Castle Acre Priory Precinct Wall

Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096

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)

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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

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

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. The brick work may have been part of a general repair or underpinning along beneath the wall using a large amount of brick forming a substantial off set along the foot of the wall (Fig. 17). The brick suggests a date in the 18th century and demonstrates that the wall still served a purpose well after the suppression of the priory. As regards the doorway the existing flint jambs do not resemble the chosen flints used for forming jambs or reveals and suggests that the opening was knocked through rather roughly.

Fig. 15. D1. Two piled brick buttresses from the south east, with date stone on further (15.10.2014 SRH).

Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096

Fig. 16. D1. Blocked doorway before repair (DSW)

Fig. 17. Foot of wall at D1 on the north (internal) side (15.10.2014. SRH)

Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096

Fig 18. C4. Fragment of wall before repair with brick header bonding to surviving facing (23.05.2014. SRH)

Close to the south end of South Acre Road there is a two metre length of wall on the right alignment. It is mainly core work but the small area of facing incorporates 18th-century brick headers and a vertical section of brick and flint which could be the remains of a door jamb. The internal face of the wall has the foot of a buttress erected presumably when the wall was first built or when it began to lean inwards as opposed to its present lean.

A small section of wall has recently (September 2014) come to light opposite Chimney Lane (C2). It has a sloping brick buttress with some flint work of 18th or 19th-century date and of which only a small section is visible emerging from the steep bank (Fig. 19).

Fig. 19. C1-2. Remains of a flint and brick buttress. (06.10.2014. SRH)

Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096

During repairs to the north west corner (A4 and B1) the remains of three added buttresses were found. Both buttresses contained re-used masonry and in one of them two sections of Romanesque half shaft were seen. These were clearly post medieval repairs indicating that the wall continued to have some function after the closure of the priory. The availability of some moulded freestone from the priory suggests that the better ashlar had already been sold and that the less useful moulded fragments were all that were left, say in the 18th century, when the buttresses may have been built. The three buttresses were discovered well below ground level and they have been rebuilt in core work to mark their positions (20- 22).

Fig. 20. West facing former buttress (DSW) Fig. 21. West facing buttress with re-used Norman masonry (DSW)

Fig. 22. B1. Rebuilt buttresses marking their positions (10.09.2014. SRH)

Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096

During the 2013/4 repair two small areas of repair were identified towards the east end of section B owing to the use of brick (Fig.23). The projecting bricks at the base of the wall suggest that it may have been an added buttress. The bricks are medieval and thus relate to an early alteration. The second area is just a patch repair with 3 medieval bricks incorporated in the flint work.

Fig. 23. Brick repair to internal side of B2-3. (PW-M)

Fig. 24. Section of new (august 2014) work at east end of section B from outside (SRH)

Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096

As part of the repair works a short low section of wall was built up against the fully upstanding section of the original wall at the east end of section B (Fig. 24). No other sections of precinct wall were exposed further east

The chapel The former chapel which stands at the north east corner of the precinct forms the continuation of the wall (Fig. 26). This is of particular interest as an outlying chapel, a phenomenon which is referred to in documents but rarely survives. One is familiar with the notion of multiple chapels on monastic sites in association with early Christian monasteries and in England with 7th century foundations most famously at St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury (Fernie 1983, 36-8). The tradition survives most notably at the Romanesque re-foundation of the early Christian monastery of Lérins on L’Île St Honorat, Cannes where chapels are found at different locations on the island around the abbey (Fletcher, 1980. 18-36).

Fig. 25. Detail from Blomefield’s plan

At Castle Acre the little oratory, described as the almoner’s chapel by Blomefield and the charnel house chapel, may be survivals of this tradition (Linnell 1951). The former also provides a link with the priory’s parish church of St James.

The building itself has a blocked east window with a rebuilt two-centred arch formed of brick voussoirs and a raised limestone keystone. It was, no doubt, traceried. The roof was more steeply pitched as can be deduced from the heightened side walls plainly visible on the north elevation. And, no doubt, had parapets to the gable. The medieval stone reveals are in situ and the distinctive galletted masonry survives up to the springing of the arch. Beneath the window is fine chequered flush work (fig 26) similar to that on the 15th-century guests’ porch into the west range (Fig. 32). The interior of the east window was revealed when works were undertaken. They show that the arched window was reduced to rectangular before being blocked altogether. The timber which formed the top of the rectangular window cuts into the brick voussoirs of the arch and thus postdates it and the opening clearly had plastered reveals. The ruined chapel as shown in Blomefield’s plan of 1734 (Fig. 25) was repaired shortly afterwards and the arched window re- instated in brick with a typical 18th –century raised keystone. The side walls may have been raised at this time and the parapet removed. The Holkham estate which owned the building extended it in brick work and rebuilt the south wall which is fenestrated with their distinctive cast iron windows (Fig. 27).

Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096

Fig. 26. Oratory . (23.05.2014. SRH)

Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096

Fig. 27. South wall of chapel. (10.09.2014. SRH)

The Junction with the gatehouse The wall appears to be earlier than the gatehouse as can be seen now that the vegetation has been cleared (figs 28 & 29). The diagonal buttress cuts the slightly wider precinct wall which was extended slightly to envelop the end of the buttress. Some of the flint masonry of the buttress projects from the wall plane which was in order to form a bond with the pre-existing precinct wall. The mortar of the gatehouse extends to the rebuilt sections of the wall. At the north west angle of the gatehouse the exposed flint masonry on which the buttress stands may well be the remains of the continuation of the precinct wall as shown on Blomefield’s plan (fig.30).

