Month: January 2023

24 January 2023

Understanding the correct dating of historic buildings is important. Structures are rarely left untouched over the centuries, and they are altered according to the needs of their occupants. For example, the late sixteenth century London topographer, John Stow summarised the changing use of a building which once stood on the corner of Old Jewry and Lothbury:

“…this house, sometime a Jews’ synagogue, since a house of friars, then a nobleman’s house, after that a merchant’s house, wherein mayoralties have been kept, and now a wine tavern” (Wheatley 1956, 249)

The various functions of synagogue, friary, lord’s residence, merchant’s house, mayor’s home, and pub would have led to structural modifications. Such changes can be traced in extant buildings through archaeological survey. Buildings archaeology demands a close analysis of the historical and physical evidence to understand development over time. However, most historic buildings have never been researched in detail. Despite this, specific dates of origin are commonly repeated even though the evidence is thin.

This blog article will look at why errors of dating creep in and how to find reliable sources of information for dating mediaeval and early modern houses.

History of Research

A part of the problem of dating ancient homes is connected to how they have been studied. British architectural history developed in three broad stages. Initially, from the late seventeenth century, there was a fascination for ecclesiastical architecture. By the later nineteenth century castles, great houses and palaces began to get a look in. The study of timber-framed domestic and agricultural buildings (often referred to as vernacular architecture) did not become prominent until the mid-twentieth century. It is the dating of these non-elite structures which is often the most inaccurate.

There were very few vernacular buildings listed in the first editions of Nikolaus Pevsner’s The Buildings of England series. Although Pevsner was concerned with ecclesiastical, elite, and civic buildings – vernacular structures held little interest for him. This was symptomatic of many architectural historians, in the early- to mid-twentieth century, who saw little significance in non-elite structures. However, an uptick in the demolition of such buildings during the 1950s and 1960s led to a burgeoning interest in the study and protection of vernacular architecture which was led by researchers and campaigners including Ronald Brunskill, Maurice Barley and Dan Cruikshank. Eventually a gradual halt was put on the wilful devastation starting with a nationwide survey of historic buildings ordered by the British government in 1968. This led to something of a race as inspectors tried to protect buildings through statutory listing before they were pulled down. Rural areas were not well-served and it was not until a second survey in the 1980s that many agricultural buildings attained a degree of protection.

Heritage Organisations

The second half of the twentieth century saw the foundation of specialist organisations focused on the protection, curation and understanding of historic buildings. The Vernacular Architecture Group was founded in 1952. Architectural museums were developed at Avoncroft, Worcestershire (1963); Singleton, West Sussex (1967); and Chalfont St Peter, Buckinghamshire (1976). In 1983 English Heritage, latterly Historic England, were formed to act as national curators of assets including listed buildings.

There can be little reasonable criticism of the mid-twentieth century desire to protect historic buildings at risk. However, the legacy has proved to be problematic as further detailed research has demonstrated that many buildings were inaccurately dated. During listing surveys time spent on site was minimal, most properties were assessed only from the street and entries were extremely brief. It is common to find vernacular buildings, where the timber-framing was not substantially visible from the street, assigned wholesale to the early modern period. This fed into the widespread mid-twentieth century belief that few lower status buildings survived from the mediaeval period due to what was understood at the time as a national “Great Rebuilding” in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Although many houses were built or remodelled during this period the picture is more complicated and developments did not occur at the same rate in all regions at the same time. Additionally, many mediaeval buildings did survive.

An example of inaccurate dating is 392 Picklersleigh Road, Great Malvern (Worcestershire), known as Lydes House. It was first listed in May 1979 as a remodelled seventeenth century house. The listing entry is brief and only deals with external features. However, after an assessment of the building was requested from Triskele Heritage, by the landowners in June 2021, it was revealed that the primary build was a mediaeval cruck frame and that the house had been reorganised during the early modern period. Subsequently, this was confirmed and refined by the Oxford Dendrochronology Laboratory who dated the cruck to 1447-77, with a later phase of construction in 1625-35.

