Lawshall Hall, Lawshall LWL 028

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT

SCCAS REPORT No. 2010/105

D. Gill and M. Muldowney © June 2010 www.suffolkcc.gov.uk/e-and-t/archaeology

Lucy Robinson, County Director of Environment and Transport Endeavour House, Russel Road, Ipswich, IP1 2BX.

HER Information

Planning Application No: N/A

Date of Fieldwork: 20th and 21st May 2010

Grid Reference: TL 993 626

Funding Body: Mr and Mrs I Anderson

Curatorial Officer: Edward Martin

Project Officer: Mo Muldowney

Oasis Reference: Suffolkc1_78807

Contents

Summary Page 1. Introduction 1

2. Geology and topography 1

3. Archaeological and historical background 3

4. Methodology 3

5 Results 4

6. Finds and environmental evidence 13

7. Discussion 18

8. Contributors and acknowledgements 21

9. Bibliography 21 Disclaimer

List of Figures 1. Site location 2 2. Evaluation trench locations and wall positions in relation to the main house 12 3. Interpretive plan showing proposed correlations between 1611 map evidence (upper) and archaeological evidence (lower) 20

List of Tables 1. Finds quantities by context 13 2. Pottery quantification by fabric 14 3. Bricks 15

List of Appendices 1. Plates

Summary

An archaeological evaluation was carried out at Lawshall Hall, Lawshall following a previous evaluation (Gill 2002) carried out for the previous owners. A series of walls and a cobbled yard surface were identified, in addition to a small number of cut features. All the identified features were dated to the later medieval and post-medieval period.

1. Introduction

A research (non-commercial) evaluation was carried out at Lawshall Hall, Lawshall at the request of the owners, Mr and Mrs I Anderson, in order to identify the layout of the 16th century manor house, part of which still occupies the site. Early maps, supported by an inventory, indicate that the building was once larger and extended further to the east. The results of the evaluation, in conjunction with a study of the standing building, was intended to inform a proposed restoration of the building, including a possible extension along the lines of the former 16th century footprint. The work was carried out on 20th and 21st May 2010.

The village of Lawshall is located approximately 12km to the south of Bury St Edmunds. Lawshall Hall itself stands adjacent to the church of All Saints (which was rebuilt during the 15th century) at the west edge of Lawshall at the point where The Street becomes Harrow Green (Fig. 1). The Hall is Grade II* listed (LBS no. 278093) and on the English Heritage buildings at risk register.

2. Geology, topography and recent use

The development area overlies undifferentiated clay with sand, silt and gravels (BGS) and lies on a gentle west facing slope land at approximately 100m OD. The Hall stands on a probable landscaped platform at the head of the slope and underground culverts which exit on the west side of the building take advantage of the fall. The sample area lay to the immediate east of the existing manor house.

The site was in use as part of a working farm and building reclamation yard until the recent past although the house itself has been unoccupied since the 1960’s. The evaluation site is crossed by a track which gave vehicle access farm buildings to the north of the Hall. At time of the evaluation, the land was covered by slightly overgrown low grasses and weeds and the entire site was bounded by hedging and trees. The sample area was limited by a pond on the east side of the site, the pond was excavated sometime during the 19th century and is not shown on maps or plans prior to the 1st edition OS (1883 ). An area surrounding the existing buildings and including the evaluated area was encircled by HERAS fencing.

1 Norfolk

SUFFOLK

Essex 0 0.75 1.5km 0 25km 586200 586300 586400

254400

254300

254200

0 50 100m

Fig. 1. Site location with approximate area of investigation (red)

3. Archaeological and historical background

There has been a manor house on the subject site at Lawshall since the 11th century when it was the property of the St. Benedict’s of Ramsey Abbot in Ely, but the present extant building is a remnant of a great house constructed in the 1550’s (Gill 2002) and owned by the Drury family from 1547 (Aitkens 2002). Over the following ten years, Sir William Drury enlarged the house (retaining part of the earlier timber-framed structure) and work was completed shortly before his death in 1558 and it is the size and layout of this redeveloped structure that is the focus of the evaluation.

In 2002 an evaluation was carried out by Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service (SCCAS) at the request of the then owner Mr Al Rashidi (Gill 2002) in conjunction with an examination of the documentary evidence (Paine 2002). This was followed by an assessment of the documentary evidence and results of the archaeological investigation with additional analysis of the building itself (Aitkens 2002).

The evaluation undertaken in 2002 revealed the footings of a substantial brick-built north range contemporary with Drury’s enlargement of the hall in the 16th century and the remains of what was thought to be a mortared flint dwarf wall which underpinned the original 15th century timber-framed building.

