ebworth house painswick gloucestershire ......trust at ebworth house, painswick, gloucestershire...

EBWORTH HOUSE

PAINSWICK

GLOUCESTERSHIRE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

CAT PROJECT: 1318 CAT REPORT: 02031

Author: D. Kenyon, R. Morriss and M. Watts

Approved:

Signed:

M Watts

…………………………………………………………….

Issue: 03 Date: 20 December 2002

This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeological Trust Ltd accepts no responsibility or liability to any third party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report entirely

at their own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission.

© Cotswold Archaeological Trust Ltd. Headquarters Building, Kemble Business Park, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 6BQ

Tel. 01285 771022 Fax. 01285 771033 E-mail:[email protected]

Ebworth House, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Recording

© Cotswold Archaeology

CONTENTS

SUMMARY........................................................................................................................4

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 6

The site ................................................................................................................ 6

Historical background .......................................................................................... 7

Archaeological objectives .................................................................................... 8

Methodology ........................................................................................................ 8

2. EXCAVATION RESULTS .................................................................................... 10

General ................................................................................................................ 10

The early house (late 16th/early 17th century) .................................................... 10

The alterations of c.1730 ..................................................................................... 14

Later extensions................................................................................................... 17

The Yard .............................................................................................................. 18

3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 18

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 18

Height of the Early Building reassessed .............................................................. 19

Form of the Early Building.................................................................................... 20

The 18th-century Mansion ................................................................................... 21

The Yard, Terrace and ‘Ice House’ ...................................................................... 21

19th-century additions.......................................................................................... 22

Butler’s Cottage ................................................................................................... 22

Other buildings..................................................................................................... 24

4. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE....................................................................... 25

The Early House .................................................................................................. 25

The 18th-century Mansion ................................................................................... 26

Further Work ........................................................................................................ 26

5. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT................................................................................ 27

6. CAT PROJECT TEAM ......................................................................................... 29

2



7. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 29

APPENDIX A: THE WORKED STONE CATALOGUE DIGEST ...................................... 31

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1 Site location plan

Fig. 2 Location of Ebworth House (1:500)

Fig. 3 Plan of Ebworth House as excavated (1:100)

Fig. 4 Ebworth House, south elevation (1:50)

Fig. 5 Ebworth House, east elevation (1:50)

Fig. 6 Ebworth House, section A (1:50)

Fig. 7 Ebworth House, section B (1:50)

Fig. 8 Ebworth House, west elevation (1:50)

Fig. 9 Ebworth House, detail of east elevation, view to W

Fig. 10 Ebworth House, east wall of Dining Room (former west elevation), view to E

Fig. 11 Ebworth House, north wall of kitchen, view to S

Fig. 12 Ebworth House, Gun Room fireplace, view to E

Fig. 13 Ebworth House, east wall of Drawing Room, view to E

Fig. 14 Ebworth House, north wall of Stair Tower, view to N

Fig. 15 Ebworth House, blocked cellar windows in Passage, view to W

Fig. 16 Ebworth House, fireplace in North-east Extension, view to W

Fig. 17 Ebworth House in 1957, south and east elevations (from Hill 2001)

Fig. 18 Ebworth House in 1957, south elevation (from Hill 2001)

Fig. 19 A possible reconstruction of original building plan at Ebworth (1:100)

Fig. 20 Ebworth House, west elevation (from Hill 2001)

Fig. 21 Butler’s Cottage, south elevation, view to N

Fig. 22 Butler’s Cottage, west elevation (north), view to E

Fig. 23 Butler’s Cottage, west elevation (south), view to E

Fig. 24 Stable Block, view to SW

Fig. 25 Worked stone profiles types A to P

Fig. 26 Worked stone profiles types R to DD

Fig. 27 Worked stone profiles types FF to VV

3



SUMMARY

Site Name: Ebworth House

Location: Painswick, Gloucestershire

NGR: SO 899 113

Type: Archaeological excavation and building recording

Date: 18 February – 22 March 2002

Location of Archive: The National Trust

Site Code: EHS 02

An archaeological investigation and building recording project was undertaken by Cotswold

Archaeological Trust in February and March 2002, at the request of the National Trust at

Ebworth House, Painswick, Gloucestershire. The work involved the excavation of the

remains of the former Ebworth House, and the compilation of a complete drawn and

photographic record of the surviving standing structure. A statement of significance of the

surviving structure was made, based on an analysis of the remains, and an assessment of

the likely impact of any future redevelopment of the site was produced. A catalogue of

worked stone recovered from the collapsed portions of the house was also compiled.

A significant portion of the ground floor of the house was exposed, with walls standing in

some areas up to first-floor height and with window and door openings apparent. Internal

details such as fireplaces were also uncovered. A series of cellars, both collapsed and

intact, were identified below the ground floor, but these were mostly not re-excavated on

health and safety grounds.

Two main phases of construction were identified, the first being a relatively small, though

grand, 16th or 17th-century house, possibly a hunting lodge, and the second a remodelling

and substantial enlargement of c. 1730 to create a small country mansion. Various

modifications and additions occurred in the 19th century.

The significance of the principal phases is unclear as detailed study of its context (the

surrounding historic estate) was beyond the remit of this study. Generally however, the

remains of the hunting lodge are likely to be more significant than those of the later mansion,

although, as both only survive as a ruin, it is the building location and its influence on the

developing landscape around it that is probably of greater importance. An Historic

Landscape Survey of the Ebworth Estate has now (December 2002) been commissioned by

4



the National Trust, the results of which should enable a greater understanding of the

significance of the various phases of building on the surrounding historic landscape. The

surviving central block of the stables, probably contemporary with the early building, is of

greatest significance in terms of surviving buildings.

The ruins are now exposed to the elements and, without consolidation, vulnerable to

weathering and further collapse. The impact of any new building on the site of the ruins is

likely to be significant, given the extent of the cellars and the fragility of the surviving

remains. In the absence of a historic landscape study, the impact of new building elsewhere

on the estate is difficult to gauge. However, any new building in the vicinity of the ruins (for

example on the site of the workshops to the west), would probably have a much greater

impact on the surviving historic landscape than any new build directly over the remains of

Ebworth House. The development of this site subject to appropriate archaeological recording

remains the preferred option of the project team, pending the results of the Historic

Landscape Survey.

5



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In February and March 2002 Cotswold Archaeological Trust (CAT) carried out a

programme of archaeological investigation and building recording for the National

Trust at Ebworth House, Painswick, Gloucestershire (NGR: SO 899 113; Fig. 1).

The National Trust wish to create a new residential volunteer centre (or ‘basecamp’)

on the Ebworth Estate to accommodate volunteers to carry out practical

conservation tasks at Ebworth and other properties in the surrounding area. It is

envisaged that the basecamp will be designed and constructed to sustainable

environmental standards. Having considered a number of options, the preferred

location of this building is over the ruins of Ebworth House, at the heart of the

Ebworth Estate.

1.2 Prior to the development of the site, a four-phase plan for archaeological recording

work was drawn up. The four phases consist of archaeological recording following

clearance of vegetation and collapsed material (Phase 1), assessment of

importance, and of the impact of proposed development on the surviving structure

(Phase 2), mitigation work during development (Phase 3), and a post-development

photographic record and publication (Phase 4). This report relates to Phases 1 and

2 of this plan, the removal of vegetation and collapse from the site to reveal the

standing remains, the recording of those remains, and an assessment of their

significance and the impact of the proposed development.

1.3 The work was carried out in accordance with a brief issued by Caroline Thackray,

Archaeological Advisor, the National Trust, and following a pre-tender meeting at

Ebworth Estate on 15 January 2002. The project design was also guided in its

composition by the Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Excavation and

Standard and Guidance for the Archaeological Investigation and Recording of

Standing Buildings or Structures (both IFA 1999), and the Management of

Archaeological Projects (English Heritage 1991).

The site

1.4 The Ebworth Estate comprises 400 hectares of Cotswold countryside, including

parts of Painswick, Cranham, and Miserden parishes. At the centre of the estate, at

approximately 245m AOD, lie the derelict and largely overgrown remains of the

former Ebworth House and its associated service buildings, on the north side of the

6



steep sided, wooded, Sheepscombe valley (Fig. 1). Ebworth House is believed to

have been Tudor in origin, but was greatly enlarged in c. 1730 with the addition of

two large wings of three and four storeys (Hill 2001). All that survived prior to the

project was the derelict and crumbling shell, partly buried beneath a large mound of

demolition rubble, assorted debris and dumped deposits. Immediately adjacent lay

the semi-derelict Butler’s Cottage to the east, and an overgrown structure known as

the ‘Ice-House’ and associated structures to the north.

