Geography

The region in which the round towers are to be found is clearly defined by natural features. To the north and east the boundary is the North Sea. To the west The Wash and The Fens, which were still practically impassable during the Anglo-Saxon period, although some drainage work had been started by the Romans. To the south, the thick forests of Essex which remained as a natural barrier until fairly modern times.

This fairly isolated region does, however, have one clearly defined physical link with the rest of the country. This is the chalk ridge that runs north to south in the west of the region and then curves westward to join the Chilterns. It was along this ridge that the pre-historic Ickneild Way ran, and it was also used later by the Romans for one of their roads in the region.

During the period of building of the round towers the rivers formed important route ways for travel within the region. East Anglia is drained by several distinct river systems flowing either east to the North Sea or west to The Wash. The Bure, Waveney and Wensum, which combine to flow into the North Sea at a point where present day Yarmouth now stands, forms the system of most interest to this study. This river system has silted up quite considerably in the past 2,000 years for it is known that quite a wide estuary existed here in Roman times and that Lothingland and Flegg were probably cut off from the mainland by sea. It is uncertain how much of this estuary has been silted up by the period in which the round towers were built, but there is evidence that the Danes were settling in previously uninhabited areas here in the ninth century (see Social & Political History below). Further south, in the east of the region, the estuaries of the Stour, Orwell, Gipping and Deben form another system and further south still the Blackwater, Brain, Chelmer and Coln form another. In the west the River Ouse has several tributaries, such as the Lark, Little Ouse, Nar and Wissey, which drain the west of the region.

It can be seen that there is a general tendency for the rivers to flow east-west across the region. This had the effect of making travel across the region in this direction more favourable than north south travel. This was a particular feature of the Saxon settlement of the region, the rivers forming practically their only means of communication. It should not be assume that the rivers only have a value as route ways where they are navigable by boats. They were also valuable because they mark a clearly defined route that can be retraced with ease. In addition river valleys provide rich agricultural land which can be easily worked, providing further incentive for their use.

The roads built by the Romans also provided a means of communication during the period in which the round towers were built. The Saxons, who preferred to keep to the rivers, had neglected the roads, but to the raiding Danes they provided valuable assistance. It is supposedly along these roads that the Danes used their horsemanship to the best advantage for their surprise raids.

The basis of the economy of the region is, and was, its rich agricultural land. This advantage had already been realised by the period in which the round towers were built, the Doomsday Book providing evidence of this. The prosperity of the region was also influenced by its relationship with Europe. In an age when transport across country in England was difficult, and East Anglia was more isolated than most regions in this respect, transportation by sea to Europe was often preferable. Trade links between East Anglia and Europe therefore flourished. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the cultural development of the region owed as much to influences from across the North Sea as it did from the rest of England.

Geology

The simplicity of the East Anglian landscape is reflected by an underlying solid geology of comparative simplicity. The surface deposits are much more complex however, being laid down during four periods of glaciation. In its basis structure East Anglia represents the youngest part of the British Isles, the strata being laid down roughly north south to south across the region, the oldest outcropping in the west.

The earliest deposit is Kimmerage Clay, which outcrops at various places from south-west Norfolk to just north of Kings Lynn. Overlying this and to the east, is the Lower Greensand Belt, which extends from Downham Market northwards to Hunstanton. It contains various materials such as the fine grained Sandringham Sands, the iron bearing Carstone, and Gault Clay. Further east, forming the central part of the region and also its dominant feature, is the strata of chalk. It is of marine origin and in places is up to 400 metres thick. It outcrops in the west and north-west of the region, but in the east more recent deposits cover it. It is this strata of chalk which contains the many rich seams of flint which have been exploited throughout the history of the region. In the remaining eastern part of the region are the Crag Deposits which overlay the chalk. These are shelly sands mixed with clay and gravel, which were laid down when this area was still submerged under the sea.

The covering to this fairly simple structure is more complex, but this is not of much importance to this study, which is mainly concerned with the availability of building materials. It does however have an indirect effect in that it determined the areas that were the most suitable for cultivation and therefore settlement. The region can be simplified by division into two main regions of glacial deposits. There is the Chalky Boulder Clay, which lies over the chalk and forms the soils of High Norfolk and High Suffolk, and secondly to the east and west of the high lands, are areas of lighter soils, mainly sands and gravels. The Boulder Clay is very fertile soil, but it was too heavy for cultivation by the early settlers. On the other hand the lighter soil, particularly in the east of the region, was easier to cultivate with simple implements.

