 1000-1250.'
Manorial Domestic Buildings in England and Northern France.
Meirion-Jones, G. & Jones, M.(eds).
Soc. Antiqu. London. Occasional paper Vol. 15. 1-21

Breeze, D. et al., 1989. 'Diary: Hadrian's Wall 1979-1989'.Current Archaeology. London. 116. 288-291

Clark, J. et al., 1995. The Medieval Horse and its Equipment. c.1150- c.1450.
Museum of London. HMSO. London

Clarke, H., 1984. The Archaeology of Medieval England.
British Museum Publications, London.

Clay, P., 1981. Two Multi-Phase Barrow Sites at Sproxton and Eaton, Leicestershire.
Leicestershire Museums, Art Galleries and Records Service.
Archaeological Report No2.

Cocke, T. & Kidson, P., 1993. Salisbury Cathedral; Perspectives on the Architectural History.
RCHME/HMSO. London.

Dennison, E. & Iles, R., 1985. 'Medieval Fishponds in Avon.'
Bristol and Avon Archaeology. No.4. BAARG. Bristol. 34-51

Dornier, A., 1972. 'Donington Le Heath'.
Leics. Arch. and Hist. Soc. Trans.
Vol.XLVII. 22-42.

Doubleday, H.A. & de Walden, H. (eds.), 1932. The Complete Peerage
The St. Catherines Press, London. Vol.8.

Dyer, J., 1990. Ancient Britain
Batsford. London.

English, H.S., 1868. A light on the historians and on the history of Crowland Abbey.
John Russell Smith. London.

Farnham, G.F., 1930. Leicestershire Medieval Village Notes.
Privately Printed. Leicester. Vol 2.

Hartley, R.F., 1987. The Medieval Earthworks of North-East Leicestershire.
Leicestershire Museums, Arts and Record Service.
Archaeological Reports Series No 88. Leicester.

Haslam, J., 1984. Medieval Pottery.
Shire Publications. Aylesbury.

Hunt, P.E., 1965. Notes on Medieval Melton Mowbray 1077-1507
Palmer Printing and Publishing Co. Grantham.

Hurst, J., 1988. 'The Medieval Countryside'.
Archaeology in Britain since 1945.
Longworth, I. & Cherry, J. (eds.)
Bloomsbury, London. 197-236.

Jones, O., 1986 The Grammar of Ornament
Omega Books. Ware, Hertfordshire.

McCarthy, M.R. & Brooks, C.M., 1988. Medieval Pottery in Britain AD 900-1600.
Leicester University Press.

Meredith, R.,1965. A Derbyshire family in the seventeenth century:
The Eyres of Hassop and their forfeited estates'.
Recusant History.
Vol. 8. Number 1. (January)

Meredith, R., 1967. Vol. 9. Number 1. (January)
The Catholic Record Soc. London.

Morris, J., 1979. Domesday Book 'Leicestershire'.
Phillimore, London.
Neal, D.S., 1977. 'Excavations at the Palace of King's Langley 1974-1976'.
Medieval Archaeol. London. 124 – 165

Nichols, J., 1795. The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester.
Vol 2. Part 1
SR Publishers. East Ardsley, Wakefield.

Parker, J.H.,
1905. A Concise Glossary of Architecture.
James Parker & Co. London.

Pickering, J. and Hartley, R.F.,
1985. Past Worlds in a Landscape - Archaeological Crop
Marks in Leicestershire.
Leicestershire Museums, Art Galleries and Records
Service. Archaeological Report No 11.
Pollard, R.,
1996. A Volunteer's Handbook for conducting
Archaeological Watching Briefs.
Leicestershire Museums, Arts and Record Service.
LMAST Report No 96/11

Rockwell, P.,
1993. The art of stoneworking: a reference guide.
Cambridge University Press.

Round, J.H. (ed.),
1905. The Manuscripts of His Grace
The Duke of Rutland K.G.
preserved at Belvoir Castle.
Historical Manuscripts Commission.
HMSO. London.
Saltzman, L.F.,
1967. Building in England (Down to 1540)
Oxford University Press.

Samuels, J. et al.,
1996. ''A very old and crasey howse': The Old White
Hart Inn, Newark, Nottinghamshire'.
Trans. Thoroton Soc. Nottingham. Vol.100. 19-54.
Slade, C.F.,
1956. The Leicestershire Survey. c.A.D.1150.
University College Leicester.
Occasional Paper No.7.

Smith, J., 1825. Genealogical History of the Family of Brabazon.
Privately Printed, Rue Montmorency, Paris.
(British Library Cat. 606.h.17)

Sparkes, I.G.,
1989. Old Horseshoes.
Shire Publications. Aylesbury.

Standish, J.,
1900 'Notes on Jettons or Nurenberg Counters'.
Trans. Thoroton Soc. Nottingham. 1-12

Stanley, D.H. and J.M. Stanley,
1977. Eastwell. Leicestershire.
Privately published.

Stocker, D.,
1993 'Recording worked stone'
Advances in Monastic Archaeology.
Gilchrist, R. and Mytum, H. (eds).
BAR British Series 227. Oxford. 19-27.

Taylor, C.,
1974. Fieldwork in Medieval Archaeology
Batsford. London.

White, A.,
1981. The Norman Manor House at Boothby Pagnell.
City and County Museum, Lincoln.
Wood, M.,
1974. Norman Domestic Architecture.
Royal Arch. Inst. London.

Wood, M.,
1981. The English Medieval House.
Ferndale Editions. London.

Woodland, R.,
1981. 'The Pottery', in J.E Mellor and T.Pearce,
The Austin Friars, Leicester
CBA Research Report 35.

MANUSCRIPTS
King, W.,
1799. Estate Survey for the Duke of Rutland.
MSS vol 1. Belvoir Estate, Grantham, U.K.

1712. Probate Inventory. Vincent Hourd
Leicester County Records Office.



lnvestigations of a suspected medieval manor site at Manor Farm, Eastwell, Leicestershire
July 1997 - April 1998
Dissertation for the Advanced Certificate in Archaeology (Year 3) 1998 Module 8
University of Nottingham

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS
Section Page
1.1 1 ...sequence of excavations was executed...
1.4 9 Eastwell Charters (Round 1905,3-7)
10 (ibid)
13 On 1 April 1652... (Meredith 1965.50)
13 ...the purchase price was 83,750...(ibid)
5.1 47 Camera means 'chamber or room' (Med. Latin).
52 thirteenth-century
53 seventeenth-century
6.1 57 eleventh-century
6.2 65 ...Splashed-glaze ware (delete bracket)
65 thirteenth-century
7.1 75 thirteenth-century
8 79 Bratished ...usually found...
79 Carucate ...can Plough in...
79 Garret (fourteenth-century French)
80 Panchionware...nineteenth-century

NMF 24110199

Pictures, plans and illustrations will take longer but will be uploaded eventually. Contact me at norman.fahy@talktalk.net if you have any queries on the project.