Could be the site of a medieval village? N

The village has existed for hundreds of years under various names with local archives naming it the 'deserted village'.

©2007 Desired Design & Print Limited

GREATER

This book is dedicated to Steve Darken.

Steve was the Clerk to the Parish Council, a great friend and colleague.

He helped to launch this Rediscovery of Greasley and died before he could see the outcome of the project.

Neil Hutchinson.

Contents

Foreword

Part one – Rediscovering the Lost Village of Greasley.

Page Introduction 1

Getting started 2

Results 3

Conclusions 5

Part two- Project to Rediscover the Lost Village of Greasley

Introduction 1

The Domesday Book 1

After the Norman Conquest 2

In 1261 Nicholas de Cantelupe 3

Lands of Dissolved Houses 4

In 1355 Nicholas died 5

Greasley Castle leases 1596-1690 5/6

Earl of Rutland 7

Earl of Essex 8

Bevall Demains 9

Duke of Rutland’s papers 10 The1846 tithe map and ledger of

Into the 20th century 11

St Mary’s Church 11

Beauvale the Monastery 12

Summary 14

Myths and Legends 16

Glossary 17

Medieval English 18

References 19

Footnotes 20

Part three – The Lost Village of Greasley. An Alternative view.

Introduction 1

Evidence 1

Conclusion 3

Acknowledgements

Appendices

Part one

Rediscovering the lost village of Greasley.

Foreword

Steve Darken late Clerk to the Parish Council mentioned the project to me early in 2003. We discussed the idea and it was decided to put forward a bid for financial backing from the Heritage Lottery fund through the Countryside Agency. With the help of Groundwork Greater Nottingham we were successful in receiving a grant.

Asking groups or individuals to help in the search for the village of Greasley formed a steering group, which included a former councillor Ken Marsland who had spoke of this as a possible project after the completion of the Parish Map – a community based celebration of the Millennium featuring Greasley’s natural and man made landmarks which is now on view in the Parish Hall.

Although Greasley was mentioned in the Domesday Book no road signs had been erected until 2005 to indicate where Greasley actually was.

Many visitors to the area seeking St Mary’s Church often were at loss to its location. Travellers on the B 600 had no idea that they were passing through the historic village of Greasley or Griseleia, as it was known in lack of road Norman times, although it has had a number of different spellings during the centuries.

The aim of the project was to try and establish the existence of the ‘lost’ village. Despite the lack of road signs residents of the area had no doubts about its existence as they confidently used ‘Greasley’ for address purposes. The search began by researching old documents and maps together with surveys by the East Dowsing Group which was later supplemented by a team of geophysics experts sweeping the area. Information was gathered from local historians, long time residents and former residents who were able to record their recollections and stories to create an oral history.

The information would be presented to the public by way of information packages made available to educational establishments, libraries and information centres. Also by erecting interpretation boards, producing guide leaflets for use by ramblers or for use on guided walks.

Links were also to be available on the Internet via the Greasley Parish Council web site.

This book will give the reader an insight into the area of Greasley, the local history and a stepping-stone to further research.

Neil Hutchinson.

Chairman.

The Rediscovering the lost village of Greasley project. Rediscovering the lost village of Greasley.

Introduction: -

The Parish of Greasley lies some 6miles north west of Nottingham. It consists of the villages of , Newthorpe, , Moorgreen, Greasley and a small part of . Until 2005 Greasley had never been signposted making it difficult for visitors to find the parish church, which lies at the very heart of the area known by locals as Greasley.

Greasley has existed for hundreds of years under various names but all resembling its present name. Baron von Hube wrote a history of Griseleia whilst an incumbent at St Mary’s. The village was mentioned in the Domesday Book listing dwellings fields and holdings in the area. Greasley was wide spread and included Selston, and Kimberley.

It is suggested that there were settlements here, prior to 1066, close to the brook known as Gilt brook from which the village derives its name.

At Castle Farm, adjacent to the parish church, the ruins of a medieval castle are to be found which makes it seem logical that a village or dwelling would have been active to service the land owned by the castle and possibly to work at the castle itself.

1 Although there are no physical remains of the ‘lost’ village there is the hamlet of Bogend, which has a former school now a house, the old tannery, again a dwelling and a cottage. The village of Greasley has the old vicarage on the hill opposite the castle and church, the vergers house which itself was a former vicarage.

This evidence along with archives material indicating a deserted village with reference points gave rise to looking into whether a village existed.

The Parish Council therefore decided to investigate and obtained funding to carry out these investigations.

Getting started: -

Once funding had been obtained a steering group was formed of local people, historical groups, Groundwork Greater Nottingham and the University of Nottingham showed interest. A group called Dowsers joined the steering group.

We needed to obtain permission to access the land where we felt was a likely place to find remains of a village. This was readily obtained.

With this permission the dowsers offered their skills to survey the land belonging to a former vicarage, known as Greasley House.

Dowsers mark out a field as they prepare to ‘ask the rods’ questions about the area.

The dowser’s first survey took place on the 13th March 2005 and produced some interesting results.

A further survey took place on the Greasley House site and on the adjacent field belonging to Greasley Estates.

2 These results showed that a significant number of buildings had been on the site from the 10th century to early 18th century.

Indications from the archives show that there may have been a Roman settlement close to the Gilt brook.

A later three-day survey by Oxford Archaeotechnics geophysics team was unable to confirm the dowser’s findings but did indicate that remains of some buildings may be apparent close to the old road.

Results: -

The results of the first dowsing in Greasley House field on 13th March 2005.

This shows that a number of properties were located in this field over a period of time and that a number of wells were apparent to support a community.

The survey on 10th April 2005 added to the previous survey in Greasley House field and a survey took place in the adjacent field, which produced further indications of a possible village community again over a period of some 400 years.

3

Greasley Estates field

Greasley House field 10th April 2005.

The drawings above show the extent of the village in both fields. The top drawing shows the first images of findings in the Estate fields.

The second drawing shows the extent of the dwellings after the second survey of the Greasley House field. The bottom right hand corner gives an indication of the moat from the castle situated across the present road and the possible links between the two.

Looking at both mappings these show the close proximity of dwellings that could have formed a village.

4

Greasley Estates field 10th April 2005.

Further buildings, after the East Midlands Dowsing group sent more drawings, an extended picture evolved of the dwellings within the Greasley estates land. Many of the later buildings had either stone walls or stone foundations. Also close to hedge line at the bottom of the picture are the possible buildings referred to in the Oxford Archaeotechnics survey undertaken later in the year.

The survey by the East Midlands Earthwork Project did note some indications of a possible building in the Greasley House field near to the drive and between the boundary fence and the main road. The latter had a stone or concrete foundation but they ruled out brick. In the Greasley Estates field (Footpath field) there were indications of a possible pond and smaller responses of approximately 1metre in diameter that may be wells to support families and to supply water to the castle and its fishponds. The dowsing group found many wells in both fields surveyed.

Conclusions: -

With the differing results it is difficult to say positively that a village did exist near the castle but why is it named Greasley?

There must have been people living in the vicinity to service the castle and farm. It is estimated that in its hey day the castle would need 60 workers to carry out the work within the castle and its surrounding estate.

The estate covered a large area and stretched as far as Selston some 5 miles away.

5 Other research shows house platforms within the bounds of the castle precincts. These may have housed the more important members of the workforce.

Logic lends itself to surmising that further dwellings would be needed for the extended workforce and those indicated by the dowsing group give credence to this supposition.

The village may have been wide spread and the farms within the estate could have supplied labour for the castle.

A further supposition is that the workers dwellings may have been located to the south of the castle at Greasley.

Local archives give an ordinance survey grid reference for Greasley calling it the deserted village.

Local residents living close to Castle Farm and in Bogend use Greasley as their postal address even though the postal service classifies this area together with Moorgreen and Newthorpe under the guise of the latter.

Greasley did and does exist and the Parish to which it lends its name and the residents of the area perpetuate its name.

A map dated 1610 giving significant landowners of shows Greasley Castle as a significant dwelling and landowner together with Watnall an adjacent village.

Neil Hutchinson

6

Part two

Project To Rediscover The Lost Village Of Greasley

Introduction

Although Greasley appears as a place name on the modern maps of today there is no village of that name to be seen today. And yet there is the Parish of Greasley, based on the church of Saint Mary, much of which is of medieval origin based on an early Saxon church, with later enlargements and restorations. Next to the church are extensive remains of an earthwork, and moat. In the centre of these earthworks is a farm where buildings contain remnants of walls from a medieval castle or manor house. Much of the farm buildings are also built from stone believed to have been removed from the former castle. It is also possible that the castle was sufficiently large for the foundations to extend under where the present Georgian farmhouse is situated. It is possible that the house is built on these foundations. The original deeds to the farmhouse have been lost but it is known that the house as seen today is not as it was originally built. Initially it was a two-storey house built around 1750 of stone that may also have come from the former castle. Around 1825 a further storey and a two-storey extension at the side, both of brick, was added. The Domesday Book of 1086 contains many local place names that can be recognised as, these places still exist today. One such place name was Griseleia. This was described in the Domesday Book as in 1065 having two manors, one in the hands of a Lord named Wulfsi (also recorded as Ulfi and Ulfy) and a church and resident priest. After the Norman Conquest the land was gifted to William Peverel who sub-let one of the manors to Ailric. The probability is that the Norman Griseleia was situated near to the existing church and farm, now located on the B600 between Watnall (in the Domesday Book as Watenot) and Moorgreen (a later settlement on land within Greasley but not in existence at the time of the Domesday Book) with Newthorpe (in Domesday Book as Neutorp) nearby. There was undoubtedly a population living in the vicinity farming and supplying service to the Lord of the Manor and receiving his protection. Greasley at one time was described as the largest parish in Nottinghamshire. Today it is about the 7th largest but there is nothing on the ground, not even, until recently, a road sign, certainly not a village, to suggest where Greasley is now located or where the medieval Griseleia was.

Was it ever there? If it was, why doesn’t it exist now and what happened to it? Did it fall victim to plague or famine. Was the castle involved in the Civil War? Did the village go into decline after abandonment of the castle or was it victim to the general movement away from the land, after enclosure and changes in farming, into towns for employment?

The purpose of these few pages is an attempt to answer the question what happened to Greasley and present detailed accounts of evidence supporting the existence of a population in the locality from medieval times up to the present day. Also to give plausible reasons why a village, as such, does not exist today. Also included is a chronology of relevant historic events.

The Domesday Book Several mentions have been made of the Domesday Book so what was it? In 1066 William of Normandy arrived on these shores with an army to take by force the throne that he claimed had been promised to him. Edward the Confessor had died earlier that year and his crown had very quickly been picked up by Harold. Prior to William’s arrival Saxon and Danish lords owned their own lands and the villeins who laboured for them. William established himself by claiming ownership of all the lands for the crown. He then divided up about 50% of the country and gifted the land to his Norman supporters who then took possession, displacing most of the previous lords. His aristocratic supporters received vast estates which they sub-let to their knights. In some instances the previous lords kept their estates (probably reduced in size) or occupied smaller ones as tenants. William needed to raise money through taxation from his tenants. The economy of the country was very much based on agriculture, that is the amount of land under the plough. In 1086 he sent 1 commissioners over most of to survey the country and produce a definitive list of lands allocated to his Barons and their value for tax purposes. This survey was completed in a matter of months, which suggests that it may not have been particularly accurate or thorough. It was, in fact, a comparison of the value of land in 1065, prior to the Norman Conquest and 20 years later in 1086. It assessed the value of the holdings of the “Lords Paramount” mainly listing only Lords of Manors, but some sub tenants were included. It was not an accurate estimate of the population in the country as the ordinary workers and their families were omitted. The basis of this taxation appears to be largely based on farm production based on what could be achieved by a team of eight oxen ploughing standard land or plough land. Nottinghamshire was only assessed on a quarter of its capacity. What this document also contained, which is of much interest today to local historians, was place names in existence at the time. It came to be known as The Domesday Book.

In 1087 William died after a fall from his horse in France.

Prior to 1066 A Saxon Lord of the Manor called Wulfsi, held a Manor called Griseleia during the reign of Edward the Confessor, who ruled from 1042 - 1066. Wulfsi would not have founded the parish but may have built the church.

A study of place names at that time gives an insight into their history. Griseleia may have meant a grassy clearing in a wood as a ley, lea, leah etc refers to an open space or clearing in a wooded area. The whole countryside around would have been far more wooded than it is today. There were a number of local place names such as Greasley, Beggerlea, Kimberley, Brinsley, Wandsley, , Eastwood, Westwood, and Underwood, all showing a link to the wooded nature of the local landscape. Probably part of the wood known as Fulwood. Neutorp (Newthorpe), meaning “new village”, is of Danish origin and it is assumed to have been a later community in the area than others, like Griseleia.

After the Norman Conquest in 1066 William the Conqueror divided up about 50% of the country between his supporters and a large swathe came to William Peverel. (He is believed to have been William’s illegitimate son. He fought at the battle of Hastings and was in charge of Nottingham Castle from its creation in 1068). Wulfsi was displaced and William Peverel may have built, or gave consent for his sub tenant Ailric to build the first earthwork next to the church. This may have been in the standard form of motte and bailey with a wooden keep. As the Norman presence became established in the area the wooden keep was replaced by a stone building which, with time, became extended to become the Manor House, the remains of which can be seen today. It was the practice at the time, as the Norman army advanced across the country, to subdue the existing population. Motte and bailey strongholds were established as a base from which to control the population. After a period of 30 to 40 years, as the new regime became established and accepted, many of these early strongholds fell into disuse and disappeared to leave only a hump on the ground. Others like the one at Greseleia where developed as residences for the new Norman Lords of the Manors. By 1135, during the reign of Stephen, the 5th and last William Peverel had fallen out of favour with the King and his lands, including Gresleia, were confiscated back to the crown. At around the fifth year of his reign the estate was granted to William de Gresele. He may have been a descendant of Ailric. He is the first person to be recorded with the name of de Gresele. It was quite common for people to adopt, as their second name, either the job that they did or the place from which they came. Does this mean that William took the name of the place or that Gresele is named after him? The next known de Gresele was Raph

In 1212, in the reign of John II, the land was granted to Raph de Gresele. He also acquired through marriage the Manor of Ilkeston Raph married Agnes and the estate was transferred to their son Hugh Fitzralph (or Fitzranulf) of Selleston. He is recorded as the first patron of the church at Gresele. On the death of Hugh in 1252 his daughter Eustacia inherited the estate.

2 Raph is recorded as establishing the park at Greslei in the time of Henry III (1216-1272) with an instruction from the King that it should be made “outside the metes of our forest”

In 1261 the estate came to Nicholas 4th Baron de Cantelupe of through marriage to Eustacia which also brought together the Manors of Ilkeston and of Watnowe. Their son William, born 1263, became 5th Baron de Cantelupe in 1299. He died in 1308 leaving two sons William, the elder, and Nicholas. William chose not to take possession of the estate and in 1320 the estate came to Nicholas, 6th Baron de Cantelupe. Nicholas’ first wife Typhonia died and he then married Joan (or Joanne) de Kyme Widow of William, Baron de Kyme in . Nicholas was to become the best known of the Cantelupe family. At the time of the marriage Nicholas had an inventory made of his holdings at Griseleia. It included three carucates of land with a capital messuage worth £6 p.a. 60 oxgangs of land in villeinage, free tenants yielding 43/9, I lb of pepper, 1lb of cummin, 14 cotterelli each yielding 12d p.a. one windmill rendering 2 marks, a dovehouse worth 2/-p.a. and pasture woodland.

In about 1340 he applied to the reigning king, Edward III and received permission to crenellate his manor house. This gave consent to make the manor house look more like a castle. Why would he want to do that? There are a number of possibilities. At that time in history there was a general period of unrest in the country. The hundred-year war was still being fought with France. Many of the Barons were away fighting in France and were being killed. The Barons left behind in England were taking advantage of this situation to enlarge their estates. Also, as many of the general population were also in France fighting for their lord, the population left behind were putting a greater price on their labour and causing general unrest as they demanded better conditions. So perhaps Nicholas de Cantelupe felt a need to protect his house and estate. A second possibility was that Nicholas had become a very important man in the country. He was in favour with the king. He fought for the King and served on royal commissions investigating murders, attacks and unlawful assemblies. Perhaps he felt justified in demonstrating his importance by enlarging his manor house and making it more grandiose. Also the earthwork, the remnants of which still surround the remains of the manor house, covered a much greater area of ground around the house than would have been necessary for a normal country estate of the time. At some time the house had also been surrounded by a moat. It is not known if it contained water. However, requests to crenellate were not uncommon. By 1340 King Edward III had granted 175 licences to crenellate. So, although from that time the house became described as a castle it was in fact a fortified manor house. It has also been suggested that Nicholas in fact built the manor house as well as crenellating it and also built around it a second enlarged earthwork and moat rather than build onto an existing manor house and earthworks.

