harpsden court report appendices

HARPSDEN COURT REPORT APPENDICES

1) Aerial View 2007

2) Architect’s Plans of ground and first floors

3) Photograph of Harpsden Court 1866; north front &

two circa 1800 water colours

4) C. Howlett mullioned windows in south gable & stair block

5) A. Brodrick section & plan, g.f. rear stack lobby

6) R. Faircliff basement south wall

7) D. Clark preliminary report on panelling & door, plus additional

comments by R. Gibson

8) R. Faircliff section & elevation of medieval window in ‘solar’

9) Rococo room dome in attic; interior decorations

10) J. Hine section and elevation of 1st floor doorway in ‘solar’

11) T. Peacock & H. Horner attic; trusses, carpenter’s marks

& description. R. Gibson: floor joists

12) P. Clark attic floor plans and elevations of rear staircase range

13) Avis Lloyd report on ceramics

14) Dendro Dated 1567/8; Report by Oxford Dendro Laboratory

15) Photographs of kitchen wing

16) Photograph of Greys Court Mansion (April 09, R. Gibson) built 1573 by Sir Francis Knollys

17) David Sherlock, brief account of the Nobles at Harpsden Ct.

18) L. & B. Gerrard, life at Harpsden Court since 1976

Appendix 1 Aerial View of 2007

App. 2 Architect’s ground and 1st floor plans

App. 3 Harpsden Court 1866 photograph

Photograph of Harpsden Court North Front, 1866

Two watercolours of c. 1800

North east elevations of Harpsden Court

Hall with 18th C. stair case and Gothic Revival fire place

App. 4 C. Howlett: C 16th cavetto moulded window

sections in attic

App. 4 Sections by Chris Howlett of mullioned windows

in attic and stair block. Photograph looking at window

soffit with mark of removed iron stanchion

App 5 A. Brodrick Section and plan of lobby between

dining room and kitchen on the south side of stack,

ground floor

App. 6 R. Faircliff basement, south wall

App 7 D. Clark, preliminary report on panelling

Additional comments to the above report on front door & panelling ( pt of

App.7)

The Gerrards made comments on some points of David Clark’s observations, which I would like to add to the above report by way of clarification.

The entrance door in the early C20th porch contains within its core an early door made of c.

14” wide, horizontal planks on the inside and c.10” vertical planks on the outside. There is evidence of two former, long strap hinges as well as two key holes through the double planks

of the door. The new, richly ornamented door is in fact mounted on front of the old and

frames it, thereby creating not only a wider and taller door, but also a highly decorative one

with added ironwork of different historic periods. It is possible that the early plank door

comes from the house and may even be that shown on the 1586 Balgrave drawing’s eastern end of the north front, but this is of course just a speculative thought, which cannot be

verified without further evidence. However, it appears to be a door of the Tudor period ( L.

Hall, F 2.35)

Back of plank door, over

painted, but wide planks

and long straps with a

splayed end are visible.

Panelling: The Gerrards found that the first

floor door inserted into the panelling, opened into a cupboard containing a shelve unit with

sides and back, which had been built to fit the splayed window opening ( see App. 8 below).

By removing it intact the medieval window was revealed and rediscovered by the present

owners. Use had evidently been made of the existing recess and splay to create a cupboard

for a shelf unit. There are other recesses in the west and south walls, which may represent

other earlier, now hidden openings in the masonry. Although the square panelling has

undergone many alterations over time, there are large, undisturbed areas of panelling with

ovolo mouldings which fit into the dating period of the dendro dates of 1567/8 for the house

(1561-1576 LHall, F 5.13)

South wall panelling of Solar with

later door later door. Profiles of panel stiles. R. Gibson 7/2009

App. 8 ‘Solar’ medieval window, R. Faircliff

Blocked gothic window with stone surround set into the

originally external face of the easts wall of 1st floor ‘tower

room’. Studs and laths of C 18th plaster work wall of the

Rococo music room are visible behind it.

