FROBURY FARMHOUSE, KINGSCLERE HAMPSHIRE

Heritage Statement

Bob Edwards

Revised version December 2014

FORUM Heritage S e r v i c e s FROBURY FARMHOUSE, KINGSCLERE HAMPSHIRE

Heritage Statement

FORUM Heritage S e r v i c e s FROBURY FARMHOUSE, KINGSCLERE, HAMPSHIRE

Heritage Statement

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Frobury Farmhouse is a former farmhouse located a little over 1km to the west of Kingsclere in north Hampshire (NGR SU 51247, 59394). The farmhouse has recently been sold and the new owners are seeking to make some alterations to the property. Fowler Architecture and Planning are preparing plans for the alterations.

2.2 Forum Heritage Services has been commissioned to make an assessment of the building and to prepare a heritage statement to inform the development of the proposals and accompany the planning and listed building consent applications. Bob Edwards BSc PG Dip IHBC MIfA, Director of Forum Heritage Services, visited the property on 16 July 2014 and directed some limited opening up of the fabric to inform particular elements of the proposals and subsequently prepared this report.

2.3 The assessment of the building identified potentially early fabric within the roof structure. Hampshire timber-framed buildings experts, Edward Roberts and Bill Fergie subsequently visited the building and confirmed the interest of the building. The Hampshire Buildings Survey Group, led by Edward Roberts, agreed to provide funding for a dendro- chronological survey with the owners contributing to the costs. Mr John Walker, a national expert on early aisled halls was also invited to view the property and he contributed significantly to the understanding of the development of the house. The dendro- chronological survey was undertaken by Dr Martin Bridge of the Oxford Dendro- chronological Laboratory whose interim report is presented as Appendix I. Due to the failure to date timbers from a key phase of the development of the house, further samples for radio carbon dating have been taken and are currently being analysed.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The manor of Frobury is not mentioned in Domesday Book by name but is probably represented by one of the estates in the hundred of Kingsclere held of the king in chief. In the middle of the 12th century the manor was probably held by Ranulf de Broc, usher and chief marshal of the household to Henry II, its tenure being attached to the serjeanty of being usher to the king. On his death about 1187 it was probably assigned in dower to his widow Damietta, the lady of Chetton, Eudon and Berwick, Shropshire, who held it until her death in 1204, the manor passing to Stephen de Turnham and Edelina his wife, the daughter and heir of Ranulf and Damietta. Stephen held the manor in right of his wife until his death about 1214, when it passed to his widow, who as Edelina of Frobury was returned by the Testa de Nevill as holding £6 worth of land in the vill of Frobury of the king in chief by the serjeanty of guarding the king's door. On Edelina’s death Frobury fell as her share to Beatrice, probably the eldest of five daughters and co-heirs, and passed from her to her daughter Philippa the wife of William de Nevill, who in the middle of the 13th century was stated to be holding half a hide in Frobury of the old enfeoffment by the serjeanty of guarding the door of the queen's chamber. 2.2 In 1249 Philippa de Nevill granted it in free marriage to William de Wintershull who had married her daughter Beatrice and from this date Frobury continued in the Wintershull family for about two centuries. William obtained licence to impark his wood of Frobury, which covered an area of 10 acres, in 1260, and died in 1287, leaving as his heir his son John. Beatrice, however, continued to hold the manor, and presented to the chapel of Frobury in her widowhood during the episcopacy of John of Pontoise (1282–1304). On her death it passed in accordance with her wishes to her second son Walter, who in 1310 released his interest in it to his younger brother Edmund (recorded as the chief taxpayer of the hamlet of Frobury in the 1327 Lay Subsidy, paying 5 shillings compared to the next highest payment of 18d (Mitchell-Fox and Page 2014, 36), but it ultimately reverted to Walter or his heirs for his grandson. Thomas died seised of a messuage and half a hide of land in Frobury in 1387, leaving a son and heir Thomas. Thomas son and heir of the last- named, who succeeded to the manor in 1400, died twenty years later leaving no issue, and his property was divided between his two sisters and co-heirs, Joan the widow of William Weston, and Agnes the wife of William Basset. Frobury fell to Agnes and passed from her to Thomas Basset, probably her son, Sheriff of Surrey and Sussex in 1457. Thomas Basset the younger, probably the son and heir of the above-named, dealt with the manor in conjunction with his wife Alice in 1482, and died ten years later, leaving a son, Richard Basset who died in 1509, his heir being his son Thomas, aged twelve. The manor, however, continued with Juliane widow of Richard. In January 1511 she married as her second husband a certain John Wintershill and had issue by him two daughters, Alice and Juliane. She died at Winchester in 1534, and her husband, John Wintershill, continued to hold the manor until his death in 1545, when it passed to Joan wife of William Unwin, only daughter of Juliane by her first husband, her son Thomas having apparently left no issue. The following year William and Joan sold the manor to William Paulet Lord St. John, and from this date it has followed the same descent as the manor of Kingsclere, the owner in the early 20th century being Lord Bolton (Page 1911, 249 -267).

2.3 After becoming part of the Paulet estates at least, the farm would have been leased to tenants. The Lay Subsidy returns of 1586 recorded only three people pay tax on lands at Frobury; John Smith, gent. With £6 worth of land paying 8s (£6/8s), John Camber 40s/2s 8d and Elizabeth Hunte, widow, 20s/16d. One man, James Knight, paid 8s tax on goods worth £8 (Davey 1981, 79).

2.4 In the 1665 Hearth Tax assessment, the tithing of Frobury consisted of 16 properties, five of which had only one hearth and so were not chargeable. The house with the greatest number of hearths was the property of Mister Chamberlaine which had seven hearths whilst the houses of Walter Dicker and Nathaniel Kent had five and four hearths respectively (Hughes and White, 1991, 178). At this stage it is not possible to identify with certainty which, if any of these, represents Frobury Farmhouse.

2.5 Whilst the manor remained with the Paulet family, Frobury was being held under a lease of 99 years determinable on the decease of three lives in the early 19th century. In 1807 the leasehold was put up for sale by auction, the sale particulars describe the principal lot, the core of the farm, as having a ‘Farm house, two barns, stables and outhouses’ with almost 238 acres of land of which 131 acres were enclosed, the remaining land included 31 acres in the common meadows, areas of coppice and downland (HRO 69/702/H7). Further lots included areas of meadow and 60 acres in Fropark and Hile Coppices. 2.6 The earliest detailed map consulted is the Kingsclere Tithe map of 1842 (HRO 21M65/F7/133/2). (Figure 1). This shows the farmstead with a loose courtyard group with buildings to three sides of the yard and probably consisting of the two barns and a stable described in 1807. The farmhouse does not appear to have been accurately drawn as it is shown as a rather wide and short range within no indication of the cross-wing. At this date Frobury was a farm of a little under 179 acres (HRO 21M65/F7/133/1).

2.7 The sequence of 25” Ordnance Survey maps between 1872 and 1911 show minor alterations in the farmstead group but little evident change to the farmhouse (Figures 2-4). However, probably in the 1950s the two large extensions were added, the 1961 6” map lacks the detail but the extensions are probably present. The 1976 1:2500 map (Figure 5) clearly shows them at that date together with the clearance of much of the historic farmstead to the north-east of the house (the existing cottage would appear to be a conversion of a 3 bay aisled barn but little historic fabric is now visible inside the building) and its replacement with two large sheds further north, one of which survives and has been further enlarged.

3.0 DESCRIPTION & ANALYSIS

3.1 Frobury Farmhouse is included in the List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest at Grade II. The building, added to the List in January 1953, is described as:

C16, C18, C20. A T-shaped timber-frame with cladding of the middle date, altered and extended in recent times; 2 storeys, irregular fenestration. Tile roof hipped but with a tile- hung gable to the south. Walling is of red brickwork, with some exposure of the frame on the north side. Recent casements and porch. Within, the massive framing is partly- exposed.