On the 9th of December 1343, with permission from King Edward III, Nicholas signed a charter to found . This event resulted in a great gathering at Greasley of the King’s representatives, the Bishops and Barons who were signatories to the charter. One such was the Archbishop of York William la Zouch, cousin to Nicholas. The Priory was located in what was then an isolated spot in a wooded valley not far from his Manor House. He endowed it with gifts of land and rents from within his estates. The Priory was a charterhouse of the Carthusian order and originally housed a Prior and 12 monks, together with lay brethren and menial workers.

It was known initially by the Latin name of Bella Vallis but the Prior and monks, originating from the monastery of Chartreuse in the Chartreuse mountains of South Eastern France, changed the name of the Priory to the French Beauvale. They were a secluded, closed society, probably not much seen outside the Priory. Nicholas gifted to the Prior 300 acres of land in the “Park of Greysley”, (the name still survives as High Park Woods), rents to the value of £10 per annum in the towns of Gryseley and Selleston, 10

3 messuages in the town of Gryseley plus the appurtenances which Richard le Carter, John Pygot, Robert Neuball, John le Carter, Thomas Dey, Roger Pygot, Hugh son of Agnes, John le Meisterman Henry le Cartre, Richard Sareson, Roger Dey, Thomas de Fulwode and Hugh de Pynkeston - his natives held of him in the said town in villeinage, together with their chattels, sequel and sects..The deed also included the advowsons of the churches of both towns.

In 1347 Nicholas obtained a second licence from Edward III to gift £20 per annum from lands and rents from messuages in the towns of Gresley, Seleston, Watnowe, Kynmarly and Newthorpe and the reversions (return to the grantor on the death of the land holder) of 21 acres which Thomas le Purchaceour held of him in Watnowe and a messuage and 6 acres of land on the North side of the Castle of Greseley which William de Beaurepayr held for life plus another held for life by William de Worthington and his wife Agnes on the North side of the castle. The gifts of land and rents of 1343 and 1347 combined probably meant that the priory was then the largest landowner in the parish. Baron Von Hube states that from that day the people of Gresley had a new master. Additional land in Neutorp (Newthorpe) was also gifted to the Prior and Convent of Bella Vallis by Hugh de Cressy, and his wife Cecelia, of Selleston. For payment to Hugh of £7/10/- p.a. and £4/10/- to Cecelia should she outlive him. In the case of non-payment they reserved the right to distrain (to seize goods to enforce payment of the debt) in the Priory lands in Selleston, Watnow, Gryseley and the “Moorhouses”.

Lands of Dissolved Houses. A series of ledgers in County Archives. These ledgers are inventories produced in the 31st and 32nd year of the reign of Henry VIII (1541-42). The entry for is as follows: Priory of Bevalle Demesne lands Farm at the site of the priory and demesne lands in Greseley with “le deyhouse” and le mill. Farm of lands and pastures leased to divers persons by the abbot. Rents in Huknalle, Newthorpe, Watnowechaworth, Greseley, Wylley in Greseley parish and Kymbly. Farm of lands and tenements in Huknalle, Bulwelle, Kymbley, Watnowe Canclyff, Watnowe Chaworth, Brokesbiestynge, Newthorp Moregrene, houses in Nottyngham, pastures in Greseley and lands in Wylley in Greseley parish, yearly rents given by predecessors of Sir Brian Stapleton […] coal mine called Kymbley Pyttes in Kymbley and “le smythey” in Greseley with a close and the right to take wood in the woods of the priory. Farm of mills in Moregrene and . Farms of tythes of Bryminesley, Newthorpp, Wyndmylfeld and cotesfeld, Kyrksfeld, Kymbley and pasture called Alworthe, Watnowe Cantclyffe and Watnowe Chaworth all in Greseley. The rectory of Greseley except the tythes of corn. Farms of messuages, lands, cottages in Selston, Bagthorpe, Underwood, Westwood and a coal mine in Selston with a right to take timber for its workings in Wylley Conygre and a messuage called Bagthorpe Halle.

Patents Rolls, Richard II, 13th September 1392. Robert, Vicar of Gresley conveyed to the charterhouse of St Ann in , established in 1381 by monks from Beauvale, 3 messuages, 12 tofts, 2 carucates, 3 bovates and 83 acres of land and £4/12/7 in rents in Selston, Brynnesley, Neutorp, Watnowe Chaworth, Brokebrestyng and Hukenale Torherd.

The “Close Rolls” in the 20th year of the reign of Henry VI (1442) tells us that “William de Wollaton has pardoned the Prior and Convent of Bevale for acquiring from Robert Felowe, the Vicar of Gressley without his consent 1 messuage and 1 bovate in Watnowe Chaworth, 8 acres of land which was Richard Selston’s and 5 tofts and 13 acres in Brokebresting which was sometimes John de Pynkestone’s and others.

4 In 1355 Nicholas died. The law of the land at the time allowed a widow to inherit a portion of the estates, sufficient for her needs, of a former husband and in 1357 his widow Joan (or Joanne) de Kymarly, who had married Nicholas in 1341, claiming her inheritance by impeding her grandson William at the courts of and Nottingham. At Derby she obtained her property in Ilkeston. At the Nottingham court she obtained her Gresley property including the castle with 13 messuages and £10 per annum in rents, 20 acres of meadow, 200 acres of pasture, 1000acres of woodland in Fulwode. (Fulwode is believed to have been a vast area of woodland occupying both sides of the Erwash (today Erewash) river valley including Neutorp, Estewic (Eastwood), Shipley, and Ilkeston.The de Grays of also had rights in Fulwood so perhaps it also extended in that direction. The woodland has now completely gone, the name has also disappeared). William de Cantelupe, and the rest, produced a deed supposedly signed by Joan by which they claimed that she had given up her claim on the estates. She claimed that it was a forgery, which was accepted by the courts. William and the others were amerced (fined). Joan died in 1364.

Nicholas and Joan had a son William. Who had two sons, also Nicholas and William. By 1366 Nicholas had the castle and estate but he was killed aged 29 in 1371-72 without an heir. The estate passed to William but he also died young, aged 25 in 1375-76, again without an heir. The Cantelupe name in Greseley died with them. William la Zouch, cousin to Nicholas inherited the Manor of Gresley. The Zouch family held the estate until 1485. In 1485 Lord Zouch was killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field supporting Richard III. After his death the new King, Henry 7th, declared him a traitor and his lands were forfeit to the crown.

In 1486 the Castle, Manor and Lordship of Greseley and Ilkeston were granted by King Henry to Sir John Savage, at the time Major of Chester. He was killed at the Battle of Boulogne in 1494 and the estate passed to his son John Savage. At one point both father and son had been were concerned in the murder of John Pouncefote. They were fined 4000 Marks, the estate was held as security for payment of the fine. The estate was sold to Sir John Manners.

In 1512 Peter Harden, yeoman, and Thomas Harden , labourer, of Greasley Castle were accused of the murder of Peter Shaw of Watnall.

1541, After the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII Beauvale Priory, the charterhouse and estates which included, Kymberley, Newthorpe and Greasley were granted by the crown to Sir William Hussey who at that time was the Sheriff of Chester. Sir William had two daughters, Neile married Richard Disney and Ann married Francis Columbel. They inherited the Newthorpe estate which was divided between them. Later Bridget Hussey (born 1525, died 1600) married Sir Richard Moryson (Morrison) and the estate passed to the Moryson family. Elizabeth Moryson then married Arthur Capell and the estates then passed to that family.

In 1608 Sir John Manners (grand father of the Earl of Rutland purchased the estates from the Savages. 1596-1690 Greasley Castle leases. 6th February 1596 in the eight and thirtyth year of the reign of Lady Elizabeth, indenture between the right worshipful Sir John Savage, knight, John Savage, his son and heir and Edward Savage (another son) and Henry Poole, gent. Indenture during the life of Bonaventure Eyton the fee castle and Manor of Gresley and all his right of tythe. Included the castell or capital messuage called Greseley Castell and all and singular buildings, barns, stables etc, for £140 with Christall Wood (formerly occupied by John Eyton). For the lives of Henry Poole, his brother Ambrose Poole and Ann Poole – the children of Henry Poole, and of Anthony, son of Andrew Poole, brother of Henry for £3 per annum. Reciting that “the castle is now in some decaye for default of coverings and other necessary reparations and was in decaye long time before ye said Henry Poole or Bonaventure Eyton [….] surrendered […[. And cannot be repaired without great charge and expense”.

5 Henry Poole may “alter and transforme anie of the parts of the said decayed buildings and builde them in anie other manner and forme so yt thereby the compase and foundation of the said buildings be not abridged or altered”

List of tenants in 1612 and their land appurtenances of Greseley Castell inc: Thomas Carier – the house, orchard and ? Close , Pond Close. William Hayden – the Brook close next the lane. Robert Shaw – the Nether brook close. William Draper – the Nether but close. Mr Smalley – the Upper but close, the Sh?pte close. William Grishad, the Chappell close, Gristrods(?) hous. William Pryr – the Church field pingle. Mr Smalley – three layers and a piec(?) in that field. Thomas Bewrow(?) – the Upper broad close. John Sivern – the Middle broad close, the Nether broad close. Richard B?rater – the damm meadow.John Sivern – the Middle wood close.Richard Barraclough – the Drayns.Richard Pri?s and Richard ? – the Cow kistow(?). John Eviringham – the Upper wood close and the Lawns together, Thoman North and Bingham – Rawoods hous and ground, Several men – several parcels in Nether field about 14 acres. Mr Jamson – seven layers in Mr Jamson’s close

Covenant by Sir John Savage with Henry Poole for peaceable possession against E.S (?), Polexena, his wife and Roger, his son: Henry to have “howseboote”, “fireboote”, “ploughboote” and “carteboote”. On the death of each tenant Sir John Savage to have the best beast as a “heryott”, or £4. If Sir John Savage to provide soldiers for Royal service then Henry Poole to find “an able and sufficient man with all conveniente armor and furniture fytt for a musketyre”

1612 Valuation of Greseley Castle lists land holdings and sub tenants, all in occupation of Mr Trimmington – held for the life of An Trimmington and Ambrose Poole

1616 Lease to Major Charles White of Greseley, a local Parliamentarian army commander

By 1640 Arthur, Lord Capell was owner of the Manor and estate of Greseley.

1641 Indenture between ? and Charles White and the Right Honourable John, Earl of Flintham. Seems to be an agreement to quit the estate and lands of Greseley Castle.

1647 Greysley Castle 14th May, Article and Indenture between Right Honourable John, Earl of Rutland and Major Charles White of Bevall Abbie for 21 years of site of Monastery or Mannor of Beavall Charles White was described as of low birth in Newthorpe and low fortune, yet he kept company with the underling gentry of the neighbourhood, was a justice of the peace and, with Gilbert Millington of Priory, married a couple of alehouse wenches to the shame and conviction of the whole country of the lives that they led. Millington became a Member of Parliament but after his wife died he soon went to the alehouse to take a flirtish girl of 16. Charles White became a justice of the peace under Cromwell’ Parliament but then changed sides and became a Royalist. He died in 1661. He and his wife were buried in Greasley church. After the end of the Civil war and reinstatement of the Monarchy Gilbert Millington was charged with regicide of Charles 1st. He was fortunate not to be beheaded along with the other signatories to the death warrant of Charles 1st but spent most of the rest of his life imprisoned in Jersey where he died in 1661.

There is no real evidence that the castle was involved in the Civil War (1642-1646). In fact records show that prior to the war the castle was already destroyed apart from “two plane walls”

Lease between Earl of Rutland and Mr Jamson for £40 per annum Lease of Graysley Castle in the third year of the reign of King James between Humfrey Jamson and Earl of Rutland for close, inclosure or parsell of land in Newthorpe

6

14th May 1647 John, Earl of Rutland produced an article of agreement with Major Charles White of Bevall Abbie to search for coal at Kestoe or Kestore in the Manor of Gresley and to provide timber for construction of a horse engine a water engine, engine house, stable house, mynes, soughes. This was followed by a memo to the tenants of Charles White that if any tenant complains of damage caused by the mining or transport of coal in the close called Kestoe or Kestore that he will refer to My Lord of Rutland for satisfaction. A further note from the Earl of Rutland to Charles White stated that to work the coal delph in the demesnes of Greseley Castle more water will be necessary in the summer months to supply the engine and this could be found by cutting a trench no more than 16 inches wide to bring water from a spring on land belonging to Lord Capell and if the delph proceeded it would be desirable to sink another pit in the “nooke” of the close of Lord Capell on the south side of the pasture called Kestoes. Another note was an agreement between Lord Rutland and Charkes White for enlargement of the above agreement from 7years to 12 years to mine coal in the pasture called Kestoes.

In 1649 Lord Capell was beheaded as a result of supporting King Charles during the Civil War but his son Arthur was allowed to inherit his estates and title and was created Earl of Essex.

By 1653 Manorial records of Dame Capell indicate that the centre of authority has moved away from the Castle of Greseley, the estate was described as the Manor or Beval, in the Parish of Greseley

1675 Leases from the Earl of Essex for 21 years to: Francis Roberts of Mooregreene, yeoman, for messuages and land in Mooregreene, Newthorpe, Watnall Chaworth and Beauvale. William Day of Bevall, husbandman, messuage in Beavall and land and moiety of Lambe Close, rent £17/13/4 p.a. and 8d for boon days work. John Burton of Beavall, husbandman, of messuage and apportenances, rent £13 p.a. and 8d for boon days work. Kimberley and Brookbresting, Luke Potter, yeoman, messuage and land £20 p.a. Bridgett Roberts, widow, cottage and croft and land, rent £7 p.a. and 3d for boon days work

By 1681, the Earl of Essex leased Greasley Castle to Humfry Jamson. But by 30th July 1687 the lease was now with John, Lord of Rutland for demise and lease with Humfry Jamson, clothmaker and citizen of , for £45, then £100 per annum for castle or capital messuage of Greysley Castle for 21 years for setting up as a framework knitter with one frame. Later, in 1853 Thomas Jamson was described as farmer and tanner of Greasley Castle.

On September 30th of 1687 Humfry Jamson then leases to George Lane of Newthorpe, a tanner, several lime pits at Greysley Castle for £15 then £13 per annum. 1688. A further lease from the Duke of Rutland to Humfry Jamson for a close, inclosure or parsell of land in Newthorpe. In 1690 an inventory for Greasley Castle showed that Humfry Jamson now had four stocking frames.

15th January 1691 A marriage settlement between Algernon, Earl of Essex and Lady Mary Bentinck brought for their use various estates including the manors of Greasley Bevall, Watnall Chaworth, Watnowe Cantelupe, Brooksbreasting, Watnowe Conntcliffe,alias Cantelupe, Newthorpe, Kimberley, Selston, Bagthorpe, Westwood, Underwood and Bullwell and advowson of Greasley church.

1703 Lease from Algernon, Earl of Essex for 21 years to Richard Clifton, William Purdy, Richard Jackson-yeoman of Moorgreen, for (amongst other things) all tythes of corn graine and hay at Moorgreen, Newthorpe, Gresaley Castle, Watnall Cantelupe, Watnall Chaworth, etc,etc. consideration £40, rent£66/16/8 per annum (Jackson’s farmhouse still stands in Moorgreen). By 1705 John Barber held leases on Greasley Castle estate and mining rights from the Earl of Essex.