The use of brick is noticeably absent from the precinct wall. The four-centred arches, the brick dressings contrasting with the knapped white flints and a well-lighted spacious upper storey all point to a late 15th- or early 16th-century date. The design of gatehouse, although very impressive and extremely well-built, was by no means defensive with large windows on all sides (Fig. 31). This of course begs the question of what the earlier gatehouse was like. The great East Anglian 14th-century gatehouses at Bury St Edmunds (1327), St Benet’s at Holme (1327), Norwich Cathedral Priory (1316 or 17) and Butley Priory (1327-53) are the main surviving examples (Luxford 2014). Their construction and the accompanying precinct walls were no doubt partly in response to the attacks which the monastery at Bury had suffered in 1327, St Benet’s in 1381 and had happened at Norwich in 1270. The 14th century saw a great number of monasteries receiving licences to crenellate throughout the country (Luxford, 2014, 39) and although the documents for Castle Acre have not come to light there is a strong likelihood that the precinct wall was constructed around the middle of the 14th century, in line with other great houses in the region. It can be assumed that it replaced a simple bank and ditch with a low fence. 17

Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096

Fig. 28. Precinct wall adjoining north east gatehouse buttress from the south east. (18.09.2014. Peter Wade-Martins)

Fig. 29. Precinct wall adjoining north east gatehouse buttress from north west. (18.09.2014. Peter Wade-Martins)

Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096

Fig. 30. North west gatehouse buttress showing remains of former precinct wall. (21.08.2014 SRH)

Fig. 31. Gatehouse façade. (Geograph.org.uk 1718049). .

Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096

Fig. 32. Guests’ Porch (03.05.2009. SRH)

Discussion The plan of the precinct deliberately avoids a clear differentiation between outer and inner courts with the gatehouse situated close to the abbey church and with the road leading directly to the west range without any secondary boundary. The principal entrance to the inner court may be seen as the porch to the west range which has all the grandeur of a gatehouse with a Romanesque rib- vaulted interior as well as the fine 15th-century fore building. But it already led directly into the guest house of the priory (Fig 32). With the industrial activity taking place just to the south west of the conventual buildings, the roadway leading to it naturally passes the west range and that it may have been seen as having the status of an outer court with only the conventual buildings and the monks’ graveyard to the east belonging to the notional inner court. On this issue it is of interest to note that Castle Acre’s sister priory at Thetford also has a single gatehouse leading directly to the church immediately beside the surviving outer court barn exactly similar to Castle Acre where the present barn replaces the medieval one shown on Blomefield’s plan and indicated as being 200ft long (Fig. 2).

It remains to discuss the date and significance of the precinct wall. The wall, from style or technique, can be dated not more precisely than the later Middle Ages – 14th or 15th century. Flint work of the 12th and to an extent the 13th is usually of large coursed flints with mortar rich joints. The use of tiles in a secondary capacity suggests a late medieval date. The earliest dated plain tiles in Norfolk belong to period II (1250-1350) of the King’s Lynn Archaeological Survey II (Carter 1968-9, 298-9) Therefore a mid 14th century date for the wall is acceptable taking into account the attacks on monasteries of the late 13th and early 14th centuries mentioned above.

Surviving precinct walls are a rarity with very few at all surviving in Norfolk with the exception of Norwich Cathedral Priory. All monastic sites had some sort of boundary to their precincts and grand gatehouses are often all that remain such as at Pentney, Binham, St Benet’s, West Acre and Thetford in Norfolk. The existing walls at Castle Acre and, in parts, surviving original fabric to full height is exceptional and its re-definition of the eastern half of the outer precinct along with

Castle Acre precinct wall NHER 4096 earthworks contribute to the understanding of the economic, industrial and agricultural activities which took place in the outer courts of monasteries which in most cases can no longer be identified. The quality of the wall itself and its skilfully constructed copings of oversailing knapped flint are of special interest regaining for Castle Acre yet another recently uncovered treasure following the discovery of the priory canal, the recovery of the town ditch and the presentation of the castle.

Bibliography Blomefield, V, 1775 An Essay towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, 497-98 Blomefield VIII, 1808. Revd Charles Parkin, An Essay towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, (Hundred of Freebridge) 364-376. Carter 1968-9, H. Clarke and A. Carter, Excavations in King’s Lynn, 1963-1970, The Society for Medieval Archaeology, Monograph 7, 1977. Cushion 1995. B. Cushion and A. Davison, ‘The Earthworks of Norfolk’, East Anglian Archaeology 104, 136-7. Fernie, E. 1983. The Architecture of the Anglo Saxons, London. Fletcher, Lord 1980. ‘The Monastery at Lérins’ Journal of the British Archaeological Association, 133 1980, 17-29 Impey, E. 2008. Castle Acre Priory and Castle, English Heritage Guidebook. Impey, E. 2008. Castle Acre Priory and Castle, Text of guide book with footnotes, bibliography and selected documents. Unpublished. Linnell, Revd C.L.S. 1951 ‘Some Notes on the Blomefield MSS in the Bodleian Library’, A Miscellany, Norfolk Record Society, 22, pp.65-83. Luxford, J. 2014. ‘Architecture and Environment: St Benet’s Holm and the Fashioning of the English Monastic Gatehouse’ Architectural History 57, 51-72. Wilcox 2002. ‘Excavation of a Monastic Grain-processing Complex at Castle Acre Priory, Norfolk, 1977-82’ Norfolk Archaeology 44 (pt. I), 15-58.

NB. A post completion photographic survey by Hutton+Rostron will be deposited in the Norfolk Historic Environment Record along with this report: NHER 4096.

Stephen Heywood FSA. Autumn 2014