CHAPTER 3

RECENT SURVEY AND EXCAVATION

3 1

32

INTRODUCTION

A number of country houses and sites of housesand their associated structures have beenexcavated or surveyed in the county. Somereports, such as Ordsall Hall, have alreadybeen published elsewhere.

Broadoak (1976) was dug by students of theUniversity of Manchester Extra MuralDepartment. The archive and finds were locatedby Mrs C Yendley and deposited with the GreaterManchester Archaeological Unit.

Denton Hall (1980) was dug by amateurs from theDenton Local History Society under Ms V Bryant.The finds were deposited with the GreaterManchester Archaeological Unit.

Dukinfield Hall (1982) and Peel Hall,Wythenshawe (1981), were dug by the GreaterManchester Archaeological Unit under Mr PhilipHoldsworth, using workers employed on ManpowerServices Commission Projects. The archive andfinds are held by the Unit.

Peel Hall, Ince (1983) was surveyed by theWigan Sites and Monuments Team, a GreaterManchester Archaeological Unit ManpowerServices Commission Project.

Radcliffe Tower (1979/80) was dug by amateursfrom the Bury Archaeological Group under MrNorman Tyson. The finds were deposited withBury Museum.

Urmston Hall (1983) was dug by amateurs fromthe South Trafford Archaeological Group underMs P Faulkner. The finds are held by the group.It is intended that this site will be reportedon fully in the following Annual Report of theGreater Manchester Archaeological Unit.

In most of the cases, excavation had beennecessitated by development or restoration;only Broadoak Hall was a 'research1 excavation.It is important to take this into account inany analysis of the chronology since the sitesexcavated do not form a random sample, and werenot chosen to fulfil a particular set ofresearch criteria. In addition, due to pressureof time, the standard of excavation andrecording, and consequently the level ofrecovery, has varied from site to site.

This chapter has drawn on the available sourcesof information and only presents interimanalyses of the excavations. It is hoped that,in some cases, such as Denton Hall, fullreports of the excavations will appear inforthcoming issues of the Greater ManchesterArchaeological Unit Annual Report.

33

BROADOAK MOAT, TORKINGTON

Location and History

Broadoak Moat, Torkington (SJ 940875) is set inan area of open fields to the east of HazelGrove. A Torkington is first mentioned aboutthe year 1200 when John, the heir of Richard deTorkington, witnessed a charter of Sir Robertde Stokeport. The Torkington family continuedto appear relatively frequently in documentsuntil about 1621, after which time the nameappears only very occasionally.

The first reference to Torkington in its ownright was in 1335, in the Inquisitions PostMortem of John de Legh of the Booths ofKnutsford. In 1350, however, a manor house inTorkington is mentioned. Thomas le Warde, sonof Richard de Torkington, released to John deLegh all his rights in Torkington withincertain boundaries. One such limit describedwas 'the corner of the ditch at Le Legh House1.

A record of a manor house at Torkington may befound in the Chester Forestry Proceedings of1363. This states that in 1354 John de Leghcleared sixty acres of woodland, known as 'theGraverslend' - 'the diggers land' - and, having'assarted1 it, built a manor house there. ThisHall is reported to have consisted of twochambers and a kitchen, surrounded by a moat,outside of which was built a barn, stables, andwards.

The latest reference to a site with a moat atTorkington, is in a demise by John Legh on 2ndApril, 1465. In this, the surrounding landswere referred to by name as 'Le Foment, LeOrchard Flatte, the Shepon Flatte, the kerremedowe, the Nether Rydynges, the Chippefield,Darne Isakell Arce, and Le Long Lee'. Thisdemise makes it clear that the moated site ofBroadoak is the same as the site to which itrefers, as present field names correlate withthese mentioned by John Legh. For example,Orchard Field would be the 'Orchard Flatte1,whilst Chipfield is the 'Chippefield1 and BigLong Lee and Little Long Lee are 'Le Long Lee'.

The original moated manor house at Torkingtonwas possibly abandoned around the beginning ofthe 16th century. The demesne farm, builtaround the moat and described in the 1363Chester Forestry Proceedings, was known until1808 as Cheethams Farm. In 1819 it wasdescribed by Ormerod as Hopwoods Farm, and itfinally came to be known by its present name ofBroadoak Farm.

It is important to distinguish betweenTorkington Manor House and Torkington Hall, alater construction on the site. This latter wasapparently an early 17th century building,half-timbered, and built by one of theTorkington family. The Hall is mentioned in anearly 17th century record of the marriage of'Henry, son of William Torkington of TorkingtonHall, to Katherine'.

In 1780, the Leghs of Booths built TorkingtonLodge, which was described as 'an elegant smallhouse...placed on rising ground and surroundedwith pleasure grounds laid out with taste1. TheLegh family built it to be used as a jointurehouse. The Lodge is marked on maps of 1794 and1818. In 1933 its owner, Sir John Emmot Barlow,sold it to the District Council. The townshipof Torkington no longer exists, having becomeHazel Grove and Bramhall Urban District, whichis now a part of the Metropolitan Borough ofStockport.

The Excavation (fig 8.1)

The trenches were sited in what was thought tobe the area of least modern disturbance.

BROADOAK MOAT

-^TTTTTTTTTT]

Fig.3.1

A trench 2m by 8m was dug, extending from thetop of the slope of the inner edge of the moatinto the platform. After the removal of topsoila number of stone-lined post holes were found.Further down, part of a wall foundation,probably for a sill beam with stone footingswas uncovered, along with fragments of glazedceramic roof tiles.

The trench was later extended towards the edgeof the moat, and a clay bank was exposed whichrose sharply from the water's edge and appearedto be revetted with large stones. Below a claylayer which extended over the whole trench,more pestholes and stake holes were found. Atthe top of the bank a possible clay hearth,rectangular in shape was uncovered.

A second trench 2m by 3m was dug at rightangles to the first. Under a considerabledestruction deposit of charcoal and burnt clay

3 4

the continuation of the hearth from the firsttrench was uncovered.

The Finds

The mixture of finds from medieval to moderndate indicated much disturbance. They includedclay pipes of late 17th and early 18th centuryorigin, roof tiles of 14th or 15th centurydate, medieval green glazed pot, post-medievalblack and brown glazed pot, iron nails and coalslag.

Conclusion

Three phases of activity could be identified,all involving wooden structures, one of whichappears to have burnt down. The first phasepredated a more substantial wooden structure,with a tiled roof and of the 14th or 15thcentury, which was itself later replaced byanother wooden structure. The presence of slagmay indicate either an outbuilding wheredomestic activities of an industrial naturewere carried out, or the use of poor qualitycoal, traces of which were found on the site.

3 5

DENTON HALL FARM

Location

Denton Hall (fig 5) was an early 16th centuryhalf-timbered manor house which stood atWindmill Land, Denton until 1930, when it waslargely destroyed by fire.

Standing Structure

The only surviving remains of the originalstructural complex was the detached east wingwhich served as a barn for Denton Hall Farmuntil November 1979, when it was dismantled andre-erected at Hough Lane, Wilmslow. The farmwas vacated because neighbouring clayworkinghad rendered'it uneconomic.

This outbuilding has been used in recent timesas a shippon, and then a barn, although it isunlikely that either was its original use. Aplan and drawing from the late 19th centuryshows the building situated about twenty feetto the north of the former east wing of DentonHall, although it has been referred to as thedetached east wing of the Hall. There isnothing to suggest that this building wasoriginally any larger than it is now.

