The Old Barn Dronfield

Historiography of Archaeological Data & Published Sources

Prepared by James Wright FSA ACIfA

Archaeologist ~ Lecturer ~ Author [email protected] www.triskelepublishing.com/jameswright

The Old Barn, Dronfield, Derbyshire Historiography of Published Sources & Archaeological Data

James Wright FSA ACIfA

A collaboration between Triskele Publishing / MB Archaeology / Involve Heritage Produced for Dronfield Heritage, November 2017

Table of Contents

Project Brief 2 Site Outline 2 Introduction 2 Discussion 4 Conclusions 6 Bibliography 6 Websites 7 Statement of Indemnity 7 Acknowledgements 7 Illustrations 8

List of Illustrations Figure 1: Truss I, looking west Figure 2: Compass drawn apotropaic symbol scribed on the sawn of tenon of the lap dovetail assembly of truss III, looking south-west Figure 3: Burn mark on the west face of the post of truss IIII, looking south-east Figure 4: Detail of ovolo moulding and chamfer stop of cambered tie beam in the south-east wing, looking north-west (Picture Source: Mora-Ottomano 2013, 57, Figure 79)

1

Project Brief

Matthew Beresford of MB Archaeology / Involve Heritage was invited to provide practical training in historic graffiti survey by members of Dronfield Heritage during May 2017 as part of the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Medieval Graffiti Survey project supported by Heritage Lottery Fund. The project was inspired by a desire from the community organisation to better understand aspects of the historic graffiti noted in a previous historic building survey (Mora- Ottomano 2013, 41). The author of this report was asked to participate in an advisory capacity as a specialist on historic buildings archaeology. A decision was made by Dronfield Heritage to extensively record the further examples of graffiti which were newly identified. An invitation to return to Dronfield in September 2017 was extended. The author has re-considered the varying interpretations of the historic phasing of the building to provide an assessment of the evidence in the form of a historiography. Site Outline

The Old Barn is set back approximately 52 metres to the north of High Street, Dronfield, Derbyshire. To the east is Chapel Yard, to the north is woodland and to the west is another property, No. 19 High Street. The site is centred at National Grid Reference SK 3509378516. The building is an L-shaped structure, orientated north-west to south-east with a south-eastern wing. For the purposes of written clarity within this report it is assumed that the building is on an east-west axis. The built fabric consists of coursed coal measures sandstone with a timber- framed king post roof structure capped with a stone roof. To the rear is a modern glass and steel extension which is also L-shaped. The current land-use of the site is a café, heritage centre and function room. Historic had designated the Old Barn as a Grade II* listed building (1040018) and its listing entry is as follows:

PARISH OF DRONFIELD HIGH STREET SK 37 NE 6/48 (North Side) Building to the north - east of the Hall (No 19) GV II* Storage building, formerly farm outbuilding. Late C17, but containing the substantial remains of a timber framed building, possibly the medieval hall. Coursed squared coal measures sandstone with coped gables and moulded kneelers, and a stone slated roof. L - plan, with former threshing door to central bay beneath a segmental relieving arch and a timber lintel. C20 boarded doors. Narrow ventilation slits or breathers at two levels and, on the west wall of the advanced bay, two doorways with quoined surrounds and substantial lintels to the ground floor, with a simple overloft doorway above, all with planked doors. King post roof, with through purlins, the tie beams and purlins having stop chamfers. At the junction of the main range and the added wing, an arched braced full height post with jowelled head stands on the line of the side wall. The wall plates now carried by the stone wall have mortices and peg holes for the former studs of the timber framed walling. Introduction

The Old Barn has received a relatively intensive level of fieldwork and research, largely due to the conservation project which led to the remodelling of the site from agricultural storage to the current land use in 2013. The following sources have been consulted in the preparation of this document:  Jones, S. R., 2005, Dronfield Hall Barn, High Street, Dronfield, Derbyshire: formerly a timber-framed chamber block of medieval origin

