May 1998
The south wall of a small wing attached to the main building of Manor Farm, Hambledon collapsed in January 1998. Following consultation with interested parties, Hampshire County Council asked C K Currie of CKC Archaeology to make a measured elevation of the structure prior to restoration. The work was carried out in April 1998, following work by Ian Payne and Partners, structural engineers, to make the building safe.
This recording episode enabled an up-to-date detailed elevation to be made of part of this well-known medieval building. The survey has identified a discrepancy in the description of the ashlar stone. Previously this had been reported as 'chalk'. A better description might be 'malmstone', but it is felt that this needs to be assessed by a qualified geologist.
This survey probably enabled the post-medieval wooden frames in the two western blocked windows to be recorded in detail for the first time. Previously these were hidden behind various blocking materials. These frames seem to be of late 16th or 17th century date, originally with heavy diamond mullions, of which only one seems to have survived in its original position. The upper window has since had all but one of these replaced by flat inserts. The lower frame seems to have originally been of four lights, but this was altered to three lights later. This frame was in very bad condition, and had fallen to pieces following the collapse. The surviving pieces were fitted together by the author for recording. Archaeological recording of a collapsed medieval wall at Manor Farm, Hambledon, Hampshire (NGR: SU 64651502)
This report has been written based on the format suggested by the Institute of Field Archaeologists' Standard and guidance for the archaeological investigation and recording of standing buildings or structures (Birmingham, 1995). The ordering of information follows the guidelines given in this document, although alterations may have been made to fit in with the particular requirements of the work.
The south wall of a small wing attached to the main building of Manor Farm, Hambledon collapsed in January 1998. Following consultation with interested parties, Hampshire County Council asked C K Currie of CKC Archaeology to make a measured elevation of the structure prior to restoration. The work was carried out in April 1998, following work by Ian Payne and Partners, structural engineers, to make the building safe.
Hambledon Manor Farm stands in West Street, Hambledon about 200m SSW of the village church. It has long been recognised as containing the remains of an important medieval building. The structure was discussed in 1942 by C B Roberts (1942, 165-66), who made a measured plan of the surviving medieval structure. The building is discussed by Margaret Wood in her seminal work, The English Medieval House (Wood 1965, 76, 124-25, 347), and, more recently by Edward Roberts (1993, 21-22).
The building appears to have been the manor house of the bishops of Winchester, who were the medieval lords of Hambledon. Like at a number of their manors, they built substantial buildings from which to control their vast estates. Few of these buildings remain unaltered, and it is considered that the medieval remains incorporated into present day Manor Farm are but a fragment of the original complex of buildings that are recorded there in the 13th century. The manor house was extensive enough to entertain Henry III is 1231-32. In the 14th century there were several domestic ranges at Hambledon that included a hall, bishop's chamber, gatehouse, kitchen, knight's chamber, chapel, bailiff's room and clerk's chamber (Roberts 1993, 21). These have all been destroyed apart from two adjoining structures forming the south wing of Manor Farm. These buildings are of flint rubble with ashlar dressings. They have clearly been much altered, as is reflected by extensive brick patching and a number of blocked doorways and windows. A 16th-century west wing has been added to the NW corner of the large of the two surviving medieval structures.
There have been a number of attempts to analyse the surviving structures. It was thought that the hall was to the south of the large building. This latter structure may have comprised a buttery or service room with a solar over. The three blocked doors visible in the south wall suggest the centre one was a through passage, thought to lead from the hall to the medieval kitchen. The smaller building attached on the east side has always presented a problem of interpretation. Wood (op. cit.) considered this building to be a chapel, although Roberts (1993, 22) has suggested that it may have been an inner room-cum-garderobe similar to that beside the solar at the bishop of Winchester's manor house at East Meon.
A chance reference to one of the published medieval pipe rolls of the Winchester bishopric has suggested that this interpretation may need to be questioned. In the roll for 1301-02 it is recorded that a palisade needed to be built anew 'between the hall and the kitchen'. This suggests that the hall and kitchen may not have been separated by the above conjectured solar block. Instead these buildings may have faced one another across an empty space that had a 'palisade' or fence built across it. These accounts also refer to re-roofing in (West Country?) 'slates' and shingles (Page 1996, 299), suggesting that the clay tiles presently roofing the surviving medieval buildings may not have been used until after this date. The full entry for building repair in that year is attached as an appendix to this report.
3.1 Project aims
The client, Hampshire County Council, provided a brief in the form of a commissioning letter. This was issued on 15-4-98 by James Webb.
This states that the requirements for the work were as follows:
The letter further stated that:
'These drawings will be needed to assess whether these windows could be put back into the facade as reconstructed, and if so, what localised repairs they will require. If not, the drawings can stand as a record of the fabric lost by the collapse.