It is a three-bayed structure of two storeys,orginally built in timber, but clad during the19th century in brick. However one gable withits timber framework has survived, although itappears to be of a later date than the maintimbers, possibly about 1600. The quatrefoilpanelling which decorated this gable is similarto that found at Ordsall Hall, Salford. Theroof timbers were possibly renewed some timeduring the 17th century, but even so it isremarkably well preserved and covered byslates. No staircase is to be found inside thisbuilding, so presumably there was access via aninterior stair.

The original arrangement of rooms on bothfloors was concealed when the building wasconverted into a shippon, and it is difficultto reconstruct a conventional house plan.However, there is evidence to suggest that onthe ground floor the south and central baysformed one room, with the north bay providing aseparate service area with little or nodecoration, while on the first floor the northand central bays formed the main room.

The floors were built at a lower level than theoriginal ones had been, but it is not certainas to whether the first storey rooms had aceiling or not. This would seem unlikely, as itwould obscure the appearance of the carved tiebeams, and the building is too early to havehad a ceiling. Ledges are to be found along thetop of the ties which seem to be grooves forceiling planks, and these may represent thelater insertion of ceiling panels.

The only evidence for dating this building isprovided by its decoration and mouldings, but

there is some disparity between the carvingswhich seem to date to about 1500, and thequatrefoiled gable, which is more typical ofabout 1600. Although the building was notattached to the main body of Denton Hall, itselaborate character would suggest a functionother than that of a barn; however, this ispurely speculative. It is unlikely that thebuilding could have been used as a dwellingplace, since it lacks every feature necessaryfor this, such as heating and servicearrangements. There is no evidence to suggestthat a connecting gallery provided access tothe main building.

It is unlikely that the building was a chapelfor Denton Hall, despite the force of localtradition that this was so, as both its storeysseem to be of similar importance, although itmay have been used as court rooms for themanor. It was obviously intended as a meetingplace for large gatherings, and the extent ofthe interior decoration would seem to indicatethat the building was of some importance.

The Excavation

The owners, Kethcombe Property Ltd, grantedpermission for excavation and this commenced inApril 1980, under the direction of Ms V Bryant.

The excavation (fig 3.2) depended entirely onunpaid volunteer labour, and the work was'therefore carried out during weekends andschool holidays. The area examined was fairlyrestricted because of financial constraints.Subsequently, however, some financial supportwas provided by the Greater ManchesterArchaeology Group.

Excavation revealed the foundations of the eastwing, as well as the largely disturbed remainsof the original clay floor. Beneath this was aditch or moat, containing wooden pegs, wattlestaves, daub, straw, animal bone, metalwork,and late medieval pottery. The southern edge ofthe moat was revetted by stone and jointedtimbers.

The moat was not fully excavated, the upper1.5m only being removed before the excavationwas abandoned because of vandalism, andproblems in excavation caused by extremewaterlogging. A 2 sq m area in the southernhalf was de-turfed, but no features weredetected in the underlying clay subsoil.

As a result of intervention by the GreaterManchester Archaeological Unit, small-scaletrial excavations of the platform area of thismoated site were conducted on Nth October1980, by GMAU staff and by members of DentonLocal History Society.

Four trenches (fig 3.2) were excavated. TrenchA measured 2m by Im, and was aligned east-west.It was sited in a grassed area approximately

36

I Om south of the eastern outbuildings of thefarm. Trench B .was Im square and sited in anarea of dense nettle growth about 10m

'north-east of Trench A. Trench C was Im squareand was sited in a grassed area approximately5m east of the farmhouse. Trench D was Imsquare and was sited about 17m south-west ofthe farmhouse in a grassed area inside thepresumed course of the moat.

Whilst this does not preclude the possibilityof medieval levels surviving in some parts ofthe platform area, it was felt that the timeand expenditure involved in large-scaleexcavation of the site would not be justified.

Conclusion

Although the excavations had not establishedthe exact course of the moat, two partiallyback-filled ponds to the south and west maymark its original course. At no point is itvisible on the ground, although a swathe oftaller vegetation to the south west may haveindicated its course. To the east, the courseof the moat is largely conjectural, since it ishere overlain by a fenced waste-disposal plant.

The platform thus enclosed would have beenroughly triangular in shape, measuringapproximately 100m east-west by 60mnorth-south. The centre of the platform isoccupied by the standing building of DentonHall Farm, 30m to the north and north-west.The intervening area, comprising the northern

DENTON HALLThe main building

Fig 3.3 5m

half of the platform, was occupied by thebacK-filled excavation area, building debrisand an area of cobbled yard. A roadway rannorth-south across this area, to the west ofwhich the ground level had been considerablylowered to accommodate the farm outbuildings.The extreme north-western corner of theplatform also appeared to be considerablydisturbed. The southern half of the platformwas under grass, although the presence ofnettle-beds suggested that this area too hadbeen disturbed.

Although the moat was clearly open in the latemedieval period, it cannot be considered likely

DENTON. HALL

Postulated course of moatKnown edge of moat 50m

Fig.3.2

3 7

that it still served its original purpose at solate a date. The excavations, however, producedlittle evidence of this primary occupationpartly because the moat was not excavated to agreat depth and partly because there wasvirtually no investigation of the platformitself.

None of the excavation in the platform area ofthe site produced any evidence of occupationearlier than the post-medieval period, and itis clear that the area south of the existingfarm building has been extensively disturbed atthis period.

Although the outbuilding is preserved in itsentirety, excavation revealed little of themain Hall (fig 3.3), and it was not possible tocompletely understand the outline of the rnoat,due to the limited scope of the excavation.

DUKINFIELD OLD HALL

Location and History

There is no record of Dukinfield by name in theDomesday Survey of 1086. The entry for the areastates:

'eight free men held these lands as eightmanors. In all there is land enough for 16ploughs. The whole was and is waste.'

It has been suggested that this omission isattributable to the post-Conquest deforestationwhich took place throughout the North, althoughWilkin Jones (1978, 7) suggests that by 1086,seventeen years after the devastation, ruralcommunities in the area would have recovered,and that 'waste' here could simply mean 'arableland that has fallen out of cultivation,perhaps from lack of tenants'.

William I bestowed the confiscated estates ofthe English nobility on his Norman followers.Cheshire became a County Palatine, that is, itwas not under direct control of the Crown andthe area remained under the jurisdiction of afamily of Hugh Lupus until the 15th century.

At the time of William I, Dukinfield was partof the 'fee' of Dunham, under Hamo de Massey,Baron of Dunham.

Early History

The earliest documentary reference to the manorof Dukinfield occurs in the latter half of thetwelfth century, during the reign of Henry II;Hamo de Massey, second baron of Dunham Massey,granted to Matthew de Bromale the manors ofBramhall and Dukinfield (Earwaker 1880, I,423).

According to local historians (Hickey 1940,25), it is at about this time that a hall wasconstructed on the site, lying in the lower andmore level part of the township. At this periodthe area was thickly wooded, though it alsoprovided good pasture and meadowland.

The manor was held under the Lords of Bramhallby a family who bore the local name'Dokenfield', one of the earliest known namesbeing that of Hamo de Dokenfield, mentioned inthe Bramhall deeds of this family before 1300,and in the Cheshire plea rolls in the RecordOffice (24 Edward I 1296). In 1327 the manorsof Dokenfield and Brinnington were settled uponRobert de Dokenfield for life, with theremainder to his heirs.

Dukinfield remained the residence of the Lordsof the manor of Dukinfield until the late 18thcentury. A number of post-mortem inquisitionssurvive from the 17th century, and one of thesetells us that in 1622 the manor consisted of 39messuages and comprised 200 acres of arableland, 40 acres of meadow, 200 acres of pasture,100 acres of wood and underwood, and 200 acres

of moor and marsh. During the civil war SirWilliam Dukinfield was an activeParliamentarian, being several timesauthorised to raise troops, serving in thegarrison at Chester, and eventually taking partin the conquest of the Isle of Man. In 1770. theAstleys, successors of the Dukinfields, built anew house, Dukinfield Lodge, and the Hall wastenanted. In 1877, after lying empty forseveral years, the Hall was converted intoseveral cottages. It was finally demolished in1950. .