There are therefore only two materials in the region which are suitable for building, flint and carstone. Of these, flint is found most widely over the region, from the western outcrop of chalk eastwards throughout the whole region, including where the Crag deposits cover the chalk. The flint can be obtained from various sources, and the origin determines the nature of the flint. The flint obtained from gravel pits will be globular in shapes as the result of erosion that has taken place during the movement of the gravel by glaciation. Those, which are mined from chalk pits, will be of varied and irregulars shape, and can be of considerable size. Many are found lying on the seashore, and these will be eroded smooth and round by the action of the sea. Finally there will be those which can be picked up from the surface of the land; they are similar to those found in gravel pits but tend to be smaller in size and in many cases shattered. In later times certain types of flints found more favour as materials for buildings than others. But during the period in which the round towers were built no such preference existed, and the type of flint most readily available in the locality was the one normally used.

Carstone is only found, in small quantities, in the north-west of the region. The main sources of carstone at the time of the building of the round towers were quarries at Snettisham near Hunstanton. Other local materials were used in the construction of the round towers, of which a grit-stone known as pudding-stone was used to a certain degree in the north of Norfolk, and quarried chalk has been used in the Hunstanton area. All of these have poor weathering qualities, however, which results in them being used infrequently in any building work.

Apart from small quantities of poor stone, flint was the only local building freely available. When this factors is combined with the difficulties involving transport by land at the time, the choice of flint for the construction of churches follows logically from the point of time when timber was no longer considered to be adequate for this purpose.

History : Ecclesiastical

The fluctuations in the popularity and influence of the Christian Church up to the position in the eleventh century when its authority was unquestioned, forms the background to which the emergence of the round towers must be related. The early history of Christianity in England is well known; the missions that converted the Saxon settlers and the decision taken at Whitby. It was, however, the invasion of the Danes, which first threatened, but eventually stimulated a revival in the Christian movement in England.

The Church, which had developed gradually since the first landing of Augustine, suffered considerably from the invasion of the Danes in the ninth century, all religious buildings they encountered were destroyed. In East Anglia the sees of Dunham and Elmham were obliterated and there was no bishop for this area until about 956 AD when Elmham was restored as the see for the whole province. However, the basis of Christianity that had been established was not destroyed and the Danes were soon being converted to this faith. How soon this occurred may have had some influence on the beginning of the round tower building. It is recorded that Guthram, a Danish leader who was raiding Wessex and using East Anglia as his base, after defeat in battle agreed to be converted to Christianity as one of the terms of the treaty of settlement at Chippenham in 878 AD. Whether this was a genuine acceptance of Christianity or merely an expedient to extract himself from a disadvantageous position, is uncertain and the fact that hostilities continued after the treaty seems to indicate neither side regarded it too seriously.

It is not possible to identify the re-appearance of Christianity in East Anglia until 920 AD when Edward re-conquered Danelaw and unified the country. From this point onwards the Church grew unhindered to a position of power in the kingdom. There is however a noteworthy delay from the re-conquest of East Anglia until 956 AD when the see of Elmham was re-established. It may be possible to relate this delay to the re-building of the Saxon cathedral at North Elmham in Norfolk. If this is true it may help to provide evidence to the date of emergence of the round towers as will be discussed later. (refer to map Map showing the Church in East Anglia c960-1040AD)

The period of ecclesiastical history that requires closest examination is the period between the two Scandinavian invasions. The Church was undergoing a revival in England bringing it into a position of strength and power that it had hitherto failed to reach. For the roots of this ecclesiastical revival the scope of this study must be broadened to Europe and to Cluny in particular. It was because of unrest at the laxities that had crept into religious life that reform had become desirable. The reform began at Cluny in Burgundy in 910 AD and was based upon the Rule of St Benedict of Nursia in Italy (480-543 AD0, as revised by St Benedict on Anicine in France (750-820 AD). The resultant Cluniac Rules met with wide acceptance in Europe and was soon adopted by other monasteries such as Fleury near Orleans.