English Heritage have requested that this form part of an application for listing building consent for the rebuilding of one elevation to the hall/chapel range of the Manor Farm, Hambledon. The scope of building recording should only be confined to this single elevation in its existing state of partial collapse and is not an exercise in historical analysis or interpretation of the structure it belongs to or any other part of the complex. This is considered to be outside the requirements of this brief'
The letter states that the collapsed windows in (ii) were found intact on 'initial inspection of the property'. However, by the time the author visited the site, one had been dismantled, and stored in pieces inside the building with the other intact window.
On inspection of the site, the author decided that the two surviving in situ windows would also benefit from being drawn at 1:5.
3.2 Methodology
Existing scaffolding and protective sheeting effectively prevented the elevation from being measured by any other method than manually. A base line was set up on site, and the structure measured from this. This line was subsequently tied in to the Bench Mark on the east end of the church (67.32m AOD). There were two levels of scaffolding that prevented the elevation from being measured directly from this one base line on one level, and some improvisation was necessary.
The elevation of the building was drawn at a scale of 1:50. The two windows in the elevation, plus those two that had fallen out during the collapse were drawn at 1:5. The collapsed windows were also drawn in plan form to show the shape of empty joints only visible by this method.
It should be noted that the lower of the two wooden windows was in a much rotten condition. When found, it had fallen to pieces, and had been dumped within the building in an unstructured heap. It was not possible to draw this realistically as it was found, and so the author attempted a temporary reconstruction to make a drawing. The reader should, therefore, be aware of an element of conjecture in this drawing.
The smaller building, here being discussed, is some 21 feet by 11 internally Roberts (1993, 21). The south elevation measured 7.08m (23.19 feet) externally according to this survey, and scaling off from C B Roberts' plan makes it approximately 23 feet by 15.75 externally. The building had been of two storeys, although the ground has been built up against the lower storey by about 1m.
The structure was found in a condition of partial collapse. The engineers had removed any unsafe or loose material before the survey took place. It is estimated that only about 50% of the original wall remained intact. Certainly, from discussion with James Webb of the Environment Group of Hampshire County Council (pers. comm.), more of the structure was standing after the initial collapse, but had been since taken away as unsafe. Three piles of stone, brick and flint respectively could be seen in the yard ready for use in the rebuilding.
The elevation showed a structure that was originally of flint rubble with ashlar stone dressings. These dressings are currently to be found on the quoins of the building, on the blocked doorway at the lower west end, and around the blocked window in the top east end. There is also the occasional small piece of stone incorporated within the knapped flint wall. The stone was a greenish-grey stone of a sandy nature, but its colour varied in lightness of tone. The nearest Munsell Colours are 5Y 4/3, 5Y 5/3, 5Y 6/3 (designated olive), but this is based on the soil colour chart used by archaeologists, and is not entirely appropriate. The author considers that the actual colour was slightly more green than these examples as a rule. Although the author does not have the expertise to determine where this stone originated from, it is quite common in East Hampshire, and is known locally as 'malmstone'. As here at Hambledon, it has a tendency to weather badly, and this causes large 'flakes' to peel off leaving quite large scars on the original blocks. It is worth mentioning that Roberts (1993, 21) calls the ashlar dressings 'chalk'. Recent discussion with this author has established that the description 'malmstone' might be more suitable until a qualified geologist can determine whether this stone derives from chalk deposits or not.
The wall showed much evidence for post-medieval patching, both in flint and brick, and in large sections of brick on its own. The brickwork is particularly apparent in the lower courses of the wall. There is a notably large section of it around the remains of a rectangular window in the lower storey. The bricks tend to be types common in the 17th and early 18th centuries, although they have been could be reused.
Before the collapse there was evidence to suggest that the elevation contained four windows and a door. The latter was blocked with flint and brick rubble. The stone jambs remaining above ground survived the collapse, with part of the arch above collapsed. The remaining arch, plus earlier knowledge of the building, suggests this arch was round-headed, and probably of late 12th-century date.
The two western windows, situated above one another on the ground and first floors were rectangular, with wooden frames, and possibly mainly brick surrounds. These windows had collapsed into the garden, and had been temporarily placed on the floor of the building. They would appear to have been post-medieval inserts. Only one frame was still intact, the other was much rotted and had collapsed into its constituent pieces.
The owner, Mr Mason, identified the intact frame as the upper window (pers. comm.), although the author can not confirm this. This frame was (excluding end scarfs) 1.2m by 0.8m. It had three mullion bars surrounding four lights. The outer two were both flat, with the middle mullion a heavy diamond type. Behind each of the flat mullions was a diamond-shaped mortice hole, possibly where an earlier mullion had once sat. A thin diamond mullion existed at the rear of the eastern flat mullion. The former external face was partly covered in wattle and daub with traces of plaster over. The external face of the frame was chamfered around the inside of all the lights, except on the inserted flat mullions.