Dendrochronology

The accuracy of dendrochronology was the subject of another Mediaeval Mythbusting Blog, in January 2022, which demonstrated that felling dates are a strong indicator for the period of construction. The science of tree-ring dating has proved invaluable to the better understanding of timber-framed buildings. For example, 22-24 Kirkgate, Newark (Nottinghamshire) was listed as being late fifteenth century, yet dendrochronology later provided a felling date of 1337. Elsewhere, 40 Westhorpe, Southwell (Nottinghamshire) was listed as seventeenth century, yet tree-ring data indicated a felling range of 1332-57 – a significant disparity of approximately 250-350 years.

Although dendrochronology has proved that errors in listings are common, we must not go too hard on the mid-twentieth century inspectors. Given that time was short and most buildings could only be assessed, stylistically, from the public highway inaccuracies were perhaps inevitable. The external appearance of Lydes House is wholly early modern or later and there is no indication that its primary build is mediaeval from the roadside. A more detailed internal survey demonstrated its mediaeval origin, which was then confirmed by dendrochronology. Lydes House is not an isolated case and it is frequently the roof structures, often invisible from the roadside, which give us clues to the real age of a building.

Roof Structures

Roofs have the potential to reveal so much about a building. When they are left relatively intact roofs can be highly diagnostic for dating. No. 4 Blacksmiths Lane lies at the heart of Kelham (Nottinghamshire) and was listed as a seventeenth century building in August 1981. From the roadside precious little information is present – the ground floor of the building is brick, the first floor rendered and the tiled roof is hipped to the south. However, a survey of the property (Wright 2019) has demonstrated the survival of a three-bay, timber-framed, mediaeval hall house. The common rafter roof structure was found to be entirely in situ and blackened from a period, before the insertion of the upper floors, when smoke from open fires drifted up to soot the timbers. Stylistic evidence from the jointing of the wall plate (which features edge-halved and bridled scarfs with over-squinted abutments) demonstrated that the house was probably constructed in the early fifteenth century (Hewett 1980, 268).

The more surveys that are carried out by buildings archaeologists, the more the listing dates are challenged. Fieldwork by Triskele Heritage in another Nottinghamshire village – Wollaton – has complemented the findings at Kelham. Ivy Cottage was conventionally dated to the eighteenth century by reference to its Neo-Gothick brick façade. However, the potential for an earlier date was noted by the inspector. This was subsequently proven through the identification of a remodelled queenpost roof structure that potentially dates to c 1550-1600.

Stylistic Dating

Although dendrochronology has the potential to provide scientifically accurate felling ranges or dates, there may be cases where it cannot be deployed due to limited project budgets. In other cases the samples may not yield dates. This can happen where timbers do not have either the sapwood or bark present; species are not indigenously grown oak; the wood is rotten; the trees were grown in open environments such as parkland; the master chronologies are not available for particular regions; or there simply are not enough growth rings present to be statistically accurate. Further information on dendrochronology can be gleaned from the Nottingham Tree-ring Dating Laboratory website. The variables are significant and not every timber can be sampled and analysed successfully. In such situations it may only be possible to date a building stylistically.

Stylistic dating relies on a careful assessment of the development of a building and the recording of primary architectural features which are reliably datable. Such features may include in-situ doors, windows, fireplaces, panelling, staircases and roofs. We have already touched on the potential of roofs, but it must be stressed that their dating by stylistic methods will vary according to both time and place.

For example, dendrochronology tells us that the presence of a crownpost roof in Yorkshire might be expected in the years c 1280-1450; whereas the same design appears in Essex at around the same time but was still in use until c 1570. Meanwhile, clasped side purlin roofs were constructed in Yorkshire from c 1325 whilst they did not become widespread in Essex until c 1525. During a survey of a house in Sible Hedingham, Essex, Triskele Heritage revealed that the property had a clasped side purlin roof over the hall range whilst the crosswings had crownpost roofs. These are two distinctly different styles of construction with quite different periods of construction. The earliest phases of the building are the two late fifteenth century crosswings, which were dated from a combination of the roof structure and the stud-to-stud “Colchester” bracing. Meanwhile, the central hall range was rebuilt c 1600 and can be dated by a combination of the roof structure, ovolo-moulded windows, small-square panelling and wall paintings.