The Rule of St Benedict found favour with English Bishops in the tenth century and was the foundation of similar reform in this country. The first to propagate this Rule in England was Oda, Archbishop of Canterbury 942-58 AD, who was Danish by origin and had been a monk at Fleury. It was Fleury that also provided the guidance for Aethelwold who became Bishop of Winchester in 963 AD and who was, more than anyone else, responsible for the restoration of monasticism to southern Danelaw. In particular he was responsible for the restoration of Peterborough, Thorney and Ely. Many others in high position in the church were influences directly or indirectly by Fleury, the most important of these being Dunstan. While Dunstan was Bishop of Glastonbury he influenced many men who later became involved with the reform of the Church and when later he became Primate of All England he became very powerful in the affairs of state, many considering him to be the power behind the throne during the reign of Edgar. However, unlike many of his contemporaries, Dunstan was not solely concerned with the reform of the monasteries for, although he was a monk, his personal contact abroad had been with the Lorraine Reformers, who worked in collaboration with the secular clergy. He therefore gave his attention to the reform of the Church in general, including the restoration of dilapidated church buildings.

During this period of peace, both kings Athelstan and Edgar did a great amount to encourage the development of the Church and of church building in particular. A constitution of Athelstans shows an anxiety for the foundation of village churches:

The dignity of thane, or gentleman, was open to everyone possessed of a certain property, and admitted among the royal officers. But then one of such a persons' qualifications was a church with a belfry upon his estate. A wealthy aspirant of inferior origin would be careful to prevent any deficiency in this particular from crossing his ambitious view. - Soames(60)

It would appear from this that the building of a church and a belfry, or bell tower as the translation actually states, was a factor in establishing social status among the nobility, a factor which must have considerably encouraged church building.

It would appear that church building was being undertaken on a large scale by Edgar’s reign, as can be seen from one of his laws:

It was necessary to safeguard the financial interests of these Minsters as the habit spread of landowners building churches on their estates, and so a law of King Edgar orders that all tithes and Church-Scot are to paid to the old Minster to which obedience is due, although it allows a thane to pay one third of his own tithes to a church on his own land, provided it has a burial place. - Whitelock(66)

It can be judged how much church building was taking place at this time if it were threatening the revenue of the ministers.

History : Architectural

Religious building in England during the Anglo-Saxon period can be divided into two phases. The initial phase is from the landing of the missionaries from Rome until the onset of the first Danish Raids, and the second from the re-conquest of Danelaw onwards. Once into the eleventh century the supersession by the Norman gradually took place.

The first Anglo-Saxon phase was mainly one of local style, each region producing its own. Whereas the second phase, coming after the unification of the country by Edward, tended for the first time to produce a national style, although one influenced by previous local styles. Fisher talking about this second phase sums it up as follows:

It was in this period that the towers were built. Many new churches were built, many churches partially destroyed by the Danes were re-built, and these often retained early Saxon characteristics in the form of early quoins, windows and archways and other details. Among these churches as among the towers, there is less variation in architectural design and detail than in churches of the earlier period - Fisher(28)

It is with this second phase and its transition into Norman that this study is concerned. This style of English architecture, known under various names of which Early Romanesque seems the most applicable, appears to have originated in central Europe.

We would not be far wrong in assuming that ecclesiastical art and architecture in England from the ninth century to the eve of the Conquest was a direct offshoot of the Carolingian stem,… - Clapham(16)

Until the eleventh century, therefore, English architecture followed the trends of the German Romanesque, although in a less competent manner, as distinct from the French Romanesque style which was developing in the north and west of France and which was to form the basis of the Norman style.

It is easier to establish links from the German Romanesque style to its origins in Italy, than it is to establish links to England, other than by comparison of architectural elements and motifs. Both Conant and Simpson consider that the strongest influence upon the German Romanesque was the architecture of Lombardy (refer to illustrations of Comparative Illustrations of Italian and German Architecture).

The style created about the year 800 in Lombardy became the first really international style. Its ramifications were early spread to Dalmatia, to southern France and Catalonia, to Burgundy, to the Rhine country, and even to Hungary. - Conant(21)

Simpson, commenting on the same subject remarks:

On a more primitive scale, the pilaster strips and arcading which form so distinctive a feature of Anglo-Saxon architecture in England obviously stem from the same source. - Simpson(59)

Such a statement as the latter causes speculation as to whether the development of the English Early Romanesque style should be seen as contemporary with the development of the German Romanesque style, originating from the same source, or as a later development of the style in Germany.

It is possible that the link between the architectural style of Central Europe and that of England is an ecclesiastical link relating to Cluny and the Rule of St Benedict. Cluny is situated in Burgundy, which at that time had stronger links with Germany than with France and was also influence more by the architectural style of Germany. In a time when a considerable amount of ecclesiastical rebuilding was necessary in England it can be assumed that the English monks, who went to Burgundy to study this new rule, would also have studied the buildings in which the Rule was practiced and put such knowledge to use on their return.