The broken frame had to be reconstructed by the author for drawing. This was estimated to have been 1.24m by 0.82m. It had two heavy diamond mullion bars surrounding three lights. There were three empty diamond mortice holes in the cill and lintel, suggesting that the original frame had three lights. The external face of the frame was chamfered around the inside of all the lights.
There were also two in situ windows in the east half of the wall. These were not directly above one another. The larger of the two was a rectangular opening (0.68m by 0.22m) with a stone surround. It was probably of medieval date, if not an original feature, and was blocked with a mixture of stone, brick and tile.
The other in situ window was inserted into the lower floor slightly to the east of the above-mentioned window. This was a rectangular opening 0.51m by 0.17m within a wooden frame, and set in a surround of brick, with a thin wooden lintel. It has a thin iron bar as a mullion, and is probably a post-medieval insert.
It is not a requirement of the brief for this work to make an analysis of the remains. However, a short discussion might be appropriate.
Nothing was observed to question the general date of the building as given by previous workers (Roberts 1993, Wood 1965). The blocked doorway suggests a late Norman date. Although c. 1200 has been suggested, the building might be slightly earlier, possibly going back to c. 1160. The window encased in stone in the top eastern corner of the building is probably original. The partly brick blocking suggests a post-medieval date for its disuse. The brick window below is of post-medieval date, as are the two wooden framed windows that collapsed into the garden.
The detail on these frames suggests a late 16th or 17th century date as the most likely, although the author does not have the expertise to state this for certain. Both frames contained empty mortice joints, suggesting the mullions were of at least two phases. It is suggested that only the heavy diamond mullion of the upper frame was original. The two heavy diamond mullions of the lower frame, and the lighter diamond mullion and the flat mullions on the upper frame were all probably later alterations. Both windows were blocked at some time, the upper frame being walled in behind wattle and daub, that was then plastered over. Traces of this remained on the frame, but this was not shown on the final drawings.
This recording episode enabled an up-to-date detailed elevation to be made of part of this well-known medieval building. The survey has identified a discrepancy in the description of the ashlar stone. Previously this had been reported as 'chalk'. A better description might be 'malmstone', but it is felt that this needs to be assessed by a qualified geologist.
This survey probably enabled the post-medieval wooden frames in the two western blocked windows to be recorded in detail for the first time. Previously these were hidden behind various blocking materials. These frames seem to be of late 16th or 17th century date, originally with heavy diamond mullions, of which only one seems to have survived in its original position. The upper window has since had all but one of these replaced by flat inserts. The lower frame seems to have originally been of four lights, but this was altered to three lights later. This frame was in very bad condition, and had fallen to pieces following the collapse. The surviving pieces were fitted together by the author for recording.
The archive for this work has been deposited with the Hampshire County Museum Services. Copies of the report were lodged with the client, the County Sites and Monuments Record (SMR), and the National Monuments Record, Swindon, Wiltshire.
Thanks are extended to all those involved with this project. These include Mr and Mrs Mason, the owners, for giving access to the building. James Webb of the Environment Department of Hampshire County Council, and to Edward Roberts, for discussing his knowledge of the building.
9.1 Primary sources in print:
M Page (ed.), The pipe roll of the bishopric of Winchester, 1301-2, Winchester, 1996
9.2 Secondary sources:
Institute of Field Archaeologists, Standard and guidance for the archaeological investigation and recording of standing buildings or structures (Birmingham, 1995).
C B Roberts, 'Notes on three ancient buildings', Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club & Archaeological Society, 15.2 (1942), 165-66
E Roberts, 'Hambledon Manor Farm', Hampshire Field Club & Archaeological Society newsletter new series no. 19 (1993), 21-22
M Wood, The English Medieval House, London, 1965
The following transcription is taken from the Winchester bishopric pipe roll for 1301-02 (Page 1996, 299):
'Repair of buildings'
In 2,000 slates bought 3s 4d. In re-roofing the hall, lord's chamber, clerk's chamber and kitchen, which had been unroofed several times by the wind, 10s 6d. In nails and pegs bought for the same 8d. In re-roofing the barn and other buildings in places 4s 4d. In laying 100 shingles in places on the barn with nails bought for the same 5d. In building anew 1 palisade between the hall and kitchen 2s 8d. In building 1 palisade between the hall and dairy and 1 new garden gate 2s 2d. In felling and sawing timber for the same 9d. In mending the byre in part and making anew a fodder-rack for the byre 3s 6d. In mending the fodder-rack and manger in the stable 6d. In making 1 window in the kitchen with hooks and hinges for the same 5d. In plastering the walls of the bailiff's room and knights' chamber 10d. Total £1 10s 1d.'