Exterior

3.2 The principal elevation of Frobury Farmhouse faces north and consists of a projecting cross-wing to the west (right) with a hall range aligned east-west (Figure 6). The hall range consists three unequal bays; a wide bay adjacent to the cross-wing defined by two timber posts (Bay 1), a slightly narrower bay (Bay 2) within which the present front door is located, and a narrower section of about a ½ bay width at the east end (Bay 3). The plain clay tile roof is hipped at the east end and the ridge of the main hall range is slightly higher than that of the cross-wing. The cross-wing roof is also hipped to the north.

3.3 The walling of Bay 1 is brickwork laid in Flemish bond with frequent blue headers which stands proud of the principal posts to either side and at the foot of the wall is a plinth of approximately four courses high and about a brick deep which continues along the whole the front elevation. The western principal post is only exposed at first-floor level and the upper part of the ground floor where it becomes concealed by brickwork. There is a filled notch in the east face of the timber visible at first floor level and a pair of peg holes slightly lower down. Within this bay a stack has been built up against the truss between Bays 1 and 2. The brickwork has been painted or lime washed in the past. At ground floor level there are three modern windows; a single light six pane window with a top opening light and fixed light below, a three-light window with two side opening casements and top opening light to the centre and a two-light casement with one side opening light and one top opening light. Only the central three-light window has a lintel of header bricks above, the other two are just set within the coursing of the brickwork. Between the three-light and two-light windows there is the remains of a cambered arch consisting of a row of header bricks laid on edge with a row of header bricks laid flat above. The centre of the arch is just to the right of the three-light window and all the brickwork beneath it to just below the level of the window cills is later infill marked by the use of cement mortar. Below this level the mortar changes to lime mortar and there is evidence for penny-struck pointing and quite thick layers of paint or lime wash. This opening is set approximately to the west of centre of the bay. At first-floor level there is a three-light window with two side opening casements and a top opening light to the centre light. Although this matches the central window at ground floor level it is not aligned with that window in that is set slightly to the west. The window openings are marked by queen closers to the west side but not to the east. The brickwork has queen closers to both sides where it abuts the principal posts of the timber frame. This brickwork also has queen closers where it abuts the brickwork of the cross-wing wall.

3.4 Bay 2 has some timbers to the first floor but few appear to be pegged to the principal posts and so may have been re-set when the large four-light window was inserted. The ground floor walling is constructed in modern brickwork.

3.5 At the east end the ½ bay width section (Bay 3) also has framing in the north wall. This section consists of a small panel framing two panels wide, two panels high to the first-floor. The central storey post has peg holes for the mid-rails but the western mid-rail does not appear to be pegged into the principal post. The storey post has been truncated by the insertion of a window at ground floor level and there is no exposed framing beneath the window. There is a principal post marking the east end of this shorter bay but only the upper part of the post is historic – most of the timber is a repair. To the east of this timber there is a further small section of brickwork so that the east gable wall is constructed in later brick.

3.6 The east gable end has a large buttress, angled to the lower part at the south-east corner and there are four windows; two single light casements to the ground floor and fixed casements with top opening lights to the first-floor. These are set either side of a central stack. The brickwork of this elevation is relatively low quality is largely obscured by plant growth.

3.7 The north gable end of the cross-wing shows that it is constructed in small panel framing two panels high above the girt beam and two panels high between the girt beam and the sole plate (Figure 7). The ground level has possibly been reduced meaning that below the soleplate there is approximately 1m of brickwork which has a slight step out five courses below the sole plate. At present the north-west corner of the cross-wing is obscured by the modern 1½ storey addition which extends northwards from the cross-wing. The framing has been impacted by the insertion of two four-light windows in the mid-to late 20th century at ground floor level. The panels are infilled with brick of probable late 18th or 19th century date. Below the ground floor window there is a straight joint in the brickwork.

3.8 The west elevation of the cross-wing has exposed small panel framing two panels high to each storey (Figure 8). From the south; the principal post of the south gable truss is exposed for much of its height, the lower part having been under-built in brick against the face of the framing and on top of the projecting plinth. This protruding piece of brickwork is capped by three rows of plain clay tile and it wraps around to the south elevation of the gable which, notably, is gabled rather than hipped as to the north. At ground floor level only one full panel framing survives, the mid-rail defining the second set of panels has been truncated and replaced by brickwork which, to the lower section, is predominantly Header Bond and then becomes an irregular bond to girt beam level. This area of brickwork represents the position of an inserted stack. At first-floor level the framing continues with a full panel defined by a stud pegged to the girt beam. The mid-rail between the upper and lower panels on the first floor has been removed and replaced by brickwork which is mainly Stretcher Bond.

3.9 To the centre of the cross-wing is a principal post. The girt beam appears to continue to the north but there is no other framing surviving to the north bay. There are two modern windows to the first-floor either side of the central principal post, both two-light casements with a top opening light and a side opening light. At ground floor level there is a modern door set just the north of the central principal post. A large square stack laid in Stretcher Bond has been constructed against the elevation to the centre of the northern bay. The mid-to late 20th century extension to the north wraps around north-west corner of the cross-wing obscuring half of the west wall of the northern bay. There is a cement rendered plinth at the foot of this wall and cement extends to the height of the short section of soleplate which survives adjacent to the inserted door.

3.10 The south elevation of the cross-wing has brickwork up to the level of the cill of the mid-to late 20th century five-light casement window to the ground floor (Figure 9). This brickwork is modern, laid in cement mortar and is poorly pointed. Above the brickwork the remainder of the elevation is tile hung, the tile hanging to the gable above the first-floor windows is set slightly forward of the face of the elevation below. At first-floor level there is are two modern windows; a three-light casement and a single light casement to the right. This elevation of the cross-wing is gabled rather than hipped as to the north.

3.11 The south elevation of the hall range is only visible for approximately one bay width (Bay 1) as there is a two-storey modern extension to the right. The first-floor on this elevation is tile hung and has a modern four-light window. At ground floor level the wall is constructed in brickwork which is laid in in an irregular bond which includes some rows of header bricks and some courses which are nearer to Flemish Bond but there is no consistency to the construction. There is a cement rendered plinth to the base of the wall. A modern door has been inserted to the centre of this section of the elevation and the brickwork defining the opening is later; the bricks are set in cement mortar. To the east of the door and there is a larger section of brickwork which is set in cement mortar – this extends of approximately 0.8m from the door and then historic brickwork laid in lime mortar with penny struck joints survives. This brickwork is approximately English Bond with some irregularity although to the upper part of the wall the bonding becomes more irregular suggesting there may have been some rebuilding.

3.12 The west flank wall of the cross-wing is brick to ground floor, tile-hung to first-floor with a single light casement with a top opening light at first-floor level. The brickwork is laid in historic lime mortar and is fairly regular, its bonding is probably closer to a Flemish Bond than the English Bond style adjacent in the hall range. The remaining section of the south elevation (Bays 2 and 3) is obscured by the modern extension. Interior

3.13 The ground floor plan of the building consists of the hall range and cross wing (Figure 11). The hall range has two rooms either side of a large stack, the room adjacent to the cross- wing serves as the dining room the eastern end forms the entrance hall. Although the timber-framed origins of the house are not readily apparent at ground floor level, this roof structure divides these spaces into three unequal bays – the dining room and stack being within the largest bay, Bay 1 and the entrance hall, overall a space of similar size to the area of Bay 1, being divided into two parts, Bay 2 occupying the majority of the space with Bay 3 being a ½ bay at the east end. The two bay cross-wing has two rooms to the ground floor.