1.5 The wider context of the estate has yet to be examined in detail, but a range of 18th-

and 19th-century features also survive in the vicinity (Fig. 2). To the west of the ruins

lies a former garden area, currently occupied by a large workshop although some

19th-century specimen tree planting survives. Beyond this the remains of a ha-ha,

park and drive survive, along with further designed landscape features such as

gates and stands of trees, although the views of this from the house have long been

obscured. A walled kitchen garden also survives to the south-west of the house,

while to the north lies a further garden area, bounded by a secondary entrance

drive, of probable 19th-century date. To the east lie the former stables and other

buildings of the estate yard. While Ebworth House itself and the adjacent Butler’s

Cottage stand derelict, the remainder of the surrounding estate yard buildings have

been converted into workshops and offices for use by the National Trust.

1.6 The underlying geology of the area is mapped as Inferior Oolite of the Middle

Jurassic period (GSGB 1975).

Historical background

1.7 A historical report on Ebworth House has already been prepared for the National

Trust (Hill 2001). In summary, the earliest parts of the house were probably built in

the late 16th or early 17th century, possibly as a hunting lodge. This building was

enlarged into a country house by Thomas Cooke in c.1730. Further modifications

and extensions took place in around 1830. The estate was purchased by Henry

Workman of Woodchester in 1900, but his principal concern was the working of the

woodlands on the estate rather than the house itself, which was allowed to fall into

disrepair.

1.8 The early 18th-century wainscot from the Dining Room was removed and

transported to America before the house was turned over to the fire brigade for

practice exercises in the early 1970s. The main part of the house was a fairly

7



austere design, and a traveller in 1905 described it as ‘a severe gloomy looking

mansion’ in the ‘thick plantation that surrounds it.’ (Evans 1905, 317). Final

demolition of much of the structure took place in 1976, and the ruins, along with the

rest of the estate, passed into the hands of the National Trust in 1989.

Archaeological objectives

1.9 The aims of this phase of work were to identify any surviving historically significant

portions of Ebworth House and its immediate environs, and to ensure that an

appropriate record of the surviving structural components was made during and

following de-vegetation and rubble clearance. This would then be followed by a

consideration of the significance of the remains and an assessment of the impact of

proposed development, and finally proposals for appropriate mitigation.

Methodology

1.10 Fieldwork began with a detailed photographic record of all visible elevations of the

building complex, including all visible exterior and interior elevations of the remains

of Ebworth House, all exterior elevations of Butler’s Cottage, the façade and interior

elevations of the ‘Ice House’, and all other surviving courtyard and building complex

walls. Detailed photography was also made of all visible architectural detail. All

photography was undertaken in black-and-white and colour slide format, augmented

by narrative digital photography, and supported by written description. A preliminary

interpretation of the building remains was made at this stage by Richard Morriss

(Historic Buildings Consultant).

1.11 Due to the parlous state of the building, archaeological recording work was

undertaken in conjunction with clearance and dismantling work, with CAT working

closely with the structural engineer, scaffolder and demolition contractors employed

by the National Trust. The existing elevated sections of masonry were given

structural support and scaffolded such that clearance, recording and dismantling

could be undertaken. Vegetation was then carefully removed using hand tools or

powered tools as appropriate to reveal existing external elevations. These

elevations were then photographed, and drawn at a scale of 1:20, with architectural

stone drawn stone for stone, and representative areas of rubble stone recorded.

This was followed by the dismantling of all structurally unstable elevations and

appropriate storage of all stone by the demolition contractors, so as to make safe

the site for the excavation and removal of demolition debris and other dumped

8



deposits. The record drawings were used to individually number stone blocks in situ

before removal by the demolition contractors.

1.12 Mechanical removal of all rubble and debris from within and around the structure

then followed, with clearance of external elevations and yards down to ground level.

This was undertaken under constant archaeological supervision, and included the

recovery and storage on pallets of all architectural stone found within the collapsed

deposits. The pallets were numbered to allow the provenance within the building of

all recovered stones to be recorded.

1.13 In some areas, the instability of the structure required a phased removal of

collapsed material to a safe level (determined in consultation with the structural

engineer), recording, controlled demolition and then further clearance, until ground

floor level was reached. Collapsed cellars were identified in several parts of the

structure, but these were generally only cleared to ground floor level, or investigated

and then back-filled, due to concerns over both health and safety, and the structural

integrity of the surviving parts of the building.

1.14 Once excavation reached ground level the drawn and photographic record was

completed for all surviving elevations, and an overall plan drawn (at 1:50 scale). At

this stage, analysis and interpretation of the surviving fabric was undertaken by

Richard Morriss, noting any areas of historic repair, constructional styles and

differential stone geology.

1.15 A catalogue was compiled of all the architectural stone recovered from the

excavations (except from wall dismantling). The stone was identified by type (e.g.

single-ashlared face, moulded profiles, sculptured pieces), measured and marked,

and their provenance noted. Moulded profiles were drawn and representative pieces

photographed in colour print and black-and-white, including examples of different

profiles and sculptured pieces. A digest of the catalogue of worked stone appears as

appendix A of this report.

1.16 The excavations were monitored by Caroline Thackray at regular weekly meetings.

Additional information regarding the nature of the remains, and their significance

was provided by John Workman and Jeffrey Haworth (National Trust).

9



1.17 The interpretation of the remains was much enhanced by the photographs of both

the interior and exterior of Ebworth House taken by the former Royal Commission on

the Historic Monuments of England in 1957, and reproduced by Hill (2001). These

are referred to as the ‘historic’ photographs below; some are reproduced as figures.

2. EXCAVATION RESULTS

General

2.1 Following the removal of all the demolition debris, the complete plan of the house at

ground floor level was exposed and recorded (Fig. 3). Most walls survived to a

height of at least 1.5m, allowing the location of doorways, and many windows and

other features to be identified. In several areas walls initially survived to a greater

height, but after recording these were dismantled or demolished to a safe level in

the course of the debris removal.

2.2 From both the historical report and the archaeological remains, it was clear that the

house comprised three principal phases of construction; the early house (dating

from the late 16th or early 17th century), the Georgian additions and alterations of c.

1730, and later 19th- and 20th-century additions. Individual rooms have been

identified in accordance with a plan provided by John Workman, based on his

recollections of visits to the house before its demolition.

The early house (late 16th/early 17th century)

2.3 The earliest part of the house was located in the south-east corner of the surviving

structure, comprising the rooms latterly known as the Kitchen and Gun Room. The

early house was built around a central chimney stack, with its principal elevation and

entrance on the southern side. The entrance led into a lobby (or baffle entrance)

against the south flank of the chimney stack. This entrance formerly had given

access to either side of the chimney, but the insertion of a brick wall and kitchen

range had later blocked the access to the eastern room. The chimney stack survived

to a height of 2.5m; other walls in this part of the house generally survived to a

height of 1.2m.

2.4 The walls of the early building were bonded in a rather weak clay and lime mix,

although this proved to be stronger than the simple clay bonding used in the

alterations and additions of c. 1730 (see below). The walls of the early building were

10



generally of rubblestone construction faced with fine ashlar, though the ashlar

masonry was slightly different from and slightly more weathered than that of the

early 18th-century block. In the south wall, the junction between the two phases was

well crafted but there were subtle differences in the course heights. In addition, the

designs of the lintels over the former basement doorway in the older section and the

cellar light in the new differed: the former was a single block of stone with a rebate,

whilst the other was of tripartite construction with integral keystone (Fig. 4).

2.5 The two phases shared a simply moulded plinth, probably part of the original design

respected in the newer range. In the south front of the early part of the house, this

plinth had been cut into by the sills of the ground-floor windows, which were

evidently renewed when the building was remodelled in the 18th century. The plinth

returned on the east side of this older portion with no such indentation. The only

oddity in it was at the north end of the eastern elevation, where a doorway was cut

through the wall. For some reason, the section to the north of this was cut away and

a cruder ‘moulded’ top formed to the plinth a course below the rest (Figs 5 and 9).

The plinth returned to its original height on the north wall. The cut-down section

would have been within the single-storey link block between the house and Butler’s

Cottage, and its state was presumably associated with this position.

2.6 The western wall of the early building formed the southern part of the eastern wall of

the later 18th-century addition to the west. This wall had significant traces of

surviving ashlar facing and it would appear that the whole wall was originally faced

in this material. Within this section there were distinct gaps in the ashlar, flanked by

reasonably straight joints. These gaps were infilled with rubblestone, and this work

was evidently associated with the construction of the west frontage block. It seems

reasonable to assume that these gaps were associated with primary openings in the

original ashlar faced building and, logically, that they were related to the positions of

fairly large ground-floor windows. Obviously, once the early 18th-century range was

built, these windows would have been redundant and were infilled (Figs 6 and 10).