A more detailed summary of the history and development of Lawshall Hall can be found in the reports by Clive Paine and P Aitkens as listed in the Bibliography (see below).

4. Methodology

The aim of this second stage of evaluation was to re-examine and increase current understanding of the layout and extent of 16th century Lawshall Hall by re-excavating and extending two of the first phase trenches and opening two new trenches. It was anticipated that this programme of recording the quality and condition of surviving structural remains could inform a strategy for their preservation and potential incorporation into any future development proposals.

3 A total of four trenches were opened adjacent to the east side of the existing building and their location was determined by the position of previous trenches (Trench 3 and Trench 4, see Fig. 2, Gill 2002 and Fig. 2) and with regard to the alignment of previously identified wall foundations. Each trench was stripped of modern overburden by a 3CX JCB mechanical excavator fitted with a toothless ditching bucket. All machine excavation was constantly monitored by an experienced archaeologist.

All deposits were recorded using SCCAS pro forma sheets and plans were hand-drawn at 1:20. Features were not excavated as the remit of this evaluation was to determine the presence and location of walls and their relationship – if any – with the existing buildings and those walls previously identified. A high resolution (314 dpi) digital photographic record was kept of all features and deposits. The location of each trench and the walls and other features within were surveyed using a Total Station Theodolite (TST). OS data was also surveyed with the TST and absolute levels and geographic reference points were surveyed with a GPS.

All finds were collected and assigned context numbers directly related to the deposit from which they were recovered. No metal-detecting was carried out and no environmental samples were taken.

The archive is stored in the SCCAS main store at Bury St Edmunds under HER no. LWL 028 and a digital copy of the report has been submitted to the Archaeological Data Service: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/library/greylit

5. Results

5.1 Introduction Four trenches were located with reference to the results and position of Trenches 3 to 6 of the previous evaluation (Gill 2002) (Fig. 2) and two of these were positioned specifically to re-open part of, and extend Trenches 3 and 4. These trenches retained their original number and the two new trenches were numbered 10 and 11, following on from the sequence started in the previous evaluation. An additional (and fifth) trench (12) was opened to the east of Trench 11 to determine whether any of the walls identified there extended eastwards. The context number sequence was also continued and ran from numbers 0044 to 0087.

A series of eleven walls was identified, as was a cobbled yard surface, at least three postholes, three probable drain cuts, a ceramic drain, two ash patches and a small area of burnt clay. All finds recovered were collected from the deposits overlying the exposed walls and surfaces etc., except for a single assemblage that was recovered from the backfill of the ceramic drain in Trench 3 (0045).

The underlying natural clay 0064 with chalk till was observed in Trench 10 and Trench 11 only.

5.2 Trench 3 (Plate 1) The extension to Trench 3 was located around the south-east corner of the present stable block (Fig. 3) and was positioned in order to re-expose wall 0013 and 0008. The previous work had recorded the south east corner of the north range, but only the internal face of the wall had been exposed. The aim was to examine the external face of the wall to establish if the north range of the building extended beyond this point.

Trench 3 was an irregular shape and covered an area of approximately 25m sq. A series of five walls were identified, as well as a ceramic drain and two cut features which truncated one of the walls. There was also a narrow linear feature, probably another drain.

Wall 0008 was oriented east to west and ran across the middle of the trench. A small slot was excavated to the south of it which revealed the full depth of the wall footing (0.50m) and that it was constructed from red brick and covered with yellow mortar. A small section of footing where the mortar had been removed/truncated showed that its core consisted of uncoursed brick and tile rubble. The wall itself was made from red brick, not dissimilar to those of wall 0051, although only a small area of them survives. Although not proven at this stage, wall 0008 may continue into Trench 10 to the west (see 5.3, below), where there is a brick built wall on the same alignment.

Wall 0008 was truncated by socket 0041 and also by potential socket or pit 0053. Pit 0053 was an irregular shaped feature located directly over wall 0008, but overlain by wall 0051. It was 1.26m long by 0.72m wide and was filled 0052, mid brownish grey silty clay.

Wall 0059 was located at the east side of Trench 3 and was 0.25m wide by 0.50m long. It was of the same red brick construction as walls 0008 and 0058, but unclear which one of these it was related to. This was for the most part due to truncation by socket 0041 (Gill 2002) and also by ?drain 0011.

Wall 0058 is the number allocated to a section of red brick wall forming a ‘T’ shape in a small extension at the south-east corner of Trench 3. The north-west to south-east section of wall was at least 3.5m long and extended beyond the east end of the trench for an unknown distance, but terminated at its west end 1.10m from the exposed return, whilst the north-east to south-west section was 1.95m long. The degraded nature of the brickwork made it very difficult to determine a relationship between each section, although their similar brickwork suggests they were contemporary. Wall 0058 was also truncated by ?drain 0011.