App. 9 Rococo room, dome and adjoining east room

App. 10 J. Hine section and plan of ‘solar’ doorway

App. 11 Oxfordshire Buildings Record Survey No. 61

Harpsden Court, Nr. Henley 9 September 2008

Modified 4 March 2009

App. 11 H. Horner & .T. Peacock, roof Refer to survey floor plan (Paul Clark App. 12), scale drawing truss A and truss D, below (Tim Peacock). Photos, report and carpenters’ marks by Heather Horner The “Tower” roof (= cross wing) The section of roof examined on 9 September 2008 is above what is believed to have been a tower, in the main (N) front range. This roof section supports a N - S ridge, referred to in Ruth Gibson’s description as the cross wing. This is perpendicular to the main range and the main ridge, which runs E – W, referred to as the axial roof, There are two rows of purlins supporting the rafters, which are paired and alternate. The upper purlins carry collars joining each pair of common rafters, which are set relatively close, at 39cm to 42cm, scantling 9 to 10 cm wide and 9cm thick. They are tenoned and pegged at the apex, with no ridge-piece. The collars are tenoned into the rafters and pegged. All the common rafters are pegged to the purlins (ditto in axial roof). In Bay 1 there are two visible main trusses, marked 'A' and 'B' in the survey sketch. Truss 'A', the northerly one, has been cut down to carry the pitch of the main ridge seamlessly through, as viewed from the outside. A dormer window has been inserted in that pitch, on the north side, necessitating the removal of some common rafters. The rafters appear to be contemporaneous with the main trusses; in particular, cut rafters on the west side, near 'A', contain mortises and, in some cases, pegs for removed collars.

We measured one main truss, the most northerly ('A' ). We took measurements from the south face, which was the flush working face. The working face of truss B was the N face, i.e. the inner face on both trusses. Truss 'B' is uncut. The upper collar construction is similar to the pairs of common rafters, with slightly heavier scantling. The principal rafter clasps the lower purlin and notches into a pegged lower collar. This collar is interrupted, rather than sawn off, supported by a vertical strut and diagonal brace to the tie beam (see scale drawing & image left). This arrangement creates a usable attic space. The height from tie beam to apex could not be measured directly because the boarded floor prevented access. The truss appears to rest on the stone wall of the 'tower' below. The

end of the tie beam is cut diagonally to continue the pitch of the truss. A wall plate of similar dimension supports the lower ends of the rafters. A second parallel wall late is visible, presumably positioned near the inner face of the tower wall; its partner is visible when planks are lifted on the E wall of the tower. To the N of the westerly side of Truss A, the lower purlin initially appeared to be a replacement, because it does not fully occupy the clasp. Closer inspection reveals that the northern piece has been sawn off through the peg-hole of a scarf joint joining two lengths of purlin, so a loose stub has fallen out (photo right). The cut has been made in order to accommodate the inserted dormer window, and an

inserted staircase adjacent to the W chimney stack. A roofline scar is visible on the E face of this chimney stack, of unknown provenance. On the east end of the truss, the N piece of purlin has been removed, again to accommodate the dormer window. An interrupted collar is visible to the south of truss B, but the rest of the inferred third truss (forming the S gable end) is neither visible nor amenable to measurement. There are 5 rafter pairs between truss B and the south wall. One is marked with a 'first series' 'I' (like a Greek lower case lambda). There were originally 6 pairs between trusses A and B, five of which were altered when A was cut down. The distance between the two visible trusses A and B on Paul Clark’s plan is 264cm. The distance from 'A' to the juncture of the roof and floor at the front elevation is 185cm. Beyond this extends the parapet, which could not be inspected. Axial Roof (investigations of 4 March 2009) The carpentry of this roof appears to be contemporary with that at the western end of the front range, i.e. both axial and cross-wing roofs are contemporary. A date in 16th C seems likely. [Now dendro-dated to 1568] There are three trusses supporting bays 2 – 5 of the main range, designated C, D and E. The carpentry of all 5 trusses appear to be similar, although D shows minor stylistic differences; the joints are single pegged, whereas all the

others trusses are double pegged, and also the purlin is not trenched in to the principal at the

collar insertion in the same way (drawing Truss D). Trusses C and D have straight wind

braces from the principal rafter into the purlin, though some are now missing. As in the cross

wing (bay 1), there are auxiliary trusses incorporated into the gable ends.