7 In 1708 the Earl of Essex leased by indenture on the 11th day of November to William Saunders of Beavall Grange, yeoman, the site of the Monastery or Manor House of Beavall with grange, other house called Deyhouse and also water mill called Beggerley mill […] etc, consideration £64, rent £140 p.a. A second indenture included: One large Capital Messuage or Manor house of five bays, three barns of nine bays, two stables of two bays, four ox houses of four bays, one hovel, one brew-house with other conveniences all in good repairs (except one large barn) with the backside thereto belonging and the hold and two little gardens all lying together containing also one other house or tenement of two bays, two barns of two bays in tenantable repair lying East of the last and adjoining. The lease then goes on to describe crofts and named fields. Then – The fells called Pinksons Gardens with a dwelling standing thereon of two bays in good repair with stables, cowhouse and barn made in the ruins of an old abby which is now demolished, having in former ages been very beautiful […] Also the ruins of another messuage house lately burnt […]. In the North close stands two little farm houses of one bay with another small dwelling of one bay with other conveniences, all in bad repair. The total Bevall domains valued at £498/1/3. Woods in the manor are worth in addition £285/0/9

10th January 1709 Algenon, Earl of Essex dies leaving his son William, who becomes Earl of Essex and Baron Capell of Herdhorn, and two daughters Elizabeth and Mary. In 1717 William married Lady Jane Hyde and conveyed the above estates in trust for 1000years to Lord Viscount Morpeth and Richard, Lord Viscount Shannon for payment of a marriage portion of £7500 each to Lady Elizabeth Molyneux and Lady Mary Capell – daughters of Algenon

10th July,1717, leases from William, Earl of Essex to 28 tenants of Greasley. These included George Gregory- husbandman, messuage and land, rent £7/10/-, boon 8d, fine £3/15/-. John Ely the younger-yeoman, Joseph Millington of Greasley-yeoman, John Burton-husbandman, messuage and land, rent £7/10/-p.a, boon 8d, fine £3/15/- John Sheppard-yeoman, Stoop Close, Greasley, lease of land formerly held by Samuel Purdy of Mooegreen called Edgeworth(?) Close, William Walkinson- yeoman, Richard Smedley-yeoman, John Shaw-Polarfsmith(?). Henry Warne-husbandman, William Sanders-yeoman, Richard Sheppard-yeoman, George Rawling-yeoman, John Ely-yeoman, Sarfoon(?)(Barton, Dickson?), Samuel Burton (Hixton), John Davies the younger-yeoman, Joseph Richards-yeoman, William Soarovy(?) (Soorway?) Many of the hand written old documents proved to be very difficult to read.

There are also lists of leases with Lord Melbourne in Greasley with Richard Sheppard, Benjamine Levers, William James, Samuel Granger, Johnathon Barrowclough, Mary Walker, spinster, Samuel Needham, John Greensmith, William Purdy, William Jackson, John Arther, Johnathon Tole, Edward Kitchin, Mary Tatum, William Straw, frameworker of Greasley.

In 1718 William, Earl of Essex raised a mortgage on the Manor of Greseley for £7500. The lenders were Peter Walter and Francis Child, Aldermen of the City of London. Later they were executors of the will Sir Robert Sutton. In 1726 Richard Shepherd assigned his lease in Greasley to Sir Robert Sutton. In 1727 John Elys assigned his lease of messuage and 92 acres also to Sir Robert Sutton. 2nd February 1722 the Earl of Essex assigned all his rights to Sir Robert Sutton. Sir Robert later raised a further mortgage with Peter Walter on the estate for £24000. £3000 of which was to be paid by the Earl of Essex. In 1739 £19000 and £1000 were still owed but by 1753 the debt had been assigned to Matthew Lamb

8 1724 A Survey was produced of the Manor of Bevall in the Parish of Graysley. Belonging to Sir Robert Sutton Kt. Bevall Demains William Saunders holdeth by indenture bearing the date 11th day of November 1708, for a period of 21 years from the 11th day of November 1707 by payment of yearly rent of £140. Brooks Breasting, Details include two tenants, Widow Potter, John Roberts. Moorgreen Richard Jackson – house and bakehouse, John Ely senior – house, William Saunders – one large mooting(?) house on the common, John Archer – one house and bakehouse, Thomas Gelstrap – dwelling house of three bays, one shop & one bakehouse, William Purdy, one farm house of four bays, Thomas Mabbott(? )- house, William Goodwin – house, Samuel Wappleington(?) – house, John Ely senior – house, William Flint – house, Joseph Clay – house, Jonathane Siveron – dwelling house, David Maltby – house, George Rolling – house, John Saint – house in Willey Wood, Henry Burton – house, William Saunders – house with five bays, brewhouse and extensive lands, Richard Clifton - house of five bays and bakehouse, John Wafs(?) – one little cottage house and little garden, Widow Bostock – one little cottage house and little garden.

15th July 1726 The Earl of Essex assigned for 1000 years to Samuel Childs and Henry Rogers, goldsmiths of London, by the direction of Robert Sutton, the purchases of his inheritance of the Earl of Essex estates in Nottinghamshire including the Manors of Greasley, Bevall, Watnow Chaworth, Watnow Cantelupe, Watnow Canntcliffe alias Cantelupe, Brooksbesting, MoorGreen, Newthorpe, Kimberley, Selston, Bagthorpe, Westwood, Underwood and Bullwell. There is a separate document of agreement for the sale between William, Earl of Essex and Sir Robert Sutton of the estates above plus the parsonage and rectory of Greasley Sir Robert Sutton appears to have raised a mortgage with Peter Walters for £19000 at 5% interest to buy the estates. By 1737 the Barber family is recorded as tenants of Greasley Castle farm. In 1738 Rents in Moore Greene were being paid by Richard Jackson, John Archer, Thomas Gelsthorp, Thomas Mabbott, William Goodwin. Samil Paplington, Jno Siverann, Danil Maltby, Geoffrey Rawling, Henry Burton. In Newthorpe, Joshua Grainger, John Shepherd, Samil Grainger, Joseph Barrowclough, John Daws jn, Joseph Mather Newton, now Meekin, John Grammar, Benjamin Leevers, James Starbuck, Jno Daws sn. Watnall Chaworth rents included William Shaw, Jno Greensmith, Mary Tantum, William James, Henry Vain, Jon Toil, William Howitt, Jno Shaw.

Also in 1738 A lease for one year for the Manor of Greasley was agreed between Sir Robert Sutton and Mr Peniston Lamb for £3000 plus interest

1752 Sir Robert Sutton died. On 20th January 1753 Robert Sutton of , his son and heir and his wife Judith and there children were charged £1200 for a period of 1000years for the Manor of Bevell with tithes for Graysley, a capital messuage and Beggerby mill in Graysley, late occupant William Saunders at rent of £140 per annum with closes, coppices and woods in Bevall Manor and farm at Greasley late occupied by the late widow Potter, with other farms and dwellings in Greasley, Moorgreen, common meeting house, Brooks Beasting, Newthorpe, Watnall, etc.

A document in the Duke of Rutland’s papers, dated 1740 suggest that an exchange was proposed with Sir Robert Sutton for Greasley Castle estate for land elsewhere. This exchange seems not to have taken place. In 1753 £23000 was paid to Sir Matthew Lamb in discharge of mortgages and a further £23000 for his use. Robert Sutton leased the estate of Graysley, otherwise Greasley, for one year to Robert Harper Esq, for the use of Matthew Lamb and his heirs in consideration of £1753. The Manor and Lordship of

9 Bevell and the rectory of the Parish Church of Graysley, otherwise Greasley, formerly the estate of the late Sir Robert Sutton” was then sold to Robert Harper for the use of Matthew Lamb for £23986. So the Greasley estate passed via Matthew Lamb to the House of Melbourne. At that time Lamb Close was a smaller farmhouse. The Barber family moved to Lamb Close as tenants. Matthew lamb was a solicitor from Southwell. He had two sons Robert and Matthew. Robert became Bishop of Peterborough. Matthew became 1st Baron of Brocket Hall and married Charlotte Coke of Melbourne Hall thereby acquiring the Melbourne estate. Their first son became Sir Peniston Lamb, 1st Viscount Melbourne of Kilmore, Baron of Melbourne, born 1748, died 1828. Their second son became 2nd Viscount Melbourne and Prime Minister of Great Brittain, born 1779, died 1848. He married Caroline Ponsonsby. Their second son Frederick James Lamb became Lord Beauvale and 3rd Viscount Melbourne, born 1782, died 1853. He married Alexandrina Mortimer. Their daughter Emily Lamb married Peter, 5th Earl Cowper (family name de Gray) who died 1837. Their son George became 6th Earl, born 1806, died 1856. Francis, 7th and last Earl Cowper became 10th Earl of Dingwall in Scotland. In 1839 Emily Lamb married again to Viscount Palmerston the Prime Minister. Earl Cowper inherited the Greasley estate in 1869. At that time Thomas Grammar owned the Greasley Castle estate. Upon the death of Francis in 1905 the title of Earl Cowper became extinct. At the start of the 19th century the Lords Melbourne are recorded as residing at Bulwell Hall.

In 1811 Lord Viscount Melbourne leased a messuage and land to the Barber Walkers Company. In 1816 The Duke of Rutland sold his estates in the parish of Greasley at auction at the Blackamoors Hotel in Nottingham. Thomas Grammar bought Greasley Castle Farm and Reckoning House Farm.

The 1846 tithe map and ledger of Moorgreen shows land surrounding Greasley Castle Farm as belonging to Lord Melbourne and assigned to Moorgreen for tithe purposes. The Greasley estate as “belonging to the apportionment of rent charge in leau of the tithe for the hamlet of Moor Green in the township of Greasley in the parish of Greasley in the County of Nottinghamshire”. Greasley Castle Farm is described as measuring 259 acres and eight perches, of which 106 acres and seven perches is arable and 152 acres, roods and one perch is meadow or pasture land and is exempt of tax on payment of £3 to the Right Honourable William, Viscount Melbourne. Of which 98 acres is still known as Greasley Castle Farm and is the property of Thomas Grammar of Greasley Castle, gentleman, and is in his own occupation. Reckoning House Farm is the property of Lavinia, formerly Lavinia Grammar, widow of Thomas Marshall, Georgiana Grammar, spinster, and Jemima Grammar, spinster, as trustees under the will of the late Thomas Grammar and is in the occupation of Anthony Fletcher. The document goes on to name as landowners Richard Allen and Jemima, is wife, George Man (or Maw) and Georgiana is wife and Joseph Hays and Lavinia his wife. The rectory and glebe lands which belong to the vicar of the said parish was exempt of tax as also was a cottage owned by Robert Jackson a farmer. The total tax payable in Moor Green was £3.

In 1851, November 21st, Frederick James, Viscount Melbourne renewed an existing lease on Lamb Close House to Thomas Barber for three years at £55 p.a.. Included in the rent were the fishing rights on the great and small reservoirs. But the Viscount kept for himself the game rights to kill, observe and preserve. An addition to the lease to allow its continuation on a yearly basis at a rent of £65 p.a. was agreed with Viscountess Palmerston. Over a period of years during the 19th century, with permission from Lord Melbourne and later Earl Cowper, the Barber family enlarged Lamb Close into the Victorian house that is there today. It has a grade two listing and parts of the original farmhouse were incorporated into the rear of the house. Thomas Barber died in 1893/94 and in 1894 a new lease between Earl Cowper and Frances Harriet Anne Barber and Robert Barber (solicitor) of Nottingham was agreed for 30 years at a rent of £65 per quarter.

10 Into the 20th century all of Moorgreen was still owned by Francis, 7th Earl Cowper except for Greasley Castle farm, that was owned by Isaac Grammar esq, his tenant was Mr Joseph Renshaw who is said to have “improved the condition of the land since he came to it and carefully preserved every part and object connected with the ancient castle and its defences.” The Grammars also owned Reckoning House Farm, which had been inherited by Mr Grammar’s two daughters. The farm was sold to Mr John Godber and his tenant was Mr John Shaw. Mr Godber sold the farm to Sir Lancelot Rolleston. In 1905 The 7th Earl Cowper died. During his period of ownership of the estate he built many houses in the estate, which are easily recognisable as they bear the family crest of a coronet with E.C. above and the date of the house below. In 1915, Following the death in 1913 of the widow of Earl Cowper the Moorgreen estate was sold. The Barber family bought Lamb Close, together with Beauvale House and 800 acres of land including Newthorpe Grange. The Noon family then took over the tenancy of Greasley Castle Farm then later purchased it. The farm came to two brothers George and James. George, a former bank manager in Eastwood and JP, died in November 1986 aged 80. James lived on into his 90s in the farmhouse into the 21st century. 21st Century James Noon died in 2001 and the farm came up for sale. In 2003 it was purchased by brother and sister Malcolm and Sylvia Hodgkinson, from Newthorpe who are working with English Heritage to put the farm house back into a good state of repair. They have put the farmland back into use and have allowed access to the farm buildings where further remains of the medieval castle can be seen and the fishponds.

St Mary’s Church The church, with its old vicarage near by, and the manor house now stand in glorious isolation and yet the church, dedicated to Saint Mary, has served the community for more than 1000 years. Its predecessor was there at the time of the Domesday Book. Some of the original Saxon stonework is incorporated into the present church. Remnants can be seen in the East end of the church, best seen from outside as rough, undressed stone. Rodolph Baron von Hube suggested that an even earlier church may have existed, based on local field names Church close and Gospel close. The Cantelupes probably rebuilt the church in the 14th century. There are signs of earlier windows on the South side that have been filled in. Some 13th century glass was found and made into a window in the vestry. The tower appears to have been built in about 1450 by William, Lord Zouch in the perpendicular style, popular at the time. Evidence of an early fire was found when the East window was installed. Fragments of ancient glass showed signs of great heat and lumps of lead from the roof were found to have been in a molten state. Various restorations took place in 1753, 1772,1832,1882. A major restoration took place in 1896 following mining subsidence. Local coal owners Earl Cowper, the Duke of Rutland and the Barber Walker Company shared the £2000 cost. In 1947 two windows, believed to have come from Beauvale Priory, were installed into the church. Two roundels depict Saint Lucy and saint Agnes. A third section shows the de Cantelupe coat of arms – three lions heads in reverse. The church records date back to 1660 and are now located in the County Archives. Earlier records have been lost / destroyed (in the fire?). The church graveyard was enlarged in 1835 by purchase of a piece of land next to the farmhouse. The earthworks that surround the castle site can be seen passing through this piece of land. In 1875 Earl Cowper gifted a piece of land for further enlargement of the churchyard.

Alfred Stapleton did a survey of headstone inscriptions in Nottinghamshire and wrote a book in 1911 entitled Nottingham Graveyard Guide with an appendix listing the graves in Greasley churchyard. The earliest he found dated back to the 17th century of which there were three. The oldest was dated 1661 where John and Ann Flint of Brinsley were interred. Further members of the family were added in 1694, 1767, 1871 and 1874. So inscriptions for 200 years of the same family were seen. The second family grave, near to the willow tree, is to the Watkinson family of Watnall buried in 1661 and 1676. James Watkinson had married Elizabeth Twells at Greasley church in 1629. The third grave, now

11 under the yew tree, refers to Edward and Thomas, the two sons of John Swindon of Watnall. They died in 1675 and 1676. There is only one old inscription that actually refers to Greasley as a place rather than a parish., to the Leivers family interred at Greasley. (No date). Other old inscriptions are to:- Dawes of Newthorpe Grange Renshaw of Townend, Moorgreen Tatum of Watnall Coppice Wood of Beauvale Mill and Annable family graves – two inscribed as Bresting whilst a third “died at Breasting”. Burials of the Barber family in the churchyard go back to at least 1710

Beauvale the Monastery and the Monks, a book by F. Burrows Printed in the Ilkeston Pioneer some time before 1935 this book gave a fanciful description of what Greasley, the village may have been like. He wrote:

“Besides the castellated manor house in which Nicolas lived and Joan, his wife, one sees the ancient church and rectory. Along the street are the wooded houses of the 14 cotterels, who had holdings and were subject to the manor court. The houses of the free tenants stand about. The sails of the windmill fly round and drive the stones, which grind all the corn for the village. Dovecote Lane still exists to remind us of the possession peculiar to the Lord of the Manor, the pigeon house.”

He went on to describe the origins of the inhabitants as follows: The people most important […] are preserved in priory records. There were classes differentiated by wealth and race. Norman blood coursed through rich and poor and one can place a finger on both Saxon and Danish.*Nicholas le Schipherd and Nicolas le Baster are self explanatory. Robert Neuball,*Richard le Wright, John Pygot (spelt Picot in the Domesday Book). *Thomas Cabald (spelt Cabal in Norman French) interpreted into English as “war bold”. Thomas le Purchaceour, so called because he was a poor knight, were evidently men at arms, as perhaps *Richard Sareson (Norman French, Sarazin), *Richard le Coke (Norman French Cocq –a cook). Richard Fornur (Norman French, a baker). *Will le Tayllour (Norman French, Telier) was a tallyman. Theo le Mongh was a merchant. *from Selleston. The book continued to describe the estate: The park has been made by a predecessor Ralph de Gresley (also recorded as Fitzralph) in the time of Henry III (1216-1272), with an instruction from the King that it should be made “outside the metes of our forest”. Eastwood, Westwood, Underwood, and Fulwood are names that indicate their proximity. The name Fulwood has disappeared. The book then describes particulars of the second gift of parts of the estate of Nicolas de Cantelupe to the charterhouse in 1347: He gave a mill and 40 acres of land in Gresley and Watnowe together with William de Maistre – his bondsman, Richard son of walter – his bondsman with a house and two acres of land in Watnowe, Margaret Koe – bondswoman with a house and 12 acres, Roger son of Geoffrey – bondsman with a house and 17 acres, John son of Reginald with two houses and 40 acres of land, Agnes Keyning – bondswoman with a house and 18 acres, Richard Mayly with two houses and 35 acres of land, Gilbert Tayllour with a house and ½ acre of land, Richard son of John son of Geoffrey of Gresley with a house and six acres of land. Plus all their off-spring and rents including 20d in Watnowe paid by Nicholas de Baster.