2

 Tinsley, A., 2009, Old Barn, High Street, Dronfield, Derbyshire: Report on an Archaeological Evaluation.  Mora-Ottomano, A., 2013, The Old Barn, Dronfield, Derbyshire: Historic Building Recording  Arnold, A. & Howard, R., 2013, Dronfield Hall Barn, 19 High Street, Dronfield, Derbyshire: Tree-ring Analysis of Timbers  Hey, D., 2015, Medieval and Tudor Dronfield The debate over the interpretation of the use and phasing of the building can be summarised as follows: 1) Stanley Jones (2005, based on an original survey carried out in 1970), postulated that the east-west component of the building was originally a late medieval four bay, two- storey timber-framed chamber block dating to the first quarter of the fifteenth century. This structure was then converted by replacing the timber elevations with stone to be used as a barn in the early eighteenth century (Hey 2015, 121-2). 2) A programme of test-pit evaluation by Archaeological Research Services [ARS] (Tinsley 2009, 27-30) demonstrated that much of the ground surface, both inside and outside of the barn, consisted of made ground dating to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. ARS encountered a possible late medieval beaten-earth floor in only one intervention within the building which was dated by a single shard of pottery. 3) Historic building recording by ARS (Mora-Ottomano 2013, 60-1) concluded that the east-west wing of the barn was constructed in the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century and utilised a reused late medieval roof structure from another building. 4) Dendrochronology provided a conclusive date of felling for thirteen timbers from the roof structure to 1429, suggesting a single campaign of building (Arnold & Howard 2013, 3). 5) David Hey’s book on the mediaeval and early modern periods at Dronfield includes a chapter on the Old Barn (Hey 2015, 103-122) which picks up on the dendrochronology and reverts to Jones’ original thesis that the building is an in situ medieval structure which received early modern stone infill (Hey 2015, 105). Hey goes on to present a very detailed critique of Mora-Ottomano’s conclusions (Hey 2015, 108-117) alongside documentary evidence demonstrating the rebuild of the structure as a barn for local merchant John Rotherham c 1699-1704 (Hey 2015, 121-22). It is clear from the bibliography and line of argument within the ARS historic building report (Mora-Ottomano 2013, 62-3) that the results of the dendrochronology had not been released at the time of writing as no mention of them is made within the document. Therefore, two divergent theses have emerged in the interpretation of the Old Barn. Jones and Hey maintain that the building is essentially an in situ fifteenth century timber-framed chamber block which was infilled with stone during the eighteenth century when the site was converted into a barn. On the other hand, Mora-Ottomano states that the building was constructed in stone as a barn in the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century utilising a late medieval roof structure. All of the authors are of the opinion that the south-east wing of the building dates to the early modern period (Mora-Ottomano 2013, 59-60; Hey 2015, 105). However, ARS favour the south-east wing being contemporary with the east-west wing whereas Hey and Jones favour it as an addition to the medieval core. The problem for Dronfield Heritage is how to rectify these interpretations which, as currently expressed, are rather conflicted. All of the authors have exemplary records for research and publication. Stanley Jones was a pre-eminent specialist in vernacular architecture who had been active in this field of research since the early 1950s, publishing widely for organisations

3 such as the Victoria County History and The Survey of Lincoln (Meeson & Alcock 2017). David Hey is Emeritus Professor of Local and Family History at the University of and has lived in since the 1970s (Hey 2015, 4). Alvaro Mora-Ottomano, formerly of ARS, is currently a built heritage consultant with Wessex Archaeology, has worked within the field of commercial archaeology since the 1990s and has won an award for his fieldwork skills from the Association for Industrial Archaeology (Wessex Archaeology and Association for Industrial Archaeology websites: accessed 13/11/2017). Finally, Alison Arnold and Robert Howard have run the Nottingham Tree-Ring Dating Laboratory [NTRDL] for over thirty years, originally as part of the University of Nottingham, and have carried out high profile surveys for clients such as English Heritage and the National Trust (NTRDL website: accessed 13/11/2017). The author of this document is a recognised specialist in the field of buildings archaeology. He has worked for organisations such as Trent & Peak Archaeology, Nottinghamshire County Council and the Museum of London Archaeology. He is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries as well as an Associate of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists and an Affiliate of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. Relevant experience of research into late mediaeval timber-framed vernacular architecture includes leading surveys at Knole (Kent), Queens House (Tower of London) and the Guardhouse (Tattershall Castle, Lincolnshire). The purpose of this document is therefore to attempt to balance the published evidence and provide a working conclusion on the interpretation of the Old Barn. Discussion

The following section contains a detailed technical discussion and should be read alongside Hey 2015, 103-122 and Mora-Ottomano 2013 for reference and elucidation on the wider context of the specific points raised. The most recent versions of the debate over the phasing of the Old Barn are taken to be Mora- Ottomano’s historic building report and David Hey’s reiteration of Stanley Jones’ thesis utilising Alison & Howard’s scientific dating evidence. It was found that both versions contain points which require further clarification which will be duly set out below. Mora-Ottomano