Standing Structure

The surviving portion of the Old Hall Chapel(pi 3.1) dates from the early decades of the17th century. During excavation, the vandalisedCongregational extension of 1872, wasdemolished.

A general description of the Old Chapel is tobe found in Earwaker (1880, East Cheshire vol2, 26). He states:

"The Chapel belonging to the Hall, .''standsat right angles to it, projecting from thenorth end on the .north eastern side. It hasrecently been altered and a large additionbuilt on to it so as to adapt it to thepurposes of a non-Conformist chapel...theold nave forms a sort of transept to thenew chapel which projects at right anglesto it and has been built in a similar styleof architecture".

A further description of the chapel in 1906states:

"The Congregational chapel, DukinfieldHall, incorporates the chancel and nave ofthe old domestic chapel to which, in 1872,a considerable addition was made to thenorth side of the nave at right angles tothe ancient fabric, chiefly at the expenseof Able Buckley, Esq., of Dukinfield, andthe late Mr. Hugh Mason. The new buildingwhich is in the Gothic style now forms thebody of the chapel, the old nave being atthe south end and the chapel continued fromwhat is now a kind of south east transept.A north east porch was added in 1873 at thesole expense of Robert Platt, Esq., ofStalybridge".

(Kelly's Directory 1906, 306)

The domestic chapel consists of a small naveand chancel separated by a tiny semi-circulararch. The windows are round-headed and havethree lights. The walls are of finely dressedsandstone blocks of roughly equal dimensions,typically 70cm by 30cm by 50cm. The mortarjoints are thin and the stone is well laid. Onthe blocks themselves are a large number ofmason's marks, the most frequently occurringbeing a reversed 's', an hour glass shape, anda triangle.

39

em-

oj

roO 1

OJ

~~) CD

Q i5

0)

O)c'co

COQ.

C0)o

CO CO_l co

CD

oo

*s^r COCO CO

CO

"ccuEenco

-±r c> o*

OQCO

CO

to^oD

cuco"tor>cCOco

O)COCOCD

CO

40

The interior of the chapel shows evidence ofhaving been refurbished a number of times andin some places, especially over the chancelwindows, brick has been substituted for theoriginal stones. The interior of the chapelwould have been plastered, but very little of

3.1 Dukinfield C hope I

this now remains.

The remaining wooden hammer beams were severelydamaged by fire in 1980. They are of typicallylate 19th century construction and decorationand date from the building of the largeextension in 1872.

The Excavation (fig 3.4)

Two large trenches were excavated. The maintrench contained the demolished remains ofDukinfield Old Hall (pi 3.2); A further trenchwas opened 2.5m to the south, and in additionseveral trial trenches were dug in an attemptto locate a presumed moat.

Natural was discovered at I 15m below groundlevel in the main trench and consisted of ayellow/orange sand. The earliest features werea number of postholes cut into natural in thewestern end of this trench. These fell into twodistinct groups by reason of size and • fill. Intwo of the postholes the remains of the woodenposts were found.

The postholes were sealed try a brown siltcontaining charcoal flecks, which covered theentire interior of the Hall and extended fortwo metres outside the Hall to the south.

Above, and cutt ing into the si 11 were thefootings of a sandstone wall which remained toa height 80cm. The wal I was constructed ofdressed sandstone blocks, one course thick,backed by a rubble fill of irregularly shapedsandstone fragments. The dressed blocksappeared to the excavators to have been re-usedand to have formed a plinth on which brickcourses were supported. The bricks used

3.2 Dukinfield Old Hall

41

exhibited various features of hand manufacturerather than mass production.

Associated with the brick and sandstonefootings were the remains of two inglenookfireplaces, typical of those which becamepopular from the 16th century onwards. Thefootings of these were sandstone, whilst theirinteriors were cobbled.

A later phase of construction could bedistinguished, with predominantly brick builtwalls incorporating small sandstone fragments.These walls were associated with the earliestrecovered occupation layers. The excavatorsnoted that a great many finds were recoveredfrom these layers.

The final phase of construction, which includedthe majority of the external walls, wascharacterised- by large, fine textured bricks,laid with Flemish bond on a footing of large,well dressed, rectangular blocks of sandstone.The sandstone rests on deep footings of tightlypacked brick rubble in mortar.

Two substantial cellars were also constructedin this phase. They were of similarconstruction to the external walls and paredwith sandstone flags.

A subsequent phase of alteration appears tohave resulted in the destruction of many of theinternal surfaces. They were replaced with atightly packed layer of brick bats, on top ofwhich was a thin plaster floor. This supportedcomparatively insubstantial brick partitions,and, subsequently, floors of concrete orsandstone flags were inserted.

Outside the Hall the subsidiary trench revealeda gradual slope in the natural stratigraphy,away from the building. Cut into this were anumber of large rubbish pits containingconsiderable amounts of Georgian pottery.

Five smaller trenches were cut by machine in anattempt to determine the original position ofthe moat which was pesumed to have surroundedthe Hall. In fact no evidence was discovered inany of the trenches to support the theory ofthe moat's existence, and it therefore seemsunlikely that there was one.

The interior of the chapel was not excavatedbut a large accumulation of rubbish from thechancel was removed. The gravestone of SirRobert Dukinfield (d 1722) and two gravestonesof his daughters, Suzanna and Martha, wereremoved. They are at present at StaiybridgeMuseum.

A shallow trench was excavated on the westernside of the chancel; foundations werediscovered to reach a depth of 70cm andconsisted of large blocks of undressedsandstone. The exterior of the chapel wascleaned revealing 'at its southern end on thewestern side, the blocked-in original navedoor. The chancel window is substantiallylarger than the side windows, a characteristicof chapels of early 17th century date.Parallels for this sort of chapel may be found

in Harris, Old Parish Churches and Chapels ofCheshire, 1957.

Conclusion

There is evidence for a wooden hall predatingthe first substantial building which itselfappears to be of no earlier than 16th centurydate (pi 3.2). This first substantial phase wassucceeded by two more phases of expansion, thelast of which may be related to the end ofoccupation by the Astleys in the 1770's. Thefinal phase of flimsy brick partitions andconcrete and flag floors can probably berelated to the conversion to cottages in 1877.

Unfortunately no solid dating evidence wasrecovered for either the early wooden structureor the intermediate stone phases.

It is interesting to note that the only rubbishpits located date from the final years ofoccupation by the landowners, and that nothingpredating this has been found.

4 2

PEEL HALL, INCE

Location

Peel Hall was recorded in the Provisional List,BAH1, in 1962, and was described thus:

'Now a farmhouse; Fourteenth Century crucktimbers remain at first floor and encasedat ground floor. The crucks are joined by amassive obtuse angled tie at high level,stiffened by chamfered arch braces. (Partcut away after formation of first floor.)'

A Sites and Monuments team, acting for theGreater Manchester Archaeological Unit in WiganMetropolitan Borough, visited the house inSpring 1983. The new owner outlined hisproposals for restoration of the building, andit became clear that his work would facilitatethe detailed indepth survey of the timberstructure which had been so long concealedbeneath the plain brown brick exterior andmultiple layers of internal plaster and paper.

Standing Structure

Peel Hall (fig 3.5) was originally timberframed, comprising five pairs of massive cruckblades, giving a house divided into three mainareas:

The south end - a service boy containing apantry and buttery. This may have been flooredto provide additional living space.