3.14 The principal entrance door in the north elevation leads into the centre of Bay 2 which is largely unfloored and open to the first floor ceiling level. There is a large stack against the east gable within Bay 3 which has remnants of historic brickwork to the sides of the fireplace but the beam over appears to be a modern replacement. The brickwork above the bressumer beam is modern using reclaimed bricks and the outer sides of the stack also modern. The floor is of modern flags of reconstituted stone. A modern staircase rises against the west wall of Bay 2 (and the back of the stack set in Bay 1) giving access to a gallery of modern construction along the south of Bay 2 and over the width of Bay 3. There is no exposed framing visible in the walls at ground floor level in either of these two bays. At first-floor level in the north wall of bay 2 there are two posts; that to the west being the principal post of Truss II set at the back of the central stack between Bays 1 and 2. This timber has a large void mortise and a square jowl. It is jointed into a canted tie beam which has a series of peg holes and there is a second tie set immediately above (only visible on the west side of the truss). This double tie beam arrangement is believed to have formed part of a base cruck truss. The soffit of the tie beam has been hidden by an applied timber. At the south side of the truss the upper part of the opposite principal post is visible and here the jowl is angled and the void mortise is shorter and has angled cut into the lower part whereas the mortise to the north is cut square into the post. Again, along the side of the canted tie beam there peg holes. This form of bracing to the truss suggests that this was the truss over a two bay open hall. There is a vertical stud beneath the canted tie beam set just to the south of centre and is a later insertion.

3.15 Just to the west of the southern principal post of this truss (Truss II) there is a junction in the wall plate which is a substantial timber measuring between 250-275mm (10 - 11”) deep. To the east of the Truss II only part of the wall plate is visible and both north and south wall plates drop significantly compared to the wall plates to the west of the truss. The wall plate on the south side is clearly of some age but is only partly exposed because the ceiling of this section obscures much of it, particularly at the west end.

3.16 The wall plate on the north side is of two sections, the junction being c.3m from Truss II, and extends to a principal post at the north-east corner where the jowl of the post is visible with the remains of a passing brace lapped into its west face (Figure 11). There is a vertical timber in the north wall marking the line of the truss between Bays 2 and 3 but there is no evident joint with the wall plate or peg holes for mid-rails. There is a large void mortise in the soffit of the wall plate 0.5m from the north-east principal post with two peg holes visible. This mortise is approximately 250mm long so it was a large timber, larger than would be expected for a stud and so was probably for a brace. There is a junction in the wall plate above the four-light window at first-floor level with peg holes to the soffit and in each side of the joint which has clearly opened up has been filled with mortar. The wall plate on the south wall has a single peg hole set almost opposite the junction in the wall plate on the north side. The face of the wall here extends almost to the face of the wall plate and so it is not possible to say whether there is a void mortise, only that there is no other peg hole evidence for jointing in the wall plate as far as the line of the vertical post defining the east side of Bay 2. The vertical timber at this point is modern and to the east is the doorway into the first-floor of the modern extension. The wall plate continues east of this inserted opening but at the south-east corner there is no evidence for survival of the principal post there is at the north-east corner.

3.17 A small area of opening up was undertaken on the south wall of Bay 2 at ground floor level. This revealed that there is no evidence for surviving framing, the wall being constructed in brick and with a marked batter to the lower part of the north face of the wall. To the west of the doorway into the modern extension straight joints in the brickwork indicate that there was formerly a doorway in this position (Figure 12). The floor level rises by one small step beneath the stairs and alongside the stack into Bay 1 to the west of the stack.

3.18 The room occupying the ground floor level of Bay 1 only has a small amount of framing visible on the west wall around the door opening into the south room of the cross-wing – part of the east wall of the cross-wing which is, typically, an independently framed structure. A cross-beam is set slightly to the east of centre, it is deeply chamfered with no stops and has peg holes along the both sides of the within the area of the chamfers. Such pegs typically secure the joists but they are unusual is this position as normally peg holes would be in the upper part of the beam so that they were not exposed in what would have been presumably one of the best rooms in the house. A second beam is exposed in the east wall at ceiling height. This timber has been hacked to receive plaster across most of its length apart from the southern section of about 1.0m – where there is a scar on the timber. The beam appears to have been chamfered but no stop is visible at the south end. The face of the wall extends forward of the face of the beam at the north end so the chamfer is not visible. Removal of an area of plaster seeking a fireplace has shown that there does not appear to have been a fireplace to this side of the stack. There is a cupboard with two doors which conceals a safe. The doors have raised and fielded panels and would appear to be possibly 18th or early 19th century in date.

3.19 The cross-beam has two scars; the southern scar is defined by two narrow lines of paint and aligns with the narrow line of paint on the crossbeam on the line of the east wall. Just north of this there is a notch in the beam which aligns with a socket in the beam on the east wall and then there is a wider, approximately 75mm (3”) band of old green paint on the crossbeam. This suggests that there was a partition wall along this room creating a corridor to the south. At the west end of this line there is an inserted timber and a short section of a return wall.

3.20 The south room of the cross-wing has the same modern reconstituted stone floor as the hall range. There is a large inserted stack against the west wall which is clearly historic with old brickwork to the back and sides although the brickwork to the sides of the opening have been rebuilt. The bressumer is original but is crudely chamfered and is not the good quality timber which one might expect for this room. The back wall of the stack has a slightly angled back section to the centre with flat brickwork to the sides and to each side of this there are partly exposed niches (Figure 13). These shallow niches almost appear to have been truncated by the side walls of the ingle. There are modern cupboards to each side with bookcases concealing cupboards behind. There is a set of modern bookshelves within an alcove in the east wall of the door – this may mark the original position of the door from the hall.

First floor

Hall range 3.21 The hall range has just one room within it at first floor level, occupying the north part of Bay 1 with a corridor along the south side. The west wall of the bedroom has the tie beam of Truss I exposed. This timber has an infilled angled lap joint running through it towards the north end of the beam which is mirrored by a similar joint, unfilled, at the south end within the area of the corridor (Figure 14). Part of the northern principal post is exposed which has an angled jowl below which is evidence for a lap joint for a passing brace, matching that seen in the post at the north-east corner and shown in Figure 11. In the soffit of the tie beam there are several features including two large mortises and a long, narrow groove about a 25mm (1”) wide between the void mortices possibly marking the position of a doorway. There is a series of notches which must to relate to what the infilling of a closed truss. There are two vertical studs which are later. Apart from the very large wall plate (approximately 280mm/11” deep) to the north there is no other framing exposed in this room. Within the wall plate there is a pair of peg holes about 2.0m from Truss I which reflect a similar pair of peg holes in the southern wall plate opposite.

3.22 To the south side of the stack there is a cupboard in which the canted tie beam and the earlier tie beam above are visible in the east wall. The tie beam to the top is certainly smoke blackened.

Cross-wing 3.23 The south room at the cross-wing has been divided up to form a bathroom and a corridor giving access to the north room. These are formed by modern partitions of no interest. The south gable wall framing is largely exposed with the principal posts, tie beam, queen struts and clasped purlins all visible but the braces between principal posts and the tie beam have been removed. The jowls of the posts are quite square with a short angle. The wall plate of the cross-wing has been cut to provide access through to the hall range. .