Stylistic dating is often accurate to only a half century or so but can still be an important mechanism for refining the dating of buildings which have previously been assessed from their exterior.

Unlisted Buildings

There are numerous buildings which, for a variety of reasons, may not have previously been identified as historically significant. Rapid archaeological assessments of such structures may demonstrate their potential through stylistic dating. An assessment in Barnacle (Warwickshire) revealed that a building, which appeared to be a late nineteenth century property from the roadside, was in fact a timber-framed hall house of c 1500 during internal inspection. A property in Collingham (Nottinghamshire) – 6 Westfield Lane – demonstrated evidence for a partial timber-frame that probably dated to before c 1550. During work in Wollaton (Nottinghamshire), the Admiral Rodney pub was found to contain a single timber-framed bay, at first floor level, which contained a bridging beam with a chamfer stop that might be expected during the early modern period (Hall 2005, 158-63). Directly behind the pub is another unlisted building – Middleton Cottage – which yielded an in-situ stone window surround with a cill dated from its mullion profile to the later sixteenth or earlier seventeenth century (Hall 2005, 72-74).

The evidence for the dating of these buildings, and therefore their historic significance, was not apparent from the roadside during the twentieth century listing surveys. It took internal assessments to understand that the properties were much older than previously understood. We can be reasonably certain that there are still many ancient buildings hidden in plain sight which await accurate identification.

Older or Younger?

Numerous surveys may have proven that some vernacular buildings are older than their listings indicate. Yet we must not overstate the potential for overturning existing estimates. Many other surveys have corroborated the listings. For example, work by Triskele Heritage in Haskayne (Lancashire) on a building listed as seventeenth century was able to further refine the period of construction to c 1630-60 on stylistic grounds.

Yet there is a class of building routinely estimated as far older than the evidence can verify: public houses. It is remarkably common to see ancient dates printed on pub signs. Examples of this include: Ye Olde Fighting Cocks (St Albans, Hertfordshire; 793), the Bingley Arms (Bardsey, West Yorkshire; 953) and Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem (Nottingham; 1189). Yet the real architectural dating of all three buildings is well-understood. Ye Olde Fighting Cocks started off life as a monastic dovecote, built c 1400, which was re-sited and turned into a house c 1600 and did not open its doors as a pub until c 1756. In Bardsey, the Bingley Arms is entirely a mid-eighteenth-century building – it even has a datestone of 1738. Finally, all of the Trip (including its famous caves) was constructed from the later seventeenth century onwards. There is a certain misty-eyed romanticism surrounding a pint in an old English boozer which has led to some rather tall tales being told about their dates of origin – a subject which has been covered in another Mediaeval Mythbusting Blog on the search for Britain’s oldest pubs.

Another group of historic buildings reckoned as being older than can be verified are those within the brochures of estate agents. To give an example, the Manor House at Chipping Norton (Oxfordshire) was listed for sale by Savills via Rightmove in February 2022 as being a fifteenth century building. This is despite dendrochronology, published in 2017, which gave felling dates for the primary structure as summer 1677, summer 1679 and spring 1680 – suggesting a single campaign of building between 1677 and 1680 (Alcock & Tyers 2017, 83).

Quite why pubs and estate agents habitually claim that buildings are older than they really are can only be speculated on…

Uploading Ongoing Research

Listed building descriptions can be accessed online. The various countries in the British Isles have their databases available to view: National Heritage List for England; Canmore (Scotland); Cadw (Wales); HERoNI (Northern Ireland); and the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (Ireland). Within England the process for updating listings, in the light of new research, is somewhat labyrinthine. Typographical errors can be altered by the minor amendments team. However, for anything more detailed an application must be submitted for a full amendment. Unfortunately, this is a slow process which is used sparingly. A colleague at Historic England recently stated that: “We are aware it is a bit cumbersome, but it’s a result of the legislation and legal status of listed buildings that any significant change needs to be signed off by the Department for Culture Media and Sport.” Consequently, listing descriptions often lag behind new research.

