An Archaeological Assessment of Egbury House Cottage, Egbury,

Hampshire

Historic Building Consultations

Dr Richard John Haddlesey BSc MSc PhD – June 2014 HBC/E/01/14

http://www.medievalarchitecture.net

HBC/E/01/14 Page 1

An Archaeological Assessment of

Egbury House Cottage, Egbury, Hampshire

Dr Richard Haddlesey BSc MSc PhD

Historic Building Consultations Report: HBC/E/01/14

Summary

Description: Egbury House Cottage

Grade: II

Date Listed: 30 May 1984

English Heritage Building ID: 138419

OS Grid Reference: SU4394552499

Postcode: SP11 6DL

This report outlines an independent visual, photographic and desk-based survey undertaken by Dr

Richard Haddlesey on the 7th of June 2014 of Egbury House Cottage for the home owners. The

building is presently a 2-storeyed timber-framed cottage of irregular form with a thatched roof. The

intention of the survey was to shed some light on the possible age, plan form and history of the

house through the analysis of extant timbers. Although surviving timbers only exist within one bay

(two partial walls); it was possible to suggest a date for the original construction within the latter

half of the 16th century.

Keywords Egbury, 16

th Century, Medieval, Late-Medieval, Dissolution of the Monasteries, timber-framed building, open

hall, solar, typological dating, dendrochronology, Hurstbourne, door head, queen struts, queen post, small framed walling

© 2014 Historical Building Consultations, All rights reserved.

This report is based solely on the author’s investigation and subsequent analysis of the above mentioned buildings. It is aimed at providing an interpretation of the evidence discovered during the survey. However, the interpretation is based on recorded data and the authors’ specialist knowledge and is not meant to act as a definitive answer to the buildings history nor age. As a result, the report is subject to change as and when more information becomes available, as is the nature of archaeological investigations. All images and data within this report are the intellectual property of Dr R Haddlesey unless otherwise stated by reference within the text. http://www.medievalarchitecture.net

HBC/E/01/14 Page 2

Table of Contents

Contents Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 1

Keywords ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 2

Table of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... 3

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4

2 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 The Hamlet of Egbury ............................................................................................................. 5

2.2 A Background to Medieval Timber-framed Houses in Hampshire ......................................... 7

3 The Typological Dating of Egbury House Cottage ........................................................................... 9

3.1 Analysis of the Data Collected During the Survey................................................................. 10

3.1.1 Datable elements of Egbury House Cottage ................................................................. 13

3.1.2 Summary of Datable Evidence ...................................................................................... 26

3.2 An Introduction to Dendrochronology and its Benefits........................................................ 27

4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 30

4.1 bona fides .............................................................................................................................. 31

5 Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... 32

6 References and Further Reading................................................................................................... 35

HBC/E/01/14 Page 3

Table of Figures

Figure 1 A Map Showing the Location of Egbury Within Northern Hampshire ...................................... 5

Figure 2 A Map Showing the Distribution of Ancient Woodland in Relation to the Geology of

Hampshire and the Location of Egbury .................................................................................................. 6

Figure 3 The typical late medieval, 4 bay open hall (red) within the standard tripartite plan (green) 11

Figure 4 The Surviving Half-Hipped roof of Egbury House Cottage. This would have been mirrored on

the now demolished northern face ...................................................................................................... 12

Figure 5 Queen struts between tie and collar beams ........................................................................... 24

Figure 6 A Face Halved Scarf on the wall plate under the eves ............................................................ 24

Figure 7 A Shallow Three Pointed Door Head (lintel) ........................................................................... 25

Figure 8 A Straight Wind Brace between the Main Post under the Flared Jowl and the Tie-Beam ..... 15

Figure 9 The Anatomy of an Oak Tree and its Ring Pattern .................................................................. 28

Figure 10 An Illustrated Glossary of Common Terms ........................................................................... 32

Figure 11 An Illustrated Glossary of Common Terms ........................................................................... 34

NOTE: All images ©Richard Haddlesey 2014 unless otherwise stated within the text.