3.24 The north room of the cross-wing also has much of its timber framing exposed. The south wall between the two rooms has its small panel framing largely exposed and the straight brace from the west principal to the tie beam of the central truss is visible (Figure 15). The brace to the east principal post has been removed but the peg holes for it are visible in the tie beam. The framing forms five panels wide but has been altered through the creation of the doorway. The mid-rails are pegged but there are no peg holes for a mid-rail extending east from the third stud from the west indicating that that is where there was a door in this position connecting the two rooms although there is no indication on the tie beam or the stud to indicate a door, for example, chamfering. The ceiling is open to purlin level and two curved wind braces springing from the central truss, one on each slope, are exposed (Figure 15). In the north wall the western straight brace is visible and a section of the mid- rail but otherwise the framing appears to have largely been removed - peg holes indicate the former presence of studs. Modern cupboards and a built-in vanity unit have been built across the east wall behind which the framing is visible including a straight brace running from the central truss to the wall plate. Roof

3.25 The roof of the hall range reveals even more of interest. The three trusses I, II, and III are all of crown-post form – full crown-posts with braces originally to all four sides (Figures 16- 18). The crown-posts are typical of Hampshire – plain and unadorned unlike examples further east but impressive none-the-less. The two full bays (Bays 1 and 2) between these trusses are smoke-blackened indicating that there was a two bay open hall and the blackening seems to extend into the roof of Bay 3 at the east end although it seems that much of the roof of this section has been rebuilt and it is possible that this work incorporated reclaimed, blackened timbers. Truss I is closed – remains of the wattle and daub survives with blackening on the hall (east) side. This truss also has a scissor brace over the crown-post which is also blackened. This is the only truss to have scissor braces.

3.26 The collar of Truss I has void housings for lap joints for the tops of passing braces (Figure 19) but the housings for lap joints seen on the tie in the room below relate to the scissor brace indicating that there are two phases of construction. Lapped joints are also seen on some of the rafters of the original collar-rafter roof though most of the existing collars are tenoned in to their rafters.

3.27 The void housings for lap joints for passing braces can also be seen in the collars of Truss II and Truss III but the tie beams of Truss II do not have housings and it is thought that they are absent from the tie of Truss III although this timber is now clamped between two steel beams making access to the sides difficult. However, the tie beam of the end frame to the east has a void housing for a passing brace as seen on Truss I. This is despite the fact that the roof is presently fully hipped. Either the roof was originally gabled or the timber is re-set. Given that an in-situ section of passing brace survives beneath this notch, retained within the post at the north-east corner and now easily mistaken as a typical corner brace, this would suggest in-situ framing.

3.28 The framing of the ceilings at first-floor level differ between the two bays. Bay one has a central spine beam which is lodged upon the tie beam of Truss I and transverse joists but the joists of Bay 2 are smaller, lower quality timbers all laid axially. These timbers are lodged upon applied timbers attached to the sides of the tie beams of Trusses II and III (Figure 21). The joists to Bay 2 are also set at a lower level than those of Bay 1. Although the ceiling of this area is carried on laths, the plaster is a hard, modern mix and not an historic lime plaster.

Modern additions

3.29 There are two modern additions that are probably of 1950s date; a 1½ storey block attached to the north-west corner of the cross-wing which may have originally provided garaging and a larger block attached to the east part of the south elevation.

Analysis

3.30 The fact that there is a hall range and cross-wing is clear. The probable late 16th century date of the cross-wing with its mixture of curved wind braces (typically 16th century or earlier) and straight braces to the wall framing (typically 17th century) is also relatively straightforward. 3.31 The hall range is more complicated and since the first draft of this report a dendrochronological survey has been undertaken (Bridge 2014 and Appendix I). This has shown that the common rafters of the roof date from the 1260s but that the wall plate (originally the southern arcade plate of an aisled hall) dates from the 1330s. This indicates that there are two early phases of construction and that the mid-13th century house was substantially reconstructed in the early 14th century, retaining much of the roof structure whilst inserting a base cruck to the centre of the aisled hall. The timbers of the crown posts failed to date and a radiocarbon sample has been sent for analysis.

3.32 The dating of the rafters indicates that the roof of the house built by William de Wintershull who appears to have been rising in status in the 1260s when he gained a licence to create a park. Frobury was evidently a high status building befitting and manor carved out of royal estate and with a direct link to the royal household as the manor was in lieu of service within the royal household. A parallel for this building may be found only a few miles away at Old Burghclere where the bishop of Winchester built, in the 14th century, an aisled hall now forming part of the Manor House.

3.33 The crown-post roof – with three full crown-posts surviving – is probably part of the work of the 1330s meaning that it fits with the general date range of the county – in Hampshire, most crown-posts are of 14th century date, usually in the first half of the century. Smoke blackening of the timbers indicates that Bays 1 and 2 were open with surviving wattle and daub in Truss I and there is evidence that Truss III was once closed – there are grooves in the soffit of the collar which would suggest boarding rather than wattle and daub although this is likely to be part of phase I rather than the crown-post roof structure.

3.34 The central truss, Truss II, is presently closed but the infill seems to be a later insertion as the daub is only smoke-blackened to the west side suggesting that there was a smoke hood inserted at a later date. No other evidence for the smoke hood survives which was replaced by a stack which has also been heavily altered.

3.35 At least the western half of the hall, Bay 1, was floored over, probably in association with the insertion of the central stack although removal of plaster over an area of the west face of the stack suggests that there was not a fireplace to this side so it must have been to the east, now behind the staircase, in Bay 2. The presence of first floor windows suggests that there was a floor to this bay which has been subsequently removed and replaced with the modern gallery. The ceilings at first floor level differ between Bays 1 and 2 – in Bay 1 there is a spine beam as might be expected of 17th century work but over Bay 2 the joists are poorer quality timbers, all laid axially. The lath and plaster ceiling attached to these joists is modern.

3.36 This building was constructed as an aisled hall and so the aisles have been removed at an as yet undetermined date which would explain why the framing to the north elevation does not work in a typical way – it is later infill between the arcade posts which now appear as principal posts. This would also explain the massive size of the wall plates in Bay 1 – they were originally arcade plates and carried the weight of the roof. The loss of the outer walling means that it is not possible at present to identify the position of the cross passage. Present door in the north elevation would seem to be a later insertion as is the door in the south wall. Removal of plaster on the south wall in Bay 2 near the present door to the modern wing shows that there was a doorway, now blocked, just west of the existing opening but this too is in an untypical position for a hall house and so must, at this stage, be considered as a later insertion.

3.37 In addition to the main central stack fireplaces have also inserted been in the cross-wing against the west wall, probably in the 18th or 19th century and also a stack was added at the east end of the hall range, possibly as a similar date. All of these stacks had been heavily rebuilt but retain some historic fabric, particularly to the back of the fireplaces.

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

4.1 The dendrochronological survey has revealed that much of the roof of Frobury dates from the mid-13th century making it one of the 40 oldest inhabited domestic buildings in England. Frobury Farmhouse retains elements of an early aisled hall which was substantially reconstructed in the early 14th century when a base cruck was inserted across the centre of the hall, new arcade posts were added and, probably, the crown posts were inserted into the existing principal trusses. Therefore, the evidence for the early phases of the house is clearly of very high significance. In addition to the presence of the aisled hall, the survival of three full crown-post trusses (apart from the removal of two down braces) also marks this building as being of high status and of a scale rarely seen in Hampshire.

4.2 As is often the case, the early fabric of greatest significance is predominantly within the roof although there are elements, such as two of the posts – originally arcade posts now serving as principal posts – which extend below wall plate level on the north elevation. The existing north and south walls mark the original line of the arcades of the aisled hall and so any infill between the posts is obviously later. Some timbers survive in the north wall but their date and origin is uncertain – these timbers could be remnants of possibly 17th- century framing which has been modified by the insertion of later openings or they could be re-used timbers introduced at a much later date. Further examination of these timber frame elements is required where they survive but it is clear that in much of the north and south elevations any framing inserted after the removal of the aisles has been removed and the walls reconstructed in brickwork, probably of 18th century date. However, in the north wall of Bay 1 the 18th century brickwork stands in front of the line of the framing and so appears to re-face an earlier, masonry infill. The east end of the hall range has been subject to considerable change including the probable removal of the ground floor ceiling, possible alteration of the ground floor plan and the replacement of the first floor ceiling which is of modern plaster and the joists are clearly of an inferior quality to the those of the ceiling to the bedroom in Bay 1 and are simply lodged onto timbers applied to the sides of the tie beams.