Parallel to the main truss D, and only about 3 feet to the east, a further auxiliary truss of

undefined function, possibly as secondary support in a very wide roof span, is now

incorporated into the inserted dormer support. These secondary trusses have not been

investigated fully. An extra substantial tie beam (10 inches wide, 12 inches deep) is detectable in the floor of bay 4, running between the N and S gables. This beam is not part of any of the trusses identified above; its function is unclear, though the double-tusked joists are tenoned into it (see below), making a solid platform, and supporting the suggestion that this roof space could have been used as a “long gallery” for exercise and recreation. The floor structure is of particular interest as the tall, narrow joists are level with the soffit of the tie beam, thereby forming a perfect plane for the laths of the plaster ceiling to run uninterrupted. (The same ceiling construction has been observed at Greys Court, see photographs App. 16 below. R. Gibson) The spectacular domed ceiling of the 18th C Music Room is accommodated in this roof space, (bays 2 and 3) with the additional support of inserted scissor-braced trusses, bolted onto and incorporating truss C. A pair of substantial cross-members join the wall plate of the E wall of the Tower to Trusses C and D; it is not clear if these are primary, or inserted to help support the dome. The SE gable end retains a moulded window frame showing exterior weathering (drawing Chris Howlett, App. 3 ). A possibly 17thC , wrought iron casement lights the SW gable end.

General comments The timbers are split-quartered, then pit-sawn. Some sapwood has been retained, (identifiable as

much of it is now decayed) but always used on the face opposite any joint. Finely scribed setting-out marks are visible, especially around the purlin clasp. Carpenters marks on the trusses are illustrated on a separate sheet and on the left. Unusually, the current pine floor boarding is perpendicular to the trusses. This is because the boards are laid over earlier flooring, of 12" boards, probably of elm, parallel to the main trusses, supported on edge-

set joists joining the main tie beams. These floor planks have 1" rebates to ensure a close fit, and have been shaped on the lower surface with an adze, to accommodate the irregular heights of

the joists (photo of inverted plank lying on in-situ floor). The joist insertion is double-tusked, ie

a double tenon with single diminished haunch, visible adjacent to truss D and at the tie in

Bay 4.(photo and drawing)

Extra stud walling with lath and plaster infill (with unusual half-round scantling forming a smooth turn over 270o corners) was used in 18th - 19th C to create dormitory areas for male domestic staff (information from 19th C sales brochure, personal communication from present owner); much of the lath and

plaster has now been removed. Where the dormitory walls survive, they are covered with original block-printed wallpaper, presumably a product of the business which created the wealth used to ‘modernise’ the building at the time.

Heather Horner & Tim Peacock, September 2008

Updated March 2009 after a second visit

Trusses A (above) and D (below) by Tim Peacock

App. 12 P. Clark Attic plan and rear staircase block;

elevations and plan

Appendix 13: Avis Lloyd

Ceramic Building Material Report

1 Introduction

This report forms part of the historic appraisal of Harpsden Court carried out by the

Oxfordshire Buildings Record during 2008 and 2009 and should be read in conjunction with

that report and, in particular, the assessment of the medieval phase and the drawing of the tile

spolia contained in Appendix 6.

There is a notable amount of ceramic building material in the form of re-used tile present in

the ground floor of the medieval core of the present building, referred to in the historical

appraisal as the 'tower block'. This short report describes the material both in situ and

following microscopic examination of samples of both the tile and mortar, and considers the

material's possible provenance.

2 Examination of the tile in situ

The re-used ceramic building material (Figure 1) was examined on site on 30th April 2009

and was found to consist of circa 51 tiles, all of which are visible on the ground floor of

Harpsden Court. It is not possible to assess whether there is a greater number of tiles but it is

possible that those which are visible do not constitute the total extent of the material

contained in the building and that further tiles may be present behind the secondary staircase.

There is a range of tile size and representative sample sizes are given in Table 1. Most of the

tiles are relatively thin, around 1.4 to 1.8cm, but towards the top of the feature the tiles are

Figure 1.

Ceramic building

material, ground

floor, Harpsden

Court

noticeably thicker, around 2.5 to 2.6cm. The whole of the feature lies on top of a flint plinth,

approximately 46cm in height. The 'return' of the tile appears to be around 19cm in depth,

although the full extent of the return cannot be ascertained due to problems of accessibility.

At least 7 of the 51 tiles have a notable camber, up to around 4mm on average above the

horizontal. The tiles are set into a sandy lime mortar over which there appears to be the

remains of a lime plaster which may, or may not, be of the same date. The condition of both

tile and mortar is fairly sound, although there is some spalling in the former and some

general disintegration in the latter, which appears to have necessitated some localised repair.