Centre - a hall of two bays, with an integralthrough passage to the south, runningeast-west, and giving access to the servicerooms and, north, by a doorway through a timberscreen, to the main body of the hall. The hallwas open to the roof, evidence for this beingthe carefully worked arched and braced tie beamnow visible at first floor level. When the hallwas floored, in the 16th or 17th century, thistie beam was casually sawn away in the centrefor ease of access from one new room toanother. The bulge in the external brickwalling is the result, the weight of the roofhaving forced the crucks to spread slightly.

From the north end of the Hall, the dais endoccupied by the high table, one door led to aprivate chamber at ground level, the other ontoa stairway rising to the first floor andanother private room.

During these centuries the full cruck, likethat at Peel Hall, became increasingly commonthroughout the country.

At present most of the timber at Peel Hall isclad by later brickwork or plaster. Only 'B'and 'C'(fig 3.5) are clearly visible to anyextent, and 'C' incorporates the arched tiebeam referred to above.

The house was remodelled and brick clad in thelater 17th century - the E shaped west frontand large eastern addition, with its lowpitched front, date from this time. This wouldreflect a decline in the status of thebuilding, which externally resembles many otherreasonably well-to-do farmhouses of thedistrict.

PEEL HALL, INCE

Original groundplanCRUCK

TRUSSES

PrivateChambers

OpenHall

CrossPassage

Butteryand

Pantry

B

D

Not to scale

Fig 3.5

Conclusion

The type of cruck used, and its style oftimbering, size and scantling, is a clue to theage of the building. It is generally acceptedthat the 'base crucks' were erected by familiesof gentry status from c AD 1300 onwards. Heavyand finely crafted, these crucks wereobsolescent by the mid 15th century, and nonehad been recorded north of Lincolnshire in theeast or Cheshire in the west.

4 3

PEEL HALL, WYTHENSHAWE

Location and History

Peel Hall (SJ 837868) lies within WythenshawePark, belonging to Manchester City Council. TheDomesday Survey of 1086 refers to Bigot deLoges, whose manor in the Hundred of bucklowwas later to be known as titchells. As a resultof the growth in population during the 12th and13th centuries, there was an increase insettlement in eastern Cheshire, and it islikely that Etchells was one of these newdevelopments.

By I34y Etchells was in the possession of theArderne family, and it is thought to have beenSir John de Arderne who built Peel Hall, or'The Peele' as it is referred to in earlierdocuments. The word 'peel* is of Celtic originand means a smal 1 defensive bui Iding or castle.The manor house was bui 11 near to the areawhere the tenants I ived, and probably had ademesne area and parkland around it, as 'PeelePark1 is mentioned in the late 16th century.

by the marriage of Sir John's daughter andheiress, the house passed to the Stanley familyin 1408, and remained in their hands for onehundred years. After 1508 the manor passedthrough many different owners, and was held atone time directly by the Crown when one ownerwas convicted of high treason. In 1556-1557Philip and Mary granted the manors of El ford,Arderley and Etchells to Sir Edward Fitton ofGawsworth and William Tat ton of Wythenshawe.William took Etchells because it was near tohis manor of Northenden, but the two manorswere separately administered under the onelordship.

From 1556 the history of Peel Hall follows thatof the Tattons. The Peele was never used as theprincipal seat of the family, since theArdernes had main seats at El ford and Alder ley,and the Tattons at Wythenshawe, but repairs hadto be made to the Peele to make it habitable.These were begun in 1560 with the intention ofusing Peel Hal 1 as a dowerhouse, a residencefor the heir apparent, or for his widowedmother. The Peele had greatly decreased invalue in the hundred years following theinquisition post mortem of Thomas de Stanley in1463, when it was valued at £50, for at theinquisition post mortem of Robert Tat ton, themanor of Etchells was valued at only £15.

During the 16th century, the gradualreplacement of the old feudal tenure systemoccurred, with the leasing of land for moneypayments. The Etchells Court Survey of the late16th century refers to one of Peel Hal I'stenants as paying £1 6s 8d in rent for eightacres. The document reveals that some 400people lived on the manor at this time, andthat the extent of all yearly profits and rentswas £224 17s 8d. The estate was supervised by asteward who gave daily instructions through thefarm bailiff, with four meetings of the court

baron per year.

Throughout the 17th century and most of the18th century, Peel Hall continued to be used asthe residence of widows or heirs apparent, butin 1780 William Tat ton married into the Egertonfamily of Tatton Park, and inheritedWythenshawe, Northernden and Etchellsproperties, and the Tatton Park estates. Duringthe 19th century the Tattons I ived as countrysquires, continually extending their estatesand adding to the family seat. This expansionfrequently led to the lesser manor houses, suchas Peel Hall, being tenanted by farmers and soassuming farmhouse status.

A map of 1830 shows Peel Hall and itssurrounding lands to be owned by Thomas WilliamTatton, and the majority of fields occupied byJef ry Bray. In the Census returns of 1851,Wythenshawe is shown as a mainly agriculturalarea and reference is made to Peel Hall ashaving 217 acres of land attributed to it. Inthe early 1920's Manchester Corporationreviewed the area for potential house building,and subsequently bought the Tatton Estates inWythenshawe in 1926.

Standing Structure

However, in the case of Peel Hall, the buildingwas ordered to be destroyed by one of MrTatton's stewards during his absence in 1809,and it was replaced a year later by a twostorey farmhouse. The only remnant of theoriginal Peel Hall is the stone bridge, builtin medieval times over the moat around thefortified house, and it is thought that thebridge is probably the oldest stone structure

3.3 Peel Hall Wythenshawe

in Wythenshawe.

The Excavation (fig 3.6)

At Peel Hall an area of around 150 squaremetres was exposed.The only significantfeatures on the site were the remains of thefarmhouse (fig 3.7) which was known to have

44

replaced the Hall in 1809. Large areas of thesite revealed nothing but clay, suggesting thatat some time material had been planed off themoated enclosure. This probably occurred at thesame time as the 19th century building. It wasnot possible to excavate beneath the floors andfoundations of the farmhouse (pi 3.3) and sothe earlier structure was not exposed there. Noexcavation was carried out in the area to thenorth-northwest of the later building where theoriginal and presumed larger building mighthave extended. Traces of cobbling were detectedin a location suitable for the entrance to sucha structure, although this could equally havebeen related to the later rebuild.

The Finds

The number of finds recovered was minimal andconsistent with the possible large-scaleremoval of material during the early 19th

century. The earliest artefacts recovered fromthe site were fragments of green-glazed roofridge tiles of a grey, gritty fabric. These aretypically medieval, although there isinsufficient knowledge of ceramic production inthe medieval north-west to allocate a moreprecise date. The majority of the rest of thefinds were Victorian and included an I860 pennyand a large number of claypipes.

Conclusion

The history of the development and use of PeelHall, Wythenshawe, is typical of that of manyof the minor country houses of GreaterManchester. Throughout its life, it is clearthat the relative status and importance of thesite changed dramatically, from, for instance,its use as a major family home in 1463, to itsbecoming a minor farm of a large estate in1809.

PEEL HALL, WYTHENSHAWE

Excavated area

Fig. 3.6

4 5

0 "D CD CO•^ "= *^ OX 3 XXm n LU CD

<ILO

X w1— .E> 2

£ I3 I—; co< 51 g_j ^UJ CDLU ^O. I-

46

RADCLIFFE TOWER

Location and History

This site was excavated by the BuryArchaeological Group and the following reportwas supplied by Mr Norman Tyson.

The site lies 140m west-southwest of RadcliffeParish Church, about three quarters of a mileeast of the modern town centre, and at a heightof 68m OD on the first terrace above thefloodplain, in a large loop of the River Irwellbelow its confluence with the River Roch. Thisloop takes the Irwell from a general southerlycourse, which it follows from the Rossendaleuplands up to this point, westwards through adeep post-glacial gorge to Nob End.

