[39] A kindred example of strip-framing finished off in this way is the north doorway at Laughton-en-le-Morthen, near Rotherham. At Skipwith, near Selby, the tower arch has strip-framing. Both these churches lie within the area to which the Lincolnshire group may be said to belong. The present writer has dealt briefly with the Yorkshire churches in this area in an article on “The Village Churches of Yorkshire,” in _Memorials of Old Yorkshire_. [40] Historical evidence which points to this conclusion has been summarised by Dr. Mansel Sympson (“Where was Sidnaceaster?”—_Assoc. Archit. Soc. Reports_, vol. xxviii., 1905, pp. 87 _sqq._). A charter of Edward the Confessor, preserved at Peterborough, which contains the grant of the church, &c., at Fiskerton to the Abbey of Peterborough, is witnessed by several bishops and nobles, including Wulfwig, Bishop of Lindsey, who signs himself “Lincolie episcopus.” The charter, however, appears to be a copy of the original, in which “Lincolie” may have been written by error for “Lindisse.” But, if “Lincolie” is right, the use of the title by a bishop whose see was at Dorchester-on-Thames points to the fact that he looked on Lincoln as his true episcopal city. And the conviction of the present writer, on other grounds, is that “Sidnaceaster,” whose site was unknown even to writers of the Norman period, is simply a careless MS. corruption of “Lindaceaster,” or some allied Saxon form of “Lindum Colonia.” [41] The old archdeaconry of Stow comprised the deaneries (now subdivided to some degree) of Aslackhoe, Corringham, Lawres, and Manlake—in fact, the original district of Lindsey, east of Trent and west of Ancholme. [42] The dedicatory inscription on the tower of St. Mary-le-Wigford, while clearly pointing to its English origin, must not be taken as indicative of any positive date. [43] Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._, vol. ii. chap. ii. [44] See the article on this subject by Dr. J. H. Round, _Feudal England_, pp. 317 _sqq._ How far the influence of Normans in England before the Conquest may have affected work in masonry is a point which may be left to the judgment of the individual reader. The foreigners who threw up their own characteristic earthworks at the “Pentecost’s Castle” and “Richard’s Castle” of the Chronicle cannot be certainly credited with any influence outside their own branch of work; and the appearance of “Norman” technique at Westminster does not imply its general acceptance in the provinces.