At around 117cm above the present floor level there is a circular aperture (20cm long and

18cm high) which is set into the tiles, the void of which has been packed with a heavily-

included mortar containing relatively large pieces of stone; the tiles continue to the right of

the aperture for approximately 16cm and then end. This aperture does not appear to be

contemporary as the juncture between the tiles and the aperture is irregular and unfinished,

and may therefore be the result of post-construction damage. Above this circular aperture two

of the tiles have been cut through allowing the fracture to be examined. In one of the tiles the

fracture shows an area of unoxidised tile, around 4mm thick. The tile above is also partially

oxidised, in this case with two unoxidised lines clearly visible within the fabric; some red-

brown, iron-rich inclusions are also visible within the fracture. Above both these two

partially oxidised tiles the remaining tiles all appear to have been produced in fully oxidised

conditions.

Below and to the right of the circular void noted above, there is a rectangular void (32cm

long and 15cm high) which is also packed, this time with loose, unmortared brick of a later

phase.

3 Microscopic examination

Four samples were removed from the site for analysis. Microscopic examination was carried

out at x10 and x30 magnification with a binocular microscope. There was no evidence of the

remains of glazing in either of the tile samples, nor was any glauconite present.

___________________________________________________________

Sample 1 Tile fragments from in situ spolia

A small sample of tile, c.1.5cm by 0.7cm, was removed for examination. This consists of a

hard, buff-brown, sandy exterior with very fine orange-red clay matrix in the core. The

fracture is irregular. Quartz, both angular and sub-angular, was a common inclusion and

generally between 0.5 to 0.8mm in diameter, all of which is poorly sorted. The majority of

voids appear to have contained quartz. Some sparse red-brown iron-rich grains are present

through both the fracture and in the exterior fabric. Some stone, up to 1.5mm in diameter can

also be seen. There is a sparse distribution of fine silver mica but it is not a distinguishing

feature of the fabric. No organic material is present.

_____________________________________________________________________

Sample 2 Tile portion removed from wall

A loose tile measuring c.9cm by 7cm was removed from the site for examination. The

exterior is hard, buff-brown, and sandy-soapy to the touch with some remnants of mortar.

The clay matrix in the core is again orange-red and the fracture irregular. Quartz, both

angular and sub-angular, is a common inclusion with some pieces up to 2mm in diameter

and, whilst still poorly sorted, it is distributed more regularly throughout the matrix than in

Sample 1. Some stone is also present together with the same red-brown ferrous material

noted above. Voids are more varied and represent both quartz and thin linear pieces of dark

brown stone. Mica is rare to sparse with both silver mica plates and specks present and,

again, it is not a distinguishing feature of the fabric. No organic material is present.

_____________________________________________________________________

Sample 3 Mortar 1

A small sample of mortar was removed from between the tiles at the centre of the feature and

taken for analysis. It consists of a very fine calcareous matrix with common quartz

inclusions. No organic material or other inclusions are apparent.

_____________________________________________________________________

Sample 4 Mortar 2

A second sample of mortar was also removed from between the tiles. This sample appears to

be of a different phase to Mortar 1. On examination the matrix is quite different, the mortar is

calcareous but there is less quartz than in Mortar 1 and a considerable amount of ashy

material, but no other organic inclusions. Some fine specks of black mica are also present.

This sample appears to have been the result of an episode of post-medieval repair.

_____________________________________________________________________

4 Tile size

The difference in sizes in the Harpsden Court tile (Table 1, below) may be explained by one

or more of the following:

the size differential is the product of non-standarised production techniques;

some of the tiles are not complete - this could account for the differences in length but

not in thickness;

the material has come from buildings of different size/status within the Harpsden

Roman villa site, assuming that a Roman provenance is correct;

the material has come from more than one provenance;

the material was graduated in its original context, i.e. different sized tiles were used to

roof a single building.

Table 1. Measurements of 6 sample tiles from Harpsden Court

Sample Number Material Length (cm) Thickness (cm)

1 Re-used tile 33 1.4






A single roof tile and a floor tile from the Roman villa site near Harpsden was briefly

examined and measured during the examination of the re-used spolia, although the fabric of

this material has not been compared with the samples taken from Harpsden Court which are

discussed in section 3 above. The Harpsden Roman villa ceramic archive from the 1951

excavations, held at Reading Museum, has not been examined.