4.3 The cross-wing is a good and largely unaltered example of a two bay cross-wing of late 16th/early 17th century date. Given its almost complete survival apart from the removal of small sections of framing to create the present access between the hall range and the cross-wing and the door to the north room at first-floor level in the dividing wall, it is also a very significant element of the development of the farmhouse. However, its external appearance has been substantially harmed by the construction of the 20th century extension against its north-west corner.

4.4 During the development of the farmhouse a number of chimney stacks have been inserted, the earliest of which is probably the large stack between Bays 1 and 2. The limited opening up suggest that this stack faced east at ground floor level but the potential for survival of an 16th/17th century ingle fireplace here is, at present, yet to be assessed. Three further fireplaces have been inserted; one at the east end of the hall range and two against the west wall of the cross-wing. Whilst at least two of these retain some evidence of historic fabric, they have been heavily rebuilt and externally have been altered which has reduced to an extent of their significance.

4.5 It is clear that in addition to the extensions added in the mid-20th century, substantial alterations have been undertaken within the historic element of the house. At ground floor level the present floors are mostly modern reconstituted stone through much of the historic part of the building. These ‘flags’ are not of interest and have no significance in terms of the special interest of the listed building. Any historic staircases have been removed, the present staircase is probably also of the mid-20th century (although it has subsequently been altered) and is not of interest. Similarly, through most of the historic element the building doors to the rooms have been replaced by a modern vertical boarded door which are not of significance. The house was also completely re-fenestrated at this time - none of the windows within the farmhouse are historic or of significance and a number of them are of an inappropriate size and form for a building of this quality and character.

5.0 PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE AND ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT

5.1 Staircase and gallery and removal of ceiling in the entrance hall (Bay 2).

5.1.1 It is proposed to construct a new staircase and gallery to replace the existing modern stairs and gallery within Bays 2 and 3 of the hall range. The present stairs are modern and probably inserted in the mid-20th century, have been subsequently re-modelled and are not of special interest. Similarly, the gallery along the south and east sides of the entrance hall is of completely modern construction and not of significance. There will be no harm caused to the special interest of the listed building by the removal of these features to be replaced by a new staircase and gallery along the south side of the space providing the new stairs or of an appropriate form and design and constructed in appropriate materials.

5.1.2 It is also proposed to remove the ceiling at second floor level to open up the roof structure to view from ground level. Bay 2 was part of the open hall when the crown post roof was inserted in the 14th century and this proposal offers the opportunity to reinstate something of the impressive scale of the original structure. Due to the flooring over of the hall in most open hall houses, such reinstatement is rarely possible without the loss of one or more first floor rooms but it is likely that the removal of the upper floor was undertaken when the additions were made in the 1950s. The removal of the ceiling will impact on historic fabric – the joists of this ceiling are old but they are simply lodged upon applied timbers fixed to the sides of the tie beams defining Bay 2. It is estimated that these timbers are of 18th or early 19th century date and are of relatively low quality, certainly in comparison with the joists of the ceiling over the chamber in Bay 1 which are probably of 17th century date. The proposal to open the roof to view does not mean the loss of the joists – as they are lodged there will be no need to cut any timbers to remove them and it will be possible to retain them within an adjacent roof space so there will be no absolute loss of historic fabric. Adequate recording and labelling would mean that the change could be reversible with each joint returned to its original position if required. Whilst the proposal clearly represents a change, it is argued that the possibility of exposing two crown post trusses and the canted tie beam of the arched brace truss of Truss II to view represents a significantly positive change in terms of the character and special interest of the listed building, allowing the significant fabric to be seen and understood in way that is not possible at present and enabling the scale of this important building to be appreciated in a way that is rarely possible internally.

5.1.3 In a previous application, subsequently withdrawn, the SPAB claimed that ‘reading between the lines’ of an earlier draft of this Heritage Statement, the present author was uneasy about this aspect of the application. To be clear – it is considered that the joists to this ceiling are of inferior quality and late in date and add little, if anything to the special interest of the listed building i.e. they are of little significance. Whilst accepting that they are part of the story of the building, as is every part of the present structure, this should not mean that they must be retained in-situ. Their removal and storage within the roof space of the modern element of the house after recording is not considered to represent harm to the designated heritage asset as the change will be reversible with no loss of historic fabric. The proposal offers the opportunity to better reveal the significance of the heritage asset and this should be welcomed.

5.2 New WC in the southern extension with a new doorway in the south wall of the hall range. Widening of the present doorway to the modern addition.

5.2.1 It is proposed to subdivide a small part of the modern range to the rear of the farmhouse to form a cloakroom. The modern addition is not of interest but the WC would be accessed from the area south of the central stack and staircase in Bay 2 requiring a new opening in the south wall of the hall range. The removal of areas of plaster from this wall in the area of the proposed opening shows that historically there was a doorway in this position which has been blocked with brickwork (Figure 12). Whilst not modern brickwork, it is considered that this change will not harm significant historic fabric.

5.2.2 It is also proposed to slightly widen the existing doorway into the modern addition from the entrance hall. This opening is formed in brick infill on the line of the south arcade of the aisled hall and there is no timber-framing in this area of wall. The proposal will result in the removal of a small amount of brickwork of probable 18th century date but no features of significance will be harmed.

5.3 Alteration to the WC north of central stack.

5.3.1 At present there is a WC in the area to the north of the central stack. The proposed staircase will run across the front of this opening so that it does not have to turn into the floor area of the entrance hall as at present. It is proposed block the existing door to the WC and create a new door in the west wall of this space which will serve as a cupboard/store within the dining room. The section of wall to be removed has been shown to be of modern brickwork through the removal of an area of plaster (Figure 20) and so this change will not impact on any historic fabric or harm the special interest of the listed building.

5.4 Insertion of partitions to form a store and WC at ground floor level in the north bay of the cross-wing

5.4.1 It is proposed to use the existing kitchen area in the north bay of the cross-wing as a boots and utility room and to insert a WC and store. These partitions will not impact on historic fabric and can be seen as reversible and as having little impact on the special interest of the listed building.

5.5 Demolition of the extension to north-west and its replacement with a new addition to the south of the modern range to the south of the hall range.

5.5.1 The modern extension attached to the north-west corner of the cross-wing has a considerably harmful effect on the setting of the listed building. It is a poorly conceived addition that does not provide accommodation that is suitable for a family home due to its lack of integration with the main part of the house, particularly as there is no first floor link. The proposal to remove this addition therefore represents a considerable positive benefit for the listed building, reinstating the appearance of the north elevation and allowing the cross-wing to be better appreciated.

5.5.2 To replace the accommodation being lost by the removal of the extension to the north- west of the house, it is proposed to construct an additional element at the south end of the modern south range which can form a useful part of the family home. The south range as it stands is an element of limited architectural quality and is poorly proportioned, particularly in relation to the width of the south gable end which is wider than it should be for its height. At present, this rather squat gable end is the first experience one has when approaching the farmhouse. The proposed approach to adding onto this range is to form a second cross-wing like range which will primarily provide a new master bedroom at first- floor level with en-suite facilities. The cross-wing approach is considered to be the only possible form to achieve the space requirements whilst not overly elongating the rear range. It is considered that the proposal to add to this area of the building should be acceptable in principle given the benefit of the removal of the north-west extension and the opportunity to better resolve the present south gable of the modern addition.

5.5.3 The approach taken in the design is derived from the Arts and Crafts movement of the early 20th century. The design attempts to bring some informality and architectural interest to the addition with an asymmetrical east gable which has a catslide section that ‘overlaps’ the east wall of the existing rear range, softening the transition between the two elements whilst still allowing then to be defined as separate phases. The south elevation has a full height window giving light to ground and first floors whilst the west gable has a two storey canted bay, a feature used by architects such as Lutyens, which is covered by the slightly projecting roof. The use of brick to the ground floor and tile hanging to the upper floor continues the existing mixture of materials rather than attempting to introduce a different combination or mix of colours and textures.