HBC/E/01/14 Page 4

1 Introduction

Anyone who has wandered around an English city, town, village or farmstead cannot help but notice

a huge diversity in architectural styles; from the small dwellings of the common folk to the grand

designs of public buildings. Amongst the large diversity in styles, is an underlying social order unique

to each period and follows set architectural rules just as grammar has set rules [1]. This

“architectural grammar” relates almost exclusively to the time period in which the buildings were

designed and built. Just as regions vary in spoken dialect, so too does the construction materials and

styles used to create houses and public buildings in various counties across England. Therefore, just

as the vernacular language follows set rules under the umbrella of the English language as a whole,

so too will regional variations in architecture reflect the wider national trend. Although it may not

initially be apparent to a casual observer, historic buildings follow a traditional style that reflects the

craft techniques used to construct the buildings and the society for which they were built to house

[2]. When the original floor plan and construction techniques are investigated by a buildings

archaeologist, it is possible to arrive at an approximate date of construction. The more original

features that remain in a property, the more accurate that date can be. It is these rules that allow us

to interrogate and decipher the carpentry techniques employed in the construction of a building.

This, coupled with stylised rules of architecture allows us to date a building to within +/- 25 years -

providing there are enough extant original features [3]. This type of dating is known as Typological

dating and can be defined as the technique of studying a building at close quarters in order to

determine the sequence in which its various parts were added, modified, or removed [4].

As Winston Churchill once said; 'The further backwards you look, the further forward you can see'. I

believe this statement can easily be applied to the study of buildings, so that we can make informed

decisions about a buildings future and the important historical elements that must be retained to

preserve the buildings cultural and historic integrity. Research has shown that architecture directly

reflects the socio-economic conditions that were in play during the conception and completion of

the vast majority of our historic buildings.

It is a combination of the above factors that have been utilised within this limited survey of the Late-

Medieval cottage in order to produce this report. A report that aims to articulate the author’s

findings based on data recorded by the initial investigations and subsequent research, with years of

experience as a buildings archaeologist.

HBC/E/01/14 Page 5

2 Background

2.1 The Hamlet of Egbury

The Hamlet of Egbury lies to the north-west of Hampshire, just off the A34 approximately 8 miles

north-east of Andover (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 A Map Showing the Location of Egbury Within Northern Hampshire

The Hamlet sits atop chalk downland within an area rich in woodland (see Figure 2). The woodlands

of the late medieval period were scattered across approximately 16% of Hampshire – the national

average being only 7% - [5], with a higher concentration on the clay and sand beds that surround

the central chalk belt [6]. During the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries, the Hampshire had more forests

under Royal ownership than any other county in England [7].

HBC/E/01/14 Page 6

Figure 2 A Map Showing the Distribution of Ancient Woodland in Relation to the Geology of Hampshire and the Location of Egbury

At the time of the Domesday Survey (c.1086) the manor of Hurstbourne – of which Egbury is a

Hamlet (small rural settlement) - was described as belonging to the Dioceses of Winchester. In 1205

Pope Innocent III confirmed the prior and monks in possession of the manor. Following the

Egbury

©R Haddlesey 2014

HBC/E/01/14 Page 7

Dissolution of the Monasteries by King Henry VIII In 1536-41, the Manor belonged to the Crown. In

1547 the Hurstbourne Estate was granted to Edward, Duke of Somerset, who held it until his death

on Tower Hill in 1552. The following year it was granted to Sir John Gate who, later the same year,

was executed for attempting to put Lady Jane Grey on the throne. In 1565 Sir Robert Oxenbridge,

who had purchased Hurstbourne from the Crown in 1558, was ordered to show by what title he held

'the manors' of St. Mary Bourne, Week, Stoke, Binley and Egbury, and a suit was begun to decide

whether the above were separate manors or whether the manor of Hurstbourne Priors included

them. Judgement was finally given that from time immemorial they had been hamlets of the manor

of Hurstbourne, and Sir Robert obtained ‘a recognition’ of his title to them [8].

The 1535 tithings of the Hamlets of Hustbourne Priory are valued below [9];

The Manor of Bourne (Hissaburna 8thC, Hurstbourne Priors 16thC)

o £28 16s. 11d. pa

Binley (Bienlegh, 16thC)

o £16 1s. 9d. pa

Egbury (Eggebury, 16thC)

o £14 7s. 3¾d. pa

Stoke (Stoce, Adstoke, 10thC)

o £28 16s. 11d. pa

Week (Wyke, Wick, Wyke)

o £16 1s. 2d. pa

The above lists shows Egbury was the smallest of the Hamlets during the first part of the 16th

Century preceding the Dissolution of the Prior in 1535 [9].

2.2 A Background to Medieval Timber-framed Houses in Hampshire

Richard Harris describes box-framed timber houses as being designed and prefabricated by the

master carpenter and his apprentices, in their workshops and yards, prior to transportation to site

for erection [10]. All of the joints, pegs, peg-holes and timbers were cut and fitted together in the

yard, the joints marked then disassembled and finally shipped to site. This was done with such

HBC/E/01/14 Page 8

accuracy that building conservators today - such as Richard Harris formerly of the Weald and

Downland Open Air Museum, Singleton - are able to dismantle, relocate and re-erect a building

several hundred years later with relative ease [10, 11]. This is an important note; the houses were

not constructed bespoke in their final location but were made to plan at the carpenters’ yards, often

several miles away from their final construction place. It is because of this “standardised” plan form

that we are able to date buildings by comparing them to similar types of buildings with a known

date. This is known as typological or chrono-typological dating.

Following transportation the structures were reassembled on site by combining the prefabricated,

single-cell box frames to create a single longitudinal frame. To facilitate the deconstruction of the

prefabricated walls, and the mitigation of any errors during their final erection on site, the carpenter

used a modified Roman numeric system with which he inscribed the frames and joints [10]. It is the

opinion of the author that this also permitted the frame to be reconstructed by apprentices and

perhaps the client, rather than the master carpenter who could then move on to create other

houses. Because all timber joints were open to view, precision was important. The most visible

element of any framed house was the central tie-beam which formed the central bay of the open

hall. This centrepiece enabled the carpenter to display his joinery skills, through the decoration of

the exposed truss. As the open hall house was replaced by a floored and ceiled hall during the mid-

16th Century, the carpenter turned his attention to the central spine beam ceiling the hall to create

interesting chamfers in order to show off his skills.

Whether carpentry is an evolution of the English ‘treewrighting’ tradition, as Milne suggests, or a

French import around AD 1180, the fact remains that carpentry - as outlined above - is the reason

why the structures built survive, intact, to this day. It is the carpenters’ abilities to frame their social

environment so eloquently, from the 13th century to the end of the 15th century, which bears

testament to their skills.

HBC/E/01/14 Page 9

3 The Typological Dating of Egbury House Cottage

The dating technique used during the survey is one of a chrono-typological dating technique – that is

to say that various carpentry components found within Egbury House Cottage were compared to

other similar elements of known dates derived from dendrochronological (tree-ring) dating of

timber structures around Hampshire.

Chrono-typological studies can be defined as “local descriptions and classifications of house types,

building materials and techniques, and decorative styles, with the intention of producing controls

over dating and regional variation” [12]. Within the wider definition given here subsist joint

typologies – i.e. the dating of buildings based on the timber joints used to construct them. This was

pioneered in England by Cecil Hewett. When Hewett published his major work English Historic

Carpentry in 1980, 14C (carbon) dating was expensive and unreliable and dendrochronology was yet

to be established in northern Europe as a reliable and inexpensive alternative [13]. Because of this,

scientific techniques were not widely utilised by scholars at the time and thus, dating by type and

technological progression were the only reliable techniques. This assumes that an ‘archaic’ joint is

replaced by a more efficient one, and so forth. It follows that when a new joint is created, it is

immediately employed by all carpenters introduced to it [14]. On this Hewett wrote: “in many

instances different forms of the same joint are seen, and these can be arranged in such orders as

give them the appearance of constituting evolutionary sequences, by way of which it may be

assumed the joint has attained the form in which it is most familiar in our time” [14]. Hewett’s

translation of Henri Deneux, regarding the dating by type and style, reads: “by examining all these

examples of frame-work we have been able to prove, despite their great variety, that each period is

characterised by definite assembly-methods” [15].

Naturally, there are floors in the afore mentioned technique. They assumed that new technology

and methods would be taken up by all carpenters simultaneously and the ‘old’ techniques discarded

never to be used again. However, for the most part, a typology can be reasonably well dated by

comparing it to other carpentry elements already dated by dendrochronology (see more on page

26). The author’s own research has utilised dendrochronology to recalibrate the typologies

mentioned above and therefore provide a more accurate dating sequence for Hampshire and its

surrounding counties. Consequently, this knowledge has been applied to the dating of Egbury House

Cottage and is outlined below.

HBC/E/01/14 Page 10

3.1 Analysis of the Data Collected During the Survey

The Egbury House Cottage now exists as a “T” shaped building with the majority of the plan form

running perpendicular to the adjacent road; however, the original 16th C plan form would have run

parallel to the road and been a single rectangular building of 4 bays. Therefore, the original structure

would have extended beyond the present northern extent by another bay. The original entrance to

the property would have been on the western side facing the street, with a probable cross-passage,

that would have had an opposing door on the eastern face of the 16th C building. Although the main

entrance to the cottage is presently on the western face, it is more likely to have been in the bay to

the left (north) of the existing one. We can be fairly confident of this because the majority of

vernacular medieval houses were built to a standard plan form – known as the tripartite plan – with

a central hall flanked by a living/sleeping (solar/parlour) area and service/storage (low end) area. By

vernacular we mean of a lower social standing – i.e. an “ordinary” house for the working or artisan

classes. The origin of the medieval hall is thought to be an evolution of the Anglo-Saxon (AD 410 to

1066) aisled hall and lasted, unchanged, until the end of the17th century at vernacular level [16].

Evidence for this exists in Hampshire at the Saxon and Medieval Manorial complex of Faccombe

Netherton [17]. The hall (from aula) was the communal area, within which people met, ate and

socialised whilst maintaining a strong social hierarchy, and “was the original centre from which the

house developed” [18]. Figure 3 illustrates a typical tripartite, box-framed, open hall house of the

15th century [10]. It consists of four bays, providing three ground floor ‘sections’, forming the so-

called ‘standard tripartite plan’ of:

1. service rooms adjacent to the cross-passage

2. an open hall in the centre of the structure accessed by the cross-passage

3. and parlour/solar on the opposite end to the service rooms accessed only through the hall

[19].This plan form is illustrated in Figure 3

The bays are delineated by the tie-beams atop the main posts, as in Figure 3. There are five such

posts making four bays. The service and parlour occupy one bay each with the hall monopolising

almost two bays because, it also incorporated the cross-passage which was the only means by which

the building can be entered [20]. The four-bay structure with a three room floor-plan is a

generalisation; however, it remains the most common plan form in Hampshire and is the most likely

plan form for Egbury House Cottage [21].

HBC/E/01/14 Page 11

Figure 3 The typical late medieval, 4 bay open hall (red) within the standard tripartite plan (green)

The above illustration is not intended to represent the structure of Egbury House Cottage; rather it

represents the typical tripartite house plan ubiquitous in the late medieval period. The cottage is

unlikely to have had an open hall, like the one above, but rather a floored over hall with a room (or

rooms) above the hall – typical of the late 16th century vernacular house in south-east England. The

original cottage would have had a half-hipped roof at both ends, only the southern half-hip survives

today (Figure 4). The original building would also have extended beyond the present northern face

by another bay. This is validated by the existence of cut marks on the wall plate on the northern face

under cat-slide roof. And mortises and peg holes within the rails and posts on the timbers of the

northern face. Also visible in Figure 4 is the shallow three pointed door head (lintel) which survives

on the collar of the southern face. This wall is undoubtedly an original external wall and therefore,

the door would have led to an outside staircase rather than another internal room. No other

examples of an external first floor door are known to exist within Hampshire. Therefore, it is difficult

to say exactly what purpose this door would have served. It is postulated that this is the remains of a

first floor door rather than a window lintel because of the moulding (the arch shape) because these

are almost always rectangular with straight frames (lintels). The door would have been part of the

original structure based on the positioning of the posts –i.e. they are not in-line with the queen

Solar

Parlour

Service rooms

Cross Passage

Open Hall

Crown post and central tie-beam

Gablet

1 2 3 4 1 2

3

HBC/E/01/14 Page 12

struts above the posts and they are not evenly spaced. Also Oak is notoriously difficult to shape or

cut when the wood has been seasoned. Oak is traditionally cut and formed while the wood is still

“green” – that is to say freshly felled as it is still reasonably soft and workable.

As for the rest of the original structure, it is difficult to comment on why it has been replaced. One

possible explanation is that the kitchen would have formed part of the missing area and may have

burnt down, leaving only the high end of the structure intact. The carpentry employed to rebuild and

later extend the property is of a far lesser quality than that used in the 16th century. This would

indicate either a change in ownership, purpose or wealth. Clearly the carpentry of the original

structure was of a high quality and craftsmanship, suggesting a high status and wealth of the original

owner. In 1558 Sir Robert Oxenbridge purchased the estate of Hurstbourne (see Ch2.1) – which

included the Hamlet of Egbury – from the Crown following the Dissolution of the Monasteries (1536-

41). I would therefore suggest the cottage was built shortly after this transaction. It is also likely that

the flint wall used flint from the former Priory buildings following the Dissolution. However, it

remains unclear as to why the flint was used to create a partial wall facing the street. I would

suggest that the flint did come from the nearby Priory after and was used to both form, and display a

connection to the “old” Catholic church based on other examples [22]. It is hard to imagine the

social upheaval that must have taken place during the change of primary religion in this country, and

as the Saxons reused Roman stones in their churches to form a connection to the Church of Rome;

so too did the new Protestant peoples reuse stone from former Catholic buildings [22].

Figure 4 The Surviving Half-Hipped roof of Egbury House Cottage. This would have been mirrored on the now demolished northern face

HBC/E/01/14 Page 13

3.1.1 Datable elements of Egbury House Cottage

Within Hampshire, the author has been able to create a chrono-typology of carpentry elements

typically found in houses that have been firmly date by dendrochronology. The results from Egbury

House Cottage are listed below and compared to know styles from other vernacular houses in the

area.

I. Queen strut trusses (Figure 5)

a. In Hampshire these start around 1540

II. Side halved scarf (Figure 6)

a. These joints are found following the Black Death (1348-50)

III. The “door head” or lintel (Figure 7)

a. The shallow three pointed arch replaces the deeper three pointed arch around the

second third of the 16th century

IV. The half-hipped roof

a. This is common from the 15th century onwards

V. Small panelled walling with mid-rails

a. Common after c.1550

VI. Straight wind braces (Figure 8)

a. Straight wind braces replace curved wind braces around the time of the dissolution

of the monasteries (1536-41)

VII. A lack of evidence for an open hall (-i.e. no sooting/fatty deposits or gablets in the roof)

a. Floored halls replaced the open hall following the dissolution of the monasteries

(1536-41)

HBC/E/01/14 Page 14

Figure 5 Queen struts between tie and collar beams

Figure 6 A Face Halved Scarf on the wall plate under the eves

Figure 7 A Shallow Three Pointed Door Head (lintel)

HBC/E/01/14 Page 15

Figure 8 A Straight Wind Brace between the Main Post under the Flared Jowl and the Tie-Beam

3.1.2 Summary of Datable Evidence

When the above evidence is analysed and compared with “known” dates from around Hampshire, it

is clear Egbury House Cottage can be no earlier than the mid-16th century. However, it is my opinion

- based on the survey of Egbury House Cottage and the prior surveys of other late-medieval houses

in south-eastern England – that the more likely date of construction for the original building is more

likely to be around 1560; or certainly the latter half of the 16th century. It must be said at this point

that the date of 1560 derives purely from extensive research and comparison to known chrono-

typologies and is by no means a definitive date for the building. The only way of acquiring an actual

date of construction would be through the scientific dating technique known as Dendrochronology

(tree-ring dating). A brief description of Dendrochronology is given below (Ch3.1.2).

HBC/E/01/14 Page 16

3.2 An Introduction to Dendrochronology and its Benefits

The basis of dendrochronological (or tree-ring) dating is that trees of the same species growing

during similar time frames in localised habitats will produce similar growth-ring patterns [23]. These

patterns of varying growth-ring width are unique to the period of growth, similar to a human finger

print (Ibid.). Once measured, the rings can be matched against a “master chronological sequence” of

known tree-ring dates with 95% certainty [24]. This ever growing ‘master chronological sequence’

makes oak dendrochronology in particular a “dynamic and constantly evolving discipline” [25]. Each

year a tree gains another ring as it grows by adding a layer of cells, the thickness of this ring depends

on the amount of growth in that year. These cells grow in the cambium layer directly under the bark

[26] (Figure 9). Thus, the older rings are located toward the heart of the tree and the younger rings

in the sapwood near the bark. The heartwood is recognisable as being much darker than the

sapwood (Figure 9) because it is, essentially, dead wood and much harder than the softer sapwood

[27, 28]. English oak will take approximately 15-50 years to turn from sapwood to heartwood [29].

Figure 9 The Anatomy of an Oak Tree and its Ring Pattern

[25]

Trees growing in similar regions are likely to display the same general chronological growth pattern

which tends not to reflect any localised ecological variations but, rather, the climatic variations [30].

Thus, over the life of a tree various sized rings will create a “fingerprint” unique to that tree but

common to all other trees in that area - subject to the same weather patterns [31]. When a tree is

HBC/E/01/14 Page 17

felled, or dies, the rings no longer grow; the final year of growth recorded using the outermost ring,

directly under the bark [31]. In the United Kingdom, oak (Quercus robur and Quercus petraea)

provide the best examples for dating, though elm and beech can also be dated [27, 31, 32]. This is of

particular use to medievalists as the majority of timber framed structures were made from oak [31].

Oak wood is valued for its mechanical properties and its durable heartwood. It has been widely used

since prehistoric times and is also, therefore, the leading species in historic and pre-historic tree-ring

research in Europe [25]. Counting the rings will give the age of the tree but unless the rings can then

be matched against a known chronology, they cannot provide a method of dating the tree. It should

also be noted that tree rings can only provide a date for the timber and not the artefact, building or

object [25]. Oak tends to be used “green” - that is to say freshly felled - as is it still soft and easier to

fashion into desired lengths and shapes for the crafting of joints [33]. Therefore; the construction

phase can be dated to within several years following the felling date, providing rings from the

sapwood survive [31]. Therefore, if a felling date is given as 1438 the construction date will generally

be given as 1439.

HBC/E/01/14 Page 18

4 Conclusion

This report has outlined information relating to Egbury House Cottage through both desk-based

assessment and a visual survey undertaken by the author – Dr Richard Haddlesey PhD – on the 7th of

June 2014. Based on the extant carpentry surveyed at Egbury House Cottage and the Tithing

accounts of the Manor of Hurstbourne, AD1560 is an assumed date of construction for the original

phase of construction. As mentioned in the main text, this is only an assumption based on extensive

knowledge of similar buildings within south-east England. For a tighter date – i.e. a date derived

from a scientific method – the author suggests a dendrochronological investigation be undertaken.

However, the date of 1560 remains a guide and maybe used with caveats. The date is based on

straight wind bracing, a floored hall, a shallow three pointed door head and queen struts with a

clasped purlin roof; all of which are found in Hampshire following the Dissolution of the Monasteries

(1536-41). The quality of the carpentry and scantling of the timbers suggests a date in the late 16th

century and the Tithing account of the Manor of Hurstbourne which was bought from the Crown in

1558 lead the author to a date for primary construction of around AD 1560. Although the date of

construction maybe later than 1560, it is almost certainly not earlier than this date.

4.1 bona fides

Dr Richard John Haddlesey studied the following professional degrees:

BSc (hons) Heritage Conservation – historic buildings - at Bournemouth University (2001-4)

MSc Archaeological Computing at the University of Southampton (2004-5)

A Scholarship from the University of Winchester to undertake a PhD at the Universities of

Winchester and Southampton (2006-10). The Thesis was entitled “A Re-evaluation of Late-medieval

Joint Chrono-Typologies (c1250-1530) in the Light of Recent Dendrochronological Investigations in

Hampshire.”

I have been the director of Historic Buildings Consultations since 2010 and have surveyed over 150

medieval buildings in south-east England.

HBC/E/01/14 Page 19

5 Glossary

Figure 10 An Illustrated Glossary of Common Terms The above illustration does not represent the type of building surveyed, it only acts as a guide to common terms used

within timber framing [34].

HBC/E/01/14 Page 20

Figure 11 An Illustrated Glossary of Common Terms

The above illustration does not represent the type of building surveyed, it only acts as a guide to common terms used within timber framing [34].

HBC/E/01/14 Page 21

6 References and Further Reading

1. Harris, R., The Grammar of Carpentry. Vernacular Architecture:- 1989. 20: p. 1-8. 2. Johnson, M.H., English Houses 1300-1800: Vernacular Architecture, Social Life: 2010, Harlow,

UK: Pearson Education Ltd. 240. 3. Smith, J.T. and E.M. Yates, On the Dating of English Houses from External Evidence. Field

Studies:- 1992. 59: p. 537-77. 4. Alcock, N., et al., Recording Timber Framed Buildings (Practical Handbooks in Archaeology,):

2003: Council for British Archaeology. 33; Taylor, H.M., Structural Criticism: a Plea for more Systematic Study of Anglo-Saxon Buildings. Anglo-Saxon England:- 1972. 1: p. 259-72; Taylor, H.M., The Foundations of Architectural History, in The Archaeological Study of Churches, P.V. Addyman and R.K. Morriss, Editors.: 1976, CBA Research Report 13. p. 3-9.

5. Colebourn, P., Hampshire's Countryside Heritage: Ancient Woodlands: 1983: [Hampshire County Council].

6. Morgan, F., Domesday Woodland in Southwest England. Antiquity:- 1936. 10(39): p. 306-324.

7. Bucknill, R., The woods of Wherwell Abbey. Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society:- 1998. 53: p. 155-67.

8. Page, W., Parishes - St. Mary Bourne, in A History of the County of Hampshire, W. Page, Editor 1911, Victoria County History.

9. Stevens, J., St. Mary Bourne Past and Present: A Lecture Containing A Short Account of the Hamlets, Geology and Antiquities of the Parish: 1863, Andover.

10. Harris, R., Discovering Timber-Framed Buildings. Discovering series; 2421978: Shire Publications 96.

11. Harris, R., Dismantling & Re-erection of Timber-framed Buildings: Problems & Opportunities, in Understanding Timber Framed Buildings, ICOMOS, Editor 1990, ICOMOS: The Royal Fine Art Commission.

12. Johnson, M.H., The Englishman's Home and its Study, in The Social Archaeology of Houses, R. Samson, Editor 1990, Edinburgh Univ Pr. p. 245-57.

13. Hewett, C.A., English Historic Carpentry: 1980, Chichester: Phillimore. 338. 14. Hewett, C.A., Structural Carpentry in Medieval Essex. Medieval Archaeology:- 1962. 6: p.

240-70. 15. Hewett, C.A., The Dating of French Timber Roofs by Henri Deneux: An English Summary.

Ancient Monuments Society:- 1968. 16: p. 89-108. 16. Rippon, S., et al., Beyond Villages and Open Fields: The Origins and Development of a Historic

Landscape Characterised by Dispersed Settlement in South-west England. Medieval Archaeology:- 2006. 50: p. 31-70; Quiney, A., Hall or Chamber? That Is the Question. The Use of Rooms in Post-Conquest Houses. Architectural History:- 1999. 42: p. 24-46; Smith, J.T., Medieval Aisled Halls and their Derivatives. The Archaeological Journal:- 1955. CXII: p. 76-94.

17. Goodall, I.H., Faccombe Netherton: Excavations of a Saxon and Medieval Manorial Complex, in British Museum Occasional Paper No 74, J.R. Fairbrother, Editor 1990, Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities. p. 403-08.

18. Thompson, A.H., The English House. Historical Association Pamphlet:- 1936. 105. 19. Fairclough, G., Meaningful Constructions: Spatial and Functional Analysis of Medieval

Buildings. Antiquity:- 1992. 66: p. 348-66; Quiney, A., The Lobby-Entry House: Its Origins and Distribution. Architectural History:- 1984. 27: p. 456-66.

20. Johnson, M.H., Housing Culture: Traditional Architecture in an English Landscape: 1993: Smithsonian Books. 224.

HBC/E/01/14 Page 22

21. Haddlesey, R., A Re-evaluation of Late-medieval Joint Chrono-Typologies (c1250-1530) in the Light of Recent Dendrochronological Investigations in Hampshire - PhD Thesis, in Archaeology2010, University of Winchester: Winchester.

22. Haddlesey, R., An Archaeological Assessment of Late-Medieval Trowbridge, Wiltshire: HBC/W/19/13, 2013, Historic Building Consultations: Trowbridge.

23. Baillie, M.G.L., A Slice Through Time: Dendrochronology and Precision Dating: 1995: Routledge.

24. Millard, A., A Bayesian Approach to Sapwood Estimates and Felling Dates in Dendrochronology. Archaeometry:- 2002. 44(4): p. 137-43.

25. Haneca, K., K. Cufar, and H. Beeckman, Oaks, Tree-Rings and Wooden Cultural Heritage: A Review of the Main Characteristics and Applications of Oak Dendrochronology in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science:- 2009. 36(1): p. 1-11.

26. Smith, L., Investigating Old Buildings: 1985: Batsford Academic and Educational. 27. Grenville, J., Medieval Housing: 1999: Cassell. 28. Wilson, K. and D.J.B. White, The Anatomy of Wood: its Diversity and Variability: 1986:

Stobart & Son. 29. Hillam, J., R. Morgan, and I. Tyres, Sapwood Estimates and the Dating of Short Ring

Sequences, in Applications of Tree-ring Studies: Current Research in Dendrochronology and Related Areas1987, BAR International. p. 165-85.

30. Miles, D.W.H. Further Dendrochronological Investigations on the Carved Heads Formerly Stored at Devizes Castle, Wiltshire. 2005; Available from: http://www.medievalarchitecture.net/Devizes_Heads.html; Taylor, J. Dendrochronology in Dating Timber Framed Buildings and Structures. 2005; Available from: http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/dendrochron/dendro.htm

31. Miles, D.W.H., Dating Buildings and Dendrochronology in Hampshire, in Hampshire Houses 1250-1700: Their Dating & Development, E. Roberts, Editor 2003, Hampshire County Council: Winchester. p. 220-6.

32. Baillie, M.G.L., Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology: 1982: Univ of Chicago Pr (Tx). 274. 33. Biddle, M., King Arthur's Round Table: An Archaeological Investigation: 2000: Boydell &

Brewer; Salzman, L.F., Building In England. Down To 1540. A Documentary History: 1952, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

34. Lewis, E., E. Roberts, and K. Roberts, Medieval Hall Houses of the Winchester Area: 1988: Winchester City Museum.