The tower as an architectural element developed in connection with the Christian Church for several reasons, the main ones being to serve as bell towers or staircase towers. The form was also developed outside the church to act as a watchtower, lighthouse or beacon to act in connection with other structures for defence. The development of this element can now be related to the general development of architectural styles during this period.

The origin of the bell tower is not clearly defined. Many authorities state that bell towers did not appear until the ninth century, whereas a few maintain they are older than this.

… the bell tower, as we understand it, was not introduced until the ninth century in Italy, and it need not be looked for in England before the tenth century. - Clapham(16)

It has been supposed, however, that bells of large dimensions and belfries to carry them were not employed in Western Europe till late. This, however, is a mistake. Fleury has proved definitely from documents that bells of very large dimensions, and towers to hold them, were in use in the sixth century. -Bond(9)

It is therefore difficult to come to any authoritative conclusion about the use of bells, and in England the use of bell even in the tenth century is disputed.

A great number of churches, especially those of the Saxon and Norman Periods, were built without towers, in which case bell-cotes, of a size to hold two bells, were constructed on the east or west gable of the nave. - Cook(20)

Obviously this statement is not true of East Anglia, but it does point to an alternative housing for bells, which was used during this period. To return to the question of bell towers in general, while it may be disputed by some writers, it seems that the majority opinion is in favour of them originating in Italy in the ninth century, a fact that would place them in context with the first Romanesque style of architecture, originating in Lombardy.

Staircase towers also appear to have originated in Italy, for according to Fishers:

The earliest for our purpose were at S. Vitale, Ravenna 526-47 AD. Here there were two round ones flanking the narthex. There were eight other round towers in Ravenna at about this time. These soon made way in Italy for the square type but the round persisted elsewhere. - Fisher(29)

The progress of this element can be most clearly traced in Carolingian and German Romanesque architecture, where the circular form persisted as a staircase tower attaches to a major square tower. But the square form of this type of tower can be seen in later work in Italy and France. Eventually the staircase tower appeared in England in the late Saxon period.

The flanking staircase towers of Wulfric’s octagon at St Augustine, Canterbury, are however typical examples and a similar form is preserved in the staircase attached to the major towers at Brixworth, Brigstock and North Elmham. - Clapham(16)

The craftsmanship and detail of English examples compares badly with those of Central Europe, they are usually singular rather than in pairs, but the similarity is unmistakable. It is of interest that the last three examples quoted above, are all in the area that was re-captured from the Danes in the first part of the tenth century, and all are circular.

Secular forms of towers date back much earlier than the Christian Church examples. Both Greeks and Romans are known to have built towers. Most relevant of these were the Roman lighthouses, some of which were built in England, the Pharos at Dover being an example. The Roman towers also provided the model for the emergence of this element in the Romanesque style. The best known examples of towers built for defensive purposes are the groups of round towers in Ireland, which were built at about the same time as the round towers in East Anglia.

It can be seen that the circular form occurs quite frequently in the development of the tower as an ecclesiastical feature. However, it is in connection with staircase towers and Carolingian Architecture that they are most commonly seen. The origin of the circular form, as with most of the elements of the Romanesque style, was in northern Italy and Ravenna in particular. Some authorities maintain that the towers of Ravenna were built contemporaneously to the churches to which they were attached, others are certain that they date only from the ninth century. The latter date is the one that corresponds with the origins of bell towers in this area and it may be that assumptions have been made to connect the origins without definite proof. It is believed that the Italian Campanile did not originate as bell towers and it would seem more appropriate to adopt the earlier date for the origins of these circular towers, although at the time unrelated to the use of bells.

The circular tower was used extensively in Carolingian Architecture and continues to be use in Central Europe until the thirteenth century. It is here that the greatest concentration of circular form of tower is found in Europe and although they occur in other areas they do so in greater isolation.

The other main area where round towers are prominent, apart from East Anglia, is Ireland. These are generally very tall slender towers, capped with conical roofs and built of stone. They are now considered to have been built primarily for defensive purposes and as watchtowers related to a religious establishment. Nearly all of them that survive stand in isolation a short distance from a church.