2.7 The plinth visible on the south and west sides continued on eastern side of the north

wall, which was also ashlar-built, indicating that this was (at this end at least) an

external wall prior to the construction of the later North-east Extension (Figs 7 and

11). To the north of the central stack the north wall stepped out by 0.65m, possibly

to accommodate the original stairs. This projection was not faced with ashlar and

possessed a plain stone-mullioned window lacking arched heads, suggesting that

11



the northern side was the plainer, more utilitarian part of the building. This projection

is also believed to have been the site of the 18th-century back stairs (see below).

2.8 The extent of the original building in its north-western corner was unclear due to the

presence of the 18th-century Stair Tower. This may have been built directly on the

footprint of an earlier block that housed the primary stairs. However, given the

apparent extent of the early cellar (see below), it seems more likely that the north

wall stepped back to rejoin its original alignment. Therefore the plan of the early

building was possibly entirely symmetrical, with two large rooms on the ground floor

to the east and west, a baffle entrance to the south and stairs projecting centrally to

the north.

Kitchen

2.9 The room on the eastern side of the central stack probably once had a grander

function, but was later used as the Kitchen. This room had a large fireplace built into

the eastern side of the central stack. From its width and surviving moulding and

springing it was evident that the fireplace had originally had a moulded depressed

four-centred stone head. It had been reduced in size at least once, with brick jambs

inserted within the primary moulded stone surround. A very large but plain stone

overmantel was recovered from the collapsed debris within this room. The floor

comprised worn, irregular flagstones surrounding a large hearth in front of the

fireplace. Several flags were removed to allow test-drilling below, but the results

indicated that this half of the early building had not contain cellars.

2.10 The east wall of the kitchen contained an inserted doorway through to the former

Servants’ Passage at its northern end. A recessed shelf was located roughly central

to the wall, with a porcelain sink with tiled surround towards the southern end. It is

possible that the shelf was original to the early house, and the sink was probably

placed within an original window recess. The precise location of the window opening

was unclear due to the lack of surviving wall face above plinth level on the exterior

(Fig. 5).

2.11 The south wall contained evidence for the secondary window, the sill of which

interrupted the plinth course (Fig. 4), and the south-western corner of the room

contained the brick-built range blocking a former doorway. A former window was

also identified in the north wall, blocked with clay-bonded rubble probably when the

North-east Extension was added (see below). To the west, another secondary

12



doorway had been inserted, giving access to the rear courtyard and later to the

North-eastern Extension. This doorway had moulded but non-matching stone jambs,

and was located uncomfortably close to the projecting stair block.

Gun Room

2.12 On the western side of the chimney stack was a room later known as the Gun

Room. It had the remains of a large fireplace with moulded stone jambs on its east

side: this also had originally featured a moulded depressed four-centred stone head,

and also had been considerably rebuilt over the years (Fig. 12). The floor of this

room had collapsed into a cellar below. This was not fully excavated but sufficient

was removed and backfilled to reveal a passage leading westwards connecting with

the cellars under the western range of the house. An external flight of steps was

also revealed to the south providing an external access to the cellar, although this

had clearly been inserted through the south wall. Above were traces of the

secondary window sill, again interrupting the plinth course.

2.13 Surviving portions of ashlar on the external face of the west wall (once the external

wall of the early building) gave some indication of where windows may formerly have

been located (Fig. 6), but this could not be discerned on the plain rubble interior of

the west wall, which was apparently featureless. There was no evidence of a north

wall to the Gun Room, although historic photographs show at least one party wall

separating it from the later Stair Tower to the north. The outline of the cellar

indicated that the western half of the north wall of the of the early building may once

have matched that of the eastern half. From its eastern extent in line with the central

stack, the cellar wall turned westwards at what was presumably its original northern

limit. The part of the cellar below the Stair Tower, like the Stair Tower itself, was

presumed to be secondary.

Back Stairs

2.14 To the north of the central stack was a small area lit by a plain two-light stone

mullioned window within the northern projection. This was possibly the location of

the stairs to the original building, and probably the location of the later Back Stairs.

The floor comprised flagstones with steps down to a lower flagged area lying against

the surviving internal angle of the projection. The lower area presumably facilitated

the construction of one of the possible staircases housed in this part of the building.

A wall scar indicated that the stairs had been separated from the (later) kitchen by a

party wall in line with the eastern side of the central stack.

13



The alterations of c.1730

2.15 The house was substantially altered and extended in the 18th century, with the

addition of a range of three rooms along the western side, later known as the

Drawing Room, the Entrance Hall, and the Dining Room. Other alterations were also

made to the rear (north side) of the building, and these probably included the

addition of the Stair Tower to the east of the Entrance Hall and north of the Gun

Room. New vaulted cellars were constructed below the whole length of the range,

linked with the earlier cellar by a passages below the Stair Tower and the fireplace

of the Dining Room (Fig. 3).

The Exterior

2.16 The new principal or West Range was a single pile aligned north/south, of three

storeys over cellars and of seven bays, the central three bays were stepped forward

slightly and closer together than the other flanking bays. The additions and

alterations were all carried out using clay as the main bonding material, a

surprisingly cheap (and weak) option given the scale of the building and the local

availability of lime. The main elevation was faced in ashlar on the entrance front and

gable ends, but the exposed sections of the rear elevations were of rubblestone.

The surviving part of the main elevation had band courses at the sill and lintel levels

of the sash windows (Fig. 8).

2.17 The walls of the West Range generally survived to a height up to 2m, and in places

higher. With both clay-bonding and frequent window bays, the walls of this range

were generally weak, and for safety reasons were demolished (following recording)

to the level of the lower band course at window sill height. This also assisted with

machine access for the removal of debris from within the structure. The northern

part of the rear, or east, wall of this range was apparently new build (and

featureless), but the southern section utilised the existing west wall of the older

portion of the house (see above).

The Interior

2.18 The internal walls of the new range were built entirely in rubble. Only one full-height

doorway survived (between the Entrance Hall and the Drawing Room), and this had

a very crude flat-arched head of rubblestone voussoirs. All of this crude stonework

would, of course, have been hidden by plaster and wainscot.

14



Drawing Room

2.19 The Drawing Room formed the northernmost of the three rooms. Originally this room

had a shallow alcove in the north wall, which had collapsed entirely down to ground

level as a result of the removal of its outer facing stone but was traceable at ground

level. Window bays extending down to floor level were present along the western

wall. In the eastern wall an arched fireplace was uncovered, which matched in

construction and dimensions one in the Dining Room to the south (see below). This

fireplace had been reduced with a brick flue added and a smaller grate fitted,

probably in the 19th century, but the earlier, larger opening was visible behind (Fig.

17). The floor of the Drawing Room was initially found in situ, with traces of burnt

floorboards lying on the surviving vault of a cellar below. The collapse of part of this

vault allowed entry to the substantially intact cellar below. It was apparent from

within this cellar that the similar cellar under the Entrance Hall had collapsed

entirely, and this was confirmed on excavation. The wall separating the Drawing

Room and Entrance Hall stood to a height in excess of 5m, with joist sockets visible

at first floor level, however it was necessary to demolish this wall almost entirely

following recording as it was highly unstable.

Entrance Hall

2.20 The Entrance Hall lay to the south of the Drawing Room in the centre of the West

Range. The front doorway and portico had recently partly collapsed. Those parts

that remained in situ were taken down following recording, and most of the

collapsed portion was recovered from the top of the demolition debris. There was a

broad access in the eastern wall to the Stair Tower and a butt joint was visible in the

fabric of the early building to south, perhaps indicative of a former doorway or

window to the original building. The lower parts of the main entrance and flanking

window bays survived in the west wall. Most of the floor had collapsed into the cellar

below, although a few slabs of slate and stone survived in the corners of the room

where the springing of the cellar vault survived in situ.

2.21 The demolition debris within the Entrance Hall was partially excavated to establish

the level of the cellar floor and to give access to the cellar under the Drawing Room.

Two vaulted passages were apparent below the east wall of the Entrance Hall: one

to the north admitted light from a low-level cellar window, and one centrally

accessed a passage below the Stair Tower leading to the early cellar below the Gun

Room.

15



Dining Room

2.22 The Dining Room occupied the southern end of the West Range. To protect the

surviving structure this room was not cleared of demolition debris below sill level, so

the cellars remained unexcavated. However, it was clear from the cellar window in

the south wall that the Dining Room floor had also collapsed and that this part of the

cellar was also full of demolition debris. Two further window bays were apparent in

the west wall.

2.23 Of particular interest was the east wall, which had formerly been the exterior wall of

the earlier house (see above and Fig. 10). A fireplace had been inserted centrally,

apparently built into the rubblestone blocking of a primary opening between ashlar-

faced sections of the wall. The fireplace head was formed of a segmental arch of

worked stone. Its springing on the south side was from the rubblestone infill whilst

on the north side, the springing had been cut into a straight edge of ashlar, possibly

representing a primary jamb of the earlier building. This fireplace was identical to the

early 18th-century part of the fireplace in the Drawing Room (above).