Alluvial sand and gravel underlying the siteprobably supported a ground-water gley soil onthe floodplain, but the more freely drainedterrace upon which the Tower was built is abrown earth of the Downholland association.Middle coal measure Trencherbone or Cannel Rocksandstone used in construction would have beenavailable locally. There are numerous coalseams in the locality, the nearest being theTop Five Quarters mine which runs south westabout 50m south of the Tower.

During the medieval period a park and fishpondscould have been accomodated in fairly closeproximity to the manor house, as implied by anindenture of exchange dated 1338 bewteenRichard de Radcliffe and William delGrenehurst, of tenements in Radcliffe calledGorill and le Lightbirch'es within the 'NewPark1 (Irvine MSS N 49). Whilst somereclamation has been carried out and more isplanned, the valley at this point still bearsthe scars of industrial exploitation, althoughsome relict woodland survives on the high southbank overlooking the floodplain.

In 1950, enigmatic timber structures wererevealed by gravel digging near the confluenceof the Roch and the Irwell, and mesolithicflints were reputedly also found. Stone axes ofNeolithic and Bronze Age date have beendiscovered, and a fine cast-flanged bronze axewas found in 1949 (Spencer 1950). More timberstructures were excavated lower downstream in1961 (Hal lam 1961). During the Roman period,local gravel was probably quarried for theconstruction and maintenance of theManchester-Ribchester road which runs nearby.

The Domesday Survey records Radcliffe as beingheld by King Edward as part of the Royal Manorof Salford. After the Norman Conquest the Baronde Massey gave Radcliffe Manor to NicholasFitz-Gilbert de Talbois, who adopted theplacename as his surname and thus founded theRadcliffe family. The family prospered duringthe medieval period, with branches inpossession of Ordsall Hall in Salford,Smithills Hall in Bolton, and Baguley Hall inWythenshawe.

In August 1403 James de Radcliffe was granted alicence to rebuild his manor house '....withwalls of stone and lime, to enclose anew andwithin those walls erect a hall and towers...'.

By 1518 the main line of succession ceased withthe death of John Radcliffe, when the manorpassed to Robert Radcliffe, subsequently firstearl of Sussex of the Radcliffe family. In 1561Thomas Radcliffe, third earl of Sussex, soldthe manor to Richard Ashton of Middleton for2000 marks.

An illustration showing the Hall with a ruinedtower attached was drawn for Dr. Whitaker in1781, by which time its status had been reducedfrom manor house to farm. By the mid 19thcentury the Hall had been demolished, leavingonly the ruined tower, which remained in use asa farmbuilding until at least 1950.

Standing Structure

The surviving tower at Radcliffe is a fairlytypical funnel vaulted pele tower of the typecommonly found in north Lancashire and Cumbria(fig 3.8). Its distinguishing features arethree large ground floor fireplaces built intothe walls, with both internal and externalarches, two of which (east and south) wereunblocked sometime during the post-medievalperiod. A narrow doorway with a two-centredarch gave access to the ground floor from thehall. Access from -the hall to the first andsecond floors was by a spiral stair in the wallthickness 2.4m from ground level, presumablyapproached by a portable ladder.

Excavation and Finds

Excavation consisted of six trenches whicheffectively sectioned the northwest corner ofthe site from the hall area to the modern northand west boundaries (fig 3.9).

Work was carried out in September 1979 andApril 1980 by volunteers under the direction ofBury Archaeological Group. The site has sincebeen back filled, levelled and grassed over.

A sandstone rubble foundation 2.30 m wideprotruded 1.30 m from the south section oftrench F. Associated with this was aflat-bottomed ditch 7 m wide and 1.50 m deeprunning across the northside of the Towerthrough trench C. Three metres beyond the ditcha rubble wall foundation 1.44 m wide ran acrossthe south end of trench A and was fronted by aditch 7 m wide and I m deep. The area insidethe wall foundation was consolidated withsandstone pitching which sealed the rubblefoundation in trench F but supported theremains of two parallel ground walls lain 6 mapart at 80 degrees to the hall site.Foundations of farm buildings or cottages wereevident in all trenches, and trench E containeda robbed out cellar 1.85 m deep.

47

f 1 s 1

_ ^ T3 .£ "~0 15 r, « "s

P I So < s <£

- coc uj> x> u

<cc

o

oo

Xo

ccCO

•s

$

ccUJ1-

OW5

COri01

48

TOWER STREET

L ,CD

i I1

oI

OI

COH

r"

<=> o

< < O

^PS o -n> •• -n-n 00 m

m

J

S oro O

5CDXIO-o

CHURCHYARD

(QWCO

49

The following is a tentative sequence ofconstruction on the site:

Phase la (medieval)

Rubble foundation and ditch or pitassociated with earlier structure.

Phase lb(cl«0)

Manor rebuilding, extension of courtyardand construction of enclosing wall.

Phase Ila(cl500-I730)

Construction of west w.ing. Modification ofenclosing wall and later ditch filling.

Phase Mb (1730-1840)

Construction of farm buildings, demolitionof hall. Construction of cottages.

Analysis of the pottery shows that only fivemedieval sherds representing a minimum of fivevessels were recovered. Most interesting amongthese was part of a ceramic aludel identifiedby Stephen Moorhouse.

Although the number of early post medievalsherds is greater, only four vessels arerepresented, in all a disappointing result.

Practically all the remaining pottery came fromthe ditch fill in trench A, and includes anumber of familiar 17th century wares fromSouth Lancashire and the Midlands. Five sherdsof tin-glazed earthenware from either Bristolor London, and fourteen pieces of Rhenishstoneware bring the total sherds recovered to298.

A piece of pottery industrial apparatus.

by Stephen Moorhouse

The find comprises two joining sherds, formingabout a third of the circumference, in acoarse-grained sandy fabric with buff core andsalmon pink surfaces, which are smoothedexternally. The thick body and striation marksinternally, suggest a narrow neck and top,hence the form as reconstructed. The lower parthas been knife-trimmed internally and under thebase, suggesting that the body had been thrownas a conical form with a base on the wheel andsubsequently cut above the base to the presentshape.

The surviving profile suggests that the sherdscould come from a number of medieval ceramicforms. In various positions they could form themouth of a trumpet,the base of a chimney pot,or the base of a pedestal supporting a chafingdish. For different reasons each of thesesuggestions is unsatisfactory.

The coarse character of the fabric, thetechnique of manufacture, and the sooting,suggests that the sherds come from a particularform of industrial vessel, that is, an aludel.These were usually conical in profile with a

wide base and a narrow neck of varying shape,but always with an opening or hole in the top.Manuscript illustrations show that in a metal,medieval aludels appear to be consistent inform, usually a straight sided cone leading toa narrow top. However, a number of potteryversions in different shapes are known. A nearcomplete tall conical aludel (Brit Mus Ace No1915:12:8:202) in the British Museum,unfortunately came from an unprovenancedlocation in London. Probably five differenttypes of aludel were found amongst 150near-complete pottery alchemical vessels fromSandal Castle, West Yorkshire. The ceramicvessels formed part of a laboratory whosecontents had been disposed of during the early15th century (Mayes and Butler 1983). Medievalcraft and medical recipes show that pottery wasused extensively in a wide variety of differentprocesses, often in conjunction with vessels inother materials (Moorhouse in Crossley ed1981). Those involved in the secret sciences,such as alchemy, often devised their ownprocesses to achieve a particular result,together with using certain vessels incombination, each of which had to be of acertain material. The variety of forms used bya late medieval English experimenter are shownin a 15th century manuscript describing thealchemical processes (British Library, HarleianMS 2407, fos I06v-lll). The very manyscientific and industrial processes usingpottery, and the particular requirements ofeach practitioner is reflected by the growingnumber of industrial groups of pottery(Moorhouse 1972). Each has a unique range ofpottery forms, some of which are unique to theassemblage, and they are used in differingcombinations with vessels in other materials.It is therefore not surprising that the piecefrom Radcliffe Tower cannot be paralleledexactly by known industrial pottery.