5.5.4 Overall, it is argued that the proposed extension, which is slightly smaller in floor area than the existing north-west extension but which, due to its connection to the south range and distance from the historic element of the house, is visually less obtrusive and bulky, represents a change that does not cause harm to the designated heritage asset.

5.6 Alterations to the bathroom at first floor level in the cross-wing and access to the cross- wing.

5.6.1 At first-floor level it is proposed to alter the existing arrangement of bathroom and access in the south part of the cross-wing. The partitions forming the bathroom are modern and not a special interest and so reconfiguring the size and shape of this space will not impact on the special interest of the listed building.

5.6.2 The proposal to create an angled access from the corridor of the hall range to the north bedroom of the cross-wing is unlikely to impact on historic fabric as the tie beam of Truss I will remain above the opening, as it does now, and the area of wall impacted, currently in the adjacent bedroom, has a cupboard in this area meaning that there is no historic fabric surviving beneath the tie beam.

5.7 Replacement of porch

5.7.1 The existing porch is a poorly designed feature that is too large for the building and it does not positively contribute to the character of the listed building. The proposed replacement is a smaller feature of better proportions, representing an improvement on the present situation.

6.0 SOURCES

Bridge, M. (2014) The Tree-Ring Dating of Frobury Farmhouse, Kingsclere, Hampshire Oxford Dendrochronology Laboratory Report 2014/41 Davey, C.R. (1981) The Hampshire Lay Subsidy Rolls, 1586 Hampshire Record Series 4, Hampshire County Council, Winchester Hughes, E. and White, P. (1991) The Hampshire Hearth Tax Assessment 1665 Hampshire Record Series 11, Hampshire County Council, Winchester Mitchell-Fox, P. and page, M. (2014) The Hampshire Tax List of 1327 Hampshire Record Series 20, Hampshire County Council, Winchester Page, W. (1911) A History of the County of Hampshire: 4, pp249-267 accessed at http://www.british-history.ac.uk Date accessed: 18 July 2014. Figure 1 Kingsclere Tithe map 1842 showing the loose courtyard group of farm buildings to the north- east of the farmhouse, probably still consisting of two barns and a stable as existed in 1807 when the leasehold was sold. Note that the farmhouse (circled) is not drawn accurately in that the cross-wing is not shown. It seems that the track to the east of Frobury, giving access from the north, was possibly the main access to the farm although there may have been an informal access from the south. © HRO 21M65/F7/133/2 Figure 2 1st Edition OS map, 1872. Changes appear to have been made to the buildings of the farmyard compared to the Tithe map but the same general form remained. The house is now shown with the cross-wing and a track approaches the site from the south as well as the north.

Figure 3 2nd Edition OS 25” map, 1895. The farmhouse is unaltered from the earlier map but some additional farm buildings have been added included a range on the west side of the farmyard. Figure 4 OS 25” map 1911. The east range of the farmyard had been removed at this date but otherwise there had been little change.

Figure 5 OS 1:2500 map 1976. The house has been extended to the north and south and all but the building forming the north range of the farmyard remains. The present cottage appears to represent a conversion of a 3 bay aisled barn although limited historic fabric is visible internally. Two large modern sheds had been built to the north, moving the farming operation further from the farmhouse. A new house, Fridays, had also been built to the north-east of Frobury. Figure 6 North elevation with mid-20th century extension to right.

Figure 7 North gable of cross-wing Figure 8 West elevation of cross-wing.

Figure 9 South elevation of cross-wing with hall range beyond and mis-20th century extension to the right Figure 10 Ground floor plan (not to scale). Figure 11 Remains of a passing brace survive within the post at the north-east corner of the hall range.

Figure 12 Areas of plaster removed from the south wall of the hall range within Bay 2 in the area of the proposed new doorway. Straight joints in the brickwork indicate that there was an opening in this position which has been blocked. Figure 13 Fireplace in the south ground floor room of the cross-wing showing historic brickwork to the back of the fireplace and rebuilt brickwork to the front.

Figure 14 An unfilled lap joint for a passing brace in the south part of the tie beam of Truss I (adjacent to the cross-wing). This joint suggests that the building originated as an aisled hall. Figure 15 North room of the cross-wing showing part of the dividing wall on the line of the central truss with straight braces but curved a wind brace to the roof. Figure 16 The crown post of Truss I, east face. The lower part of the scissor brace (the upper parts of the passing braces) are also shown (arrowed).

Figure 17 The crown post of Truss II, east face showing the later infill which is blackened on the west face when a smoke-hood was inserted. Below the cambered tie beam of the crown-post roof the canted tie beam of an arched braced base cruck truss can just be seen. Figure 18 The crown-post to Truss III, west face

Figure 19 The north part of the collar of Truss I showing the lap joint for the top end of an earlier phase of passing braces. The diagonal timber to the left of the void lap joint is part of the scissor brace – the upper part of the passing brace for which void housings are visible in the tie beam below and in the former arcade post in the north elevation. Figure 20 East wall of the dining room after removal of areas of plaster showing modern brickwork to the north of the stack in the area where it is proposed to insert a door to the existing WC currently accessed from the entrance hall.

Figure 21 West end of the joists of the ceiling over the hall which are lodged onto timbers applied to the side of the tie beam. APPENDIX I Interim Dendrochronological Report Oxford Dendrochronology Laboratory Report 2014/41

THE TREE-RING DATING OF FROBURY FARMHOUSE, KINGSCLERE, HAMPSHIRE (Interim, pending radiocarbon results)

(SU 512 593)

Summary

Samples were taken from various elements of this building. Two main elements were successfully dated: the smoke-blackened collars and common rafters were found to have been made from trees most likely felled during the period 1263-68, making this an important early roof. An arcade plate, now functioning as a wallplate, contains an edge-halved and bridled scarf, and is from a tree felled in Winter 1334/35, making this the earliest yet dated example of this scarf type. The crown-post part of the roof could not be dated, and one of the braces from this has had a sample submitted for radiocarbon analysis – the results of which will be available in 2015.

Author: Dr M. C. Bridge FSA Oxford Dendrochronology Laboratory Mill Farm Mapledurham Oxfordshire RG4 7TX November 2014

The Tree-Ring Dating of Frobury Farmhouse, Kingsclere, Hampshire (SU 512 593)

BACKGROUND TO DENDROCHRONOLOGY

The basis of dendrochronological dating is that trees of the same species, growing at the same time, in similar habitats, produce similar ring-width patterns. These patterns of varying ring-widths are unique to the period of growth. Each tree naturally has its own pattern superimposed on the basic ‘signal’, resulting from genetic variations in the response to external stimuli, the changing competitive regime between trees, damage, disease, management etc.

In much of Britain the major influence on the growth of a species like oak is, however, the weather conditions experienced from season to season. By taking several contemporaneous samples from a building or other timber structure, it is often possible to cross-match the ring-width patterns, and by averaging the values for the sequences, maximise the common signal between trees. The resulting ‘site chronology’ may then be compared with existing ‘master’ or ‘reference’ chronologies. These include chronologies made by colleagues in other countries, most notably areas such as modern Poland, which have proved to be the source of many boards used in the construction of doors and chests, and for oil paintings before the widespread use of canvas.

This process can be done by a trained dendrochronologist using plots of the ring-widths and comparing them visually, which also serves as a check on measuring procedures. It is essentially a statistical process, and therefore requires sufficiently long sequences for one to be confident in the results. There is no defined minimum length of a tree-ring series that can be confidently cross-matched, but as a working hypothesis most dendrochronologists use series longer than at least fifty years.