Wall 0051 was 2.30m long by 0.40m wide and was oriented approximately south-west to north-east and had an apparent return to the north at the north-east end, where it was also truncated by drain 0011. Almost the entire length of exposed wall was foundation, which consisted of thin (0.08m) yellowish white mortar with randomly placed and sorted sub-rounded flint nodules and small to medium fragments of broken brick. At the west end however, lying directly beneath the present stable block, a small section of red brickwork was visible at a height of two courses. Not enough of this wall was visible to determine how the bricks were laid.

Wall 0012 (Plate 2) was located at the north edge of the trench and was oriented east to west. It was 2.6m long by 0.50m wide (Gill 2002), although only 0.34m of its width was exposed during this stage and extended beyond the east edge of the trench for an unknown distance. It was constructed from medium to large flint nodules and light whiteish yellow mortar and survived to a depth of approximately 0.20m. No more than two courses of flintwork remained extant. The wall post dated or was contemporary with the existing stable and marks on the gable end of the building show where 0012 was once attached. A 0.28m wide repair (0048) can be seen. It consists of broken and angular flint nodules and small fragments of CBM set into a white mortar, roughly coursed with the surrounding flint nodules. This repair marks the point at which a (probable) drain (0011, see below) was cut through the wall.

Layer 0045 was mid greyish brown and was not excavated, except over the ceramic drain at the west side of the trench. It was probably the same as 0052, 0054, 0055 and 0056, which were similar deposits separated by the walls.

Drain 0011 was oriented approximately north to south and extended beyond both the north and south limits of the trench. It was 0.30m wide and at least 6.10m long (3m of this length was recorded in the previous Trench 3 (Fig. 6, Gill 2002)). The fill of 0011 was 0049, mid greyish brown silty clay. Drain 0011 also truncates walls 0008, 0051, 0058 and 0059 in this trench and although unclear, it is possible that it also extended southwards into Trench 11, where it may have truncated wall 0046.

Layer 0044 was a combination of the thin topsoil and the very late post-medieval overburden which covered all the features in Trench 3. It was mid brown silty clay and between 0.10m and 0.40m deep.

5.3 Trench 4 Trench 4 was located around the south-east corner of the surviving house and extended the original trench to the south and west. It formed an approximate ‘L’ shape and was opened in order to determine the relationship of wall 0016 to the house and confirm an apparent southward return.

Wall 0077 was oriented north-east to south-west and extended beyond the south-west edge of the trench for an unknown distance. A 2m long by 0.90m wide stretch was exposed in the trench. Only the foundation of this wall remained and was constructed from medium sized flint nodules and mortar with occasional brick fragments. It does not continue northwards beyond wall 0016. As the construction and width of wall 0016 and wall 0077 are very similar it is likely that they are contemporary or near contemporary structures.

Wall 0077 was truncated by pit or posthole socket 0084 (Plate 3) near the south end of its exposed length. The pit/posthole was approximately 0.60m in diameter and was filled by 0083, mid brown silty clay, in which were set two groups of bricks, both at the edge of the feature. The northern group consisted of four half bricks laid as headers set on their sides, plus one whole brick also set on its side. The south group was similar but

7 comprised six half headers laid on their sides and one whole brick, again laid on its side. The arrangement of these bricks suggests they may have been packing for a post. The relationship between pit/poshole 0084 and linear feature 0080 was not clear.

Pit 0082 was located at the corner of wall 0016 and wall 0077. It truncated wall 0077 but was truncated by linear feature 0080 and wall 0016. Due to the high level of truncation it was not possible to determine its overall shape in plan, but it was at least 0.60m long by 0.50m wide. It was filled by 0081, mid grey clay.

A 1.40m long stretch of wall 0016 was re-exposed immediately next to the house. The foundation only was visible and was constructed from flint and mortar with broken bricks at the north-west end. Two half bricks laid as headers on the south side of the north- west end were similar to those found previously and may also indicate that the south face was the external face of the wall. The north-west end of the wall was truncated by narrow linear feature 0080, probably a drain (see below), and repaired with odd bricks (0085) (Plate 4).

Linear feature 0080 was at least 1.80m long by 0.30m wide and terminated 0.70m from the south-west edge of the trench. It was filled by 0079, mid greyish brown silty clay and may have been a drain. It was oriented north to south and truncated both wall 0061 and wall 0077, and also ?pit 0082 at the west end/side. Interestingly, the drain appears to run beneath the existing house, which raises questions concerning the date of wall 0016 and wall 0077 - both of which are truncated by 0080 - and the date of the house. The stratification in the trench currently suggests that the house post-dates wall 0016 (which was previously dated to the 16th century by a brick recovered from its facing edge (0023)) and wall 0077.