In England, with the exception of East Anglia, only a few round towers are to be found acting as a primary element of a building. Champeys, in his section on Irish round towers, does however make the following statement:

The church built by Aethelwold at Abingdon, in the latter part of the tenth century, is said to have had a round bell tower. - Champneys(15)

This fact, confirmed by Clapham, provides a further link between the round bell tower and the revival of the church in tenth century England.

The East Anglian Towers : General

The general character of the East Anglian Round Tower is difficult to describe, for it is difficult to find more than two or three examples that are the same. Proportions vary, openings vary in detail and in positioning, the juxtaposition of the tower with the other elements of the church vary and their sizes vary. They do, however, have an unmistakable character that identifies them as being East Anglian Round Towers. The character is possibly better described by what the towers lack rather than the features they possess. Generally they lack any large openings, except by later addition. They lack ornamentation or modelling, except for some example in which blank arcading occurs. They lack buttresses or any other aid to their structure. As can be judged from this the feeling that these structures evoke is one of simplicity, but not of a crude or accidental nature.

As discussed elsewhere, the only building material freely available in the area is flint and this is the material used for the construction of most of the round towers. The towers were built in stages of about 3 metres and then allowed to settle before the next stage was built. The flints or stone were quite often coursed, especially in the earlier examples, with the coursing extending through the thickness of the wall not just as surface decoration. In the later towers, and also in later additions to the towers such as the numerous octagonal belfries of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, knapped flints were used to give a smoother surface to the structure.

The towers are all situated to the west of the church and, with a few exceptions, are attached to the nave at its western end. At the present day access to the tower is usually achieved from the nave by the tower arch, which in some cases is no more than a doorway. There are few towers which have external doorways and when these occur they are usually to the west. Access to the upper floors of the tower, if there are any floors, is usually by means of a ladder within the tower. In some towers there is an opening above the tower arch, generally of about 1.5 metres in height and 0.8 metres in width, which mostly perform no function at present and some are blocked up. Most of the towers are now crowned with a belfry, many of which are of a later date than the main body of the tower although there are a few remaining early examples.

The churches to which these towers are attached are in the main modest parish churches. They usually consist of only the three basic elements of tower, nave and chancel. In many cases the chancel only exists as an internal feature enclosed in a common rectangle with the nave. A few have aisles, mostly to the south, but these are all later additions to an earlier church.

The detailed features of these towers are discussed in relationship to the dating of the towers, for it is these features in the main that are used to fix the date. The problem of dating the round towers has been left unresolved by various writers on the subject, some such as Fisher declaring that:

The question of dating does not seem to be of much importance, or even interest… - Fisher(28)

This statement I would strongly dispute, for it is only when these towers can be placed in exact historical context that any understanding of them can be achieved. It is worth noting that one of the theories put forward as to the origin of the towers, namely the defensive one, stands or falls upon what date can be ascribed to the emergence of the towers.

The problem of dating towers mainly arises out of their simplicity and lack of stonework openings and quoins. For it is by evidence of this type of feature that buildings of a similar period outside East Anglia are dated. It cannot be concluded that the absence of "national" Saxon features from an East Anglian Tower would invalidate an early dating. Although some widespread Saxon features do occur in the towers, local features that only occur where flint is used must also be looked for and used to date the towers.

One generalisation which can be made about the towers and the churches of this period is that whenever possible the Norman builders preferred to use stonework for their openings and quoins. This can be related to the fact that the Anglo-Saxon builders are known to have been able to produce much stronger mortar than the Normans were. It is therefore supposed that the Anglo-Saxon much greater faith in leaving their quoins, jambs and heads in unprotected flintwork. On the other hand this lack of stonework is fairly common of many of the round towers and some windows of Norman character have been constructed in this way. This is therefore not a factor to be used in isolation to determine a Saxon date, but evidence of a feature of Saxon style which may have been continued into the Norman period.

A feature that appears to be almost unique to East Anglia is the small double-splayed circular window, which is found in both the round towers and in the churches to which they are attached (refer to photo Round Headed Double Splayed Window and Circular Double Splayed Window at Howe). They are characterised by a very small opening, only about 200mm in diameter, with a very wide splay both internally and externally up to almost 1 metre in diameter. They are formed entirely without the use of any dressed stone, the flint rubble of the wall forming the opening. Where this opening occurs in the tower it is usually to be found in the lower chamber only about 3 to 4 metres from the ground. It is also found in some instances in the nave fairly high in the north or south wall. This is an accepted Saxon feature, especially in East Anglia.

