NHER 1017 (Cropmark and Earthwork record) - Settlement earthworks of medieval to post medieval date including site of Boffhouse, Beaufoe’s or Beaufours Manor

Earthwork site of three tofts (rubble walling visible on one).
A watercourse disused with retaining banks and probable causeway/barrage across.
A hollow way (?) to the southeast. Earthworks stand to 40cm in places.
D. Edwards (NAU).

29 June 1977.
Man at Norfolk show told E. Rose (NAU) that when a boy in 1939-45 war he watched a surface water drain dug
from barn across this field; it turned up much black pottery 'impressed with reeds' and revealed a circular brick floor that had been burnt. He gave the pottery to the village school but has not seen it since.

[1] believes this to be a manorial site rather than tofts.
E. Rose (NAU) 26 May 1982.

See notes in file

Ordnance Survey account in file also suggests mill mound.
R. J. Rickett (NAU) 19 July 1990

September 1994. Earthwork Survey.
River courses, enclosure boundaries, building outlines and possible fish ponds recorded on earthwork survey at 1:1000.
See report (S2) for plan and further details. This site was included in (S3) and the survey is also noted in (S4).
B. Cushion (NLA) September 1994.

Map of 1630 shows east side of the stream as 'Scite of ye Mannor of Bosshouse' thus appearing to confirm a manorial origin.
Copy in file.
E. Rose (NLA) 17 December 1997.

Scheduled 1998.
The scheduling interprets it as a manorial site with garden earthworks and 'mill mound' being a prospect mound.
E. Rose (NLA) 24 June 1998.

November 2025. Northwest Norfolk Aerial Investigation and Mapping (AI&M) Project.
The area of medieval to post medieval earthworks described above, which includes the site of Boffhouse, Beaufoe’s or Beaufours Manor, is visible on aerial photographs (as referenced above and S5-S8) and visualised lidar data (S9-S10). The latter was the principal source for the AI&M mapping. Cushion and Davison’s published survey (S3), the Historic England Research Record for the site (S11) and the National Heritage List for England record (S12) were all referred to for interpretation. There is considerable variation in the height and prominence or definition of the features, which is apparent in the lidar visualisations but difficult to represent in the AI&M mapping.
The mapping by the project does not significantly differ from the plan of the site made by Cushion and Davison (S3). The site is low lying, positioned immediately to the west of the River Burn, and a substantial proportion of the earthworks appear to relate to drainage and water management, both natural and artificial. Various phases of activity seem to be represented, including some elements which are likely to be modern. The most prominent feature is a trapezoidal enclosure at the centre of the site, with a second partial enclosure to its west. The enclosures have been interpreted previously as part of a later medieval formal garden, while elongated depressions and a series of banks and channels to their east have been interpreted as manorial fishponds (S12).
In the northwest corner of the site, the visualised lidar data adds considerably to the rather irregular earthworks and section of wall recorded by the earlier field survey (S3) with the relatively clear plan of a multi-roomed building being apparent as (presumably low) earthwork banks. This corresponds with the northwestern building identified by the earlier survey and found to correspond to a house depicted at this location on a map of 1630 (S3). At the southern end of the site, the survey mapped a small, broadly rectilinear platform, partly bounded by flint masonry, was also identified by the earlier survey. It was thought to relate to a second house depicted on the map which faced onto the road which bounds the site to the south.
Interpretations of individual features differ between records and sources, as is clear from earlier entries in the record. Various elements have been interpreted as tofts, a hollow way, enclosures, settlement features, garden features, a mill, a prospect mound, fishponds, etc. The AI&M survey has enhanced knowledge of the plan of the site but has not been able to significantly contribute to these questions of interpretation. The likely degree of change and alteration that took place at the site – as surmised by Cushion and Davison (S3) – has no doubt contributed to the rather confused nature of some of the earthworks and the diversity in opinion relating to the interpretation of different features.
S. Tremlett (Norfolk Historic Environment Service), 18 November 2025.