Wall 0086 was oriented north-east to south-west and was at least 1.60m long by 0.50m wide. It was constructed from whiteish mortar and red bricks, which were laid flat in varying patterns (Plate 5). Examination of the point at which this wall met the house showed that there was a slight gap suggesting that they were not built at the same time. The bricks however are the same dimension so the walls may have been constructed within the same period.

8 The south-west end of wall 0086 was truncated by wall 0087, which was of similar red brick and white mortar construction and oriented north-west to south-east. The wall is short, just under 1m long and has a slight curve. This may however be an optical illusion caused by its proximity to the trench edge. Only 0.25m of the width was visible.

Walls 0086 and 0087 had no known or discernable relationship with walls 0016 and 0077.

Layer 0078 was mid greyish brown silty clay. It was an unexcavated deposit that lay around the wall foundations.

5.4 Trench 10 Trench 10 was located 3m north-west from Trench 3 and was 3.5m long by 1.6m wide. It adjoined the front elevation of the stable block and was positioned in order to identify whether wall 0008 extended to the north-west. This was not an extension of a previously excavated trench.

A brick wall was identified at the north-west end of the trench, running on the same alignment as wall 0008 and constructed with similar bricks. The wall was distinct from the stable and not part of its footings. It is highly probable that this is a continuation of wall 0008 and shows that the south face was formed of stretcher bricks laid on their sides.

Pits/postholes 0074 and 0072 were both located at the edges of the trench and were both approximately 0.25m in diameter. Each one extended beyond the edge of the trench and was filled by similar dark grey silty clay (0073 and 0071).

Pit/ditch 0076 and postholes 0074 and 0072 all truncated probable natural 0070, chalky clay.

Layer 0066 was mid brownish grey silty clay with light brownish yellow small patches of clay. It was 0.10m thick and overlay 0070, the probable natural chalky clay. It was overlain by yard surface 0010 and either abutted or was truncated by wall 0008.

9 Cobbled yard surface 0010 was located in roughly the middle of the trench and was 1.40m wide by 1.60m long. It overlay 0066 and consisted of medium to large flint nodules and rare brick fragments. A double line of bricks laid on their sides formed a decorative line 0.32m from the north-west edge (Plate 6). This same pattern was seen in Trench 6 (Gill 2002), where the line of bricks was oriented at right-angles. In Trench 10, the line of bricks widened at the south-east end to four bricks wide and merged into an indeterminate area of brickwork measuring roughly 0.44m long by at least 0.24m wide. It is not clear why this area looks as it does.

Cobbles were also identified at the north end of Trench 4 (Gill 2002), although no decorative brickwork was observed. The north side of yard surface 0010 was uneven, probably as a result of having lost some of the flints over time, rather than deliberate truncation. The south edge was much straighter and had the appearance of being truncated but there was no evidence for this in the side of the trench.

The yard surface is truncated at the south-west corner by narrow linear feature 0068, a probable drain. The drain was approximately 0.30m wide, like both similar features in Trench 3 (0011) and Trench 4 (0080) and was filled by 0079, dark greyish brown silty clay. As with wall 0016 in Trench 4, the cobbled yard surface was repaired where it had been truncated by drain 0068, the flint cobbles having been replaced with a combination of flints and broken bricks. The course of the drain continues to the south-east for a distance of 2.12m, where it is itself truncated by pit/ditch 0076.

Only one edge of pit/ditch 0076 was visible in Trench 10 and it was located 0.50m from the south-west end. It ran the width of the trench and was filled by 0075, dark brown silty clay and was overlain by 0044 and truncated by ?drain 0068. It has no known relationship with yard surface 0010.

5.5 Trench 11 Trench 11 was located east of Trench 4 and south of Trench 3. It was 10m long by 1.6m wide with a 4m wide squarish extension at the north end. It was excavated in order to determine whether wall 0016 and wall 0013 extended south-eastwards. A modern flint and rubble surface forming an old farm track overlay two walls, two ash patches and a patch of burnt clay were identified.