The dendrochronologist also uses objective statistical comparison techniques, these having the same constraints. The statistical comparison is based on programs by Baillie & Pilcher (1973, 1984) and uses the Student’s t-test. The t-test compares the actual difference between two means in relation to the variation in the data, and is an established statistical technique for looking at the significance of matching between two datasets that has been adopted by dendrochronologists. The values of ‘t’ which give an acceptable match have been the subject of some debate; originally values above 3.5 being regarded as acceptable (given at least 100 years of overlapping rings) but now 4.0 is often taken as the base value in oak studies. Higher values are usually found with matching pine sequences. It is possible for a random set of numbers to give an apparently acceptable statistical match against a single reference curve – although the visual analysis of plots of the two series usually shows the trained eye the reality of this match. When a series of ring-widths gives strong statistical matches in the same position against a number of independent chronologies the series becomes dated with an extremely high level of confidence.

One can develop long reference chronologies by cross-matching the innermost rings of modern timbers with the outermost rings of older timbers successively back in time, adding data from numerous sites. Data now exist covering many thousands of years and it is, in theory, possible to match a sequence of unknown date to this reference material.

It follows from what has been stated above that the chances of matching a single sequence are not as great as for matching a tree-ring series derived from many individuals, since the process of aggregating individual series will remove variation unique to an individual tree, and reinforce the common signal resulting from widespread influences such as the weather. However, a single sequence can be successfully dated, particularly if it has a long ring sequence.

Growth characteristics vary over space and time, trees in south-eastern England generally growing comparatively quickly and with less year-to-year variation than in many other regions (Bridge, 1988). This means that even comparatively large timbers in this region often exhibit few annual rings and are less useful for dating by this technique.

When interpreting the information derived from the dating exercise it is important to take into account such factors as the presence or absence of sapwood on the sample(s), which indicates the outer margins of the tree. Where no sapwood is present it may not be possible to determine how much wood has been removed, and one can therefore only give a date after which the original tree must have been felled. Where the bark is still present on the timber, the year, and even the time of year of felling can be determined. In the case of incomplete sapwood, one can estimate the number of rings likely to have been on the timber by relating it to populations of living and historical timbers to give a statistically valid range of years within which the tree was felled. For this region the estimate used is that 95% of oaks will have a sapwood ring number in the range 9 – 41 (Miles 1997).

Section of tree with conversion methods showing three types of sapwood retention resulting in A terminus post quem, B a felling date range, and C a precise felling date. Enlarged area D shows the outermost rings of the sapwood with growing seasons (Miles 1997, 42)

FROBURY FARMHOUSE

Notes on the roof will later be supplied by John Walker, following his detailed analysis on-site. In the meantime, the following notes have been put together by listening to the discussions between John Walker, Bob Edwards, Bill Fergie and Edward Roberts whilst on site.

The building was originally an aisled hall, of which three bays remain. The aisles have been removed, and the western end of the building has been truncated by the construction of a cross-wing, probably of 16th-century origin, such that there is nothing of the original building left beyond the high-end truss. It may be that the aisles were removed when this cross-wing was constructed. The original centre truss of the Hall was probably similar to the other remaining trusses, but was replaced by a base cruck with an arch-braced tiebeam. The tiebeam remains in place, but the crucks have been replaced with jowelled posts. A higher tiebeam now supports an inserted crown-post roof. The trusses at the high and low ends of the Hall have been altered, but would originally have had passing braces from near the base of the aisle walls, passing the posts and tie, and crossing near their tops to the principal rafters. There is a collar retaining empty notch-lapped sockets on both these trusses (A & D in the subsequent drawings).

SAMPLING

Samples were taken in October 2014, the locations of the samples being described in Table 1. They were labelled (prefix ffk) mounted on supporting laths, and polished with progressively finer grits down to 400 to allow the measurement of ring-widths to the nearest 0.01 mm. The samples were measured under a binocular microscope on a purpose-built moving stage with a linear transducer, attached to a desktop computer. Measurements and subsequent analysis were carried out using DENDRO for WINDOWS, written by Ian Tyers (Tyers 2004).

Figure 1: First draft drawings by John Walker, showing the timbers subsequently dated by dendrochronology RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Details of the samples are given in Table 1. The samples were taken from several potential phases, including a single timber from the west cross-wing, that failed to date. As sampling was carried out whilst the study and interpretation of the building was underway, some areas were under-represented, for example, the arcade plate on the south side of the building was initially considered to be likely to be of the same date as the main roof, but it subsequently turned out to be later, possibly of the same phase as the inserted crown-post roof.

The collars in the smoke-blackened roof are both tenoned and lapped to the rafters at different places along the length of the roof, but one tenoned and one lapped collar matched each other, and along with two rafters (Table 2) enabled a site master of just 52 years (FROBURY1) to be made. Despite this sequence rather short, it dated very well (Table 3a), and as illustrated in Fig 1, all four of the dated timbers had similar heartwood-sapwood boundary dates. One timber had complete sapwood, but this became detached from the main core during sampling, and since one cannot be sure if rings were lost here, a felling date range of 5 years is given to take account of the few rings that may be missing. The collars show evidence of having been trestle-sawn. The first sample (ffk01) from what was an arcade plate, but now functions as a wall-plate, was, at the time of sampling thought to be contemporaneous with the main roof. It exhibits an edge-halved and bridled scarf joint, which previously has not had any records earlier than 1370. This sample retained complete sapwood, and was dated to winter 1334/35 (Table 3b), thus establishing an earlier date for this feature. Some collars were lapped over the rafters, others were tenoned into them, and one of each were dated and shown to be contemporaneous.

It would seem that the crown-post element of the roof is a later insertion (possibly relating to the 1334/35 date for the arcade plate). The character of the wood is quite different in the crown-post posts and their associated braces, being much more fast-grown. A couple of the braces were sampled, the one with more rings being sent for radiocarbon analysis, the results of which will not be available for some months yet.

Background notes from Edward Roberts

William de Wyntershull acquired the manor of Frobury in Kingsclere in 1249 through marriage to an heiress. Although he subsequently acquired other properties, Frobury was probably his principal seat in Hampshire and he is very likely to have been the builder of the house there dated to 1263-8. The hall there is certainly of a size suggestive of manorial status. In 1269 he was granted a licence to create a deer park at Frobury and in some documents he is referred to as Sir William de Wyntershull, knight. He died in 1287 having established a family at Frobury that remained in possession for over 100 years. It is possible that his descendant Thomas de Wyntershull, who died in 1340, was responsible for a second phase of building at Frobury in 1334/35.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was commissioned by The Hampshire Buildings Survey Group with a contribution from the owners, and The Hampshire Field Club. The importance of the roof was first recognised by Bob Edwards. My particular thanks to Edward Roberts who arranged for the work to be carried out, John Walker who visited twice to assist in the interpretation of the property and who provided the notes used here, Bill Fergie and Bob Edwards who also gave their time during my visits. I also thank my fellow dendrochronologists for permission to use their data. The owners, Mr and Mrs Van den Bergh are thanked for their hospitality and support.

REFERENCES

Baillie, M.G.L. and Pilcher, J.R. (1973) A simple cross-dating program for tree-ring research. Tree Ring Bulletin, 33, 7-14.

Bridge, M. C. (1988) The dendrochronological dating of buildings in southern England, Medieval Archaeology, 32, 166- 174.

Bridge, M. C., Roberts, E. and Miles, D. (2014) Tree Ring Dating Lists, Vernacular Architecture, 45, 120-121 (in press).

English Heritage (1998) Guidelines on producing and interpreting dendrochronological dates, English Heritage, London.

Groves, C. and Hillam, J. (1994) Tree-ring analysis of the medieval hall roof of Marwell Hall, Hampshire, 1993, Anc Mon Lab Rep, 08/94.