12 Summary There is an amount of documentary evidence pointing to the probability that in medieval times there was a community of some size in the vicinity worshipping at the church and providing service to the manor house or seeking protection from it. There is distinct evidence in several locations in the area of ridge and furrow farming system. What form might this community have taken? Where might it have been? Would we have recognised it as something today that we might call a village? Was there a cluster of houses gathered round a street or a well? Little or no evidence has been found to support this hypothesis although there are documents referring to the townshipe of Gresley. Rather than a close knit village is it more likely that the landscape around the castle and church contained individual farmsteads and cottages scattered over quite a large area, such as Brooksbreasting? Formerly spelt as Brokesbrestyng, it was described as a hamlet. Today it is a small community with a farm with farmhouse and a few houses (built by Francis Thomas de Grey, Earl Cowper), with a spring nearby - one of the tributaries of the Giltbrook. Two areas of ridge and furrow have been identified near the farmhouse. There is also ridge and furrow in the fields near to Bogend, previously called Bogin. All just a few fields walk away from the church and castle, where several springs or wells have been found. Although now reduced to a footpath it has been said that within living memory the path opposite Greasley Castle Farm going to Brooksbreasting was wide enough for a horse and cart and may have formed part of an early track way system. It has been stated that the earthwork round the castle was much too large to serve the needs of an average manor of the day. It is probable that there were dwellings within the earthwork to house the servants and craftsmen who served the manor house, as well as bakeries, kitchens, stabling, etc. Was this in effect the village? Wherever the village was it must have been located near to a water supply. Suggested locations include the two fields on the opposite side of the road to the church and farm. Limited field walking in the field opposite the castle has yielded a small amount Roman and medieval pottery. These two fields have had a geophysical and landscape survey performed which has revealed evidence of a continuation of the castle earthwork and possible ridge and furrow in the field in front of the old vicarage. But the survey failed to locate any possible habitation platforms or confirm the evidence of former habitation suggested by an earlier dousing survey. Have we been looking in the wrong place altogether? Another possible location is further down the hill in the area around the junction of the old Church Road and the new road to Watnall. There is a spring and the remnants of an old well in the field nearby. A number of old houses that may have been Greasley are located in this area including the first school house dating to the 1750s. An old leatherworks, also dating from the 1750s, stood by the brook. The stone vats that received water from the Giltbrook are said to lie under the new road. Pre- war aerial photos seem to identify possible housing platforms, now also under the new road. At this point it is situated on a considerable embankment that now divides the valley into two parts. Is it possible that the old village lies under the new road? Was the village located in the fields behind the church and castle. If it was we may never know due to extensive open caste coal mining in the 1950s and 60s. However the two fields nearest the church and castle were not open cast and so are worthy of further investigation. There are a number of interesting circles of nettles and thistles in these fields that are said to do well on areas of previously disturbed ground. The earthwork extends into these fields and archaeological investigations suggest that there may have been a gatehouse into the castle from this side on the line of an existing farm track. It is apparent that Nicholas de Cantelupe gave to Beauvale Priory large amounts of his land around Greasley. Perhaps to the extent that all of the Greasley area was then run as a monastic estate and housing may then have disappeared. There are records of many plagues such as the Black Death and pestilence’s ravaging the country through the medieval period, including one that travelled through the Midlands in the middle of the 14th century. It has been stated that it wiped out up to 90% of the population, leading to the well known plague of the mid 17th century. The homes and living conditions of the poor were always squalid, unhealthy, cramped. Living on meagre diets. Epidemics and pestilence would have found

13 ready hosts. In 1603 an Act of Parliament was passed preventing people from travelling more than five miles from home to prevent the spread of disease. It is also possible that the Greasley area became depopulated soon after the demise of the Cantelupe family and dwellings, including the castle became abandoned, probably sometime before 1595. Nicholas de Cantelupe referred to “his houses on the Green” The area was originally two separate locations, the Moor and the Green. But the name Moorgreen was recorded in 1411 in a document from Borough records. Was Moorgreen the site of the “home farm” for Greasley Castle? or even the second manor included in the Domesday Book. Manor farm exists today. By 1411 there were freemen in Moorgreen described as cottars or bordars who engaged in employment other than for the Lord of the Manor. During the medieval period the system of agriculture was based on a feudal system where villeins toiled for the Lord of the Manor. After the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII absentee landowners began to change the use of land to pasture to gain maximum income from sheep for least cost in labour. Villages again depopulated and the production of food diminished. The former farm labourer now sought employment elsewhere such as coal mining that became a major industry in the parish. Whites Directory of 1853 has the line: Greasley, commonly known as Greasley Moorgreen – population 360. Lord Melbourne principal owner. Later Moorgreen came to Earl Cowper who built a number of very attractive houses in the village and others around his estate.

Thoroton, the Nottinghamshire antiquarian, (Dr Robert Thoroton, 1623-1678), after a visit to Greasley stated that by 1670 the castle was totally destroyed except for a plain wall or two and may have been abandoned after the civil war. Was the castle actually involved in the war at all? It has been suggested that the castle may have been abandoned and become derelict long before the Civil War as early as the mid 1500s.

Amongst a number of newspaper cuttings collected into a scrapbook by Randolf, Baron Von Hube was an article from the Nottingham Weekly Guardian in 1890 describing Greasley as follows: “Greasley itself appears to consist of a church and no more than a dozen houses. Coal mines are numerous. Railways cross it in every direction but there is still much to attract the lovers of the picturesque and to repay a pilgrimage through the borders. Moorgreen and Beauvale are charming. The latter is indeed a fair valley”.

Myths & Legends As a result of this research and oral history interviews a number of interesting tales have been told which, strictly speaking, probably have no basis in fact or would be difficult to prove. But they do add colour to history. Favourite ones involve the Civil War. Several lead musket balls and canon balls have been found in the fields around Greasley Castle and there are tales of battles or skirmishes. Robert Clay of Brooksbreasting Farm has found a number of musket balls whilst metal detecting in the fields near the farm. Ken Marsland has also found lead balls. When part of a wall in the farm at Greasley Castle collapsed a canon ball was found embedded in it. This ended up in the farmhouse used as a doorstop after a flat had been cut in it. It was then relocated outside and used as decoration on a wall, from where it was stolen. I second canon ball was also found. These are all seen as evidence of a battle. Sylvia Hodgkinson, new joint owner of Castle Farm, told me that there is a gate from Greasley Castle Farm into the field behind Greasley Church graveyard. Cattle have refused to go through this gate and Sylvia wonders if they can detect death as it is said that a number of dead soldiers from a battle are buried under the wall outside the graveyard. Shaw’s map of 1835 depicts the areas of Greasley Kimberley area and includes Deadmans Quarry. Also Mr H.H. Mather’s booklet on the history of Kimberley written in 1957 has a hand drawn map on the front of the book also including this quarry. From these maps it is difficult to identify the actual

14 location except to say it was somewhere to the West of Maws Lane and below Alma Hill. In the quarry during the 19th century it is said that an amount of human bones and rusted weapons were found suggesting that there was possibly a battle nearby. Ken Marsland has identified the site of the quarry as the allotments on Edinboro Row. The quarry was filled in and used for allotments as the area around was developed for housing. But the original houses on Edinboro Row still exist, built in about 1735. To support the story about a battle during the Civil War Kimberley historian Roy Plumb told me that Edinboro Row was a common name given to Royalist encampments. Nearby is Cliff Boulevard. Nowadays a boulevard is a tree lined avenue or road. But an earlier definition for boulevard was a fortified rampart. The cliff is a very prominent escarpment, a good defensible site above Edinboro Row. Beyond Cliff Bouevard is High Spania. A Spanish doubloon was found here and the story goes that survivors of the wreck of the Spanish Armada found their way here and set up home. At the time of the Civil War Greasley Castle was owned by the Capell family who were Royalists but other local landowners were Charles White, a Captain in Cromwell’s army and Gilbert Millington of also supported Parliament against the King. Nearby is Gilthill. Also spelt on some old maps as Guilt Hill. The suggestion for the name is because it was in this area that the militia, brought out from Nottingham, routed the Pentrich revolutionists. Did any of the fleeing revolutionists loose their lives during their flight and end up in the quarry. Another story, told to me by Mr George Wardle formerly of Watnall, referring to Castle Farm, was that during the plague a number of residents died. Rather than be buried in the churchyard a pit was dug on a flat area of ground next to the castle and they were buried there in quicklime. I asked Rev David Marvin, Minister at Greasley Church about burials outside the churchyard. He told me that he had no knowledge of this particular story but it had in the past been quite common for dead family members or infants of poor people to be buried secretly as close as they could to the consecrated ground. Baron von Hube wrote that the church path was known as “Black Lane” and suicides were buried under it. It has also been said that some murder victims were thrown into the moat of the castle. John Hobbs told me the story of Polly Redcap, a witch who lived in Sledder Woods, told to children to frighten them away from the ponds in the woods.

15 Glossary of Terms Acre – An area of land measuring 4840 square yards. A Land – A strip of land or pasture divided from a similar strip by a furrow. Taken as a local unit of land measure. Derived from late medieval French. Appurtenances - Minor property belonging to or part of as of right, interest or privilege, incidental to a more important property which passes when the title of the property is transferred. Derived from old French. Avowson - The right to present or select an ecclesiastic living (the ministry of a church) (LME). Bondsman, Bondswoman – An occupier and tiller of soil. A person in bondage, a serf. LOE based on Norse. Bordar – A villein of lowest rank who gave menial service in return for a cottage held at the will of his Lord. Of late Anglo Saxon / Early Norman origin. Bovate – One eighth of a carucate. The amount of land that could be ploughed by a single ox in a year, or season. Based on the Latin bos = ox. Of old French origin. See Oxgang. Cartboote – A tenants right to cut wood from his Landlord’s estate to make or repair a cart. Carucate (or plough-land) – As much standard land that could be ploughed by a team of one plough and eight oxen in a year, or season. Approximately 120 acres. Based on the Latin carura = plough The amount of land varied from place to place to take into account different qualities of the land. Chattels – Movable personal possessions. An interest in land less than freehold. Close – An enclosed place. A small field or paddock. An enclosure surrounding or beside a building. Of French origin. Cottar (or Cotier) – A villein who occupied land with a cottage in return for labour for part of the time. LOE, derived from old French. Cotterel (or cottager) Tenant rural labourer. Derived from late medieval French. Cotterelli or Coterie – A group of tenants holding land together. Of Saxon origin. Crenellate – provide battlements. Derived from old French. Croft – A piece of land used for tillage or pasture. A plot of arable land attached to a house. A smallholding worked by a tenant. (OE) Cummen – Aromatic seeds used as a condiment or flavouring deriving from the Mediterranean plant Cuminum Cyminum. Distrain – To seize goods to enforce the payment of a debt. Derived from old French Fell – A hill. (ME) with origins in both Norse and Saxon. Fireboote –The right of a tenant to take wood for a fire from his Landlord’s estate. (LME) Heryott (heriot) – Originally the return of loaned military equipment. Later to mean a payment of the best beef or dead chattel, or money in leau, made to a Landlord on the death of a tenant (OE) Hide – An area of land required or sufficient to support one free family. Varied in extent from 60-120 acres. From late Anglo Saxon / early Norman pre 1149. Houseboote – A tenants right to cut timber from his Landlord’s estate for house repairs. Husbandman, husbandwoman – A small tenant farmer. One who tills or cultivates the land. (ME) Impede – Stand in the way of, obstruct, hinder. (LME) Messuage – A homestead. A piece of land including a house together with outbuildings and the adjacent lands appropriated to its use. (LME) Mark – A unit of weight equal to 8oz of gold or silver. (OE) Metes – A boundary or limit, a boundary stone or mark (LME) from old French. Moiety – A half, either of two equal parts or of two parts, not necessarily of equal parts. (LME) from old French. Native – Belonging to, or connected with, a person born in a state of villeinage or bondage. (LME) Oxgang – A land measure equivalent to a bovate. Anglo Saxon origin. Pingle – A small piece of enclosed land. A paddock. A close. Ploughboote – A tenants right to cut timber from his Landlords estate to make or repair a plough or other farm implements. Rod – A linear measure. 5 ½ yards or 16 ½ feet. Also known as a pole or perch. Rood – ¼ acre = 40 square poles = 1210 square yards. (LOE) Sect – An adherent or off-spring. A follower.

16 Sequel – Descendants or off-spring of a villein. Silver Mark – A coin representing in value the weight of a Silver Mark. Worth 13/4 in the currency of the day. Derived from old English. Toft – A homestead. An entire holding consisting of a house and outbuildings and the attached arable land. Of old English origin derived from Norse. Villein (or serf) – Under the feudal system a peasant occupier or cultivator of a piece of land in exchange for service to the Lord of the Manor. He was not a slave but was entirely under the control of or attached to a manor and was not free to leave without the permission of his lords. If the land was sold or gifted elsewhere the villein was included in the transfer. A condition of servitude or bondage. (MF) Yeoman – A small landowner who farms his own fields. A system that bridged the break up of the feudal system and the agrarian system.

Medieval English The Medieval period or Middle Ages in history is defined as the period of time between the decline of the Roman Empire in Europe (after 400AD in England or 500AD in Europe) and the fall of Constantinople (where the Roman Empire had become centred) in 1453. A period of more than 1000 years. Medieval English was an amalgamation of Old English, Saxon, Norse and Old (Norman) French and divided up into periods of history when meanings of words became established. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) classifies these periods as follows OE – Old English pre 1149 LOE – Late Old English – 1000-1149 ME – Middle English – 1150-1349 LME – Late Middle English – 1350-1469

17 References A Brief History of Watnall. John Lee. 2002 Antiquities of Nottinghamshire vol II. Robert Thoroton M.D. 1677 Griseleia in Snottingham. Rev Rodolph Baron Von Hube, Vicar of Greasley. 1901 Ledger to the Map of the Survey of the Parish of Greasley. John Shaw. 1853 The Story of Greasley Parish Church, Nottinghamshire. Rev P.G.Walker. 1984 The Story of Kimberley. H.H.Mather. 1957 Thorotons Nottinghamshire vol II Broxtow Hundred, Greasley. 1790-96 Transactions of The Thoroton Society. 1934

In the Hallwood Special Collections Library, Nottingham University. Beauvale – The Monastry and the Monks. F Burrows Greasley Parish Church. Rev Doxey. 1949 The Nottingham Graveyard Guide, Historical,Descriptive, Geneological ( with appendix on the churchyard of Greasley). Alfred Stapleton. 1911 The Story of Greasley parish Church, Nottinghamshire. Arnold Doxey. 1984.