10 Wall foundation 0046 was of flint and mortar construction and was a south-eastward continuation of wall 0013, which was earlier identified near the north end of Trench 4 (Gill 2002). The foundation lies on the line of the original timber-framed wall concealed by the current brick façade and is undoubtedly a continuation of it. Where excavated the foundation was approximately 1m wide and 1.6m long, the south east end of the wall finished with a line of upstanding flint coursing which was higher that the general level of the wall, the wall was not seen to continue beyond this point but there was no positive evidence that this was the wall terminal. An area to the east was opened up to explore the extent of the wall but found only a layer of crushed rubble (including 16th century bricks, building flint and a fragment of Purbeck marble slab) but no bonded structures. Traces of brick around the edges of the wall suggest that it may have had a brick facing to a flint and mortar rubble core. The total length of wall 0013/0046 is at least 8.5m.

Flint surface 0063 lay immediately adjacent to wall 0046/0013 at the north-west corner of the trench and was approximately 1.70m long 1.3m wide. It consisted of densely packed small to medium-sized flints, not dissimilar to those of cobbled yard surface 0010 in Trench 10 (Trench 6 and Trench 4, Gill 2002).

Deposit 0065 overlay the natural and was observed abutting the walls and underlay ash patch 0061 and burnt clay patch 0060. It is similar both 0045 in Trench 3.

A small patch of 0.30m diameter light grey ash (0062) overlay surface 0063 and lay next to the end of wall 0046/0013. A second ash patch (0061) lay 0.60m to the south-east of 0062. It had an irregular shape and was located almost centrally between wall 0046/0013 and wall 0047. It was approximately 0.50m long by 0.20m wide.

Burnt clay patch 0060 was located at the south-east corner of wall 0046/0013 and was partly truncated by the farm track. It was no more than 0.35m long by 0.15m wide and dark brownish red in colour.

Wall 0047 was located at the east edge of the north end of the trench. Only a small part of it was exposed due to the trenches proximity to the edge of the HERAS fenced area and to the avenue of trees which ends at that point. It was at least 1.7m long by more than 0.60m wide and whilst similar in construction to wall 0046/0013, the change in

11 Trench 1

0002 Trench 2

0020 0004 Culvert

0008 Trench 7 Trench 10

0008 Trench 3

0058

Line of 16th Trench 6 century f raming

? Trench 4 e g a s Late truncating s a f eature p

s s 0013 Line of ?15th o r century f raming c

0013/0046

0086 Trench 12 0016 0087 Trench 11 0077 0 5 10m

Fig. 2. Evaluation trench locations and wall positions in relation to the main house alignment, different brick size and mortar colour indicate that this is part of a separate later, structure.

No trace of wall 0016 (the return of 0047 found in the previous evaluation) was present in Trench 11 and it may be that the probable shallow remains were truncated by the severely compacted flint and rubble farm track.

5.6 Trench 12 Trench 12 was located to the east of the north end of Trench 11. It was approximately 4m square and it was intended to determine whether wall 0013 continued eastwards.

No trace of walls or structures of any kind were identified.

12 6. Finds and environmental evidence by Sue Anderson 2002 and Richenda Goffin June 2010

6.1 Introduction Finds were collected from 19 contexts, as shown in Table 1.

Ctxt Pottery CBM Fired clay Bone Miscellaneous Spotdate No. Wt/g No. Wt/g No. Wt/g No. Wt/g 0001 1 1721 19th C? 0003 1 6 1 5 13-14 C 0004 1 2915 E-M.16 C 0006 5 62 2 24 12-14 C 0007 6 116 1 41 2 glass (12g) 15-16 C 0009 3 552 L.15 C 0010 9 79 4 170 5 154 15 CP (49g), 2 L18-E19th C PMWG (2g), 5 nails (78g) 0023 1 1482 16 C 0027 3 45 5 637 2 17 1 91 18 C+ 0028 6 50 2 60 1 11 13 C+ 0031 7 210 1 112 2 90 13 328 bag of charred 13 C+ seeds, 1 oyster (8g) 0035 6 70 2 214 1 48 16 C+ 0036 1 61 4 3587 E-M 16 C+ 0037 10 93 2 6 3 48 1 Fe (145g), 1 15-16 C+ oyster (10g) 0044 9 178 4 93 2 CP (9g) 1 PMBG L16th-18th (4g) 3 PMWG (1g) C 1 nail (28g) 0045 9 169 4 2453 13 186 1 CP (3g), 8 shell 17th – 18th (83g) 1 ston C+ (1294g), 1 PMBG (9g), 1 fe (203g) 0046 1 902 Lmed/Pmed 0047 1 1010 Pmed 0048 1 564 16th C+

Total 72 1139 30 13973 5 118 43 977 Table 1. Finds quantities by context.

6.2 Pottery Seventy-two sherds of pottery were collected, ranging in date from the 11th to the 19th centuries. Table 2 shows the quantities by fabric.