The roofing tile, which is incomplete, was 1.8cm thick, which accords with some of the tiles

at Harpsden Court, although ceramic tile production during the Roman period was not

standardised. The Roman floor tile/brick from the villa site, by comparison, measured 3.5cm

thick by 40.5cm long and 31cm deep.

5 Discussion

Distinguishing Roman from Medieval tile in re-used contexts is difficult, particularly where

there is a lack of other Roman building material, such as stone with Roman tool marks. The

building stones, where visible in Harpsden Court's medieval core, were examined but none

showed diagnostically Roman characteristics: deeply-grooved tool marks, broaches or

feathered broaches. This is not to say that such material does not exist in the building, simply

that it is not currently accessible.

The former villa at Harpsden is described as a bath building with hypocaust and fragments of

wall plaster. The walls of the building were flint banded with thick red clay tiles; roof tiles

were also found (Scott 1993: 159). The thickness of roof tiles from Roman contexts is given

as a range from 1.4cm to 3cm (Brodribb 1987: 26). Potentially, therefore, both the flint core

at Harpsden Court and the ceramic tiles could have been removed from the Roman villa site.

The fabric of Roman tiles can vary and almost every site of this period produces more than

one fabric type (ibid: 136). The fabric in Sample 1 and Sample 2 is fairly similar and minor

differences, for example, the increased amount of stone in Sample 2 could be accounted for

by the difference in sample size. Even assuming these two samples are made from different

fabrics, this would not preclude a Roman provenance and, furthermore, the exterior tile

colour is consistent with roof tiles produced during the Roman occupation of Britain.

When considering the purpose of the inclusion of the tile spolia at Harpsden Court it seems

most probable that the tiles have been used as quoin material to strengthen the corners of the

wall and also to provide some decorative element. The lack of spalling would suggest the

tiles have been well fired which is normally the case with most Roman ceramic building

material and, as a result, the tiles would be suitable for such a purpose. It seems, therefore,

that the tiles have been used for functional and/or decorative, rather than casual or iconic

purposes.

Assessment of the provenance of the tile material is most usefully considered in conjunction

with the two medieval features in the 'tower block': the two-centred arched window and the

door aperture with drawbeam socket, both of which are on the first floor. Associated with the

latter feature there are several chalk blocks which were examined for possible evidence of

Roman tool marks for the presence of such would strengthen the case for the tiles on the

ground floor having been re-used from a Roman context. As noted above, none of the tiles

exhibited diagnostically Roman characteristics, although it should be noted that chalk blocks

were used during the Roman period and may have been popular for banding, a decorative

treatment which is evident in a number of extant buildings where different coloured building

stone has been used (Eaton 2000: Plate 21). Where chalk blocks are used in Roman buildings

they tend to be cut fairly small, as is the case at Harpsden Court.

The two-centred arch for both door and window apertures was introduced into England at the

end of the Norman period and continued during the Early English gothic period, with a date

range of approximately the late 12th century to the late 13th century. The hollow chamfered

mouldings on both adjacent stone and wood in this phase of the building are also compatible

with these dates. The capstone which is present on the left side of the window may also

suggests a late Norman date for this window feature.

The drawbeam socket may also date from around this period (although these features were

used in both Norman and late medieval buildings) and may have had one of two functions:

defensive: as recorded from a number of Norman castles, late medieval churches and

some domestic dwellings;

protective: possibly to enable valuables to be kept safe during periods of instability.

Given the presence of both these features - the two-centred arched window and the

drawbeam socket - the reused tiles on the ground floor would appear to be from the same

medieval phase of building construction. Post-Roman ceramic building material is believed

to have been reintroduced from around the end of the 11th century or beginning of the 12th

century for roof tiles and c.1160 for brick (Morris 2000: 51; Eaton 2000: 143) and it is

therefore possible that the re-used tile spolia at Harpsden Court has come from either a

Roman or from a Norman - late medieval context. If the spolia is medieval rather than

Roman then this suggests a very late 12th-century or early 13th-century date for the 'tower

block', which would allow time for an earlier building to have become obsolete.