County Archives DD1239/10/1 Assignment of rights of Earl of Essex to Sir Robert Sutton. “ 10/3 Assignment of rights from Earl of Essex to Samuel Childs & Henry Rogers1726 Lands of Dissolved Religious Houses – Beauvale, Henry VIII. 1540-41, Priory of Bevalle, Demesne Lands. DD.B1/1 Scraps – scrapbook of newspaper cuttings and notes made by Rev Rodolph Baron Von Hube 1874 Whites Directory 1853

Lothian Melbourne Papers DDFM80/12-3 Humfrey Jamson 1687 DD1099/1 Thomas Grammar 1853 M352 Lord Melbourne family history DD210/1- 19 Sales, surveys, rents, plans of Sir Robert Sutton 30/1/12-22 Leases from Earl of Essex 1675 30/11/1-7 “ “ “ “ “ 1717 32/2/1-5 “ “ Sir Robert Sutton 32/2/1-5 “ “ Vis Melbourne to Barber Walker 1811 DDLM201/3/1-12 Leases from Vis Melbourne to Thomas Barber or Lamb Close 1857 DD30/11/1-38 Leases from Earl of Essex to 28 tenants DD32/1/5 17th century survey of Manor of Beauvale and Selston belonging to Thomas Wods 187/3/1 Deeds of grant and surrender from the Prior of Bevall to King Henry VIII 1539 187/4/1 The Manor of Bevall particulars for Dame Elizabeth Capell 1653 187/5 Plan of the estate in the Parish of Greasley, Property of Lord Viscount Melbourne 18th/19th century 187/6/2 Valuation of Melbourne estate 208/2/1A, Suit Rolls – names of tenants within the Manor of Bevall and Court Leet and Barony of Charles Lamb 210/1/1 Sutton & Lamb letters re purchase of Lamb Close for £48000 because of Sutton poverty ~1750 P12/4 Plan of Parish of Greasley showing property of Lord Melbourne 1825 DDFM80/1 Greasley Castle leases 1596-1687 DDFM80/2-4/2 lists of tenants DDFM80/5 Indenture between Charles White and Rt Hon John Earl of Flintham 1641 DDFM80/6-80/13 Indenture between Duke of Rutland and Major Charles White 1647 DDFM50/8 Lease of Greasley Castle from Duke of Rutland to Humfry Jamson 1687 PR1375 Poor relief collection 1635-1638 DD46/21 Lease of Beauvale House. 1906

18 Maps Chapman’s map of Nottinghamshire. Chapman. 1774 Sanderson’s map of 20mile radius of 1835 Saxton’s map of Nottinghamshire 1576 GR2R John Shaw’s map of Nottinghamshire DD46/12,21 Map of Greasley estate and Beauvale House 1873 SEIL Plan of Selston and Greasley 1845 AT142/1A, Tithe map of Watnall Chaworth 1843 90/1A, Tithe map of Moorgreen for Lord Melbourne 1846 1st and 2nd Edition OS maps including the Parish of Greasley 1886-1919

Footnotes You will have noticed whilst reading this document various spelling of the same names found in the Domesday Book. The spelling in the book for one of the Lords of the Manor of Griseleia is Ulfi, but having seen several English translations I see that the preferred English spelling appears to be Wulfsi. But studying copies of the original book it seems to me that the letter s was written to look more like an f. So, Ulfi is often seen translated as Ulsi (or Ulsy). Also there are many variations in spellings of place names and family names in historic documents. The various spellings in these pages are as they were spelt in documents examined. For example, Greseleia, Gresley, Greysley, Greasley. Beauvale, Bevall, Beavall, Watenot Watnowe etc. By the 1600s Beauvale was being spelt, and presumable pronounced, as Beval. These changes were probably the result of the differing writing abilities of the authors of the various documents. In many cases they would have spelt the name of a place as they heard it pronounced or how they thought it was spelt. It wasn’t until the 1700s that a process was set in place to standardise pronunciations and spelling. In 1755 Dr Samuel Johnson (lexicographer, 1709-84) produced the first dictionary.

J.C 4.1.06 – 20.5.06

19

Part three

The Lost Village of Greasley. An Alternative View.

Introduction.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are reasons for a village to fail or not to prosper which apply well to Greasley, notably the misfortunes of the manorial family, i.e. backing the wrong side in both the War of the Roses and the Civil War resulting in the execution of the lords of the manor on both occasions. Another reason was the absence of the manorial family in residence at Greasley after the demise of the Cantelupe dynasty.

In time inevitably as land became available the smarter workers consolidated their land-holdings, building homesteads on their rented fields, away from the village centre. This is the scene at the present time and within living memory. Even in the Rev von Hube’s times a century ago there was little evidence of a cluster of houses around the village centre.

However that does not mean that there never was a village. People tend to forget that so desirable location probably supported more than one settlement in past times the most likely being a Roman presence. The main and most compelling evidence for a nucleated village is the remains of three areas of ‘ridge and furrow’ in the intermediate vicinity of the church and the manor house. This indicates a communal field system with people working the land and probably living outside the manorial complex.

Evidence Although there is no recorded evidence of pre-history in the vicinity of Greasley, the site is ideal for human settlement, having numerous springs, a stream, woodland and fertile soil. Some Roman pottery sherds and tiles have been found indicating an early presence of human occupation in the area. Systematic and recorded field walking in the future may uncover further finds. By the time of Domesday in 1086 Greasley had a church with a priest, which pre- supposes a congregation. The estimate for people mentioned in Domesday, five villeins and two bordars, which (allowing for a conservative family of four to each person mentioned), gives a population of 28 people. The arrival of the post-Conquest manorial family would swell rather than deplete this number. Sadly evidence of remains of dwellings from this period would be difficult to trace. Due to construction methods and wood and clay materials used, little evidence would have survived even below ground except possibly post-holes and above uneven ground.

The most compelling evidence of a settlement or village is still to be seen beneath our feet - the three areas of common fields or communal pre-Conquest method of strip farming, in the immediate area, (ridge and furrow). This would be at its height c. 800- 1300AD. Although the bordars, (men who possessed a bord or cottage) would have an obligation to work for their manorial lord, they would also have strips of land in the common field. If they were industrious and ambitious they would probably have the chance to take over extra strips if they were vacant.

1 Catastrophes through out the land made life hard for the medieval peasant around this time. The climate was exceedingly cold and wet causing repeated crop failure. Murrain or cattle disease was rife. One outbreak(1275-1300) was so disastrous that it was remembered for centuries afterwards as ‘the Great Rot’. In spite of probable harsh times the population of Greasley grew. The post mortem inquisition, (will), of Hugh Fitz Ralph c. 1320, mention 14 coterells (cottagers), plus rents from free tenants. While a section of the population would live and work within the manorial compound, it is probable that descendants of the villains and bordars would increasingly have their, albeit limited, freedom to grow their own crops and produce and make their own homesteads. When Sir Nicholas de Cantelupe founded Beauvale Charterhouse 1343 he gave the monks rent and land in the ‘town of Greasley’. Even allowing for exaggeration it certainly suggests in our terminology at least a village. In his gift to the Charterhouse Sir Nicholas gave ‘three hundred acres of land, ten messuages, twelve bovats, with the appurtuances of Gryseley, which Richard le Carter, John Pygot, Robert Newbell, John le Carter, Thomas Dey, Roger Pygot, Hugh son of Agnes, John le Maisterman, Henry le Cartre, Richard Sareson, Roger Dey, Thomas Fulwode and Hugh Pynkeston, his natives and villeins held of him in the said town in Villanage…’. Four years later another gift to Beauvale mentioned a further 17 villeins and their land at Greasley. This works out at, based on four per family, 160 people residing in Greasley and district whose heads of household were paying rent to the Charterhouse. The larger part of the population would still be beholden to Sir Nicholas. It sounds like a thriving community. In a document in 1347 we actually have the site of two houses given, ‘messuage and five acres….in the same ville, on the north side of the castle’ to a William de Beurepayr and William Woathynton and his wife Agnes.

Throughout medieval times plagues were endemic. The one most quoted is the ‘Black Death’ 1348-49 which, presumably reached and affected Greasley maybe causing a drop in population, although there are no records to bear this out. The Black Death did not necessarily cause the demise of a village although strips or parcels of land would have become vacant and ‘up for grabs’ due to the heavy death toll during the eighteen months or so that the contagion raged. It would mean that labour was at a premium and by renting more land to his tenants the lord of the manor(Sir Nicholas de Cantelupe) would at least get some return or income from his otherwise empty fields if they were left untended. It was the rise of the tenant farmer. A tenant, though holding more land, probably would still dwell in the village if his land holdings were scattered.

The next manorial family, the Zouches, had more prestigious land and property elsewhere and Greasley was sidelined. In 1415 it is documented, ‘the castle at Greseley…..said to be worth nothing.’ A poorly motivated steward in charge perhaps? More than this the Zouche family supported the losing side in the War of the Roses and their fortunes went into decline. John la Zouche fought at Bosworth field with King Richard in1485 and was subsequently found guilty of high treason and his lands, including Greasley were forfeited. By 1595 information referring to the lease of Greasley Castle states, ‘[it] is now in some decay for defaults of coveringe and other necessary reparacions….and was so in decaye long before.’ This surely is evidence that the lord of the manor was not in charge of village affairs. This would cause any

2 small community to disintegrate. The nearby village of Nuthall was still in the firm grip of the manorial family and the land also firmly in their grip.

Lord Capel, a Royalist on the losing side, was the owner of Greasley Castle during the Civil War. He was executed outside Westminster Hall in 1649. His misfortune wouldn’t help any village to prosper.

Conclusion

How many of the population lived within the Castle domain is uncertain but the numbers in the later medieval period, i.e. in the times of the Cantelupes, suggest an over-spill outside the castle grounds. No trace of any dwellings has been found as yet and would be hard to discover because of reasons stated above. Absent landlords lead to a decline in property and estates. There was an opportunity for the go-ahead tenants to rent more land and so came the break-up of the manorial system, the demise of a nucleated settlement or village and the flourishing of isolated farmsteads pretty much the situation at the present time. It is fair to say that apart from the areas of ‘ridge and furrow’ there is no visible sign of a lost village of Greasley but the small amount of documentary evidence does give credence to back up the claim. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Marie Roberts.

3 Acknowledgements

The Lost Village Project has received help from many quarters with finance, time for research and in writing up the findings.

We wish to acknowledge all the help we have received and sincerely hope that we have included all who have given of their time and services.

The Local Heritage Initiative, the Heritage Fund, Nationwide and the Countryside Agency.

Greater Nottingham Groundwork - Judith Bagguley

Greasley Parish Council who managed the finances and for their continued support.

Jeff Catherines for his work on the project, oral history and leading the Guided Walks.

The Midlands Dowsing Group, Linda Darlison and Peter Platten.

Marie Roberts for her support and contribution to the project.

Dr Sarah Speight, Nottingham University for help and guidance.

Mrs Margaret Hancock a Greasley resident for allowing the group to survey her land.

The Greasley Estates for permitting surveys on their land.

Broxtowe Borough Council.

Councillor J.D. Taylor Nottinghamshire County Council for financial support and interest.

Margaret Mills for the copy of Griselia.

Central Library, Nottingham for the loan of the mini disc recorder.

Members of the steering group not previously mentioned:- Les Parkes, Eastwood Historical Society/ D H Lawrence Society, David Redgate, Greasley Parish Council, Ken Marsland, The Civic Society, Liz Allen Greasley Beauvale Junior School and Karen Rea Larkfields Junior School. The latter also represented other schools in the area.

Jeff Catherines would like to thank for their help and suggestions freely given John Lee from Swingate and Don Webb from Kimberley, who supplied copies of their own research notes on Kimberley that were pertinent to Greasley.

Also Dr. Sarah Speight and Richard Skinner of the East Midlands Earthworks Group based at Nottingham University.

Marie Roberts for introducing him to the Hallward local history library collection of manuscripts and special collections at Nottingham University, how to use the index systems at the above as well as at County Archives and for general encouragement.

Andrew Marshall, Clerk to Greasley Parish Council.

Lorraine Murphy, Financial Officer to Greasley Parish Council. Appendices

Contents

Dowsing Report 10th April 2005.

Map of dowsing 13th March 2005.

Map of dowsing 10th April 2005.

Chronology of Ownership and Tenants of the Manor and Estate of Greasley.

The 1853 map of Greasley village.

Ledger for the 1853 Map by John Shaw of the Parish of Greasley.

Topsoil Magnetic Susceptibility, Magnetometer & Topographic Survey. Oxford Archaeotechnics Limited.

Geophysical Survey Report, Richard Skinner. East Midlands Earthwork Project.

Greasley dowsing Sunday 10th April 2005.

Findings from various sources indicate that there was a thriving community at Greasley.

The findings indicate that a settlement existed here at least from roman times and they in all probability took over from the indigenous population.

Buildings found, by dowsing, date from 400AD up to 1700AD.

One large building around 1100 appears to have been a most important building for the community at that time. It was possibly like a council chamber or a courthouse. There are remains that could be excavated at a later date with permission.

Two buildings, not far from the footpath were there around 1300AD.

One building between the stile and the gate, close to the old road, was used between 1660 and 1770AD.

There are other buildings from 900 to 960 of a wooden construction, which have been built over by more substantial dwellings.

Findings by P Kendall, sent by email, state that: - The last permanent residence in the lower of the fields was in 1485, a family group of 5, 3 of whom died (plague?) and two moved away.

In 1430 nine resident in the field.

In 1400 twenty resident. Four family groups occupying 17 structures. These were split into 4 dwellings, 11 work related and 3 community buildings.

These findings are consistent with other findings with the exception of the one building near the roadside.

The indications for this building suggest a later date but with maps being available from 1610 to 1774 it may be possible to check this. Re surveying may be required.

All findings give positive indications that a village did exist.

These dwellings may have altered as different materials were found and older buildings replaced or other families moved in. Most of the workers would be farming stock and linked to the castle.

Greasley Project to Rediscover the Lost Village of Greasley

Chronology of Ownership and Tenants of the Manor and Estate of Greasley

Prior to 1066, Wulfsi (also recorded as Ulfi and Ulfy) in the reign of Edward the Confessor 1066, Conquest of England by William of Normandy who claimed ownership of all land for the crown (died 1087) 1066 – 1135, William Peverel, has two manors in Greasley (from King William).Peverel sub-lets to Alfric. 1087, William died as a result of a fall from his horse in France. 1087, Malgar and the Muskhams, Lords of the Manor of Ilkeston also hold Greasley. By 1135 The current William Peverel is out of favour with King Henry II who confiscates the family estates back to the crown. 1135-1154, Reign of King Stephen. 1140, Gresele granted by the King to William de Gresele. 1199 – 1216, King John 1212 – 61, King John grants three knights fees, one in Grasele, to Raph de Greslei (also recorded as FitzRalph). 1228, Raph de Gresele conveys to Hugh (son of Raph) also known as Hugh Fitzraph and his wife Agnes all of his lands and tenements in Gresele. 1252,Hugh Fitzraph dies. His daughter and heir is Eustasia who is confirmed as being of full age (more than 21 years) and is married to Lord Nicholas de Cantelupe. 1261, Nicholas, 4th Baron de Cantelupe acquires the estate being married to Eustasia, a great granddaughter of Raph. 1263, Birth of William de Cantelupe, son of Nicholas. 1267, Around this year Nicholas dies. The manor reverts back to king Henry III. The fishponds are emptied so reducing the value of the estate. William de Cantelupe (son of Nicholas) is only five or six years old at this time and is under guardianship of the king 1267,Agnes, widow of Nicholas remarries to William de Ros (or Roos) without the permission of the King, William is fined £133 but also is entrusted with the Manor of Gresele until William comes of age. 1283, William confirmed as being of age and is granted the estate 1285, William married to Matilda. 1292, William marries his second wife, Eva widow of Richard Knut. 1299, William raised to the peerage and becomes the 5th Baron de Cantelupe. 1308, Around this year William dies fighting in Scotland leaving two sons William and Nicholas. 1308, Estate reverts back to King Edward III. William’s heir, also William, is 11 years old. 1315, William aged 18 is granted the estate. 1320, William chooses not to take possession of the estate which he passes to his brother Nicholas who becomes 6th Baron de Cantelupe. 1321, William chooses not to take the estate and makes it over to his younger brother Nicholas, Son of the 5th Baron. He had two sons William, the eldest, and Nicholas. 1322, Around this year William dies. 1326, Nicholas is knighted and becomes the 6th Baron de Cantelupe 1338-40,Calender of Patent Rolls 1338-40– Nicholas receives “licence from Edward III to crenelate his dwelling place of Gryseleye. Co. Notts” to strengthen or fortify his manor house, from this time it was called a castle. 1341, Nicholas marries Joan (also recorded as Joanne) widow of William Baron of Kyme in Lincolnshire. Nicholas was a widower, his first wife Typhonia having died. It transpired that he and Joan were closely related but was unaware of the fact when they married. They had one son, William, who had two sons. Both died without heirs. The Cantelupe name at Greasley died with them. 1342, A letter from Pope Clement of Avignon to the Bishop of Lincoln declared their marriage legal and that their children be regarded as legitimate.