The majority of pottery collected from the site was of medieval date. A sherd of possible Thetford-type ware — a piece of large storage vessel with applied strips — was found in large square feature 0036, although the fabric was more like a medieval coarseware. No other pottery of Late Saxon date was recovered, but a single fragment of St Neots- type ware (850-1150) was found with post-medieval wares in layer 0045. Most sherds were of fine to medium sandy medieval coarsewares, most of which were reduced grey, but a few were in buff fabrics. The forms were similar to Essex types, which is normal in south Suffolk. Rim sherds were largely from jars, most of which could be dated to the 12th-13th centuries. One piece of a contemporary Essex glazed ware, Hedingham fine

13 ware, with pale orange glaze was collected (residual in fill layer 0035), and a sherd of possible Mill Green Ware of 13th-14th century date was decorated with white slip line painting (robbing trench fill 0003).

Fabric Code No Wt/g Thetford-type ware THET? 1 61 St Neots-type ware SNTE 1 3 Medieval coarseware MCW 24 415 Hedingham Ware HFW1 1 3 Mill Green Ware MGW 1 6 Total Medieval 28 488 Cistercian-type ware CTW 2 22 Late Medieval and Transitional LMT 14 153 Total Late Medieval 15 177 Glazed Red Earthenware GRE 14 248 Speckle-glazed ware SPEC 1 19 Iron-glazed blackware IGBW 2 76 Post-med redware PMRW 2 30 Staffs white salt glazed SWSW 1 1 stoneware Creamware CRW 3 14 Pearlware PEW 1 1 Frechen stoneware FREC 1 8 Dutch redware/GRE DUTR/GRE 1 56 English stoneware EGS 2 21 Total Post-Medieval 28 474 Table 2. Pottery quantification by fabric.

Late medieval pottery was dominated by poorly glazed earthenwares (LMT), some of which were reduced grey. Most of it was collected from rubble layers and a late pit. Two sherds of a Cistercian-type ware mug with a metallic dark brown glaze were recovered from rubble layer 0007.

Post-medieval pottery consisted of red earthenwares with clear or brown speckled glaze, dating to the 16th-18th centuries. These were found in pit 0027 and fill layer 0035. Further post medieval red earthenwares were found in layers 0044 (which also contained a fragment of Frechen German stoneware) and 0045. Creamware, transfer- printed pearlware and English stoneware were recovered from the cobbled surface 0010 dating it to the late 18th to early 19th century.

6.3 Ceramic Building Material (CBM) Brick samples were collected from several features. Table 3 shows the more complete examples. Smaller fragments were collected from pit 0027 and post-demolition layer 0037.

Context Description Length Width Height Date 0001 Moulded brick, possible garden edging tile? 19th C? 0004 Red brick with occasional flint and ferrous inclusions. 233 114 59 E-M.16th C 0009 Fragments of 2 bricks, coarse grog and ferrous inclusions. 110 46 L.15th C 0023 Red brick, fabric as 0004. 118 52-59 E-M.16th C 0036 Purple, overfired and cracked, occasional flint and ferrous 226 110 57 E-M.16th C inclusions. 0036 Red brick, poorly mixed, occasional chalk and flint 108 16th C? inclusions. 0045 Red brick, medium sand with flint and ferrous inclusions 106 61 17th-18th C? 0046 Red brick, medium sand with clay pellets, buff mortar 114 50 Late/early post-med 0047 Red brick, medium sand with flint, buff mortar 114 54 117th-18th C? Table 3. Bricks.

The earliest bricks were collected from pit 0009, which was below the yard surface of the mid-16th century house and presumably represents either demolition or construction waste. The fabric and size of these fragments was noticeably different from most of the other pieces collected from the site, which have a probable early to mid-16th century date. A few later fragments were found in pit 0027. Fragments of red-fired bricks were identified in 0045, 0046 and 0047.

Other CBM consisted of fragments of roof tile, most of which were peg tiles. They were in medium sandy or fine micaceous fabrics and are difficult to date closely. One fragment of post-medieval ridge or pantile was collected from pit 0027, and a thick piece of possible post-medieval ridge tile from ?corn drier fill 0031 may be intrusive.

The most significant recovery from the second phase of the evaluation was a fragment of post-medieval decorated terracotta recovered from 0044 (Plate 7). It appears to be part of a frieze decoration of Renaissance style, in which a meandering ribbon runs symmetrically. The fabric is a medium sandy one with sparse calcareous inclusions. It is likely that this fragment belongs to the period of the Tudor Hall.