The common Saxon feature of a double splayed window with a round head is another indication of an early date. According to Baldwin-Brown, however, it is a feature that should be treated with suspicion in this region. Talking of a group of towers that he considered to be Saxon, he remarks:

... but it must be noted that the double splayed window which some of them present as their chief warrant is not so distinct a Saxon sign in East Anglia as it is in other parts of the country. - Baldwin-Brown(4)

Of the other openings, such as doorways and tower arches, evidence of Saxon style workmanship is usually accepted if the opening is cut straight through the wall without any recessing to the jambs or head and if the head is a simple round or triangular arch, usually springing from plain square section imposts. The existence of any orders or recessing can be taken as definite evidence of Norman workmanship. This can be seen on the richly decorated openings that form the north and south doorways to the naves of many of the churches with round towers.

The belfry openings to the round towers appears to be one feature which they have in common with other churches in England of the Saxon period, and also with the Romanesque style in general (refer to photo Double Belfry Window at Bessingham). These double belfry windows are fully described by Baldwin-Brown in his article in The Builder of 1900, where he states:

... they are so abundant in Lincolnshire and other eastern regions, where the mid-wall shaft is employed." - Baldwin-Brown(2)

He also makes the point that this type of opening is of Saxon character, but not necessarily of Saxon date. A more reliable means of dating these openings may be from the strip-work that surrounds some examples, such as at Bessingham and Herringfleet, which is a purely Saxon feature. It is of little relevance whether these openings have a round or triangular head as both often occur in the same tower.

There are few other features other than openings that can serve as evidence for dating the towers. The blank, round headed arcading, which occurs at Tasburgh (refer to photo of Blank Arcading at Tasburgh), Thorpe-next-Haddiscoe and Thorington, has been suggested by come as a Saxon feature, but the examples of it are few and the evidence of date slight. String courses are a definite feature of Saxon workmanship and these do occur in some of the round towers, although later belfries are often marked by a string course and these will usually be of the same date as the addition.

Herringbone work in the fabric of the tower or nave is another indication of a late Saxon date (refer to photo Herringbone Work at Roughton). It occurs mainly in the north-west of the region where carstone is used for this decoration, it being more difficult to accomplish in flint alone. Where different materials have been used in a tower, such as flint and carstone or different sizes of flints, they are quite often used in bands, particularly at the base of the tower. Some writers have suggested that this is peculiar to the Saxon builder, but the rest of the English architecture of the period does not confirm this.

The last item, and possibly the one of most significance, is the pilaster strip at the point where the tower is attached to the nave. The strip may be either round or square in section, and usually runs to the height of the original nave, where this can be traced. It is formed in the same material as the tower and the nave, usually flint. It has significance in two ways. First it is noticed in churches of fairly early date and it may therefore be taken as factor in determining such a date. Secondly it provides a link between the tower and the nave, establishing a common date for the building of both.

In this section a lot of importance has been placed upon the determination of Saxon features which may occur in the towers. This is important in that the Norman style, which replaced the Saxon, can be identified fairly easily, as can the styles that followed the Norman. But the Saxon style of the region is less clear-cut and thus requires definition for the purpose of this study.

The problem of dating the round towers is made more difficult by the fact that no church remains untouched by later builders for very long. While this is a simple problem of evidence being obliterated, such as when later work is of a definable period such as Decorated or Perpendicular, it presents greater problems where the later builder has tried to imitate an earlier style. This can be easily spotted when the copier has not fully understood the earlier style, but when the copy is a good one dating becomes more difficult. Writing in 1958, Messent comments on the tower of Spexhall church:

... the tower Norman with the top rebuilt in recent years … the lower part contains slit windows typical of this period. - Messent(43)

When I visited the church in 1972 the vicar confirmed having seen an account for £900, being the cost of building the tower in 1910, supporting Pevsner’s(45) assertion that the tower was built at that date, replacing one that fell in 1720.

In Appendix 1 (the 1973 database), I have listed and dated all the elements of the churches with round towers in East Anglia. Most of these dates are based upon other people’s observations, as I have only visited about half of them, and some visits were of a very brief duration. It would therefore be unwise to claim that this was an authoritative list, however, I considered it necessary to arrive at some conclusion as to the dating in order that I may place the towers within their historical context.