Stair Tower

2.24 Although potentially on the site of a projecting wing of the early building, and despite

the presence of two windows of early 17th-century form, the Stair Tower appeared

to be entirely 18th-century in its construction. In the east wall, a two-light stone

mullioned window had been re-used at ground-floor level within the rubble

construction, which also incorporated some reused ashlar blocks. In the north wall,

a two-light window with arched heads had been reset at a lower level, lighting the

cellar passage below the Stair Tower (Fig. 14). This was confirmed by partial

excavation of the debris to the south of the window, which exposed a sloping sill

designed to throw light downwards into the cellar.

2.25 The north wall was built entirely of clay-bonded rubble, and included a recess at its

western end to accommodate the cellar window in the east wall of the Entrance Hall.

A doorway had been inserted through the eastern end of the north wall to provide

access to the 19th-century extensions to the north (see below and Fig. 7). From the

extent of the flagstones surviving over the eastern part of the Stair Tower floor, it

was clear that the cellar passage turned to the south and did not extend below the

eastern half of the Stair Tower.

16



Later extensions

2.26 Further rooms and structures were added to the northern (rear) part of the house,

probably during the later 18th and 19th centuries. The remains of at least two

extensions were recorded on the rear of the house, one to the north of the Kitchen

and a second to the north of the Stair Tower, along the rear of the Drawing Room.

Passage and Pantry

2.27 Following the construction of the Stair Tower and Drawing Room in the early 18th

century, a further phase of construction led to the blocking of both the Entrance Hall

cellar window, and the reset 17th-century window below the main stairs. A small

pantry was built to the north of the Stair Tower rendering both windows redundant

(Fig. 15). A brick chimney stack was also inserted into this space, connected to the

Entrance Hall by a flue, presumably for a stove. Subsequently this room became a

passage leading to a further, probably 19th-century room to the north, built partially

in brick (the Pantry). This room connected to the Drawing Room by a doorway

inserted through the rear (east) wall of the Drawing Room (Figs 6 and 13), which

may have served as a dining room at some stage, with this addition acting as a

serving room or butler’s pantry.

North-east Extension

2.28 The North-east Extension was built against what formerly had been the exterior of

the early building, north of the Kitchen. The earlier external plinth moulding was

rendered over and a window blocked in. The north and east walls were totally

demolished, but the clay-bonded rubble construction style of the surviving west wall

suggested that this room may have been a part of the 18th-century alterations.

However, the external mouldings on the inserted doorway at the northern end of the

kitchen suggests that this area was still a yard following the additions of c. 1730, and

the fireplace surviving within the west wall (Fig. 16) was very different in character to

the 18th-century fireplaces in the West Range (Figs 10 and 13).

Game Larder and Servants’ Passage

2.29 To the east of the North-east Extension was a further structure, built as a lean-to

onto Butler’s Cottage and recorded as a ‘Game Larder’. This had collapsed

completely prior to archaeological recording. Areas of red tiled flooring around this

building showed where the Servants’ Passage connected it with the main house and

linked both with Butler’s Cottage.

17



North-west Extension

2.30 Finally, another extension was added the north-eastern corner of the Drawing

Room, linking the house with the wall retaining the garden to the north, into which

the ‘Ice House’ was built (see below). Its date of construction was unclear as it was

almost entirely demolished and its plan could only be partially recovered, although a

few floor tiles survived in its north-eastern corner. It had no obvious connection with

the main house.

The Yard

2.31 Clearance of the yard exposed its most recent tarmac surface. The yard lay between

rubble-built retaining walls to the east and north (the latter containing the ‘Ice

House’), and the ruins of Ebworth House to the south and west. The remains of two

further structures were uncovered in the north-east corner of the yard. To the south

of the Game Larder and Servants’ Passage, the yard between the House and

Butlers’ Cottage was flagged: these were removed following recording to allow for

machine access.

2.32 The remains of a limestone-floored building were recorded against the north

retaining wall, which included a window served by a sloping light well to the north.

The remains of a later concrete-floored building were apparent against the eastern

wall, extending as far as the Game Larder to the south. Sockets for roof timbers

associated with this building, which may have been a greenhouse, were visible in

the retaining wall above, some with parts of their timbers still in situ.

The ‘Ice House’

2.33 The ‘Ice House’, which was largely terraced into the adjacent hillside, had a gabled

façade and internal walls of coursed stonework. It had a brick-built barrel roof and a

flat floor cut from the natural brash and level with its entrance. A flight of steps giving

access to the garden to the north was uncovered adjacent to the ‘Ice House’

entrance.

3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Introduction

3.1 From the excavated evidence, the original building measured 11.35m east/west by

8.85m north/south, and seems to have been arranged symmetrically, with two

18



principal rooms either side of a central stack, a small projection (possibly for the

stairs) to the north and a baffle entrance to the south. The western half of the

building was cellared. It has been suggested that the early building was a four-

storey range, probably of late 16th- or early 17th-century date (Hill 2001, 5). This

interpretation of the structure, on quite a small footprint, was probably one of the

reasons why it has been suggested that the building was a hunting lodge.

Height of the Early Building reassessed

3.2 A reassessment of the historic photographs suggests the strong possibility that this

earlier range was originally not of four storeys, but may only have been of two. On

the east elevation, there was a plinth, and then moulded string courses at first and

second floor levels, immediately above the ground and first-floor windows. There

were no further string courses higher up the building, and the photographs suggest

that the masonry above the second-floor string was darker than that below (Fig. 17).

On the south elevation, there was a distinct horizontal band visible in the black and

white photographs, presumably of a narrow course of ashlar, at the same level as

the first-floor string course of the east elevation (Fig. 18). This was below the heads

of the later sash windows; it could have marked the position of a cut back string. In

this section too, the top of the plinth moulding seems to have been cut into at the

remodelled ground-floor window positions.

3.3 At the level of the east wall’s second floor string, there was also a definite change in

the colour of the ashlar masonry on the south elevation. The masonry below the line

was lighter than that above; this junction was below the lintels of the remodelled

window openings. Significantly, this lighter masonry stopped abruptly at a vertical

line marking the junction between the old and new parts of the house. This evidence

strongly suggests that the lighter masonry facing the lower two storeys of this older

portion represented older fabric as well. It is thus quite likely that the original building

was of two storeys, perhaps with attics in a gabled roofspace. When it was

subsumed into the remodelled house in the early 18th century, the gabled roof was

presumably removed and two additional storeys were added on top to match the

height of the new build. Its south elevation was remodelled for the same reason and,

in the raised parts of the east and north elevations, mullioned windows from the

south (and probably west) elevations were either copied or reset.

19



Form of the Early Building

3.4 Consideration of the excavated evidence in conjunction with the historic

photographs gives further clues as to the form of the early building. Photographic

evidence shows that each floor of the east elevation had two three-light windows

(Fig. 17), and the excavated evidence suggests that this was the case for both east

and west elevations of the early house. The tiled sink surround surviving in the

kitchen is located within an original window embrasure, although no evidence was

found of its counterpart to the north due to remodelling around the inserted doorway.

The recessed shelf also may well be an original feature. Identical locations for

former windows can be discerned from the rubblestone infilling between surviving

ashlar on the west elevation.

3.5 The extent and location of the window blocking at the northern end of the eastern

room suggests that a three-light window was removed, and the form and location of

the adjacent doorway indicates that this was secondary (see above). Although no

excavated or photographic evidence survives, an identical window at the southern

end of the room could have been expected, as could another at the southern end of

the western room to balance the main southern façade (Fig. 19).

3.6 Similarly there is no evidence, either archaeological or photographic, to indicate

arrangements to the west of the projecting stair block. Here may have been located

a back door, and perhaps external access to the cellar beneath the west room. It

would not have been unusual for such a cellar to have been the original kitchen to

the early building (J. Haworth pers. comm.), for example at Lodge Park, Sherborne

(Rodwell 2000), although no evidence to support this has yet been excavated. The

precise arrangement of the back stairs is similarly unclear, although there may well

have been a separate passage linking the western and eastern rooms immediately

to the north of the central stack (Fig. 19).

3.7 Photographic evidence gives further clues as to the early building’s appearance,

although the form of the original main entrance is not known as it was remodelled

with an early 18th-century pedimented doorway with eared architrave (Fig. 18). On

the first floor, moulded bridging beams survived in at least one of the rooms,

probably that on the eastern side. There was also a stone fireplace with a moulded

four-centred head (in keeping with those partially surviving on the ground floor), and

some linenfold wainscot of late 16th-century style (the latter thought to be in situ but

clearly reset), again probably within the eastern room.

