Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096 Castle Acre Priory Precinct Wall Introduction The Cluniac priory at Castle Acre was founded in 1089 and built to the west of the planned town, divided from it by the parish church (Impey 2008). The conventual buildings of which there are extensive remains stood towards the eastern and southern edges of a large precinct of approximately 14 hectares bordered to the east and to the north by tall flint walls with shorter sections connected to the gatehouse on the west and alongside the river to the south. The western extent of the precinct is no longer defined but partly shown on Blomefield’s plan (fig.2). The open area was clearly an outer court with the buildings which housed various economic activities now expressed with earthworks. To the south west of the conventual buildings a mill and granary along with a barn and malting buildings have been excavated (Wilcox 2002). These were supplied with water from the river through channels across the precinct, through the reredorter,1 fish pond and kitchen to the mill and brewery beyond. Evidence was found of the complex having been served by a canal connecting to the river further downstream (Fig. 1). The north part of the outer precinct is devoid of earthworks and was used for cultivation. It is quite likely that the prime site was used for cultivation from the first. Fig. 1. Plan of site (Cushion 1995). 1 The waste which went into the southern narrow channel beneath the reredorter was diverted Into a stone- lined channel which led to the river (Fig.1). (Wilcox, 2002, 36). 1 Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096 Fig 2. Blomefield’s plan of 1734. (Bodleian, MS Gough 5, vol. ‘K’, 18058, fol 270) 2 Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096 The gatehouse is placed close to the main building by turning the precinct walls southwards to create an alley. Blomefield’s plan of 1734 (published in Linnell 1951 and Impey 2008), describes in the notes for ‘w’ on the plan the continuation of this wall beyond the gatehouse (Fig.2). He says The walls are down but the foundations are easily seen going further from the gate (Linnell 1951). This implies that the alley and a wall continued into the precinct. The plan also shows an eastern entrance into a field which he calls simply ‘old gardens of the abbey’ in the notes. The area of land to the north of this field is named by Blomefield in the notes for ‘w’ on the plan as formerly Safron Yards now Chapel Close.2 The particularly interesting plan also shows the boundary of the abbey church yard presumably expressed with a bank or fence. The chapel at the north east corner of the precinct is shown as a ruin (Fig. 17) and described in the notes under ‘u’ as a small chapel much of which is now standing and was the Elemosinary or Almonry Chapell. An enigmatic annotation is written in the precinct close to the river (fig 3). Fig. 3. Detail of annotation on Blomefield plan (fig. 2). This suggests the former existence of fish ponds in this area. On the west side of the precinct is the building marked ‘z’ on the plan described in the notes as a chapel now a dove house built on an arch. This was the Charnell House with a chapel over it to officiate in, and at the end was a habitation for a priest to serve it, marked ‘z’. ‘Arch’ in this context must mean ‘vault’ in modern parlance Particularly relevant to the precinct wall is that it clearly shows the wall bordering the river for a considerable extent. Even though the dimensions and direction of the wall are inaccurate, the extent of the wall along the river is likely to be correct. The plan also shows part of the now completely missing precinct wall to the north and west of the gatehouse. It is clear that the wall was very much intact in 1734 and was published in the first edition of 1775 (Blomefield 1775, V, 497-8. The 1808 edition compiled by Parkin repeats the original and they finish the description of the priory with The whole site is enclosed with a lofty stone wall, good part of which is still standing. (Blomefield VIII, 374). The crenellations drawn to depict the precinct wall are simply a convention because the wall was not embattled. In 1840 the tithe map marks the boundary of the eastern outer precinct and shows a former farm building to the south east of the gatehouse (fig. 4). This may have stood on the slight platform shown on Cushion’s plan (fig. 1). The ruins of the priory are not marked except for the former prior’s lodging which was lived in. There is also a tiny building shown on the alignment of the west front of the abbey church. Was this the base of one of the west towers serving as a shed? The boundary to the north west of the gatehouse is not marked which shows that it was no longer 2 Saffron was introduced to England in the mid-14th century and was grown in monastic gardens at first and became quite widespread in the Eastern Counties. Saffron Waldon was a leading market of the product. 3 Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096 relevant to the description of land holdings and may mean that it was already demolished. The plan shows a water course from the river up to the road to the point where the channel to the reredorter ran. This may be the medieval water course retained and turned into a drain. The small uninhabited building shown on the west side of the site may be the former charnel house / dove house described by Blomefield. Fig. 4. The tithe map. 4 Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096 The Wall Fig. 5. Reference plan. Sections A – E correspond to areas of walling referred to in main text. The numbers in the smaller font (A1 – E10) refer to the post completion photographic survey by Hutton+Rostron. 5 Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096 The wall itself was an impressive structure which is demonstrated by the surviving remains. The two main areas of substantial survival are short sections to the north and to the south east (Sections B and C). Its extent is traceable including gaps for about 840 metres. Fig. 6. B2 North west wall internal before repair. 03.12.2013 DSW. Fig. 7. B2 North west wall internal repaired. 21.08.2014 SRH Fig. 8. C3.South east wall internal. 03.12.2013 DSW. 6 Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096 Fig. 9. B6. North East wall internal during repair. 21.03.2014 SRH. These last two sections of wall are the only two sections of wall which survive to their original height of around 3 metres. It is remarkable that these sections of wall retained a distinctive method of providing coping to the walls. This was done by building up with carefully chosen flints to a triangular section with slight oversailing at the base of the triangle (Fig. 10). Fig. 10. C3. Detail of coping (SRH) 7 Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096 At B6 the oversailing was aided by incorporating two courses of roofing plain tiles (figs 9 & 11). The sections of the north wall further west (B2) were clearly of similar height and design. The line of fallen masonry seen before the repair suggest that tiles were also used in this section (fig. 6). Fig. 11. B6. Detail of coping (SRH) The techniques of construction do not change significantly throughout the complete length of wall. The walls are consistently of about 700mm thickness and constructed with tightly fitted mined flint in a skilful random bond (Fig. 13). Galletting and small flints are used to fill joints to ensure the fit. There is a marked absence of brick in the original masonry. The walls were built in lifts of about 200 - 300 mm. At the end of each lift the mason levels off the top and does not continue until it has set or ‘gone off’. This leaves a hairline crack or lift line which can be discerned with the naked eye (Fig.12) Fig. 12. C3. Detail of flint work showing lift lines. (12.03.2013. DSW) 8 Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096 No evidence of putlog holes was observed or noticed by the masons except in one place in the riverside wall (D) which is surprising suggesting either that the putlog holes were very carefully filled up immediately after use or that putlogs were not used at all. In the north wall (B) very large flints are incorporated in the masonry and may have been used to fill putlog holes (fig. 13). Fig. 13. B3. Tightly packed masonry and occasional large flints. 21.08.2014 SRH Other sections of wall remaining are fragmentary. Of interest is the section of wall in C which has fallen over leaving its footing exposed. It was presumably undermined and then toppled over (fig. 14). Fig. 14. C. Fallen section of wall with facing uppermost. 21.03.2014 SRH 9 Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096 Leaning sections of wall by the river (D) have been saved with three piled brick buttresses (fig. 15) of which the western most has had a date stone inserted with the year of building: 2013. A blocked doorway survives at D1 (Fig. 16); The feet of the jambs incorporate some brick work of which the corners to the north east and south west are deliberately rounded.