I have divided the towers chronologically into three main groups. Towers placed in Group A (marked in red on the Map of East Anglia showing the locations of churches) are the earliest examples, being those with several accepted Saxon, or earlier, features and of which there is a general agreement amongst the experts as to a Saxon date. Towers with only one Saxon feature, or those with debatable Saxon features, have been excluded from this group as I consider the evidence to be inconclusive. It would seen improbable that any of these towers could date back before the re-conquest of Danelaw by Edward in about 920 AD. It is recorded that from this point onwards there was a considerable amount of church building until a decline during the second Danish invasion, which began in about 980 AD. The date of 920 AD might be slightly too early if it is remembered that the See of Elmham was not re-constituted until 956 AD, a factor that may indicate that East Anglia was behind the rest of the country in its fervour for church building. It must also be remembered that most of the churches would initially have been built in timber. It is also debatable whether church building stopped during the second Scandinavian invasion, which is supposed not to have had the widespread devastating effects as the first.

The second period, Group B (marked in green on the Map of East Anglia showing the locations of churches), is the period when the gradual transition from Saxon to Norman took place, a development which I maintain has nothing to with the date of 1066 AD. In this section there are many towers which failed to fall into the earlier period because of disagreement amongst the experts or because of insufficient evidence. I feel that on further investigation several of these examples will be accredited with an earlier date but I thought it unwise to do so on the basis of information available to date. This period of building can be seen in context with the reigns of Canute, who instigated a lot of church building in the country, and Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror. The dates of 1020 to 1080 AD are the closest that may be assumed for this period.

The towers in Group C (marked in blue on the Map of East Anglia showing the locations of churches) are those which show a fully developed Norman style without any traces of Saxon workmanship. This period is the most clearly identifiable as it is based on a national style which can be easily recognised. The dates for this period are widely given as 1080 to 1200 AD, and there is no reason to dispute this for the purpose of this study.

The maps best illustrate the distribution of the towers. It can be seen that the distribution of the towers reaches its maximum in South-East Norfolk and North-East Suffolk. On comparison with other maps, this area corresponds geologically with the Crag deposits and geographically with the fairly flat areas around the river systems that enter the sea at Yarmouth. It also corresponds with the area of highest incidence of Danish place-names, a factor that has been used by some writers to theorise upon the origins of the round towers. It should be noted, however, that this concentration only occurs during the later period of building of the round towers.

Several localised concentrations can also be seen, such as the one inland of Cromer and Holt on the North Norfolk Coast. It is not possible to link these groups by style or the common inspiration of a single tower. The most likely explanation is that they simply reflect the distribution of the population at the time.

The divergence of styles and forms that are found in the round towers makes it difficult to select any individual towers for study that can be said to be typical of the East Anglian Round Towers. The examples that follow should therefore be considered as four individual studies illustrating several features commonly found in the round towers and the churches associated with them.

St. Mary, Roughton

The village of Roughton is situated in the north of Norfolk about four miles south of Cromer and to the south-east of the Cromer-Holt Ridge. The village is on the main road between Cromer and Norwich (A140). It also lies on a small stream that is a tributary to the River Bure. The village lies in the valley of this stream but the church, being slightly removed from the village, is on higher ground to the south. The church is still used for worship.

The church now consists of a circular tower of slender proportions, a tall narrow nave with a south aisle and a chancel. Apart from the tower and a small part of the west wall of the nave, most of the church has been re-built in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in the decorated and perpendicular styles.

The fabric of the tower can be divided into four distinct stages. The lower stage is most distinctively coursed with alternating bands of pudding stone and flint, with some bands of puddingstone being set in herringbone fashion. The nest stage is almost entirely of flint with only a hint of coursing and generally more random in the size if flints and their arrangement. The third stage contains more puddingstone than the previous one and the coursing is much more distinct. The top stage, with its battlements, is a later addition probably of the same date as the nave or chancel. This tower also has the feature of quarter round pilasters at the junction of the tower and the nave. These pilasters appear to run to the height of the original nave, of which remains can be traced in the west wall of the existing nave.

There are two types of opening in the tower that are of interest. First there are two small circular double splayed windows that occur in the lower stages of the tower. These are of the type typically associated with the Round Towers of East Anglia and are considered to be of an early date. Secondly there are four double-belfry windows which, although similar, are not typical of this type of opening. Their proportions are more elongated than most and they do not possess the characteristic monolithic mid-wall shaft. There is some evidence, particularly in the south window, that these windows have been modified by later builders, thus distorting the form and proportions.

There are therefore three definite factors of Saxon date and one dubious one. The definite factors are the circular double splayed windows, the coursing and herringbone work at the base of the tower and the quarter round pilasters. The dubious factor is the double-belfry windows. I have proposed placing the dating of this tower in Period A, a dating that has also proposed by Fisher, Pevsner, Cautley, Messent and Cox.