Conclusion

Some time before 1400, the existing manor househad been at least partly enclosed on its northside by a ditch approximately 7m wide by 1.50mdeep. Wet conditions encouraged the developmentof a primary organic silt, which later becamesubmerged below a more general secondarysilting, almost filling the ditch. Around 1403when James de Radcliffe was granted arebuilding license, quantities of unworkedlocal sandstone were brought to the site forbuilding. Unused blocks of this stone, alongwith scappling from the production of ashlars,were dumped into the ditch alignment and othersurface depressions. The fill was levelled upas courtyard consolidation with a mixture ofstiff clay, probably derived from the quarrysite. Three metres beyond the old ditch aparallel rubble wall with a foundation 1.44mwide was built, fronted by a shallow ditchapproximately 7m wide by Im deep.

These developments were followed at anindeterminate date, perhaps in the early postmedieval period, by the construction of atimber-framed wing, under-pinned with lowsandstone walls at virtual right angles to themain hall at its west end, over the site of anearlier stone structure. Although by the 18th

5 0

century the west wing had two floors, the maintained until now, was backfilled and thediscovery of a hearth in trench F would suggest status of manor house reduced to farm.it was originally open to the rafters. Theinternal width of 6m between the walls is alittle more than the 18' 5" recorded byWhitaker (1876).

Perhaps during the early post medieval periodthe enclosing wall was reduced in width, thesecond phase ditch cleaned out and the scarpconsolidated with reinforced clay. Soon afterc!660 the counterscarp had collapsed and theditch was . partly backfilled. Further fillingtook place around 1680, the site eventuallylevelled up in the late 18th century toaccommodate a brick built barn, incorporatingremains of the modified wall in itsfoundations.

Around 1833 the medieval hall, west wing, andcellared building north of it were demolished.Much material, including cellar walls wassalvaged, and cottages and additional farmbuildings were subsequently erected.

Whilst the position of Radcliffe Tower iseminently suited to a moated site, the failureto recover evidence additional to that intrench C raised a number of problems, which canonly be resolved by further excavation. Thenature of the evidence from manorial sites likeRadcliffe and Bury Castle, suggests that somemoats or ditches were neglected during the late14th century, and were replaced or improved inthe 15th century.

Whether the manor house ever possessed twintowers, as the licence might imply, probablyalso awaits an archaeological solution. Asketch drawn by John Albinson in the 18thcentury (Albinson 1770) disagrees in detailwith the surviving tower, but since a number ofpages are now missing from his sketch book itsevidence must be used with caution. A goodexample of twin towers survives at PrestonPatrick Hall in Cumbria, which also possesses aking post roof similar to that which existed atRadcliffe (Smith 1964). The plank technique ofthe hall at Radcliffe, also in evidence atBaguley Hall and Smithills Hall, is discussedelsewhere (Smith and Stell, I960).

The western boundary of the site may never befound, since it probably lies beneath themodern road. Similarly, evidence for theeastern boundary either runs inaccessiblythrough the parish graveyard, or hasdisappeared with disturbances in ground level.The northern limit is now known, leaving onlythe southern boundary to be determined.

Following the death of John Radcliffe in 1518and the subsequent sale of the manor of ThomasRadcliffe, third Earl of Sussex, to RichardAshton of Middleton in 1561, the house appearsto have served as a gentleman's residence. In1672 the Tower was leased to Richard Walker ofthe Cross, yeoman, and Richard Walker ofRadcliffe Bridge, husbandman, for a term ofseven years (Irvine MSS no 99). The lease wasevidently renewed as Richard Walker, who diedin 1682 was styled 'de Tower'. Probably duringthis time the north ditch, having been

5 1

AN ANALYSIS OF THE DATA FROM EXCAVATIONS

Introduction

The historical information concerning thecountry houses of Greater Manchester usuallypoints to fairly straightforward historicalconclusions. Archaeological information isoften forced to fit known historical 'facts',and in the case of the country houses ofGreater Manchester, where the material islimited and of varying quality, this would be atempting course to follow. If however thematerial is approached with the aim ofexamining spatial and temporal relationships,then the conclusions reached can be comparedwith the historians' conclusions, and mayeither reinforce them, or modify them.

There are three main areas of analysispossible:

1. The spatial relationships of the houses toeach other and to topography, and, whereappropriate, to political andadministrative boundaries.

2. The spatial organisation of the houses,both internally through time, andexternally with relation to associatedoutbuildings.

3. The nature of the recovered artefacts.

Conclusions reached in any of these areas must,of course, be treated with caution, since thequality of the archaeological record variesenormously across the country.

The Spatial Relationships of the Houses

Because the information on country houses, asdistinct parts of wider communities, is but asmall fraction of the archaeological andhistorical record, it is impossible to sayanything that is sociologically convincingconcerning their contemporary societies,without making great use of sources which liebeyond the scope of this study. When observingthe spatial relationship of the houses to eachother, it is important to realise that theassumption that social groupings are directlyreflected in landholding patterns and buildingsand that, conversely, people living in oneterritory are a social group, is an enormousone (Leach 1979, 123).

Taking a sample area, in this case theMetropolitan Borough of Rochdale (fig 6.5), thehouses initially appear to be concentratedalong a line roughly west-southwest toeast-northeast, with a separate concentrationin the south-southeast. The primary reason forthis is that in general, houses are built alongthe valley of the River Roch and itstributaries. Thus it can be seen that theconcentration of houses in a particular placeis due in this case to a distortion of thedistribution surface as a result of the

topography. If the houses are plotted on thesame map as the hamlets, it becomes apparentthat population concentration has alsodistorted the distribution surface as, despiteapparent concentrations, no hamlet exceptMiddleton contains more than three houses. Anyattempted analysis of spatial distribution withtime runs into the problem of accuracy ofinformation. Many houses are known only fromthe date at which they were substantiallyrebuilt, often in the 16th and 17th centuries,and existing records refer to them only asbeing built 'on the site of the previoushouse'.

Taking a contrasting area, the MetropolitanBorough of Wigan (fig 6.10), the picture isslightly different. The houses appear moreevenly distributed. In this case the gentlerrelief of Wigan allows a more regulardistribution, since there are no large areas ofhigh exposed ground, unfavourable tosettlement, within the Borough. The density ofhouses appears slightly greater than inRochdale, some hamlets containing four or fivehouses. A significant feature of the Wigan areais the number of moated houses. In Rochdaleonly three houses out of thirty eight arebelieved to have been moated, whereas in Wiganthere are twenty six out of fifty five whichare known to have had moats.

Both Rochdale and Wigan have been the subjectsof recent Sites and Monuments surveys by theGreater Manchester Archaeological Unit, and soa reasonably accurate picture of thedistribution is possible, whereas in otherBoroughs the records are less complete.Nevertheless, throughout this study,comparisons were made based on original Sitesand Monuments data; however, as work on thisvolume progressed, new sites were constantlyadded. However, it is inevitable that we onlyever have a partial set of data to work fromand it is hoped that this analysis may form thebasis for more detailed work on the individualboroughs or districts in the area.