Terracotta architectural features have been identified from several of the great houses of East Anglia, including Westhorpe Hall (Anderson 2003), Shrubland Old Hall, Coddenham, West Stow Hall, Great Cressingham Priory Norfolk, Wallington Hall, Norfolk, and East Barsham Manor, Norfolk. In addition they are also found on church buildings and monuments within the region.

15 6.3 Fired clay Fragments of chalk-tempered fired clay were found in pit 0027, ditch 0028 and possible corn drier 0031. These could be fragments of oven dome, or possibly daub. There were no diagnostic features.

6.4 Stone A fragment of purbeck marble was identified in 0045. It is slab-shaped with a slightly chamfered edge with dressing marks, and may be part of a drain or similar feature. This type of shelly limestone is particularly associated with the medieval period. Apart from ecclesiastical items and mortars, little is known of the use of purbeck marble in the domestic furnishings and fittings of the great households (Blair, 50), so the appearance of this fragment is of interest. Large slabs of purbeck marble were used for the structure of the great drain of the Bishop of Winchester at his Palace in Southwark (Seeley et al, 2006, 41).

6.5 Window glass Two window glass quarries with grozed edges were found in rubble layer 0007. One was a square and the other was a triangle. Neither appeared to have any painted decoration. The thickness and condition of the glass suggested a medieval, or possibly late medieval, date. Whilst they may have come from the hall, they were found on the side of the house nearest to the church and may be the remains of a medieval church window. Fragments of late medieval to early post-medieval window glass were also recovered from the cobbled surface 0010 and layer 0044.

6.6 Clay tobacco pipe Fragments of clay tobacco pipe stem were recovered from three contexts.

6.7 Metalwork One piece of iron sheet cut to a semi-circle was an unidentified, probably post-medieval, find from post-demolition layer 0037.

Iron nails were recovered from the cobbled surface 0010, and a further one was found in layer 0044. An iron bolt which is quadrilateral in section was found in layer 0045. It is both dense and heavy and is likely to date to the later part of the post-medieval period.

16 6.8 Environmental evidence

Animal bone Sue Anderson and Mike Feider

Forty-three fragments of animal bone were recovered from nine contexts, weighing 0.977kg. A fragment of large mammal ?scapula was found in robbing trench 0003. A cow tooth and a fragment of sheep scapula were found in footing trench fill 0006. A proximal fragment of cow metatarsal was recovered from pit 0027. ?Corn drier 0031 produced the largest assemblage, thirteen bones of which eight were fragments of a juvenile cow spine with unfused epiphyses, together with a sheep radius, a pig proximal phalange and three unidentified pieces. A large mammal ?humerus fragment was found in 0035, and a cow rib and ulna were collected from layer 0037. The tibia of a sheep/goat, a pig’s tooth and a gnawed unidentified mammal humerus were found on the cobbled yard surface 0010. Four fragments of bone recovered from layer 0044 included two which showed signs of butchery, one of which was a bovine ulna. The radius and tibia of a sheep/goat, and a cow’s tooth were amongst the bone from layer 0045.

Shell Two oyster shells were found, one in ?corn drier 0031 and one in layer 0037. Eight further fragments of oyster shell were recovered from layer 0045.

Plant macrofossils A small sample of carbonised material was collected from ?corn drier 0031. The majority of pieces appear to be wheat grains. This material requires further analysis.

6.9 Discussion The finds assemblage indicates activity on the site from at least the 12th, if not the 11th, century. Most of the medieval domestic waste is probably redeposited, presumably disturbed by the extensive Tudor building works. Some of the later pottery may be related to the main phase of site use, but again appears to be redeposited in demolition and rubble layers or features.

Evidence from the ceramic building material suggests two phases of brick use, based on the difference in fabric and size of two groups of bricks. However, the difference in

17 date may not be significant, and it is possible that more than one source of bricks was employed in the construction of the Tudor Hall. The bricks dated to the early to mid- 16th century are the same as those used in the standing wall in the kitchen range, which has a diaper pattern made with overfired bricks similar to the one found in 0036. The presence of the fragment of decorated terracotta is significant, as it adds to the number of sites in the region that used this material to embellish their houses.

7. Discussion

The evidence of the recent work indicates that the north range of the building, at least, extends further to the east than the original evaluation suggested, with additional stubs of 16th century brick walls being found in the extension of Trench 3. The alcove created by the pattern of walls at the south corner of the north range is puzzling but it lies at the end of the culvert run (which has been adapted to accept a stone-glazed pipe) and may be part of a garderobe.