20



The 18th-century Mansion

3.8 The additions and alterations of c. 1730 resulted in a re-orientation of the house,

with its new western elevation now forming the ‘front’ of the house. The principal

reception rooms were now in the new West Range, with the rooms within the earlier

part relegated to domestic functions. Presumably the arrangements on the upper

floors of the new range were broadly similar, with large rooms flanking the Stair

Tower.

3.9 The main 18th-century elevation was rather plain, enriched only with band courses

at the sill and lintel levels of the sash windows and topped by a blank parapet (Fig.

20). The second storey windows had arched heads, and all had plain keystones. On

the southern elevation a composite decorative scheme was adopted, continuing the

rounded plinth moulding of the earlier eastern part of the elevation but altering the

window style to match that of the western face (Fig. 18).

3.10 Historic photographic suggests that the early 18th-century stairs in the Stair Tower

were typical of their date, with three barley-twist balusters per tread and a ramped

moulded handrail. These seem only to have gone up to the first floor level where

they were top lit by a 19th-century skylight within a cupola; the light well pierced the

circular second floor landing of the same date. The floor of the entrance hall had

formerly consisted of black and white slate and bath stone but this was removed in

the 1960s.

3.11 In addition to the main 18th-century staircase, the historic photographs also

recorded a second, service, staircase in an unknown location. This was of simpler

design, with solid moulded string and handrail and substantial balusters. It has been

interpreted as being contemporary with the early 18th-century main stair but looked

as if it could be much earlier, perhaps of the mid 17th-century. It is possible that

these were the stairs of the earlier building that occupied the space to the north of

the central stack, but had been relegated to the servants ‘back’ stairs.

The Yard, Terrace and ‘Ice House’

3.12 The yard to the rear (north) of the house had clearly been created through terracing

into the hillside. The material thus removed was probably redeposited to the south-

west of the house, creating an level terrace as far as the walled garden. It must have

21



been partly created for the construction of the original building, but its present extent

may again date from the major building work of the 18th century.

3.13 Similarly, the date of construction of the ‘Ice House’ was not clear but the internal

arrangements of the structure, including a flat floor at Yard level, suggests that it

was unlikely to have been an ice-house proper. It may have been constructed to

hold a water cistern, or perhaps to act as a cold meat store.

19th-century additions

3.14 Little survived of the later 19th-century additions to the house that gradually infilled

the rear Yard. Historic photographs show that the main addition, the North-east

Extension, was a two storey lean-to structure under a tall hipped roof, fitted with

three-light stone mullioned windows with three centred heads that were either

reused (possibly from the kitchen) or facsimiles.

Butler’s Cottage

3.15 To the east of the main house, and detached from it, was a (mainly) two-storey

structure latterly known as the Butler’s Cottage. It was, unlike the main house, still

standing though in poor condition. It was also, like the main house, of more than one

phase. Its original phase appeared to have consisted of a two-storey rectangular

block built of rubblestone and aligned north/south. This was then extended by the

addition of a two-storey wing at the south end of its east wall. Another extension,

diagonally opposite at the northern end of its west wall, may have been added at the

same time.

3.16 The original north gable had survived relatively unaltered, and had a three-light

stone-framed window of early 17th-century form (each light being topped by a three-

centre headed arch) on the ground floor and a simpler two-light window on the first.

Although the ground-floor window is of an earlier form it does not mean that the

building is; there is a strong possibility that the window has been reset in its present

position. The south gable now forms part of the longer south elevation (Fig. 21).

There was a fairly clear vertical construction break between the two builds. It had a

plain two light window on the ground floor and, above, a blocked window of similar

size and date on the first. At the west end was a later window inserted to light a WC

closet within.

22



3.17 The west wall had also been altered (Figs 22 and 23). At ground-floor level at the

northern end was an inserted or widened doorway with an inserted or probably

widened window to its south that lit what had become the servants’ hall within. To

the south was a primary doorway with a segmental stone head not dissimilar in style

to the fireplace heads of the early 18th-century part of the main house. The top floor

was clad in ivy, obscuring some features. At the south end there was a first-floor

window, and, at the north end, the scar for a pitched roof of a wing running

westwards. Plaster and limewash traces suggest that this section was divided in two

by a spine wall; the northern side presumably being the game larder and the south

side a corridor link between the servants’ hall and the services of the main house.

3.18 The southern part of the original east wall was obscured by the later east wing.

There was originally a large projecting stack with rounded sides; the northern half of

this was still external and the rest was quite evident within the later extension. At the

northern end of this was what appeared to be an inserted window. This stack rose to

a gable chimney and such was its size that there was a need for a cross-gabled

dormer roof from the main roof. The plain-gabled roof of the original build appears to

have survived relatively intact but its structural details were difficult to assess. It was

covered with corrugated sheeting but apparently still had remains of tilestone

beneath this. It appeared to have been of three bays with two tiers of butt purlins

and a ridgeboard.

3.19 The south-eastern wing was of two storeys and of the same basic materials as the

original range. In its south wall there were single plain two-light windows on each

floor level, and two more on the east wall offset to the north of centre because of the

position of the ground-floor doorway. The rear, or north, wall, was blank. The roof

ended in a hip and was designed to join the original roof; it was, however,

apparently covered in slate rather than tilestone, and some of this cover survived

under corrugated sheeting.

3.20 Internally, the ground-floor of the original building was divided into two unequal parts

by a stone spine wall. The larger room was to the north of this, and was extended

upwards by the removal of the original first floor. Above the raised ceiling are traces

of the former first-floor room, including its plastered walls. The raising of the ceiling

was apparently associated with the conversion of this space into the servants’ hall at

the start of the 20th century. In the east wall was a formerly very wide fireplace,

almost certainly designed for a kitchen. It had a large timber lintel. The fireplace

23



within the brick infilling beneath it was of c. 1900 date. No link was obvious through

the cross-wall between this room and the rest of the original range. The southern

section had stairs in its north-eastern corner that appeared to be of late 19th-century

date. The westernmost section was partitioned off from the rest by a lath-and-stud

wall and formed a lobby and a water closet.

3.21 To the east of this room, the ground-floor of the east wing was occupied by a single

room, latterly used as a workshop. It appeared to have been a sitting room/kitchen

when it was a lodging but may earlier have been just a sitting room. It was heated by

a fireplace inserted into the back of the southern end of the original stack.

3.22 On the first-floor in the original section there was an unheated room reached directly

from the stairs; the former first-floor room or rooms to the north were colonised by

the upper portion of the servants’ hall around 1900. Access to the largest surviving

first-floor room (in the east wing) was through the smaller room at the top of the

stairs. It had a small cast-iron grate of c. 1900. Curiously the door to the room had

fielded panels and could have been early 18th-century in date, and evidently reused.

Elsewhere in the cottage the doors were planked, ledged and braced and mainly of

the later 19th century.

Other buildings

3.23 Ebworth House was associated with a reasonably large farmstead, most of the

buildings of which date from between the mid 18th and 19th centuries. These

included a large barn (whose southern arm had been demolished to leave the

former central threshing floor curiously offset), a granary, shelter sheds and a cart

shed.

3.24 By far the most interesting of the farm buildings was the former stable block to the

south-east of the main house (Fig. 24). This was a complicated two-pile structure,

the southern pile being a later 19th-century addition to form a new farmhouse. The

central portion of the northern pile was symmetrical with early 17th-century windows,

doorways and continuous drip moulding; it was built in large blocks of ashlared

masonry, though the coursing was not particularly regular. This central block, of one

and a half storeys, had been extended to either side and given later dormers. The

extension to the east had repeating details but these were probably anachronistic,

either being reset originals or facsimiles. This area seems to have been built as

24



accommodation. At the opposite end was a two-bay carriage shed, the openings

having three-centred stone heads with keystones; this was probably of early 18th-

century date and probably contemporary with the west wing of Ebworth House.

4. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

4.1 Although the ruins of Ebworth House are now quite fragmentary, the clearance of

most of the rubble has helped to expose the remains to archaeological scrutiny.

This, as usual, has raised as many new questions as it has answered. Perhaps the

most intriguing question is the original function of the earliest part of the house.

The Early House

4.2 This was faced in ashlar and clearly of reasonably high status, with fine fireplaces

and moulded beams. It was served by what appear to be contemporary stables to

the south-east. Despite this, the house was quite small, with only two rooms on each

of its two storeys (presumably with attics) and a cellar under its western half. The

surviving evidence also suggests that it was a symmetrical structure, another

indicator of quality in the early 17th century. It was a house built in a fairly isolated

position, well away from the nearest villages. It is indeed likely that it was not built as

a domestic dwelling at all, but as a more temporarily inhabited structure such as a

hunting lodge (but not one of four storeys). Such buildings were often not that large

but were well designed and fitted out and would obviously need the use of adjacent

stables.

4.3 In the absence of a wider landscape study it is difficult to gauge the relative

significance of the remains of the early building, but the relationship between the

late 16th-/early 17th-century ‘hunting lodge’ and its surrounding parkscape is

certainly worthy of further study. It seems likely that the early building was pivotal in

the development of the estate from the early 17th century onwards; its location was

clearly influential in the building, and hence landscape developments, of c. 1730.

4.4 The early building, though small, was of fashionably symmetrical design and the

surviving ruins could be described as being of significance. The most significant

standing building at Ebworth is the stables, particularly the central block which was

probably contemporary with the ‘hunting lodge’. As with the landscape, the

development of the building complex at Ebworth is not well understood.

25



4.5 Although probably earlier (and undoubtedly larger), the hunting lodge of c. 1550 at

Newark Park, Ozleworth, has a number of similarities with Ebworth, such as the

symmetrical design (very early at Newark) within a dramatic landscape setting and

the extensive 18th-century additions and alterations. Indeed, comparison with

Newark may have contributed to the (probably erroneous) assertion that Ebworth

was originally also of four storeys. The 16th-century basement kitchen at Newark

survives complete with large Tudor fireplace (Verey and Brooks 1999, 540-1): the

extent of surviving features within the early basement at Ebworth has yet to be

established.

The 18th-century Mansion

4.6 In comparison to the remains of the early building, the ruins of the 18th century (and

later) buildings are of little significance. Even as a standing building of handsome

proportions, the 18th-century house was architecturally undistinguished and of

mediocre construction. Ebworth was one of three houses built in c. 1730 in the

locality, and Hill (2001, 5) suggests that the similarity of façades at Hazle Manor

(Miserden) and the Old Rectory (Elkstone) may indicate that all three were built by

the same team of masons. Even as a standing structure, Ebworth would have been

the poor relation, with little to rival the spectacular roof-line of large stone lions and

griffins at Hazle Manor or the rusticated decoration at the Old Rectory (Verey and

Brooks 1999, 488 & 358). It is perhaps noteworthy that these buildings, both of

which still survive, also contain evidence of earlier buildings.

4.7 As with the ‘hunting lodge’, the principal significance of the 18th-century building lies

not in its ruins but in its relationship with, and its influence on, the surrounding

landscape. Further study may elucidate the development of the gardens, parks and

woods that were remodelled and/or established around the enlarged house.

Further Work

4.8 Further topographical and historical investigation of the surrounding landscape is

recommended. Indeed, it is impossible to isolate the house from its landscape and

its grounds in its various phases. To understand the building fully, the degree of

terracing to the south and east (and its date(s)) need to be understood, as does the

walled garden area to the south-west, the park and park pale, the changes in the

route of the main drives, the changes in the designs and layout of its gardens and

their positions, and any lost buildings within the surrounding landscape.

26



4.9 Much of the present area to the west of the house, and the former shrubbery and

curving drive to the north, appears to be the result of mid 19th-century design, rather

than anything more formal and earlier, yet the early 18th-century gardens would

scarcely have followed these lines. In between there may have been other phases -

after all, a 1797 inventory, quoted by Nicholas Kingsley, listed:

‘a Melon Ground, Kitchen Garden enclosed by walling....a pleasure ground,

shrubbery, and park stocked with about 56 head of deer, inclosed with an excellent

wall, and pleasingly ornamented with clumps of Firs and Hanging Woods; and a

summer house, from which the prospects are extensive, beautifully romantic, and

diversified.’

(GlosRO/D637/VII/24, in Kingsley 1992)

4.10 Excavation of the early cellar may also assist in a better understanding of the

building development, but most urgent is a much better understanding of the

parkscape that has obviously undergone many changes over the past four centuries

or so, but is little understood.

5. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT

5.1 In the absence of any firm development proposals it is not possible at this stage to

provide a detailed impact assessment or compile a comprehensive impact

assessment table as per both the project brief and project design. Even with

detailed proposals, without a clear understanding of the importance and significance

of the early building, both topographically and historically, within its surrounding

estate, it would be premature to present any mitigation strategies as these would

depend very much upon the significance of the remains. Nevertheless, it is possible

to discuss in general terms the extent, survival and significance of the remains of the

house, and what effect development in general may have upon those remains.

5.2 The remains of the early structure are essentially rectangular in plan, measuring

11.35m east/west by 8.85m north/south, with a small projecting stair block to the

north. The early 18th-century range was added to the west, giving an overall L-

shaped house plan with a stair tower located in the angle of the ‘L’. The enlarged

house had maximum dimensions of 17.5m east/west by 20.2m north/south

27



(including the projecting alcove), and largely enclosed a courtyard area between the

rear of the house and the terrace retaining wall to the north-east. Later (probably

19th-century) extensions infilled parts of the courtyard, although much of these were

subsequently razed to ground level.

5.3 The historical remains may also be deemed to include Butler’s Cottage to the east,

and the ‘Ice House’ to the north, located at either end of the terrace wall. It is

assumed that any development proposals will be limited to the area defined by the

terrace wall to the north and east, and the surviving house walls to the west and

south.

5.4 In the absence of an estate-wide historical survey, it is difficult to ascertain the

significance of either of the principal phases of building, although, as a vulnerable

ruin compared to a standing structure, its significance is clearly limited. The 18th-

century building was architecturally not important; consequently the corresponding

building remains are even less so. The architectural significance of the ‘hunting

lodge’ is more difficult to gauge, but it was clearly a building of some quality and

importance; consequently the earlier remains may be considered to be of some

significance. Rather than the actual ruins however, it is influence that the building

had on the development of the park, farm and gardens within the wider landscape

that is probably of principal significance here.

5.5 The surviving house walls are in a perilous state of preservation. Both major phases

of construction made extensive use of clay in bonding the stone walls, particularly,

and most surprisingly, the western range of c. 1730. Machine excavation of

demolition debris adjacent to these walls caused walls to move and buckle.

Furthermore, many of the walls, and again in particular the 18th-century structures,

were of poor quality rubble build that now renders them very susceptible to damage.

It should be noted that, without consolidation, the remains of Ebworth House are

unlikely to remain upstanding for long as they are now even more exposed and

vulnerable to attack from the elements. It should be noted that a substantial part of

the exposed surviving West Front collapsed prior to clearance and excavation.

5.6 The extent of the cellars, both known and projected, are shown on Fig. 3. Where

excavated the cellar floor was located at between 2m and 2.4m below ground level.

Most of the cellar vaulting collapsed during the demolition of the house in the 1970s,

however intact vaulting survives beneath the Drawing Room and part of the Dining

28



Room. The presence of the cellars renders the standing remains even more

vulnerable to collapse, particularly the wall between the Dining Room and the Gun

Room which has cellar to either side. The stone stack to the east of the Gun Room

also appears to be slipping westwards into the cellar.

5.7 Any form of development on site would have to take into account the extent of the

cellars, both extent and collapsed, and the fragile nature of the above-ground

remains. Consolidation of all standing fabric to be retained would be essential.

6. CAT PROJECT TEAM

Fieldwork was undertaken by David Kenyon, assisted by Kevin Colls, Kate Cullen, Kelly

Saunders, Derek Evans, and Dominic Sheldon. The report was written by David Kenyon,

with contributions from Richard Morriss and Martin Watts. The illustrations were prepared by

Peter Moore and Gail Stoten. The archive has been compiled by Kate Cullen, and prepared

for deposition by Ed McSloy. The project was managed for CAT by Martin Watts.

7. REFERENCES

CAT 2002 The Ebworth Estate, Gloucestershire, Project design for an archaeological

recording project. (Cotswold Archaeological Trust Unpub.)

Evans, H. 1905 Highways & Byways in Oxford and the Cotswolds

GSGB (Geological Survey of Great Britain) 1975 (England and Wales) Sheet 234

Gloucester

Hill, M. 2001 Ebworth House, Sheepscombe, Gloucestershire, a historical report for the

National Trust (National Trust unpub.)

Kingsley, N. 1992 The Country Houses of Gloucestershire

Rodwell, W. 2000 ‘Daneway and Lodge Park: The Archaeology of two Gloucestershire

houses’, Trans Bristol Gloucestershire Archaeol Soc 118, 11-32

29


30


Verey, D. and Brooks, A. 1999 The Buildings of England: Gloucestershire 1: The

Cotswolds (3rd edition)



APPENDIX A: THE WORKED STONE CATALOGUE DIGEST

During the course of the excavations a total of 1300 pieces of worked stone, almost exclusively locally-quarried Cotswold limestone, were recovered, recorded and stored on pallets. The methodology used is noted in the main text above. All stone with at least one finished face was recorded, except for: i) pieces of the west front that were dismantled during the excavation, which mainly comprised the 19th-

century pedimented doorway and its immediate surrounds; ii) pieces of the Georgian cornice, the ornate profile of which was immediately recognisable. Stone from i) and ii) was placed on pallets to the west of the excavation area, between the remains of Ebworth House and the present workshop. The few pieces of cornice noted in the catalogue were also removed to this location. Flagstones and other stone slabs were also noted separately (see below) but included in the general pallet storage. A number of difficulties were encountered during the compilation of the worked stone catalogue. The original estimate of worked stone likely to survive was 200, so the eventual recovery of 1300 pieces presented obvious difficulties in terms of recording resources and more particularly storage space. Sufficient funds were available to record all stone at least summarily, however these are currently stored in a crowded and unsatisfactory manner around the site of the former building and gardens. Further difficulties were encountered in trying to determine the nature of each block. Many of the former ashlar faces of the building had suffered from a combination of weathering and damage due to fire, collapse and finally machine excavation, and most were covered in highly compact mud, making it very difficult to distinguish the ashlar faces from unworked faces and more particularly from roughly hewn edges. The result has been that a number of profiles are repeated, particularly those relating to the window jambs of the Georgian phase of construction (see below), and other have been removed from the sequence. The same holds for the sculptured stone. Table 1: Total worked stone recorded

Provenance Code Faced Stone

ArchitecturalStone

Sculptured Stone

cornice slab Total Pallet nos

Drawing Room DR 112 68 8 1 0 189 1-18

Dining Room DI 73 23 12 0 0 108 19-30

Exterior West EW 17 7 1 1 0 26 31-35

Exterior South ES 39 13 0 0 1 53 36-42

Exterior Kitchen EK 27 10 3 0 0 40 43-49

Kitchen Interior KIA 139 73 1 2 9 224 50-69 and 136

Entrance Hall EH 113 50 11 0 0 174 70-88

North East Extension NEE 33 2 1 0 0 36 89-92

Passage PA 82 24 4 0 0 110 93-102

Kitchen Interior KIB 110 24 0 0 0 134 111-124

Gunroom-Lobby GR/L 61 34 5 2 2 104 125-133

Yard Y 75 19 8 0 0 102 103-110 and 134/135

Totals 881 347 54 6 12 1300

Ashlar-Faced Stone A total of 881 stones with a single ashlar face were recovered. The dimensions of each is noted in the archive. It was not possible to tell whether such pieces were part of the early (here described as Tudor) or Georgian phases of construction. Architectural Stone A total of 347 pieces of architectural stone were identified. This category includes all pieces from which a recognisable and (usually) repeated profile could be discerned, with the exception of the Georgian cornice which was largely excluded from the record and was stored separately (see above). Categories include the top of the Georgian parapet and its accompanying cordon or half-round string-course (types B, C, NN and VV), pieces from the decorative band courses (types MM and OO) and projecting pilasters (types G, J and L) and fragments of the former plinth (type H, P?, PP). The largest number of categories were assigned to the Georgian window jambs (types A, F, I, M, R, T, W and LL), largely due to the difficulties in

31



distinguishing the ashlared faces of the actual jambs and pilasters from the roughly-hewn faces for the sash-box and shutter-box, and those faces roughly hewn to neatly abut adjacent dressed stones. Other worked stones were more recognisably part of the Georgian windows, particularly the projecting jamb corbels (types E), the rounded heads of the upper storey windows (type U) and the plain keystones (type Y). More difficult to identify were a number of possible Georgian window sills and flat heads (types D, X and Z). Two distinct types of Tudor window were apparent, and examples of both partially survive within the mansion ruin. Tudor window 1 is arched headed with an angled but not ornate moulding profile (types CC (head), FF (jamb) and GG (mullion)), Tudor window 2 is flat-headed but with a much more intricate moulding (types HH (mullion), II (jamb/head) and KK (jamb)). Possible Tudor sills were also identified (type TT). Other pieces of Tudor origin noted were pieces of plinth (types S, DD and RR) and drip-mould (type BB) and a possible fireplace jamb (SS). A number of pieces, generally corner stones (types N and UU), could not be positively assigned to any period, however at least two types (V and AA) were jambs from the 19th-century pedimented entrances, and appear to be made of Bath stone. All type profiles are illustrated (Figs. 25, 26 and 27). Table 2: The Architectural Stone fragments

Type Code Quantity Pallet nos Identification

A DR 3 1,3,6 Georgian window jamb

B DI 1 27 Georgian parapet

DR 14 1,3,4,6,8-10,13,15,18

EH 4 79,88

ES 2 38

EW 1 31

GR/L 8 123,126,127,128

KIA 22 50-52,54,58-60,63-6,69

KIB 4 117,118,119,121

PA 2 100

Y 4 103,134,135

C DI 1 28 Georgian parapet cordon

DR 10 5,6,9,13

EH 3 78,83

GR/L 1 127,128

KIA 7 51,60,61,63,68

PA 1 95

D DI 2 23,27 Georgian window sill?

DR 1 1

ES 1 36

GR/L 1 124

KIA 2 52,65

EH 4 71,73

KIB 1 117

PA 2 98,100

E DI 1 20 Georgian window jamb corbel

DR 3 1,6,11

KIA 3 63,65,69

F DR 5 1,6,7,11 Georgian window jamb

EH 3 80,83,87,88

KIA 3 61,68

Y 2 108

G DR 2 1,7 Georgian pilaster

H DI 1 28 Georgian plinth?

DR 2 1,13

ES 3 42

GR/L 1 131

KIA 2 53,61

PA 1 102

I DI 1 24 Georgian window jamb

DR 5 1,6,14,15

32




EH 2 83

ES 3 36,42

KIA 1 61

Y 1 134

J DI 1 20 Georgian pilaster

EH 1 79

KIA 1 53

PA 1 97

Y 1 105

K DI 1 21 Georgian bay recess

L DI 5 21,23,24,28,29 Georgian pilaster

DR 2 15

EH 5 75,81,83, 87

EK 2 44,45

EW 1 33

Y 1 107

M DI 1 24 Georgian window jamb

DR 6 5,6,9,11,15,16

EW 1 33

PA 1 99

N DI 4 23,26,28,29 corner stone

EH 2 77,82,89

ES 1 36

EW 1 34

KIA 4 55,64,68

NEE 1 89

O DR 1 7 faced stone

P DI 1 26 plinth?

KIB 1 119

R DI 1 27 Georgian window jamb

EH 1 85

ES 2 39

GR/L 3 126,127,130

KIA 2 61,63

KIB 1 121

PA 1 94

Y 2 108

S DI 1 29 Tudor plinth

DR 1 9

EW 1 31

GR/L 1 123

T DI 1 29 Georgian window jamb

DR 1 11

GR/L 1 123

U DR 2 11,13 Georgian window rounded head

EH 7 80-83,88

EW 1 31

GR/L 2 123,124

KIA 3 59,61,69

KIB 1 121

PA 1 95

V DR 1 12 ?19th century door jamb

EH 3 77,87

W DR 3 12,13,14 Georgian window jamb

KIA 1 63

KIB 1 115

PA 3 95,98,100

33




X DR 3 14 Georgian window sill?

GR/L 4 124,126,130,132

KIA 5 60,61,65,68

Y 3 135

Y DR 2 12,13 Georgian window keystone

EH 2 82,87

EW 1 33

KIA 1 65

PA 1 102

Z DR 1 13 Georgian window sill?

EH 1 78

AA ES 1 36 19th-century door jamb

BB EH 1 82 Tudor drip-mould

EK 6 43,44,45

Y 1 110

CC KIA 2 50,62 Tudor window 1: arched head

PA 1 95

KIB 1 121

CC 1 45

Y 1 105

DD KIA 2 61,62 Tudor plinth course

KIB 1 111

FF GR/L 2 125 Tudor window 1: jamb

KIA 4 52,58,59,66

EK 1 47

EH 1 73

KIB 5 111,114,115,116,121

Y 3 105,108

GG EH 3 72 Tudor window 1: mullion

KIA 4 57,59,61

KIB 2 121-2

GR/L 1 133

PA 1 96

HH EH 1 72 Tudor window 2: mullion

GR/L 1 126

KIA 2 54,59

PA 1 95

II EH 1 91 Tudor window 2: jamb/lintel

GR/L 4 124,131,133

KIB 2 112,114

NEE 1 91

PA 3 96,102

KK KIA 1 52 Tudor window 2: jamb

LL EH 4 77 Georgian window jamb

MM EH 1 82 Geogian band course?

GR/L 1 131

NN KIA 1 64 Georgian parapet?

OO PA 2 96 Georgian pilaster/band course

PP PA 2 101,102 Georgian plinth

QQ KIB 1 113 Georgian sill?

GR/L 1 131

RR KIB 1 120 Tudor plinth

SS KIB 1 122 Tudor fireplace jamb?

TT KIB 1 122 Tudor sill?

UU GR/L 1 123 corner stone

VV GR/L 1 133 part of Georgian parapet

Total: 347

34



Sculptured Stone A total of 54 sculptured stones were recorded. This category includes all of those pieces that could not easily be assigned to a specific type of architectural stone, or had other distinguishing features. It includes a number of pieces that clearly are of a moulded type but include corners, and a number that may be of a type but are not easily recognised as such due to damage. Also included are pieces that have drilled holes, presumably for cramps or fixing bars, and blocks with rounded rebates that appeared to have once been drains. For some of the sculptured pieces it was again difficult to determine whether these were of Tudor of Georgian origin, mainly due to the amount of damage suffered, however other pieces such as corner pilasters, parts of windows etc. were clearly Georgian. A number of pieces had slots for window cames: the absence of these from recognisable pieces of Tudor windows is puzzling and there may well have been a third type of early window in evidence. Table 3: The Sculptured Stone fragments

Stone No. Description Similar to Pallet nos

DR 21 Parapet cordon, corner Type C 2

DR 32 Parapet top, corner: with DR33 Type B 3

DR 33 Parapet top corner, with DR32 Type B 3

DR 34 Stone with drilled hole - 3

DR 138 Georgian window jamb corbel and pilaster Type E 12

DR 150 Georgian window jamb/head corner? Type M 13

DR 160 ?Tudor window reveal? - 14

DR 184 Tudor window type 1: sill Type CC 16

GR/L 177 ?part of Tudor mantlepiece? - 126

GR/L 155 ?part of Tudor window reveal? - 124

GR/L 231 Broken internal corner piece? - 132

GR/L 237 Corner with diagonal ridge: tudor fireplace? - 133

GR/L 238 ?part of Tudor window reveal? - 133

DI 6 Stone with drilled hole - 19

DI 7 ?part of Tudor window reveal? - 19

DI 24 Stone with pilaster - 21

DI 25 Georgian? window piece with glazing slot - 21

DI 26 Georgian? window piece with glazing slot - 26

DI 27 Piece of Georgian round-headed window? Type U 21

DI 34 block with rounded rebate - 22

DI 35 Stone with pilaster - 22

DI 36 ?part of plinth course? - 22

DI 58 ?piece of Georgian round-headed window? - 24

DI 59 Georgian? window sill? with glazing slot - 24

DI 68 Georgian? window sill? with glazing slot - 25

EW 6 ?part of Tudor window reveal? - 31

EH 27 Corner of mansion - 84

EH 59 block with rounded rebate - 74

EH 60 Broken internal corner piece? - 74



EH 89 Pilaster with socket to side - 77


EH 142 Broken Georgian window jamb corbel? Type E 83


EH 163 Complex pilaster/window corbel (Georgian) - 87

EH 174 irregular sawn block - 88

NEE 36 Piece of Georgian rounded window head? - 92

EK 21 Tudor arched window head with incised spandrels Type CC 45

EK 28 ?base of Georgian pilaster? - 47

EK 29 Faced block with diamond socket - 47

KI 98 Faced block with squared sockets - 57

Y 8 Corner of Georgian band course - 134

Y 9 Block with rounded rebate - 135

35


36


Y 10 Block with rounded rebate - 135

Stone No. Description Similar to Pallet nos

Y 36 Faced block with squared socket - 104

Y 60 Faced block with squared socket - 107

Y 73 Block with diagonal recess: part of fireplace? - 108

Y 76 Corner of Georgian window? Type T 108

Y 87 Shaped block with diagonal socket - 109

PA 11 Possible plinth course - 93

PA 37 Corner of Georgian window? Type T 95

PA 52 Corner with diagonal ridge: tudor fireplace? - 96

PA 97 Complex block with angled rebate - 101

Total: 54

Fig. 1 Site location plan

Stable Block

Butler'sCottage

Barn

Barn

Ebworth House(ruin)

N

0 50m

Fig. 2 Location of Ebworth House (1:500)

Workshop

Kitchen Garden

Park

ha-ha

bastion

(demolition debris)

(demolition debris)

passage

passage

(demolition debris)

'Ice House'

GameLarder

North-eastExtension

Servants'Passage

KitchenGun

Room

StairTower

BackStairs

DiningRoom

EntranceHall

DrawingRoom

Pantry

Passage

f

(burnt floor in situ)

flue

cellarwindow

shelf

sink

window

blocked window

chimney

flagstones

tiles

tiles

tiles

concreteslab

stone floor

tiles

stone slabs

flagstones

cellarsteps

N

0 10m

Fig. 3 Plan of Ebworth House as excavated (1:100)

window

f

mainentrance

f f

f

Butler'sCottage

range

steps

cellarwindow

step

section A

section B

section B

section A

Extant structure (16th / 17th century)

Extant structure (18th century)

Extant structure (later / other)

Razed structuref

Known extent of cellar

Conjectural extent of cellar

Fireplace

terracewall

alcove

North-westExtension

entrancesteps

remodelledwindow

entrancesteps

remodelledwindow

hearth

flagstones

f

flagstones

steps

light well

The Yard

centralstack

Dining Room Gun Room Kitchen

248mAOD

Fig. 4 Ebworth House, south elevation (1:50)

openingto cellar

stepsto cellar

cellar cellar

line ofinternal

wall

entrance

line ofinternal

wall

steps

Wall core

0 10m

window

window windowW E

Kitchen North-east Extension

S N248mAOD

Fig. 5 Ebworth House, east elevation (1:50)

line offormer

north wall

rubbledoorway doorway

rubble

Wall core

0 10m

recess

fill fill

vaulting

cellar(conjectural)

passage(observed

from Gun Room)

Drawing Room

rubblerubble

brick

doorway

cellar cellar

rubble

Entrance Hall Dining Room

floor joistsocket

passage

0 10m

fireplacefireplace

Fig. 6 Ebworth House, section A (1:50)

vaulting

fill fillfill

248mAOD

W E

(blockedwindow)

?inserteddoorway

Back Stairs

doorway

cellar

rubblerubblerubble

rubblerubble

Fig. 7 Ebworth House, section B (1:50)

248mAOD

0 10m

Kitchen Stair Tower Drawing Room

rubble

metal frameand bars

inserteddoorway

doorway

step

s ba

ck 1

.85m

step

s ba

ck 2

.05m

step

s ba

ck 0

.65m

window to cellarstairs (blocked)

E W

248mAOD

Fig. 8 Ebworth House, west elevation (1:50)

cellar cellar cellar

Wall core0 10m

window window window windowwindowwindowmain

entrance

Drawing Room Entrance Hall Dining Room

SN

Fig. 9 Ebworth House, detail of east elevation, view to W

Fig. 10 Ebworth House, east wall of Dining Room(former west elevation), view to E

Fig. 11 Ebworth House, north wall of Kitchen, view to S

Fig. 12 Ebworth House, Gun Room fireplace, view to E

Fig. 13 Ebworth House, east wall of Drawing Room, view to E

Fig. 14 Ebworth House, north wall of Stair Tower, view to N

Fig. 15 Ebworth House, blocked cellar windows in Passage, view to W

Fig. 16 Ebworth House, fireplace in North-east Extension, view to W

Fig. 17 Ebworth House in 1957, south and eastelevations (from Hill 2001)

Fig. 18 Ebworth House in 1957, south elevation (from Hill 2001)

?rearentrance

Main Hall

Parlour

shelf

?stairs fromcellar

f

f

entrancesteps

(Kitchenbelow)

f fireplace

window

passage

stairs

baffleentrance

shelf

?blindwindow

?external stepsfrom cellar

w

w w

w

w

ww

w

w

w

N

centralstack

0 10m

Fig. 19 A possible reconstruction of the original building plan at Ebworth (1:100)

Fig. 20 Ebworth House, west elevation (from Hill 2001)

Fig. 21 Butler's Cottage, south elevation, view to N

Fig. 22 Butler's Cottage, west elevation, (north) view to E

Fig. 23 Butler's Cottage, west elevation (south), view to E

Fig. 24 Stable Block, view to SW

Type A Type B Type C

Type D

Type H

Type K

Type JType I

Type L Type M

Type N Type O Type P

Type E Type F

Type G

0 1m

Smooth face

Rough hewn

Unfinished/broken

Fig. 25 Worked stone profiles: types A to P

Type V Type W

Type Y

Type Z

Type AA Type BB Type CC

Type DD

Type R

Type S

Type T Type U

Type X

0 1m

Smooth face

Rough hewn

Unfinished/broken

Fig. 26 Workerd stone profiles: types R to DD

Type KK Type LL

Type NN

Type OO Type PP Type QQ

Type RR

Type TT

Type MM

Type UU

Type SS

Type VV

Type FF Type GG Type HH

Type II

0 1m

Fig. 27 Worked stone profiles: types FF to VV

Smooth face

Rough hewn

Unfinished/broken

ebworth house painswick gloucestershire ......trust at ebworth house, painswick, gloucestershire...

Documents