1 1342-43, Nicholas founded the Carthusian Priory of Beauvale. He gifted to the priory a large amount of his estate in Greasley together with tenants and rents. 1344-45, William de Lynton lived at the Manor of Gresele. From 1359-60 he was parson of the church at Ilkeston 1347, Another deed of gift was executed at Gryseley between Nicholas and the Priory of Beauvale on the 20th of October. Within a few weeks of this date a plague raged through Europe and arrived in the Midlands via Leicester. Documents suggest that up to 90% of the population died at this time. This may have caused the decline or abandonment of the village of Gryseley. 1356, Nicholas de Cantelupe dies and is buried in Lincoln Cathedral. His heir is his son William who is 30 years or more 1356-57, Joan, widow of Nicholas at assizes in Darby and Nottingham recovers the Manor of Ilkeston and the Manor of Greseley with messuages and land. 1364, Joan, widow of Nicholas dies. 1366, The castle is in the possession Nicholas, son and heir of William. 1371-72, Nicholas is killed aged 29 without an heir. The estate passed to his brother William aged 25 or more. 1375-76, William dies. 1375, William la Zouch, cousin to Nicholas 6th Baron, inherited the estate, followed by his successors. 1382, William la Zouch – son of above inherits the castle 1395-96, William dies. 1396, William, son of above inherits the castle. He dies in 1416 1416, The castle passes to Thomas Lord Berkeley, Thomas la Warre and Robert Isham 1485, Lord John la Zouch was killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field supporting Richard III. Afterwards the new King, Henry VII, declared him a traitor and confiscated his lands back to the crown. 1485, Sir John Savage granted the castle, lordship and manors of Greseley, Kymmarley and Ilkeston by the King, Henry VII 1494, John Savage is granted the estate. His father Sir John Savage had been killed at the Battle of Boulogne in 1494. Around the same year John Savage and his son John were found guilty of murder. The king pardoned them but their lands including Greseley and Kymbley were confiscated as surety for payment of a fine of 4000 marks. 1512, Calender of Nottinghamshire Coroners Inquests 1485-1558 Peter Harden, late of Greasley Castle, yeoman and Thomas Harden of Greasley Castle, labourer were accused of the murder of Peter Shaw of Watnall. 1534-44, Case in Chancery Court Simon Callas and Margery his wife v John Heaton, William Hollinghead, William Hunt and Thurstan Roberts. Castle of Greasley and lands 1541,The Greasley Castle estate was granted to Sir William Hussey, together with the estates of Bevall, Kymberley and Newthorpe.

A few years later, to Sir Richard Morrison through marriage to Bridget Hussey. 1595-96, There are a numbers of documents mixed in with papers from the Duke of Rutlands’ estate relating to the Greseley Castle estate. It is possible that they shared the same estate agent. Including to Henry Poole, gent, of Greseley Castell, for surrender of lease of premises to Bonaventure Eyton for life. Included castle or capital messuage called Greseley Castell and Christall Wood. The lease was later surrendered to John Eyton. For the lives of Ambrose and Ann Poole The document recites that the castle “is nowe in some decay for defaults of coveringe and other necessary reparacions and so was in decaye longe tyme before ye said Henry Poole, or Bonaventure Eyton …..and cannot be repaired without great chargs and expense” Bonaventure Eyton may “alter and transforme anie of the parts of the said decaying buildings and to builde them in anie other manner and forme so yt thereby the compase and foundation of the said buildings be not abridged or altered”

2 1596-1687 Fillingham family of Syerston are estate agents to the Manners, Dukes of Rutland. A number of lease documents refer to Greasley Castle estate. 1608, The Savage family sell the Castle and Manor of Greseley and Kymberley, alias Kymbley, to Sir John Manners, Great Grandfather of the Earl of Rutland. 1612, Gresley castle in the occupation of Mr Trimmingsam, held for lives of An Trimmington and Ambrose Poole. 1616, Lease to Major Charles White of Greasley, a local Parliamentarian commander. 1627, Arthur, Baron Capell of Hadham acquired the estate through marriage to Elizabeth, heiress of the Morrison family. Baron Capell fought on the Royalist side in the Civil War (1642-1646) and was captured at Colchester. By 1640 Arthur, Lord Capell owned the Manor and estate of Greasley 1641, An agreement between Charles White and the Rt Hon John Earl of Flintham to quit the estate of Greseley Castle. 1647, Agreement between John, Earl of Rutland and Major Charles White of Bevall Abbie to search for coal in the Manor of Greseley 1649, Lord Capell was beheaded in front of Westminster Hall. 1649.His son Arthur inherited the estate and the title and was created Earl of Essex By 1653 the estate was in the hands of Dame Capell and was described as the Estate of Bevell It seems that by the end of the Civil War, and maybe long before then, by the mid 1500s, the castle had been abandoned. 1664-1674, Hearth Tax returns shows that Humpfrey Jamson of Moorgreen had 6 hearths. 1672,Humpfrey Jamson has a licence for the “house at Gresley” under the requirements of the Declaration of Indulgences for the registration of preachers and preaching places. 1677, After a visit to Greasley Thoroton described the castle as totally destroyed. 1681-2, Lease of Greasley Castle between the Earl of Essex and Humfry Jamson 1681-82, A bond between Humpfrey Jamson, of Gresley Castle amd Samuel Purdy of Moorgreen. 1687,Humpfrey Jamson leases Gresley castle from Duke of Rutland for setting up as a framework knitter. He has permission to alter and for wood to be taken to keep the building in repair. Earlier leases suggest the castle is in a delapidated condition and some of the roof is missing. 1687, Greysley castle estate with castle or capital messuage assigned to George Lane of Newthorp. To have timber to keep building in repair, and to keep land in good order with lime and manure. To set 10 trees of oak, ash, elm and willow each year. Not to sublet the premises without permission. 1690, Humpfrey Jamson inventory refers to him having four stocking frames in the garret and the following rooms; hall, parlour, kitchen, buttery, brew-house, chamber over the hall and parlour, chamber over the kitchen and maids chamber, garret, one further room. 1705, Lease on Greasley Castle and mining rights between Algenon Capell, Earl of Essex and John Barber. 1708, A lease between John Barber and Algernon Capell, Earl of Essex for a coal delph in Selston. 1709, Algenon Earl of Essex dies. His son William inherits title and estates. 1726, Greasley estate sold to Sir Robert Sutton 1732, Agreement with Francis Barber of Greasley Castle and Thomas Lamb. 1738, A lease for 1year for the Manor of Greasley between Sir Robert Sutton and Mr Peniston Lamb for £3000 and interest. 1740, An agreement between Duke of Rutland and Sir Robert Sutton to exchange Greasley Castle farm for land elsewhere. The exchange may not have taken place but by 1753 Sir Robert Sutton was owner of the estate. 1753, Sir Robert Sutton has died and his estate in Greasley was bought by Sir Matthew Lamb, a solicitor from Southwell. He married into the Melbourne family. He also acquired the Melbourne Hall estate and his sons became Lord Viscounts Melbourne. The Barber family leased a farmhouse called Lamb Close from Sir Matthew Lamb. 1805, The estate was acquired by the 5th Earl Cowper (Francis Thomas de Gray of Codnor Castle) by marriage to Emily Lamb (sister to the 4th Earl and last Lord Melbourne).

3 1816, The Duke of Rutland sold his estates in Greasley and Kimberley at auction at the Blackamoors Head, Nottingham. 1816,Thomas Grammar purchased the Greasley Castle Farm and Reckoning House Farm. 1835,Greasley churchyard is extended into castle grounds to allow extension of the graveyard. 1851, The Barber family leases Lamb Close from Frederick, Viscount Melbourne. 1852, Estate occupied by Thos Grammer, gent. 1871, P.C Grammer occupies the estate. 1869, The Melbourne estate in Moorgreen was inherited by the 7th and last Earl Cowper. 1894, A new lease between the Barber family at Lamb Close with Earl Cowper as the previous tenant Thomas Barber had died. Around 1900, Greasley Castle Farm was owned by Isaac Grammar and tenanted by Mr Joseph Renshaw. Reckoning House Farm was sold to Mr John Godber and tenanted by Mr John Shaw. Mr Godber sold to Sir Lancelot Rolleston 1905, Earl Cowper died. His wife Catherine died in 1913. 1915, The Cowper estate of Greasley Moorgreen was broken up and sold. The Barber family bought Lamb Close together with Beauvale House and 800 acres of land including Newthorpe Grange At the time of Von Hube Greasley Castle Farm and Reckoning House Farm was said to be owned by the Grammer family of the House of Rutland. Greasley Castle Farm was tenanted by Mr Joseph Renshaw He is said to have carefully preserved the castle remains. The Noon family then took over the tenancy. 1950s, The Noon family bought Greasley Castle Farm. 2003, Greasley Castle Farm bought by brother and sister, Malcolm and Sylvia Hodgkinson, who originate from Newthorpe.

J.C 9.1.05 – 21.4.06

4 Project To Rediscover The Lost Village of Greasley Ledger For The 1853 Map By John Shaw Of The Parish Of Greasley

Plot Land Tenant Type Plot Land Tenant Type No Owner No Owner 105 Vis Melbourne Thomas Barber Lake, Lamb 296 Vis Melbourne John Prseton Boggin Ground Pasture 111 “ “ “ Close, office 297 “ “ “ “ 112 “ “ “ outbuildings 298 “ John Shaw Pasture 256 Vis Melbourne Enoch Cottage & 299 “ “ “ “ Sub let by Chambers garden Thomas Johnson 257 Vis Melbourne Mary Ann House & 300 “ “ “ “ Gelsthorpe garden 258 “ Robert Pasture 301 “ “ “ “ 259 “ Wilkockson pasture 302 “ “ “ “ 260 “ 303 to Joseph Grammer In hand Arable 327 &Pasture 261 “ William Saxton House, gdn 328 “ “ “ Manor house 262 “ Thomas Arable & 329 “ “ “ Croft, gdn Coxan pasture orchard 263 “ “ “ 330 “ “ “ House, yard Barn, building 264 “ Henry Stapleton Cottage, gdn 335 “ “ “ Arable & 266 “ William Webb House, gdn 336 “ “ “ P\asture 267 “ Edward Woolley House, gdn 337 “ “ “ “ 270 “ George Spowage ? Cottage, gdn 338 “ “ “ “ 271 “ “ “ Cottage, gdn 339 “ “ “ “ 274 “ Sarah Smedley Public Hs, 340 “ “ “ “ stable, croft 275 “ “ “ Garden 341 “ “ “ “ 276 “ Mary Ann House & 400 Lancellott Samuel & Bogs Gelsthorpe garden Rolleston Thomas Jackson Pasture 279 Vis Melbourne Thomas Coxan Arable & 401 “ “ Arable 280 “ “ Pasture 402 “ “ “ 281 “ “ “ 403 “ “ “ 282 “ In hand Plantation 404 “ “ “ 283 Sub let by John Severne Cottage, gdn 405 “ “ “ Thomas Coxan William Lane ? Cottage gdn 284 Vis Melbourne Thomas Coxan Arable & 406 “ In hand “ 285 “ “ pasture 407 “ John School house Attenborough Ghn, yard 286 “ In hand Plantation 410 “ John As above Attenborough 287 “ Thomas Coxan Arable & 411 “ “ “ “ 288 “ “ “ Pasture 412 “ “ “ “ 290 “ “ “ “ 413 “ “ “ “ 291 “ “ “ “ 292 “ “ “ “ 293 “ “ “ “ 294 John Swan Pasture

1 Plot Land Tenant Type Plot Land Tenant Type No Owner No Owner 414 Vis Melbourne James Nether Boggin 622 Vis Melbourne Stephen Watson Cottage, gdn Gilbert Close Robert Twells Cottage, gdn Henry Wilkinson Cottage, gdn 415 “ “ Upper Boggin 652 Lancellott In hand The hall inc Close Rolleseton Gate keepers lodge 416 “ “ “ “ 653 “ In hand Pond 417 Lancellott John Pasture 654 “ “ “ Rolleston Attenborough 418 “ In hand Wood 655 “ “ “ 419 “ In hand Arable 656 “ Occupied by Close, James Morley Workshop & yard 420 “ James Morley Town+field+ 657 “ William Twells Arable & Coal wharf Pasture 421 “ Richard Harris Cottage & 657A “ Thoms Redfern Cottage & garden garden 422 “ Stephen Watson 658 “ William Twells Arable 423 “ William Twells Arable & 658 “.. In hand Wood Pasture 424 “ “ “ 659 Sub let by Richard Cottage Barber Walker Gascoingne & garden Samuel Gregory Pasture Richard “ Wilkinson “ “ 425 “ “ “ 659A Lancellott John Building & Rolleston Attenborough garden 426 “ “ “ 659B “ Richard Arable Wilkinson 431 -- “ Francis Twells Not known 660 “ In hand Pasture 442 executors 443 “ Stephen Watson “ 660A Vis Melbourne Richard Arable 444 Wilkinson 445 446 457- “ Stephen Watson “ 664 “ Gervaise Clifton Arable & 460 pasture 466 “ Stephen Watson Arable 675 Rev John In hand Church yard 467 Hides 472 to 477 484 to 487 486 Lancellott Stephen Watson House 676 “ “ “ “ Parsonage Rolleston buildings yard, croft 498 “ Ann Stapleton House, gdn 677A Vis Melbourne Joseph Knowles Cottage, gdn William House, gdn 678 Jmes Knowlws Cottage, gdn Wilcockson Willim Severene Cottage. gdn 601 “ “ Garden 679 “ Ann Gelsthorpe Building & yard 602 Vis Melbourne Thomas Jackson House, gdn 680 “ Mary Wheatley Cottage & garden 682 Thomas Jackson Blacksmiths Shop 682 “ Ann Gelsthorpe House, gdn Plot Owner Tenant Type Plot Owner Tenant Type No No 685 Vis Melbourne Joseph Hayne House.gdn 729 Vis Melbourne Oliver Ellis Cottage 2 Thomas Fisher House, gdn & garden

686 “ Thomas Fisher House, gdn 730 “ George Turner Cottage, gdn 687 “ Thomas Coxan House, gdn 732 “ Thomas Coxan Pasture 692 “ Rev John Hides Pasture 733 “ “ & arable 693 “ “ “ “ “ 734 “ “ Farmhouse & buildings 694 “ Thomas Coxan Pasture 735 “ “ Arable 695 “ Gervaise Arable & 735B Vis Melbourne Elizabeth Hind Cottage & garden 696 Clifton Pasture 736 “ Thomas Coxan Pasture 697 Rev John Hides “ Glebe in 737 “ “ & arable church close 698 “ “ “ “ Arable & 739 “ Gervaise Clifton Pasture & arable 699 “ “ “ “ Not known 740 “ “ “ “ 700 Vis Melbourne “ Arable & 741 “ Thomas Coxan “ 701 “ “ Pasture 742 “ “ “ 703 “ “ “ 743 “ “ “ 704 “ “ “ 744 “ “ “ 705 Thomas William Paxton Cottage 745 “ “ “ Grammar & 705A “ “ “ Two gardens 746 “ “ “ 707 “ In hand Pasture 747 “ “ “ 708 “ “ “ 751 Robert Pasture 709 “ “ “ 752 Wilcockson Garden 710 “ “ “ 753 Sub let by Robert Clarke Cottage, gdn 711 Vis Melbourne Gervaise Arable & 754 Sarah Smedley Sarah Smedley Croft Clifton 712 “ “ Pasture 755 “ “ William Cottage, gdn Brassington 713 “ “ “ 755 “ “ Richard Cottage Wilkinson & garden 714 “ “ Arable & 755 “ “ John Wells Cottage, gdn 715 “ “ Croft 755 “ “ William Cottage Winterbottom & gdn 716 “ “ Cottage, gdn 755 “ “ George Roberts Cottage, gdn & yard 717 “ “ Croft 757 Vis Melbourne Thomas Coxan Pasture 718 “ “ House, yard 758 “ Mary Renshaww & P\asture Zackariah Shaw 719 “ “ Croft 765 Robert Critch Luke Thorley Cottage, gdn 720 “ Rev John Hides Pasture 769 Robert Critch Richard Clarke Cottage, gdn 721 Sub let by John Clifton Cottage 769 Joseph Clifton Cottage,gdn Wiliam Clifton George Hallam Cottage William Carlin Cottare 722 Vis Melbourne Christian House & 769 William Critch Cottage, gdn George Rolling garden George Alcock House, shop 723 “ Francis Saxton Cottage,gdn 769 James Davis Cottage, gdn Thomas Webb Cottage, gdn 727 “ Thomas Coxan Arable & 769 George Gruby Cottage, gdn pasture