 Truss I (p40). There seems to be a discrepancy in the description of Truss I of the roof structure. In a discussion on the tie beam it is noted that ‘The soffit has six mortices with empty peg holes which would have accommodated studs as represented by their sawn off tenons’. The truss in question lies between Bay 1 and 2 towards the west end of the building which does not have any mortices in its soffit, however does have twelve bevel housed joints on the upper arris of the east and west faces indicating that this may be a reused bridging beam which originally held floor joists in its former location (Figure 1). It is accepted that this tie beam may have been inserted during the conservation programme so that it is no longer represented by the timber element described in the ARS report.  Truss III historic graffiti (p40-1). The compass drawn apotropaic symbol on the sawn off tenon of the lap dovetail assembly of the tie beam of Truss IIII (Figure 2) is described as ‘sun symbol’. This is not a commonly accepted interpretation. Compass drawn designs are more usually interpreted as motifs which either bring good luck or avert evil. The latter aspect has a pseudo-theological explanation involving a mediaeval folk belief that evil spirits had a curiosity regarding lines, and, the creation of an endless

4

line through compass drawn designs would effectively pin a demon to the walls of the building that they were seeking to possess (Wright 2017, 72-3; Easton 2016, 47-50 & Champion 2015, 31-52).  A further apotropaic symbol in the form of a ‘tallow burn mark’ is identified on the west face of the post of Truss IIII (p41). Although it is accepted that such a phenomena does occur, it is felt that the extremely regular triangular shape of this burn coupled with its lack of depth may be a result of its creation with a poker, or similar heated metal device, rather than with a taper or candle (Figure 3). The latter leaves a characteristic teardrop shape with a cavity created at the point of contact with the base of the flame in a manner not found in the example at Dronfield (Dean & Hill 2014, 1-15).  The cambered tie beam spanning the junction of the east-west wing and the south- east wing has moulded stops on the southern face of its soffit that frame a decorative ovolo moulding (Figure 4). This timber is identified as being mediaeval (p59). The ovolo moulding did not enter the iconography of English timber carving until c 1580 (Hewett 1980, 188, 217) therefore we must consider this timber to be early modern, and not mediaeval, based on stylistic grounds. The timber is also considered to be unfinished (p41, 59) due to it not having any relict mortices in the soffit, however, several other tie beams in the building lack such a feature and have not been called into question.  The discussion on the dating of oak peg joints (p59) has already been rightly called into question by Hey (2015, 108-9). Hey

 Hey (2015, 108, 114) is categorical that Mora-Ottomano states that the roof timbers were ‘brought from a different site and reassembled’ whereas the conclusions drawn in the ARS report (2013, 60) only goes as far as saying that the building ‘contains substantial reused members of an earlier timber-framed structure of late medieval date’. At no point is there a specific statement about where the timbers were sourced.  The rebuttal of ARS’ statement (Mora-Ottomano 2013, 58) that the double-coding of carpentry marks is evidence of re-assembly seems at odds with both the established standard for understanding carpentry marks (Alcock et al 1996, 1, 23; Brown 1986, 39; Brunskill 1985, 34, 108) and also with the evidence of the building. The internal logic of the building’s sequence is broken if we accept that the double-coding was in fact original to the medieval construction. Thus, Truss III is marked up as both IIʎ and I. Truss IIII has carpenter’s marks relating to both IIII and II. It makes more sense to conclude that III and IIII were disassembled and then remarked as I and II during this later work.  A statement that the ‘dovetail joints show no sign of having been taken apart and reassembled. The references in the ARS report to sawn-off tenons are not supported by any saw marks on the adjacent surfaces which are all very neat and tidy’ (p114) seems rather dogmatic given that there is good evidence for sawn off tenons on Truss III – with a tenon left in situ on the soffit of the tie beam which has later been used as a site for an apotropaic symbol (Figure 2; Mora-Ottomano 2013, 40-1). There is simply no other way in which the tenon could be left severed other than if it was sawn off and left in situ. It seems entirely unrealistic to suggest that the post was removed, tenon sawn off and then reinserted into the mortice.  Carpenter’s marks were noted on the upper face of the common rafters (p117) yet the sequence is not given or interpreted. If this information has been captured then it would be very useful to see if the marks are in sequence, out of sequence or double-coded.

5

Conclusions

The author suggests that a slight refinement of both Mora-Ottomano and Hey’s arguments can allow for a balanced thesis. Both are in agreement that the sandstone walls of the barn date to the early modern period. Hey provides documentary evidence for this (Hey 2015, 121- 22). The critical difference is that Mora-Ottomano thinks that the roof was a reused mediaeval structure placed upon a new stone build, whereas Hey suggests that the stone walls were constructed beneath an in situ mediaeval roof structure. This author posits that the stone walls of the barn were an early modern rebuild of a mediaeval structure. The roof of that mediaeval building was disassembled, retained and then reconstructed. However, the new build was made one bay longer to the west so additional timbers were incorporated. The south-east wing and floor framing were also added. The double-coding of the trusses coupled with the widespread existence of sawn-off tenons and missing timbers (such as the down braces of trusses I and III), indicates that the roof is not in situ as originally built. The discovery of mediaeval pottery sealed within an in situ beaten earth floor (Tinsley 2013, 15-16) adds corroboration to the existence of a mediaeval structure in this location. This could well have been the timber-framed building suggested by Hey which was later partially re-assembled on new stone walls. None of the timbers from the western bay or south-east wing were tree-ring dated (Arnold & Howard 2013, 4, 12) so it is not certain whether or not they are also early fifteenth century, but it is suggested that some of them may originate from other elements of the original timber- framing of the building. Bibliography

Alcock, N. W., Barley, M. W., Dixon, P. W. & Meeson, R. A., 1996 (2010 edition), Recording Timber-framed Buildings: An Illustrated Glossary. Council for British Archaeology. York.

Arnold, A. & Howard, R., 2013, Dronfield Hall Barn, 19 High Street, Dronfield, Derbyshire: Tree-ring Analysis of Timbers. English Heritage. Portsmouth.

Brown, R. J., Timber-framed Buildings of England. Hale. London. Brunskill, R. W., 1985 (1994 edition), Timber Building in Britain. Yale University Press. Champion, M, 2015, Medieval Graffiti – The Lost Voices of England’s Churches. Ebury Press. London. Chartered Institute for Archaeologists [CIfA], 2014, Standard and guidance for the archaeological investigation and recording of standing buildings or structures. CIfA. Reading. Dean, J. & Hill, N., 2014, ‘Burn marks on buildings: accidental or deliberate?’ in Vernacular Architecture Vol. 45. Vernacular Architecture Group. Easton, T., 2015, ‘Apotropaic symbols and other measures for protecting buildings against misfortune’ in Hutton, R. (ed.), 2015, Physical Evidence for Ritual Acts, Sorcery and Witchcraft in Christian Britain. Palgrave Macmillan. Basingstoke. Hewett, C., 1980 (1997 edition), English Historic Carpentry. Linden Publishing. Fresno.

6

Hey, D., 2015, Medieval and Tudor Dronfield. Books at the Barn. Dronfield. Historic England, 2016, Understanding Historic Buildings. Historic England. Swindon. Jones, S. R., 2005, Dronfield Hall Barn, High Street, Dronfield, Derbyshire: formerly a timber- framed chamber block of medieval origin. Unpublished archaeological report. Meeson, R. & Alcock, N., 2017, ‘Fellows Remembered – Stanley Jones FSA’ in Salon Issue 391. Society of Antiquaries of London. Mora-Ottomano, A., 2013, The Old Barn, Dronfield, Derbyshire – Historic Building Recording. Unpublished archaeological report. Archaeological Research Services. Tinsley, A., 2009, Old Barn, High Street, Dronfield, Derbyshire: Report on an Archaeological Evaluation. Unpublished archaeological report. Archaeological Research Services. Wright, J., 2017, ‘Cultural anxieties and ritual protection in high-status early modern houses’ in Hidden Charms 2016: Proceedings. Northern Earth. Hebden Bridge. Websites

Association for Industrial Archaeology: http://industrial-archaeology.org/aia-awards/recent- prizewinners/ (Accessed 13/11/2017) Nottingham Tree-Ring Dating Laboratory: http://www.tree-ringdating.co.uk/introduction.php (Accessed 13/11/2017) Wessex Archaeology: http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/blogs/news/2016/11/24/new-sheffield- team-members (Accessed 13/11/2017) Statement of Indemnity

The evidence, statements and opinions contained within the text of this report are based entirely on the works undertaken for the project and are produced according to professional industry guidelines (Historic England 2016; CIfA 2014). No responsibility can be accepted by the author for any errors of fact or opinion arising as a result of data supplied by third parties. Acknowledgements

James Wright produced this report during November 2017 based on a site visit in May 2017 with follow-up fieldwork and research carried out in September 2017. The author would like to thank Matthew Beresford and the members of Dronfield Heritage for commissioning this report.

7

Illustrations

Figure 1: Truss I, looking west

Figure 2: Compass drawn apotropaic symbol scribed on the sawn of tenon of the lap dovetail assembly of truss III, looking south-west

8

Figure 3: Burn mark on the west face of the post of truss IIII, looking south-east

Figure 4: Detail of ovolo moulding and chamfer stop of cambered tie beam in the south-east wing, looking north-west (Picture Source: Mora-Ottomano 2013, 57, Figure 79)

9