The ground plan of the building however has not been resolved, and there is a lack of physical evidence of an east range connecting the front and rear of the house to complete the enclosed courtyard plan of the putative 16th century building, implied in the documentary material. Trench 12 revealed no trace of footings or walls and the surviving wall in Trench 11 (to the west, which was expected to continue through to trench 12) has been severely truncated and only just survived total destruction. The combination of the lost ranges being un-cellared and the rising ground levels required that the footings of the east side of the building need only be shallow set. The erosive effect of farm vehicles on the track (which has sunk and been infilled with compacted building rubble) has meant that the footings were vulnerable to damage and any ephemeral evidence difficult to identify. The east end of the south range has not survived and there is no indication of an east gable wall and therefore it is arguable that the evidence of an east range could also be lost.

The best physical evidence of the courtyard plan is the cobbled yard, the surface of which was found in three of the trenches, the decorative brick border which is inset from the edge of the courtyard suggests that this was rectilinear plan and measured at least 8 x 9m. The courtyard is not closely dated, it seals pits dated to the 15th century but contains no material to indicate that it post-dates the Drury House.

18 The confirmation of the south return to the flint wall at the front of the building and the discovery of a second phase brick-built one confirms the presence of a structure against this face. It is tempting to suggest that the brick wall 0086 is the porch shown on the 1611 plan and the flint-built wall part of an earlier version. Inside the building the chambers of the front range are divided by 16th century timber framing, this may indicate the line of a cross-passage dividing the service end of the building to the west from the hall to the east and the line of the framing may also be an indication of the west side of the porch. In addition to this the line of the 16th century framing also corresponds with a west range gable as illustrated on the 1611 map strengthening the case that this is an accurate depiction of the house. Figure 3 shows the proposed correlations between the archaeological evidence and the 1611 map extract.

The result of the work demonstrates that despite the imposing appearance of the building the physical evidence of the east side of the building is ephemeral and difficult to find by ‘window sampling’ and that complete stripping and archaeological excavation of all of the remaining evidence is required to be certain of the building’s form. The documentary sources indicate that the building contained a large complement of rooms but the indications are that these are likely to have been contained within a taller building on a more compact ground plan than Phillips Aitkens initial interpretative plan. The archaeology of the building lies very close to the surface and is vulnerable, should development take place on this site the area would require full archaeological excavation.

Service end Hall? Cross passage ?

Fig. 3. Interpretive plan showing proposed correlations between 1611 map evidence (upper) and archaeological evidence (lower)

8. Contributors and acknowledgements

The evaluation was carried out by a number of archaeological staff, (Mo Muldowney, Rob Brooks and Dave Gill) from Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service, Field Team.

The project was directed by Mo Muldowney, and managed by David Gill.

Finds processing was carried out by Jonathan Van Jennians and illustrations and graphics were produced by Crane Begg. The specialist finds report was written by Richenda Goffin, who also edited the report.

9. Bibliography

Aitkens, P., 2002 Lawshall Hall: its early history. A first report based on documents, building analysis and archaeology Anderson, S., 2003 ‘Architectural terracotta from Westhorpe Hall, Suffolk ‘ in Archeaological Journal 160, 125-159. Blair, J., 1991 ‘Purbeck Marble’ in Blair J., and Ramsay, N., English medieval industries, Craftsmen, techniques, products, The Hambledon Press Gill, D., 2002 Lawshall Hall LWL 028 SCCAS Report no. 2002/119 Unpublished client report Paine, C., 2002 ‘A Report on lawshall Hall and the Drury Family: based on the surviving documentary evidence’ in Lawshall Hall: its early history. A first report based on documents, building analysis and archaeology Aitkens, P., 2002 Seeley, D., 2006 Winchester Palace – Excavations at the Southwark residence of Phillpotts, C., the bishops of Winchester, MoLAS Monograph 31. and Mark Samuel,

Disclaimer

Any opinions expressed in this report about the need for further archaeological work are those of the Field Projects Team alone. Ultimately the need for further work will be determined by the Local Planning Authority and its Archaeological Advisors when a planning application is registered. Suffolk County Council’s archaeological contracting services cannot accept responsibility for inconvenience caused to the clients should the Planning Authority take a different view to that expressed in the report.

22 Appendix 1 Plates

Plate 1. Trench 3, facing north-west

Plate 2. Trench 3: wall 0012. Repair (0048) is located by the right hand white scale segment, facing north-east

Plate 3. Trench 4: wall 0077 with pit or posthole socket 0084 in left foreground, facing north-east

Plate 4. Trench 4: north-west end of wall 0016 showing repair (0085) where truncated by ?drain 0080, facing north-west

Plate 5. Trench 4: wall 0086, facing north-west

Plate 6. Trench 10: Cobbled yard surface 0010 with decorative brick border, facing north-east

Plate 7. Fragment of post-medieval, decorated Renaissance-style terracotta (0044)