3 Plot Owner Tenant Type Plot Owner Tenant Type No No 769 Robert Critch Hannah Cottage, gdn 1108 Misses Grammar Anthony Arable Harwood Fletcher 769 “ “ William Morley Cottage, gdn 1109 “ “ “ 769 “ “ Samuel Morley Cottage, gdn 1110 “ “ “ 769 “ “ James Walker Cottage. Gdn 1111 “ “ “ 769 “ “ ? Saxton Cottage, shop 1112 “ “ “ 1113 “ “ “ 1060 Francis Grammar Charles Shaw Nether Wong 1114 “ “ “ 1061 “ “ “ & Upper 1062 “ “ “ Wong 1215 “ “ “ 1063 “ “ “ “ 1216 “ “ “ 1064 “ “ “ “ 1217 “ “ “ 1065 “ “ “ “ 1218 “ “ “ 1219 “ “ “ 1101 Vis Melbourne John Hopewell House, gdn 1220 “ “ “ 1102 “ “ “ Croft 1221 “ “ “ 1103 “ Croft 1222 “ “ “ 1107 Francis Grammar Charles Shaw Middle Wong 1223 “ “ “ 1108 “ “ “ Pit Close 1224 “ “ “ 1109 “ “ “ Arable 1225 “ “ “ 1110 Robert Critch In hand Arable 1226 “ “ “ 1111 “ Richard Jackson Pasture 1227 “ “ “ 1112 “ “ “ Pasture. road 1228 “ “ “ 1114 “ In hand Arable 1229 “ “ “ 1117 “ In hand Arable 1230 “ “ “ 1231 “ “ “ 1232 “ “ “ 1233 “ “ “ 1234 “ “ “ 1235 “ “ “ 1236 “ “ “ 1237 “ “ “ 1238 “ “ “ 1239 “ “ “

J.C 14.05.06

4 LAND AT GREASLEY, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

Topsoil Magnetic Susceptibility, Magnetometer & Topographic Survey

(Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG)

Produced by OXFORD ARCHAEOTECHNICS LIMITED under the direction of A.E. Johnson BA (Hons)

Archaeological Geophysical Survey commissioned by Groundwork Greater Nottingham on behalf of The Lost Village of Greasley Project

OCTOBER 2005

OXFORD ARCHAEOTECHNICS Specialist Archaeological Field Evaluation

OXFORD ARCHAEOTECHNICS Noke Oxford OX3 9TX

Tel / Fax 01865 375536 Mobile 07831 383295 Email: [email protected] http://www.archaeotechnics.co.uk

CONTENTS

SUMMARY 1

1. INTRODUCTION 2

2. SURVEY DESIGN 3

3. SURVEY RESULTS 4

4. CONCLUSIONS 7

REFERENCES 9

APPENDIX: Magnetic Techniques - General Principles 10

FIGURES

Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG Oxford Archaeotechnics

SUMMARY

Magnetic survey (using a combination of 10 m topsoil magnetic susceptibility mapping & magnetometry) and topographic survey was undertaken on land (centred on NGR 44925 34725) adjacent to Greasley Castle, Nottinghamshire, c.5 km from the northwestern outskirts of Nottingham, to locate a potential site for the deserted Medieval village of Greasley.

The magnetic survey was based upon the principle that past human activity and its associated debris usually creates slight but persistent changes in the local magnetic environment which can be sensed from the surface. Topographic survey was employed to map any slight surface remains of earthworks attributable to former village house platforms or streets.

An area of c. 3.3 ha was investigated in two fields. Magnetometry identified a series of anomalies, some of which are associated with strongly magnetic material including ferrous and possible brick, which are thought to be of relatively recent origin.

A series of former cultivation furrows or trenches was identified to the south of Greasley House.

A number of more subtle anomalies identified in the adjacent field to the east, within a zone of enhanced magnetic susceptibility enhancement some 30 m wide fronting the modern road, may have some archaeological significance. In addition, topsoil magnetic susceptibility patterning suggested a former subdivision of the landscape in this field which broadly corresponds with an area of possible terracing recorded by topographic survey.

Topographic survey further recorded the site of a former quarry pit and the remains of what appears to be the northwestern edge of the castle moat.

No convincing magnetic or topographic evidence was found to support the location of an extensive series of former buildings identified by a previous dowsing investigation.

Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG 1 Oxford Archaeotechnics 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Geophysical and topographic survey was commissioned by Groundwork Greater Nottingham in conjunction with The Lost Village of Greasley Project to seek the location of the deserted Medieval village of Greasley. The survey area, selected by the Project, comprised two fields (centred on NGR 44925 34725), covering an area of c.3.3 hectares, situated immediately south and southeast of Greasley House, opposite the site of Greasley Castle (now occupied by Greasley Castle Farm) and the Medieval St. Mary’s Church, Greasley, approximately 5 km from the northwestern outskirts of Nottingham. The location is shown on Fig. 1.

1.2 The Domesday Book, compiled in 1086 by William the Conqueror, records a church with a priest at Greasley in the time of his predecessor, Edward Confessor, in 1066. Nicholas de Cantilupe was granted a licence to crenellate his manor house at Greasley in the reign of Edward III in 1340, at a time when castle building was in general decline; the castle being essentially a fortified manor house (Green, 1934). Traces of the castle fabric survive in several extant farm buildings, and limited excavations carried out in 1933 located one of the angle towers (Green 1934). Earthworks, including part of the moat, an outer court (or bailey) and several fishponds survive on the south side of the farm. The objective of the present survey was to confirm the presence and location of possible house sites and platforms suggested by a recent dowsing investigation conducted by the East Midlands Dowsing group on land immediately north of the castle site, on the opposite side of the (B 600) road.

1.3 The survey techniques selected were a combination of magnetic prospecting techniques and topographic survey. Topsoil magnetic susceptibility was undertaken on a 10 m grid in order to pinpoint areas of increased magnetic enhancement attributable to former human activity, particularly areas of former burning and horizons containing fired and ceramic fragments, followed by detailed magnetometry to provide an image of the extent and geometry of buried archaeological features (both ‘cut’ features such as ditches and gullies and also the presence of stone walling and/or floors). An explanation of the magnetic techniques used, and the rationale behind their selection, is included in an Appendix to the present report. The survey was conducted according to the Standards and Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluation (1993, revised 1994) of the Institute of Field Archaeologists and follows the standards for the conduct and reporting of geophysical survey in field evaluations set out by English Heritage Ancient Monuments Laboratory (David, 1995). Topographic survey was conducted in order to plot surface irregularities which might be indicative of former house platforms, the denuded remains of ruined walls, piles of rubble, streets, or areas of disturbance associated with former dwelling sites of the ‘lost’ village.

1.4 At the time of the survey, in September 2005, the West Field was under grass, whilst the East Field had been recently ploughed. The superficial geology is medium – heavy clay (the remains of a former clay pit are visible close to the eastern edge of the East Field). The land slopes from north to south.

Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG 2 Oxford Archaeotechnics 2. SURVEY DESIGN

2.1 Survey control was established by EDM Total Station, to a local grid (the key resection co-ordinates are shown on Fig. 8). Following the English Heritage Ancient Monuments Laboratory (AML) guidelines, the 10 m geophysical grid is internally accurate to ± 10 cm, and locatable on the OS 1:2500 map to the nearest metre (David, 1995: Part I, 3.2).

2.2 The magnetic survey areas were selected to avoid obvious magnetic disturbance from the modern drive on the west side of the West Field and the former clay pit on the east side of the East Field; giving a total survey area of c.3.3 ha.

2.3 The equipment used for the direct topsoil magnetic susceptibility survey was a Bartington Instruments MS2 meter with an 18.5 cm loop.

2.4 In situ magnetic susceptibility readings were taken on a 10 m grid, an interval known to give a high probability of intersecting with dispersed horizons from a wide range of archaeological sites, particularly those associated with occupation and industrial activity from the later prehistoric period onwards. Soils over former occupation and industrial sites usually register as zones of stronger patterning, frequently showing a marked focus. Agricultural activity helps to both generate (by ploughing casting up underlying deposits), and ultimately disperses the more magnetic soils over a wider area. Patterns recorded by 10 m magnetic susceptibility mapping tend to define zones of former activity rather than locate individual elements. Nevertheless, in some contexts, a focus of markedly stronger soil magnetic susceptibility (or markedly magnetically lower soils indicative of ploughed down earthworks) is occasionally found to relate to material dispersed from specific underlying features. Susceptibility is reported in SI: volume susceptibility units (x 10-5), a dimensionless measure of the relative ease with which a sample can be magnetized in a given magnetic field. Soil magnetic contours are shown at 5 SI intervals on the colour contour map (Fig. 2).

2.5 Detailed gridded magnetometer (gradiometer) survey was carried out using a Geoscan Research FM 36 Fluxgate Gradiometer, sampling 4 readings per metre at 1 metre traverse intervals in the 0.1 nT range. The nanotesla (nT) is the standard unit of magnetic flux (expressed as the current density), here used to indicate positive and negative deviations from the Earth's normal magnetic field. The magnetometer data are shown as grey shade, interpretative and stacked trace (raw data) plots (Figs. 4-6); an overview of the magnetometer results is shown on Fig. 3.

2.6 Topographic survey was undertaken using a Geodimeter 600S 5’ Total Station. A total of 350 readings was taken, and XYZ data processed by Golden Software Surfer (Version 6). The survey covered the whole of both fields. The concrete platform marked on Fig. 7 was taken as a temporary benchmark and assigned a nominal value of 0 metres; the contour representing this elevation is also shown in red on this figure. The contours, shown at 1 metre intervals, west of the red line lie above this temporary benchmark, and those to the east lie below it.

Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG 3 Oxford Archaeotechnics 3. RESULTS

TOPSOIL MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY MAPPING (Fig. 2)

3.1 314 in situ magnetic susceptibility readings were recorded, showing strong contrasts ranging between 8 and 295 (x 10-5) SI units. The mean was 26 SI units and the standard deviation calculated against the mean was 20 SI units.

3.2 Topsoil magnetic enhancement levels in the West Field are generally unremarkable, apart from a subtle zone extending from the northern boundary of the survey area on a roughly southsoutheastward trend. A strong magnetic focus at the southwest angle of this field is taken to be associated with the modern drive to Greasley House.

3.3 The East Field shows a particularly marked focus of magnetic enhancement in the southwest angle of the field adjacent to the modern gateway. A zone of strong patterning is visible along the southern field boundary, fronting the road; as this band of more magnetic soils extends 20 – 30 m into the field the enhancement is unlikely to be the result of modern magnetic input from the fencing and roadside alone. Some underlying features of archaeological potential may have contributed to this patterning (this was confirmed by follow-up magnetometer survey, see 3.11 below). It is also likely that the patterning includes local burning events (such as bonfires or site clearance).

3.4 The northern part of the field shows more subtle patterning, with at least two rectilinear ‘blocks’, suggesting former subdivisions of the field, or possibly the remains of former cultivation strips within the Medieval village’s ‘Open Fields’.

MAGNETOMETER (GRADIOMETER) SURVEY (Figs. 3 - 6)

3.5 The topsoil magnetic susceptibility levels recorded in both fields are sufficiently high to suggest that all but the least substantial of underlying ‘cut’ features should be visible to the magnetometer.

West Field

3.6 An area of strong magnetic disturbance is visible within the southwestern angle of the survey area, west of the drive. The soils here contain substantial amount of magnetic material suggestive of artificially made-ground. The presence of strong anomalies along the road frontage are due to the inclusion of modern ferrous and other magnetic material and the proximity of wire fencing.

3.7 The northern half of the survey area contains a series of precise parallel linear anomalies representing infilled trenches or ditches, which give the impression of furrows of former (Medieval) ‘ridge and furrow’ cultivation, although similar patterning is occasionally seen on the sites of former orchards, or field drainage. There may be some antiquity to this patterning, as there is no indication of their presence on the field surface.

Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG 4 Oxford Archaeotechnics 3.8 An extremely subtle lineation or agricultural ‘scar’ is visible running eastwards from the drive, almost parallel and approximately 15 m north of the modern road.

3.9 A high density of ferrous material was recorded in the topsoil, which is atypical of an agricultural landscape.

East Field

3.10 Strong magnetic anomalies recorded alongside the southern boundary of this field, adjacent to the road, are attributable to extant features (fencing and gateway), and modern ferrous and other magnetic material within the hedgeline. A substantial anomaly at the extreme northeastern angle of the survey area represents the course of a ferrous (?water) pipeline.

3.11 The majority of the magnetic anomalies were recorded within a 30 m wide zone of magnetically enhanced topsoils immediately north of the road, where several anomalies representing buried ‘cut’ features infilled with magnetically enhanced material were identified. The largest is a strongly magnetic ‘finger’ of soils containing magnetic debris some 10 m wide, extending on a roughly east-west alignment for a distance of almost 40 m; judging by the magnetic response this signal is likely to have been generated by ferrous material, clinker and probably brick or tile debris. Although the magnetic signature of this anomaly is seemingly modern in origin, its alignment with respect to the modern road line is somewhat anomalous. Some 50 m further to the northwest, two broad anomalies indicate the presence of deeper soils or large pits which may include burnt material within their fills. There are other isolated anomalies suggesting pit-like features dispersed across the magnetometer plot, although it is not possible to identify with absolute confidence those which are archaeological ‘cut’ features, and those which may be due to the presence of deeply buried ferrous material.

3.12 A number of extremely weak lineations, probably of agricultural origin, were also recorded.

3.13 This field also produced an above-average litter of ferrous material in the topsoil: at least 300 signals indicative of ferrous objects were recorded (shown as red dots on Fig. 5 and as ‘spikes’ on Fig. 6).

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (Fig. 7)

3.14 The most dominant features recorded by topographic survey are the ‘bowl’ of a former clay quarry situated close to the eastern (central) boundary of the East Field, and sinkage into what is believed to be part of the former castle moat within the extreme southeastern corner of the West Field.

3.15 The platform of a former tennis court is visible immediately south of Greasley House and gardens.

Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG 5 Oxford Archaeotechnics 3.16 A slight suggestion of terracing or landscaping within the northwest quadrant of the East Field can clearly be seen for at least 2 metres on either side of the zero median line (delineated by the red contour) on Fig. 7.

3.17 No further evidence for what may be former house platforms or areas of disturbance were recorded, although it should be noted that ground conditions for topographic survey were far from ideal, the field surface having been recently ploughed.

Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG 6 Oxford Archaeotechnics 4. CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Despite demonstrating the potential for often subtle magnetic responses to underlying features, such as the linear cultivation marks in the northern part of the West Field, neither topsoil magnetic susceptibility mapping nor detailed magnetometer survey produced any conclusive evidence to support the proposition for the presence of extensive buried archaeological remains within either of the fields surveyed.

4.2 The present survey found no magnetic or topographic evidence for the series of former buildings located by the previous dowsing investigation within the lower part of the West Field.

4.3 There is some suggestion of activity within a 30 m wide zone parallel with the southern (roadside) boundary of the East Field. There is a clear indication for a ‘footprint’ of structural material within the southeastern part of the East Field, although the magnetic character of the anomaly suggests that it is probably of recent origin. However, more subtle silted hollows or pit forms identified some 50 m northwest of this spread of material, situated approximately 20 m from the southern boundary are not associated with the strongly magnetic or ferrous material and are likely to be earlier in date. Several other anomalies noted in the East Field may represent further possible pit forms, although the possibility that these signals represent more deeply buried ferrous objects cannot be entirely discounted, as such material often gives a similar magnetic response as soil-filled ‘cut’ features. The presence of buried structures along the immediate fenceline of the road frontage would not have been visible to magnetic survey, as their signals would have been masked by the strong response from fencing, gateposts, and other modern material along the hedgeline.

4.4 Topsoil magnetic susceptibility mapping and topographic survey have added an area of potential interest within the northwestern quadrant of the East Field, where a ‘block- like’ rectilinear pattern of magnetically enhanced soils corresponds roughly with a slight ‘notch’ on the topographic contours, possibly relating to a former terrace or enclosure, although the magnetometer recorded no assertive anomalies to confirm the presence of significant underlying archaeological features. However soil susceptibility by itself can be indicative of former differential landuse. Clearly some activity has taken place within this zone above and beyond simple pastoral/arable use, although this may be no more than localised burning within a former enclosure, or sub-division of the existing field.

4.5 The series of parallel linear recorded south of Greasley House is enigmatic. The furrows could represent elements of Medieval cultivation; even though they are closely aligned with the modern agricultural layout, this does not necessarily preclude their having some antiquity in the landscape. Clear evidence for magnetic disturbance in the southwestern angle of this field is attributable to dumping/consolidation/landscaping; as it is confined within the inner curve of the drive to Greasley House it is likely to be contemporary with its construction.