Of the houses in the county whose sites areknown or can be accurately plotted, two thirdslie less than 100m above sea level, a furtherfifth between 100m and 150m above sea level,and another seventh between 150m and 200m abovesea level. Only four houses are built more than200m above sea level. This is not surprising,since even if the houses are distributed evenlythroughout the county, the topography is suchthat most would lie below 100m, and above 200mthe environment starts to become too hostilefor comfortable settlement.

The four sites above 200m show littlesimilarity: Healey Hall, Rochdale, at 214m, isin the steep sided and sheltered valley of theRiver Spodden, and dates from around the turnof the 16th and 17th centuries.

5 2

Horsedge Hall, Oldham, at 229m, of 12th centurydate, was originally held by the Knights of St.John of Jerusalem, and lies on the south slopeof Oldham Edge, at that time probably a drysettlement point amidst surrounding wet-lands.

Wicken Hall House, Rochdale, at 268m, is ahouse of mid 17th century date. It stands onthe steep slope of Ogden Edge, facing east.

Wolstenholme Hall, Rochdale, at 229m, whereoccupation dates from the 12th century, is in arelatively exposed position, although in thevalley of Red Lumb Brook.

As might be expected, therefore, it appearsthat the chief factor affecting location ordistribution of country houses in GreaterManchester is relief, and that in the county asa whole, most houses are to be found on lowlying ground.

The Spatial Organisation of Houses

Human behaviour is an expression of amultiplicity of subconscious and consciousattitudes and concepts (Hazelgrove 1978, 6).Observation of the spatial organisation, bothinternal and external, of the country house,may lead to a greater understanding of theattitudes and concepts favoured by theiroccupants.

However, care must be taken, since at eachstage of development the previous structure maydominate the inhabitants' behaviour, ratherthan their behaviour determining the structure,particularly if there are financial or physicalconstraints present. For example, a rnoat mayhave been initially constructed as a physicalbarrier, but eventually retained as adecorative feature. In addition, it isdangerous to define archaeological taxa, andthen attempt to give them reality byindentifying them with particular knowneconomic or social movements: for example the'moated site' as a group is well known, and ithas been suggested that there is a link between'moated sites' and the assorting, or takingunder cultivation of waste land in the earlymiddle ages (Roberts 1962, 37); however, asdiscussed elsewhere in this volume, thereappears to be more correlation between moatsand topography or geology than with the areasof wasteland being reclaimed for cultivation inthis country.

In terms of size, Brunskill (1971, 22) acceptsfour categories of domestic architecture: theGreat House, the Large House, the Small House,and the Cottage. The Great Houses are definedas 'the homes of royalty, the nobility ofChurch and State... people of nationalimportance through high social status or greatwealth... such houses are normally excludedfrom the ranks of vernacular architecture,whereas large Houses are homes of 'people ofsome local importance'. By far the majority ofthe country houses discussed in this volumefall into Brunskill's 'Large House' category.There are one or two exceptions, notably DunhamMassey and Heaton Hall, which follow more'international' styles of architecture. For themost part, however, the structure and layout of

the houses is more the result of the living andworking requirements of the inhabitants than ofany idea of style or architectural design.Traditional design elements are used but theseelements derive more often from practicalconsiderations rather than from aesthetic ones.

Internal Organisation

Comparison of house plans show that all havesome form of barrier between the livingquarters and the various working sections. Thisphysical barrier or division is indicative ofsocial barriers, and only develops fully withtime. In the early medieval period, in both theGermanic hall and the Celtic longhouse, theboundary between the owners' living quartersand the body of the house is slight, initiallyno more than a screen or curtain, developinginto a structural partition. The longhouse andopen hall typical of Britain may reflect aRomano-British tradition of construction (Dixon1976, 60), as opposed to the continental aisledhall, or the pre-Roman Celtic round hut.

Both forms continued into the early medievalperiod, when they started to develop moresophisticated spatial organisations or layouts.In the longhouse the occupants were the peasantfamily and their livestock, whereas in the halllived a feudal aristocratic family, theirservants and their retainers. With time, theboundaries between the groups of occupants grewmore substantial. The early medieval halldeveloped an upper chamber at one end of thehall for the family, over the pantry andstorerooms, while the single shareaccommodation in the longhouse developed intoseparate rooms for family and livestock. Duringand after the medieval period the boundarybecame even more distinct, with separatebuildings often being built in the case of thefarmhouse or separate wings in the case of thehall or country house. Whereas in the farm thedivision was still simply between livingaccommodation and livestock, the country housewas becoming more sophisticated, being dividedbetween living accommodation for the family,living accommodation for the servants andretainers, administrative accommodation andworking accommodation.

The earliest forms taken by country houses inthe county can only be revealed by closeobservation of those standing structures whichexhibit a number of contructional phases, or byrevealing the traces of these forms througharchaeological excavation.

At Peel Hall, Ince in Makerfield, a later brickstructure contains a 14th century cruck framedwall. Removal of internal plaster during 1983revealed the structure, which consisted of ahall with private rooms at one end and serviceaccommodation at the other. Similararrangements of space can be detected atSmithills Hall, where the family accommodationwas above the service accommodation, at OrdsallHall, where a number of subsequent phases ofconstruction are evident, and at Stayley Hall,where the original timber framed structure wasof 16th century date. Surviving plans of DentonHall show an unaltered early layout, whiletraces of such a structure in wood, predating

5 3

the first stone footings of circa 16th centurydate, were detected during excavations atDukinfield Hall.

Although the accommodation, hall, and servicearea were separated, with direct access fromthe outside to only the hall and service areas,the presence of all three areas together in amore or less undifferentiated unit suggeststhat, although there were obvious socialdifferences between the owning family and theservants, they would likely view themselves,and be viewed by others, as a single unit. Insuch a situation the high ranking members ofthe household would probably work closely withthe low ranking members on the majority oftasks.

By the end of the 16th century the two elementsof living and service accommodation had usuallygrown larger and therefore more specialised andseparate. For example, at Dukinfield Hall andSmithills Hall, a separate accommodation wingwas built for the family and the house becameroughly H shaped. The fact that access to theliving accommodation was now through the halland thence into a separate wing, served toreinforce the status of the occupants. By theend of the 17th century the new wing haddeveloped into a complex of buildings includinga private chapel. There is no doubt that therange of services available in the countryhouses gave them the appearance of independenthamlets, and must have served to emphasise theseparation of the occupants from the rest ofthe local population. After the middle of the17th century this separation was furtherenhanced as their occupants began to move awayfro.n vernacular styles of architecture.

External Organisation

Separation of the country house from itssurroundings has occurred in different ways andfor different reasons through time. In theearly medieval period there were sound reasonsfor separating a house from its surroundingenvironment; it was necessary to protect theoccupants and their livestock, in winter frompredators which still infested such wild placesas Lancashire, and in summer, from the morethan occasional banditry which was a substitutefor political debate in such isolatedterritory. Few if any physical barrierssurrounding country houses remain from thisperiod, with the exception of moats. Moatedhouses occurred throughout the county, althoughmore frequently in some areas than in others.

In areas where the terrain was more rugged, thenatural defendability of the landscape meantless effort needed to be expended on suchworks. By the 16th century, however, when theuse of firearms and artillery becamewidespread, the value of a moat as a defensivework, except against occasional thieves, wasgreatly reduced, and in any case life, even inLancashire, had settled down to a more peacefullevel. Despite this, the moats were oftenretained, probably retained as a physicalbarrier which reinforced a social barrier.