St. Peter, Thornington

The church is situated about two miles west of Blythburgh, Suffolk, overlooking a small stream that is a tributary of the River Blyth. At the present day there is no evidence of a village close to the church. It is still used for worship, serving the scattered farms of the area, but does not look well cared for.

At the present time the church consists of a circular tower, a nave with a south vestry and north porch, and a chancel. The whole church, apart from the tower, has been rendered.

The tower has four stages. The lower one is of flint, regularly coursed and with a hint of herringbone work close to the base. The second stage has the interesting feature of round headed blank arcading executed entirely in coursed flintwork. This places it within the small group of towers having this common feature, the others being at Tasburgh and Thorpe-next-Haddiscoe. The third stage is of plain coursed flintwork and the top stage is a later addition in brickwork.

The arcading is the most important feature in the dating of this tower; it is however debatable whether it can be considered to be a Norman or earlier feature. Taylor(63) draws attention to the positioning of the small slit windows that occur in the same stage of the tower as the arcading. The slit windows are clearly Norman examples and from their non-concurrence with the arcading and their use of dressed stone he concludes that the windows are later than the arcading and therefore classifies the arcading as Saxo-Norman. The evidence of the other examples where this arcading occurs also reinforces this view and I would therefore place this tower in Period B. This view is supported by Taylor and Pevsner.

Fragmentary evidence of Norman windows in the nave, where the south porch now stands, dates the nave as being built in Period C.

St. Andrew, East Lexham

The church is situated to the west of Norfolk about six miles north-east of Swaffam overlooking the River Nar. It is only about one mile away from the church of West Lexham, which also has a round tower.

The church now consists of a round tower and a fairly long nave with a south porch. The nave is now entirely rendered.

The fabric of the tower is consistent throughout its height with the exception of a small brick octagonal capping. It is of coursed flint with alternating bands of small flints and large irregular flints. Also, at a point just below the belfry windows there is a small setback, the tower reducing to a smaller diameter.

It is the belfry windows of this tower that are of most interest. The first thing that makes them unusual is that there are only three of them, as opposed to the normal four. The second point of interest is that they are all of different designs and unlike any found elsewhere in East Anglia (see illustration). They are considered to be of fairly early design, the "Maltese Cross" in particular, and are the major factor in placing this tower in the earliest period for the building of the round towers, Period A. This is also confirmed by the alternating bands of small and large flints. Taylor, Fisher, Pevsner, Cautly, Messent and Cox agree on this dating.

The nave in its north-west quoin has some evidence of Saxon long-and-short work and the west wall is of similar fabric to the tower. For these reasons the original nave is considered to be of the same date as the tower.

St. Margaret, Hales

The church is situated in the south-east of Norfolk about two-and-a-half miles south-east of Loddon. It is at present not physically related to any village, the village of Hales being nearly one mile away. It is in an area that is rich with round towers, the nearest being at Raveningham which is only one mile to the east, with Kirby Cane and Stockton only one-and-a-half miles to the south and Heckinghan one-and-a-half miles to the north.

The church now consists of a round tower, a nave and an apsidal chancel. The nave and chancel are both thatched. The nave has two good examples of Norman doorways, in the north and south walls, and the chancel has some blank arcading executed in dressed stone which is typically Norman.

From the outside the tower offers very little evidence for the purpose of dating it. The fabric is fairly uniform from top to bottom in coursed flintwork, only at the top is a different technique used being the flint and stone checker work typical of the fifteenth century.

The earliest openings appear to be the three narrow slit windows of the middle of the tower. By the use of stone and the formation of a round head out of a single block of stone this would appear to date them, and therefore the tower, as being of the same date as the nave and chancel.

Some writers have pointed to the possibility of the tower being of an earlier date. The evidence to this has been given as the two small circular double-splayed windows in the ground floor chamber, which cannot be seen from the outside as they have been blocked. This led Taylor(63) to conclude that the tower is Saxo-Norman. I was unable to gain access to the tower when I visited this church and was therefore unable to confirm this point for myself. If these windows do exist it would seem to suggest an earlier date than Taylor suggests.

This is a situation where, because only one debatable feature exists to give an early date, until I have made further investigation it would be safer to date this tower as being of Period C. The Norman dating of the tower is supported by Pevsner, Cautley, Messant and Cox.