4.6 In terms of the ferrous response to the magnetometer, the number of iron inclusions in the topsoil is atypical for a farming landscape. Such ferrous material was often

Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG 7 Oxford Archaeotechnics formerly dispersed with midden spreading, but the scatter is much denser than would be anticipated, and it is conceivable that the large number of ferrous items in the topsoil indicates that both fields have a history or usage which extends beyond a purely agricultural function.

Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG 8 Oxford Archaeotechnics REFERENCES

CLARK, A.J. 2000. Seeing Beneath the Soil. 2nd Edition. Routledge: London.

DAVID, A. 1995. Geophysical survey in archaeological field evaluation, Research and Professional Services Guideline No.1, English Heritage: London.

GAFFNEY, C. & GATER, J. 2003. Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists Tempus: Stroud.

GALE, S.J. & HOARE, P.G. 1991. Quaternary Sediments: petrographic methods for the study of unlithified rocks. Belhaven Press: London (see Section 4.7, pp.201-229, "The magnetic susceptibility of regolith materials").

GREEN, H. 1934. Greasley Castle. Transactions of the Thoroton Society 38: 34-53.

SCOLLAR, I., TABBAGH, A., HESSE, A. & HERZOG, I. 1990. Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing. Cambridge University Press.

THOMPSON, R. & OLDFIELD, F. 1986. Environmental Magnetism. Allen & Unwin: London.

WALDEN, J, OLDFIELD, F. & SMITH, J. (eds.) 1998. Environmental Magnetism: A Practical Guide Quaternary Research Association Technical Guide No. 6 Quaternary Research Association: London.

The survey was carried out by Oxford Archaeotechnics under the direction of A.E. Johnson BA, assisted by R. Johnstone and S.P. Johnson.

The project was co-ordinated by A.P. Johnson BA, PhD, MIFA.

Oxford Archaeotechnics would like to thank Jean, Lady Barber and Margaret Hancock for their co-operation and permission to survey on their land. Thanks are also due to several volunteers of The Lost Village of Greasley Project, particularly Mr. Neil Hutchinson, and Maurita Farnsey of Groundwork Greater Nottingham, for their kind assistance at all stages of the project.

Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG 9 Oxford Archaeotechnics APPENDIX 1 - MAGNETIC TECHNIQUES: GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A1.1 It is possible to define areas of human activity (particularly soils spread from occupation sites and the fills of cut features such as pits or ditches) by means of magnetic survey (Clark 2000; Scollar et al. 1990; Gaffney & Gater 2003; Walden, Oldfield and Smith 1998). The results will vary, according to the local geology and soils (Thompson & Oldfield 1986; Gale & Hoare 1991), as modified by past and present agricultural practices. Under favourable conditions, areas of suspected archaeological activity can be accurately located and targeted for further investigative work (if required) without the necessity for extensive random exploratory trenching. Magnetic survey has the added advantages of enabling large areas to be assessed relatively quickly, and is non-destructive.

A1.2 Topsoil is normally more magnetic than the subsoil or bedrock from which it is derived. Human activity further locally enhances the magnetic properties of soils, and amplifies the contrast with the geological background. The main enhancement effect is the increase of magnetic susceptibility, by fire and, to a lesser extent, by the bacterial activity associated with rubbish decomposition; the introduction of materials such as fired clay and ceramics - and, of course, iron and many industrial residues - may also be important in some cases. Other agencies include the addition and redistribution of naturally magnetic rock such as basalt or ironstone, either locally derived or imported.

A1.3 The tendency of most human activity is to increase soil magnetic susceptibility locally. In some cases, however, features such as traces of former mounds or banks, or imported soil/subsoil or non-magnetic bedrock (such as most limestones), will show as zones of lower susceptibility in comparison with the surrounding topsoil.

A1.4 Archaeologically magnetically enhanced soils are therefore a response of the parent geological material to a series of events which make up the total domestic, agricultural and industrial history of a site, usually over a prolonged period. Climatic factors may subsequently further modify the susceptibility of soils but, in the absence of strong chemical alteration (e.g. during the process of podzolisation or extreme reduction), magnetic characteristics may persist over thousands of years.

A1.5 Both the magnetic contrast between archaeological features and the subsoil into which they are dug, and the magnetic susceptibility of topsoil spreads associated with occupation horizons, can be measured in the field.

A1.6 There are several highly sensitive instruments available which can be used to measure these magnetic variations. Some are capable, under favourable conditions, of producing extraordinarily detailed plots of subsurface features. The detection of these features is usually by means of a magnetometer (normally a fluxgate gradiometer). These are defined as passive instruments which respond to the magnetic anomalies produced by buried features in the presence of the Earth's magnetic field. The gradiometer uses two sensors mounted vertically, often 50 cm apart. The bottom sensor is carried some 30 cm above the ground, and registers local magnetic anomalies with respect to the top sensor. As both sensors are affected equally by gross magnetic effects these are cancelled out. In order to produce good results, the magnetic susceptibility contrast

Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG 10 Oxford Archaeotechnics between features and their surroundings must be reasonably high, thereby creating good local anomalies; a generally raised background, even if due to human occupation within a settlement context, will sometimes preclude meaningful magnetometer results. The sensitive nature of magnetometers makes them suitable for detailed work, logging measurements at a closely spaced (less than 1 metre) sample interval, particularly in areas where an archaeological site is already suspected. Magnetometers may also be used for rapid 'prospecting' (‘scanning’) of larger areas (where the operator directly monitors the changing magnetic field and pinpoints specific anomalies).

A1.7 Magnetic susceptibility measuring systems, whilst responding to basically the same magnetic component in the soil, are 'active' instruments which subject the sample area being measured (according to the size of the sensor used) to a low intensity alternating magnetic field. Magnetically susceptible material within the influence of this field can be measured by means of changes which are induced in oscillator frequency. For general work, measuring topsoil susceptibility in situ, a sensor loop of around 20 cm diameter is convenient, and responds to the concentration of magnetic (especially ferrimagnetic) minerals mostly in the top 10 cm of the soil. Magnetically enhanced horizons which have been reached by the plough, and even those from which material has been transported by soil biological activity, can thus be recognised.

A1.8 Whilst only rarely encountering anomalies as graphically defined as those detected by magnetometers, magnetic susceptibility systems are ideal for detecting magnetic spreads and thin archaeological horizons not seen by magnetometers. Using a 10 m interval grid, large areas of landscape can be covered relatively quickly. The resulting plot can frequently determine the general pattern of activity and define the nuclei of any occupation or industrial areas. As the intervals between susceptibility readings generally exceed the parameters of most individual archaeological features (but not of the general spread of enhancement around features), the resulting plots should be used as a guide to areas of archaeological potential and to suggest the general form of major activity areas; further refinement is possible using a finer mesh grid or, more usually, by detailing underlying features using a gradiometer.

A1.9 Magnetic survey is not successful on all geological and pedological substrates. As a rule of thumb, in the lowland zone of Britain, the more sandy/stony a deposit, the less magnetic material is likely to be present, so that a greater magnetic contrast in soil materials will be needed to locate archaeological features; in practice, this means that only stronger magnetic anomalies (e.g. larger accumulations of burnt material) will be visible, with weaker signals (e.g. from the fillings of simple agricultural ditches) disappearing into the background. Similar problems can arise when the natural background itself is very high or very variable (e.g. in the presence of sediments partially derived from magnetic volcanic rocks).

A1.10 The precise physical and chemical processes of changing soil magnetism are extremely complex and subject to innumerable variations. In general terms, however, there is no doubt that magnetic enhancement of soils by human activity provides valuable archaeological information.

A1.11 As well as locating specific sites, topsoil magnetic susceptibility survey frequently provides information relating to former landuse. Variations in the soils and subsoils,

Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG 11 Oxford Archaeotechnics both natural and those enhanced by anthropogenic agencies, when modified by agriculture, give rise to distinctive patterns of topsoil susceptibility. The containment of these spreads by either natural or man-made features (streams, hedgerows, etc.) gives rise to a characteristic chequerboard or strip pattern of varying enhancement, often showing the location of former field systems, which persist even after the physical barriers have been removed. These patterns are often further amplified in fields containing underlying archaeological features within reach of the plough. More subtle landuse boundaries and indications of former cultivation regimes are often suggested by topsoil magnetic susceptibility plots.

A1.12 Where a general spread of magnetically enhanced soils contained within a long- established boundary becomes admixed over a long period by constant ploughing, it can be diffused to such a point that the original source is masked altogether. Magnetically enhanced material may also be moved or masked by natural agencies such as colluviation or alluviation. Generally, it appears that the longer a parcel of land has been under arable cultivation, the greater is the tendency for topsoil susceptibility to increase; at the same time there is increasing homogeneity of the magnetic signal within the soils owing to continuous agricultural mixing of the material.

Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG 12 Oxford Archaeotechnics

F I G U R E C A P T I O N S

Figure 1. Location maps. Scale 1:50,000 and 1:5,000 Based upon OS 1:50,000 Landranger Map 129 and OS 1:2500 mapping provided by The Lost Village of Greasley Project.

Figure 2. Topsoil magnetic susceptibility map. Scale 1:2500.

Figure 3. Magnetometer survey: overview. Scale 1:2500.

Figure 4. Magnetometer survey: grey shade plot. Scale 1:1000.

Figure 5. Magnetometer survey: interpretation Scale 1:1000.

Figure 6. Magnetometer survey: stacked trace plot (raw data). Scale 1:1000.

Figure 7. Topographic detail. Scale 1: 2500

Figure 8. Magnetometer survey: stacked trace plot (raw data). Scale 1:1000.

Ordnance Survey maps reproduced by Oxford Archaeotechnics, Licence No AL 100013623, with the permission of the Controller of HMSO, Crown Copyright. Geoscan Research Geoplot Licence No. GPB 885-6

Survey Ref: 3020905/GRN/LVG 13 Oxford Archaeotechnics

East Midlands Earthwork Project

Greasley Deserted Medieval Village Project

Geophysical Survey Report

by

Richard Skinner

August 2005

Resistivity Survey

Location of Survey

Greasley House (formerly the Old Vicarage), Greasley, Nottinghamshire.

Grid Ref: 449120 347360

Introduction

Following an earthwork survey in 2003/4, the East Midlands Earthwork project carried out a Geophysical Survey of Greasley Castle (a Scheduled Ancient Monument) (SAM) during the summer and early autumn of 2004. During the earthwork survey an earthwork bank was noted in the grounds of Greasley House (former Vicarage), which appeared to be linked to the castle earthworks (this bank has never appeared on any Ordnance Survey maps of the area). This bank appeared truncated at the boundary hedge between Greasley House and the Greasley Estates field (Footpath field).

A limited Resistivity to investigate if the bank had continued into the Footpath field but had since been ploughed out. At the same time it was proposed that a limited survey be undertaken within the churchyard to assess if probable buildings detected within the castle area (in an area known as ‘the platform area’), adjacent t the churchyard wall, extended into the churchyard (the area of the churchyard adjacent to the castle was part of the castle area until the mid-19th century).

EMEP was approached by the Lost Village Project, and asked if the survey could be extended to cover a larger area of the Footpath field and also a survey of the Greasley House field.

The survey was carried out of the enlarged area during the late autumn and early winter of 2004.

During the survey Neil Hutchinson revealed the results of the dowsing survey of Greasley House field. This survey indicated the presence of a number of buildings and even gave an indication of dates when they were in use. The Resistivity survey was to be used to try to confirm the dowsing survey.

Personnel and Equipment

Richard and June Skinner carried out the survey with the assistance of Colin Pendleton and Sarah Seaton.

A TRCIA resistance meter from TR Systems tied to a twin probe array was used for the survey. Data was processed using TR Systems software.

Method

The area to be surveyed was split into grid squares. These grid squares were usually 20m x 20m but the size was modified to take into account the field boundaries and the waterlogged ground. Each grid was surveyed at a pitch density of 1 metre (400 readings per 20 metre grid square). Nil readings were used for areas where data collection was not possible: i.e. the house drive, the grave slabs and large trees.

The results from individual grids were combined to produce an overall picture. The data obtained was then processed and rendered into a visible form and the completed picture subjected to interpretation.

Note: The churchyard was surveyed in a 10m wide strip due to the location of the path and a large number of gravestones.

Survey Limitations

The method of survey, Resistivity, does not allow for data to be collected from under hard surfaces as the probe must be able to penetrate the surface to obtain a reading.

Large trees can produce false positive readings due to the action of their roots in drawing up moisture from the soil.

The data is subject to distortion due to weather. Surveys repeated in very wet and then very dry periods can produce different results. During the period of survey the weather was generally damp with periods of prolonged heavy rain.

The heavy rain of 2004 caused large areas within the Footpath field to be unsurveyable by Resistivity and the survey area had to modified to allow for this.

The equipment used a probe separation of 1m, which, allows for accurate readings to a depth of 1metre. Large deeper features may be detected but small features may be missed.

The Survey areas

1. Greasley House field. 2. Footpath field (Greasley Estates field) 3. The Churchyard.

In the Greasley House field the area covered the earthwork bank and stretched 50 metres up the hillside towards the house.

In the Footpath field the original intention was to survey a 60metre square. Due to the waterlogged central area of the field the survey area had to be modified. The modified area was of an irregular shape some 90metres long with a maximum width of 60metres.

Results and Interpretations

In both fields evidence of the main road prior to its re-alignment was detected close to and along the boundary fence. The actual road surface is visible in part immediately southeast of the stile (Footpath field).

Greasley House Field

High resistance (positive) features were detected in this field.

The earthwork bank showed up clearly on the survey.

An area of high resistance was detected adjacent to the drive up to the house. This was probably due to hardcore used during the construction of the drive but a sharp angle in the feature may be indicative of a feature stretching under the driveway.

A series of faint parallel linear features were detected stretching north from the earthwork bank and up the slope towards Greasley House these are probably indications of medieval ridge and furrow farming.

A large rectangular feature was detected between the bank and the main road boundary. The probes of the equipment repeatedly struck the feature, which was at a depth of 6-8cm below the surface. The features were a clearly defined rectangle with sharp edges (proved by probing), measuring 5metres in length by 2.5-3metres in width. From the sound made when the features were struck with the probes it was either stone or concrete construction. The absence of any trace of brick dust on the probes would appear to rule out brick construction.

A small positive feature was detected at the eastern end of the earthwork bank, adjacent to the boundary hedge with the Footpath field. This was also near to the surface and of stone or concrete construction.

Between the drive and the northern hedge several positive features were detected. Most were small and impossible to interpret but a clearly defined feature stretched northwards from the roadside fence for approximately 20 metres. This was interpreted as a track way from the castle. The castle end of the track way had been discovered during the castle survey. The way the feature gradually ‘fades’ out suggests that it may be covered by an increasingly deep layer of soil as it climbs the slope and at a point where it ends may be too deep for the equipment to detect.

The Footpath field (Greasley Estates field).

High resistance (positive) features and low resistance (negative) features were detected in this field. No evidence of any extension to the earthwork bank in the grounds of Greasley House field was detected.

Parallel areas of high resistance were detected stretching northeast from the southern field boundary. These were interpreted as possible ploughed out extensions to the earthwork banks shown on early Ordnance Survey maps of the castle, although they may be natural geological features. The castle banks were lost due to construction works at the castle (circa 1965) and during the realignment of the main road.

One large negative feature, circular and 3-4metres in diameter, was detected near the centre of the survey area and was interpreted as a large pit or pond. A closely grouped series of negative features in the northeast of the field, all 1metre or less in size were detected. These may be pits or the remnants of a ploughed out ditch system.

The Churchyard.

The large number of recumbent gravestones and the presence of large trees along the boundary wall complicated the survey of the churchyard.

Evidence was detected of the castle boundary but it is thought that it may be under the churchyard path and not detectable using Resistivity.

The main finding was a positive feature, which seems to be the end of a large linear building which, had previously been detected within the castle area. It seems that this building stretched from the churchyard, across the ‘platform’ area and into the gardens of Greasley Castle Farm.

Summary

1. No evidence was found for the earthwork bank in the Greasley House field extending into the Footpath field although evidence was there for banks from the castle possibly extending into this field. 2. There was evidence for medieval farming taking place in Greasley House field although no direct evidence of habitation. 3. A substantial track way was discovered leading away from the castle. 4. Little evidence was discovered in the Footpath (Greasley Estates) field.

For further information about the Lost Village of Greasley go to www.greasleypc.co.uk