As stated above, the 17th century saw thedevelopment of the country house as a separate

entity, distanced from the surroundingcommunity, yet even within the structure of thecountry house this separation and distancingoccurred between its own elements. Whereas inthe early medieval house the farming functionswould be incorporated within the barrier of thewall or moat for the safety of the harvestedcrops and livestock, by the 18th century, athouses which retained their moat such asOrdsall Hall or Clayton Hall, the structuresused by the agricultural staff of the houseshad been removed beyond the moat. Not only wasthere a barrier between the inhabitants of thehouse and the surrounding community, but withinthe country house a barrier had developedbetween those staff concerned with maintainingthe economic functions of the estate, and thoseconcerned with the daily servicing of theowning family. As a result, instead of thehousehold operating as an homogenousinterdependent unit, those concerned withmaintaining the income and wealth of thecountry house were now outside the household,whilst the household was composed only of twogroups, the owners and the servants, whosedaily activities had now become obviouslyseparate.

Conclusion

In the early medieval period the differencebetween a hall and a farm in terms of spatialorganisation would have been negligible, theonly apparent difference being the relativesize of the structures, which could be directlyrelated to the wealth of the occupants. By thelater middle ages specialisation of spacewithin the country house had occurred to suchan extent that it was immediately obvious tothe visitor which space served which function.In the same way that, in the organisation ofspace within a church, the relative positionsof the sacred and public areas leave thevisitor in no doubt as to the hierarchyinvolved, so the organisation of space withinthe country house, with its outer farmbuildings, its administrative areas, itsworking areas and its inner private livingspace, leave the visitor equally sure as to thethe hierarchical positions of the inhabitants.

This specialisation of space would appear to belinked to an increasing specialisation inoccupation. As stated above, in an earlymedieval hall, all members of the householdwould be equally involved in most tasks;however, by the 17th century the country housewould contain a number and variety ofspecialised, and probably waged, staff.

The Recovered Artefacts

Finds from the excavation of country houses inGreater Manchester have been generally low innumbers. The Broadoak, Denton, Dukinfield, andPeel Hall, Wythenshawe excavations did notproduce any significant medieval or earlypost-medieval pottery assemblages. RadcliffeHall produced sherds representing a minimum offive medieval and four early post medievalvessels, although a reasonable assemblage of17th century pottery was recovered. At Denton,waterlogged moat deposits were discovered,

5 4

although few artefacts were retrieved, whilstnon-ceramic finds of any interest or value wereabsent from all the other sites. This low levelof finds retrieval was the result of a numberof factors, including the fact that excavatorsconcerned saw their prime objective to be toexplore the structural sequence and location ofthe buildings.

It is apparent that information on the socialand economic activity within a house is notlikely to be produced by excavation carried outsolely within the confines of its structure,since there is generally little sustainedartefact loss within a structure.Constructional dumping and destruction debrisused for levelling, (unless in its primarylocation), will tend to produce only finds of afragmentary nature, and even those in agenerally abraded condition.

To gain a picture of social and economicactivity through observation of finds,excavation on this type of site would have toconcentrate on areas likely to have been usedfor daily rubbish disposal, or where occasionalloss, without the chance of retrieval, mightoccur. Exploration of 'back yards' rather thanthe structures themselves should reveal rubbishpits and cess pits, and excavation of rnoatsshould produce items either lost when the rnoatwas in use, or deliberately dumped as rubbishafter the moat had fallen out of use. The chiefgroup of finds from Radcliffe Hall wasretrieved in such a location from layersrepresenting the infilling, by rubbish dumping,of the disused ditch or rnoat, and the area atDenton Hall which showed most promise, and fromwhich several items were retrieved, was theinfilled moat.

The only body of material from which tentativeconclusions might be drawn is the post medievalassemblage from Radcliffe Hall. In thisassemblage the pottery type represented by mostexamples was the iron glazed type. Both fineand coarse wares were present, with fabricsranging from oxidized red to reddish brown, andwith glazes varying from dark reddish brown toa purple black. The minimum number of vesselsin this category was: fineware 20 vessels,coarseware 19 vessels.

The next largest groups were lead glazed wares,with yellow glaze on a smooth light brown orpink fabric, and slipwares, with two majorfabric types, a light red and a reddish yellow.A minimum of seven lead glazed vessels and sixslipware vessels was represented.

Tin glazes and mottled glazed wares accountedfor four vessels each. Two unglazed and onestoneware vessel were also identified.

Dark iron glazed pottery is widespread in SouthLancashire and can be assumed to have beenlocally produced, although no kiln sites haveyet been excavated to prove this assumption.The coarseware forms all appear to be varietiesof kitchen equipment, whereas only one form ispresent in the fineware; a straight sided cup,probably multi-handled. Since this division offorms has been observed at excavations in Wiganand other sites in the region, it might be

considered typical. The presence here of 120sherds, representing a minimum of 20 similarcups strongly suggests a deliberately matchedset of tableware. It is not surprising that thekitchen pottery should be of local manufacture,but the presence of a large amount of locallyproduced table fineware is interesting as thefashion at the time in the south was for Delft,or imitation Delft ware.

The forms of cups in the darker wares appear tocopy those of 'Cistercian' ware, although thatterm has become too widespread, temporally andspatially, to be of particular relevance. Theyellow glazed pottery, of the type known asMidland Yellow ware, probably originatesoutside the area. It was manufacturedthroughout the Midlands, with clay whichproduced a pale coloured fabric beingparticularly favoured. The presence of iron,giving a red cast to the fabric, suggests anorigin outside the centres in the SouthMidlands where white fabric pottery wasproduced. The siipwares, where a slip ofdifferently coloured clay is trailed or paintedonto the surface of the pot before glazing, wasmanufactured at a variety of locations and in avariety of styles. Those from Radcliffe Hallare presumed by the excavators to haveoriginated in Staffordshire.

The assemblages suggest that trade in pottery,whilst occurring, was not yet carried out on alarge scale in southeast Lancashire in the 17thcentury. Most of the pottery was obtainedlocally, with only a small amount being broughtfrom the North Midlands, and, occasionally,particular items brought from the south orimported from abroad.

A study of the forms present shows mostlycooking pots (principally baking dishes) anddrinking cups, with a small number of dishesand even fewer bowls, none of which latter wereof local manufacture. There was a completeabsence of jugs or plates. At Denton' Hall,amongst the items recovered from the mout was awooden bowl, and it seems likely that much ofthe tableware in daily use was either wooden ormetal, while jugs made of tarred leather werein common use in the medieval period. Survivalof wooden and leather items requires particularsoil conditions, and metal utensils in dailyuse are more likely to have been repaired orrecycled when damaged than they are to havebeen discarded. As a result it is difficult todifferentiate between assemblages from well-offhouseholds, where metal utensils would havebeen used, and the less well-off where woodmight have been more common. Apart from this,insufficient domestic post-medieval sites havebeen excavated and published from the northwestto attempt to distinguish any differentiationof households by wealth, based only on thepottery recovered.

Excavations and Surveys of Domestic Sites inthe North-West - Possible Future Priorities

Whilst excavation of the structural sequence isproductive in some instances, and a structuralsequence can often be tied to known historicalrecords and events, there was in fact littleretrieval of information concerning the most

5 5

interesting structural aspect of these sites,that is the earliest structure.

A more useful approach to this problem might beto concentrate on surveying survivingstructures. The information produced by surveyat Denton, and at Peel Hall, Ince, is obviouslyfar superior to any that might be produced byexcavation, since the earliest features on asite where there has been any degree ofcontinuity of occupation must of necessity befragmentary, and evidence of the nature of thebuilding's superstructure non-existent.

Concerning artefacts, no single systematicstudy of medieval and post-medieval pottery hasbeen made in the north-west. A first prioritymust be to sort out the various black glazedwares which are often lumped together under thetitle of Cistercian, or Cistercian derived,wares, and which continue as a northern potterytype until almost the 20th century.

Only if each project is approached with clearlyformulated questions of relevance to the topicof country nouses as a whole, will it becomeeasier to fully evaluate and utilise thefindings.

5 6