Abbreviated version of report reference ASI 3350-3.
Executive Summary, Acknowledgement, Contents page and all photographs omitted
MANOR HOUSE
Hill Deverill, Wiltshire
Archaeological and Historical Assessment
January 2006
Michael Heaton BTech PgDip(Build Cons) MIFA IHBC
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Project
1.1.1 This document presents an Assessment of the historical significance and archaeological potential of elements of the House and Barn at Manor House, Hill Deverill in the civil parish of Longbridge Deverill near Warminster in Wiltshire. The assessment has been commissioned by the owner to assist in the design of proposed alterations and additions to the buildings and to assist officers of the local planning authority and English Heritage in the determination of planning permission and listed building consent for those works. Specifically, the Client's brief was two-fold: to identify where new openings might be formed in the barn with minimum impact on its archaeological and historical significance, and; identify the historical cause of pronounced racking of the barn roof structure, so that modification of the west end could be effected without worsening the defect.
1.1.2 The assessment has been prepared by Michael Heaton BTech PgDip MIFA IHBC t/a ASI Heritage Consultants in accordance with the published guidances of English Heritage (Clark, 2001) the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (ALGAO, 1997) and the Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA 2000). The IFA and the ALGAO define Assessment, thus:
"An assessment of the known or potential archaeological resource within a specified area or site..., consisting of a collation of existing written and graphic information in order to identify the likely character, extent, quality and worth of the known potential archaeological resource in a local, regional or national context as appropriate" (IFA 2000).
"..a thorough review of all existing information which also aims to identify any gaps. It can include: reviewing all readily available written information and illustrations of the building (or its type) broadly characterising its identity and development; demonstrating a detailed understanding of the historical significance of the part(s) affected; indicating the appropriateness of the proposals in the light of this information; indicating the need for any further documentary, architectural or archaeological work....." (ALGAO, 1997)
1.1.3 Whilst the following pages present brief descriptions of the site and a chronological analysis, the assessment does not purport to be a detailed descriptive record, condition survey or narrative history of the site. