If you have any comments or new information about this record, please email us.

Monument Types

• MOAT? (Medieval - 1067 AD? to 1539 AD?)
• CLAY PIT? (Post-medieval - 1540 AD to 1899 AD)

Summary

Earthworks to the south-west of the manor house include what had been thought to be a moat, though OS investigators considered it to be a clay pit. Pevsner, however, repeats the moat claim.

Additional Information

<1> Pevsner N, 1984, The Buildings of England Leicestershire and Rutland, p375 (Bibliographic reference). SLE4.

Manor Farm Upton - the west wing kitchen incorporates the residual parts of a medieval grange.

<2> Leicestershire SMR Comment, (undated) (Unpublished document). SLE7870.

Earthworks to the south-west include what MPD thought was a moat but which OS investigators considered a clay pit because of its inconsistent width, although Pevsner repeats the moat claims. (OS records)

<3> Leicestershire SMR Comment, PL 31/12/87 (Unpublished document). SLE7870.

There is no evidence known to me of a grange here, but Farnham has information on a manor house in 1307.

<4> 2016, National Record of the Historic Environment (NRHE) accessioning (Website). SLE4981.

SUMMARY: "Supposed moat, probably a clay pit - the entire area contains a number of hollows from which materials have been removed either for marling or brick making."
URL: 'https://nrhe-to-her.esdm.co.uk/NRHE/RecordDetail.aspx?pageid=45&he_uid=336127', accessioned 17/12/2024.

<5> Virtual catalogue entry to support NAR migration, Rec. 6" (M. Paul Dare 1926) (Unpublished document). SLE7248.

[SP 3625 9943] This is a fragment of a Class G Moat, with two low aggers on the north.

<6> Page, William (ed), 1907, The Victoria County History of the County of Leicester, Volume 1, p270 (Bibliographic reference). SLE1156.

Fragment of a moat S.W. of the Manor House.

<7> Ordnance Survey Archaeology Division, Field Investigators Comments, F1 DS 02-MAR-60 (Website). SLE3488.

Mr. White of Manor House said that his family had farmed the land for 50 years, that he had never heard of a moat in the area, and that the material is clay.
The water-filled feature indicated by M. Paul Dare is too inconsistent in width for a moat. Moreover, the western terminal is forked with one arm continuing slightly to the west where it fades into a scarp. It was, apparently, an original approach into the feature.
There are no low aggers on the north side, though there is a ridge along the south side. It seems likely that the feature is no more than a clay pit, and that the ridge represents rejected surface material. There is an almost identical, though not water-filled, feature some 75.0 metres to the south, and about the entire area are many hollows from which materials have obviously been removed, either for marling or for brick-making.

Sources

Associated Finds

None recorded

Designations

None recorded

Associated Images

Search results generated by the HBSMR Gateway from exeGesIS SDM Ltd.