Haddon-Reece, D., Miles, D. H., Munby, J. T., and the late Fletcher, J. M. (1993) Oxfordshire Mean Curve - a compilation of master chronologies from Oxfordshire, unpublished computer file OXON93, Oxford Dendrochronology Laboratory.

Miles, D. (1997) The interpretation, presentation, and use of tree-ring dates, Vernacular Architecture, 28, 40-56.

Miles, D. (2003) Dating Buildings and Dendrochronology in Hampshire, in Hampshire Houses 1250 - 1700: Their Dating and Development (ed E Roberts), 220-226, Southampton (Hampshire County Council).

Miles, D. H. and Haddon-Reece, D. (1995) List 64 - Tree-ring dates, Vernacular Architecture, 26, 60-74.

Miles, D W H, and Haddon-Reece, D (2003) The Tree-Ring Dating of the Round Tower, Windsor Castle, Berkshire, Centre for Archaeology Report, 53/2003.

Miles, D. H. and Worthington, M. J. (1998) Tree-ring dates, Vernacular Architecture, 29, 111-129.

Miles, D. H. and Worthington, M. J. (2001) Tree-ring dates, Vernacular Architecture, 32, 74-86.

Miles, D. H. and Worthington, M. J. (2002) Tree-ring dates, Vernacular Architecture, 33, 81-102.

Miles, D. H., Worthington, M. J. and Bridge, M. C. (2003) Tree-ring dates, Vernacular Architecture, 34, 109-113.

Miles, D. H., Worthington, M. J. and Bridge, M. C. (2005) Tree-ring dates, Vernacular Architecture, 36, 87-101.

Miles, D. H., Worthington, M. J. and Bridge, M. C. (2009) Tree-ring dates, Vernacular Architecture, 40, 122-128.

Miles, D. H., Bridge, M. C., and Clark, D. (2014) Tree Ring Dating Lists, Vernacular Architecture, 45, 121-125.

Tyers, I. (2004) Dendro for Windows Program Guide 3rd edn, ARCUS Report, 500b.

Wilson, R., Miles, D., Loader, N. J., Melvin, T., Cunningham, L., Cooper, R. and Briffa, K. (2012) A millennial long March- July precipitation reconstruction for southern-central England, Climate Dynamics, 40, 997-1017.

Worthington, M. J. and Miles, D. W. H. (2003) The Tree-Ring Dating of the Chapter House Roof, Christ Church, Oxford, Centre for Archaeology Report, 3/2003.

Table 1: Details of samples taken from Frobury Farmhouse, Kingsclere (trusses follow description by John Walker).

Sample Timber and position Date of series H/S Sapwood No of Mean Std Mean Felling date range number boundary complement rings width devn sens date mm mm

ffk01 Arcade plate on south side, west of truss C 1274-1334 1317 17C 61 2.05 1.21 0.21 Winter 1334/35 ffk02 Brace from north post, truss A - - - 30 NM - - - ffk03 Collar purlin at west end - - - c35 NM - - - * ffk04 Collar, 2nd east from truss D 1201-1250 1250 H/S (+13CNM) 50 2.36 0.61 0.17 1263–68 * ffk05 Collar, 8th east from truss D 1207-1251 1251 H/S 45 2.41 1.01 0.28 1260–92 ffk06 Upper tie, truss C - - H/S 19 NM - - - * ffk07 North common rafter, 2nd west of truss B 1200-1247 1247 H/S 48 2.63 0.60 0.20 1256–88 * ffk08 North common rafter, 1st west of truss B 1212-1250 1250 H/S 39 2.38 0.61 0.19 1259–91 ffk09 North curved down brace to crown post C - - H/S Outer rings sent for radiocarbon analysis ffk10 South jowelled post, truss C - - H/S 90 2.08 0.89 0.18 - ffk11 South tie to west cross-wing - - 19½C 61 2.55 0.74 0.19 - ffk12 North curved down brace to crown post B - - H/S c15 NM - - - ffk13 North passing brace, truss D - - 8 49 1.96 0.90 0.23 - ffk14 Collar truss D (with notch-lap sockets) - - - <20 NM - - - ffk15 Tie, truss B – outer rings only - - H/S <15 NM - - - * = included in site master FROBURY1 1200-1251 52 2.49 0.63 0.18 1263–68 Key: H/S bdry = heartwood/sapwood boundary - last heartwood ring date; std devn = standard deviation; mean sens = mean sensitivity; NM = not measured.

Table 2: Cross-matching between the individual dated series (t = 3.5 and above considered significant) t-values Sample ffk05 ffk07 ffk08 ffk04 4.3 5.3 3.6 ffk05 3.5 3.2 ffk07 5.2

Span of ring sequences

ffk07 1256-88 ffk08 1259-91 ffk05 1260-92 ffk04 1263-68

ffk01 Winter 1334/35

AD1200 AD1250 AD1300

Figure 1: Bar diagram showing the relative positions of overlap of the dated series, along with their interpreted likely felling date ranges. Yellow hatched portions of the bars represent sapwood rings, and narrow sections of bar represent additional unmeasured rings.

Table 3a: Dating evidence for the site sequence FROBURY1 AD 1200–1251 against dated reference chronologies

County or region: Chronology name: Reference File name: Spanning Overlap: t-value: (yrs) Regional Chronologies Oxfordshire Oxfordshire Master Chronology (Haddon-Reece et al 1993) OXON93 632–1987 52 6.7 Hampshire Hampshire Master Chronology (Miles 2003) HANTS02 443–1972 52 6.1 Site Chronologies Oxfordshire Manor Farm, Stanton St John (Miles and Worthington 1998) STNSTJN1 1131–1304 52 7.7 Somerset Wells Cathedral, Chapel (Miles et al 2003) WLSC0203 1169–1325 52 7.3 Hampshire Winchester Cathedral (Miles and Worthington 1998) WINCATH1 1161–1249 50 6.9 Oxfordshire Great Coxwell Barn (Miles et al 2014) GTCX 1108–1291 52 6.8 Hampshire Rockborne Manor Barn (Miles and Haddon-Reece 1995) ROCKBORN 1094–1263 52 6.5 Hampshire Pilgrims Hall, Winchester (Miles and Worthington 2001) PILGRIMS 1148–1310 52 6.4 Hampshire Marwell Hall (Groves and Hillam 1994) MARWELL 1138–1281 52 6.3 Oxfordshire Christ Church Chapter House, Oxford (Worthington and Miles 2003) CHCHCH 1142–1260 52 6.3

Table 3b: Dating evidence for the site sequence ffk01 AD 1274–1334 against dated reference chronologies

County or region: Chronology name: Reference File name: Spanning Overlap: t-value: (yrs) Regional Chronologies Hampshire Hampshire Master Chronology (Miles 2003) HANTS02 443–1972 61 7.0 England Central Southern England (Wilson et al 2012) SCENG 663–2009 61 6.3 Site Chronologies Gloucestershire The Cottage, Stanley Pontlarge (Miles and Worthington 2001) STNLYPLG 1231–1387 61 7.4 Somerset North Cadbury Court (Miles and Worthington 1998) NCADBRY3 1243–1343 61 6.3 Cambridgeshire Summers Farm, Long Sutton (Miles and Worthington 2002) SMMRSFRM 1270–1440 61 6.2 Devon Tiverton Castle (Haddon-Reece unpubl) TIVERTON 1234–1356 61 6.2 Berkshire Round Tower, Windsor Castle (Miles and Haddon-Reece 2003) WINDSOR 1231–1354 61 6.0 Wiltshire West Court Farm, Shalbourne (Miles et al 2005) WSTCRTFM 1177–1319 46 6.0 Hampshire Wool House, Southampton (Bridge et al 2014) WOOLHOUS 1240–1395 61 5.7 Sussex Warhams, Rudgwick (Miles et al 2009) WARHAM2 1257–1335 61 5.6