Felling date range: 1483-1528 subsequently revised to 1482-1514

Purlins (1/2) 1474 (1); Collar, Arch-brace, Principal rafters (0/5). Site Master 1405-1473 east06 (t=6.4 SENG1; 5.5 SYARDE; 5.3 WINDSOR2; 5.3 MDM11)

Eastleigh Manor is a Grade II* listed house of stone rubble with ashlar dressings. The North range consists of a three-bay first floor principal chamber over a parlour or Hall, and the stair-case. The parlour ceiling beams have elaborate rolls flanked by hollow-ogee mouldings and the north ground-floor window retains some late medieval heraldic stained glass. The roof is of arch-braced collar construction with moulded arch-braces rising from a timber corbel table. There are two tiers of threaded purlins, both originally with wind-braces. The roof over the stairs is of much simpler design and evidently not intended to be seen. The North-west wing appears to have predated the parlour range as the chimney stack truncates the wing’s roof structure. This roof is again of arch-braced collar construction with two tiers of purlins.

The dendrochronology was intended to date firmly each of the two early phases, the first floor principal chamber and the NW wing. Only the first floor chamber dated with a single sample without sapwood giving an estimated felling range of 1483-1528 (subsequently revised to 1482-1514). The site exhibited appalling inter-site cross matching to the extent that some pairs of timbers, clearly cut from the same tree, failed to match together. See Miles, D H, 1994 ( Below) The tree-ring dating of Eastleigh Manor, Westleigh,Devon, Anc Mon Lab Rep, 41/94. (Miles 1995, VA 26, list 64 Part I)

Mr Dan Miles

Twelve timbers were sampled at Eastleigh Manor, Westleigh, Devon (SS 488 280) from both the principal upper chamber and the northwest wing. Of these, only one sample from the principal upper chamber dated conclusively with a last measured ring date of AD 1474. With a last heartwood ring date of 1473, an estimated felling date range of 1483- 1528 is given. The wing remains undated. Of the other samples taken, there was no other internal matching and one or two samples which visually appeared to be from the same tree also failed to match significantly.