Given the fact that being able to identify which of the above two possibilities is correct

would add considerably to our understanding of this important building, it may be considered

desirable, subject to funds being available, to carry out luminescence dating on samples of

the tiles, particularly as their location on the ground floor of the building means that any

samples are unlikely to have been 'contaminated' by the effect of roofing material.

6 Summary

Harpsden Court contains a notable amount of re-used tile in the ground floor of the medieval

core. It has not been possible to ascribe either a Roman or post-Roman date to this ceramic

building material following the site visit and analysis of the tile fabric, although it is clear

that the material was used to provide a strong and/or decorative, edge to the original building.

There is insufficient building stone accessible in this phase of the building to support a case

for the tile being of Roman origin, although the nearby Harpsden Roman villa would have

provided an opportunity for the translation of building materials. There are, however other

features in the medieval core that suggest a 13th-century terminus ante quem at the latest. It

is, however, equally of interest, should the tiles prove to be of late Norman - early late

medieval in origin, and further investigation is recommended on the basis that the building is

of some considerable architectural and archaeological importance and knowing the date

and/or possible provenance of the material will add to the understanding of the development

of Harpsden Court.

Avis Lloyd, B.A., M.A., F.Inst.L.Ex

8th May 2009

7 Bibliography

Brodribb, G. 1987. Roman Brick and Tile, Wolfeboro, New Hampshire: Alan Sutton

Publishing.

Eaton, T. 2000. Plundering the Past: Roman Stonework in Medieval Britain, Stroud: Tempus

Publishing.

Morris, R. 2000. The Archaeology of Buildings, Stroud: Tempus Publishing.

Scott, E. 1993. Gazetteer of Roman Villas in Britain, Leicester: University of Leicester

Monograph No.1.

App. 14 Dendro Report and plan of cores taken

Attic plan by Paul Clark showing locations of roof timbers from which dendro cores were

taken by Oxford Dendro Laboratory

App. 15 Kitchen, west of ‘ tower’ room

itchen

East wall of kitchen, which contains the stack with cast iron range and adjoining timber

framed walls, which form the lobbies to the front and back of the brick stack and which

connect the kitchen with the dining ‘tower’ room.

Square laid axial kitchen ceiling joist with

chamfer and stops, here seen supported by

timbers in the west wall next to the fire

place. This heavy, exposed joist as well as

the framing unlikely date from as late as the

1722 roof structure above.

Lobby in front/north of the stack, used as

pantry, now blocked from the dining room by

a false window

General

view of

kitchen

looking

east

App 16 Greys Court, Rotherfield Greys

The Mansion at Greys Court, built by Sir Francis Knollys, Queen Elizabeth I’s treasurer, in or

soon after 1573/4 ( dendro dates by Oxford Dendro Lab).

This is remarkably similar in size and design to the gabled, single pile, masonry range built at

Harpsden Court some 5 years previously. Here the render has been removed, giving a better

understanding of the type of masonry used, including recycled materials and alterations carried

out, such as changes to the windows and a blocked, first floor doorway.

Also note the stone copings with finials, similar to the ones at Harpsden Court.

Stone coping of east

gable with finial at

Harpsden Court,

somewhat reduced

in size with

centuries of wear

and tear.

One of the trusses of the mansion at Greys Court, courtesy of the National Trust,

recorded and drawn by Oxford Archaeology 2007.

The recording was carried out at Greys during major repairs of the mansion, which allowed

good access. This drawing shows a similar design to the roof trusses at Harpsden Court,

although at Greys it is an interrupted tie beam, which allows access throughout the attic with

a lower tie beam forming the floor and supporting the queen struts. There are several other

differences too, such as staggered, jointed purlins located high up in the principal rafters,

which are diminished towards the apex. At Harpsden the purlins are clasped by the much

lower collars and the principals continue straight to the apex – see Tim Peacock’s drawing in App. 11. Unfortunately it was not possible at Harpsden to access the tops of the walls to find

out how the roof structure relates to them.

Despite similarities in the creation of an uninterrupted roof space for both mansions, there are

clear differences in the roof construction to confirm that different carpenters were at work at

both despite their close proximity in location as well as in date of construction.

Vertical ceiling joist with double tusked

diminished haunch tenons, of the same

dimensions and type as those at H.Court

Appendix 17

An Account by David Sherlock of the Nobles at Harpsden Court

harpsden court report appendices

Documents