Listings are not the only port of call for understanding the dating of a building. Each county also has a historic environment record (HER) which is a database of heritage assets including listed and non-listed buildings. There is a statutory requirement for HERs to be staffed and maintained, usually by an employee of a local authority, and much (but not all) of their data is available via the Heritage Gateway website. This means that any new information on a building which comes to light (including survey reports, published articles, sources, images, mapping, archives etc.) can be added to the publicly accessible database. The entries are usually available for personal research, free of charge, either via the Heritage Gateway or through an in-person visit, but commercial requests (usually connected to planning applications) incur a fee to cover officer time. However, a colleague working as a HER Officer has also noted that: “All HERs are massively different, to get a clear handle you probably want to reach out to see how individual offices work.”

New research is also made available to the public via the Archaeology Data Service, OASIS or individual project websites or publications. Furthermore, the Vernacular Architecture Group maintain an annually updated list of buildings positively dated by dendrochronology which is free to access. The new volumes of Pevsner’s The Buildings of England are greatly expanded on their predecessors. The latest crop of editors are very diligent to ensure that recent research is incorporated. Finally, it is not widely appreciated that historic building reports often make their way into the public arena through local authority planning portals (associated with planning applications). These documents can offer a wealth of information about the current state of knowledge of a building and can be accessed freely online via local authority websites.

Ultimately, there is no one single repository of information on the dating of historic buildings and a researcher should always attempt to cast the net wide to ensure that the most up to date research is captured. In cases where there is no consensus, or where data is not forthcoming, contacting the HER Officer, county archaeology society, archives, or local civic society may open up further leads.

Conclusions

The age of a building has a great impact on assessments of its significance which can, in turn, effect planning decisions which are made about the future of the structure. If a building is inaccurately dated inappropriate interventions may be made due to a lack of understanding.

The specific dating of a property is not always an easy piece of information to access. Historic building listing descriptions are sometimes inaccurate. Online sources should always be authenticated against solid research and publication. Never trust anything on Wikipedia which does not have a citation – and, even then, check the sources for accuracy. Just because a website says that a building is seventeenth century does not mean that it necessarily is that date.

It is always worth doing the detective work to understand the age of a building – because there are lots of mediaeval buildings which are genuinely hidden in plain sight. Buildings archaeology and dendrochronology are the key to accurate dating.

References

Alcock, N. & Tyers, C., 2017, ‘Tree-ring Date Lists 2017’ in Vernacular Architecture Vol. 48. Vernacular Architecture Group / Taylor & Francis.

Hall, L., 2005, Period House Fixtures and Fittings, 1300-1900. Countryside Books. Newbury.

Hewett, C. A., 1980 (1997, ed.), English Historic Carpentry. Phillimore. Sussex.

Wheatley, H. B., 1956 (1980 ed.), Stow’s Survey of London. Everyman. New York.

Wright, J., 2019, ‘The Fox Inn, Main Road and 4 Blacksmith Lane, Kelham, Nottinghamshire – Archaeological Statement of Significance’ in Beresford, M., Kelham Revealed – Archaeology Report. MB Archaeology. Unpublished archaeological report.

About the author

James Wright (Triskele Heritage) is an award-winning buildings archaeologist who frequently writes and lectures on the subject of mediaeval building myths. He has two decades professional experience of ferreting around in people’s cellars, hunting through their attics and digging up their gardens. He hopes to find meaningful truths about how ordinary and extraordinary folk lived their lives in the mediaeval period.

He welcomes contact through Twitter or email.

The Mediaeval Mythbusting Blog blog is the basis of a forthcoming book – Historic Building Mythbusting – Uncovering Folklore, History and Archaeology which will be released via The History Press on 6 June 2024. More information can be found here:

Historic Building Mythbusting by James Wright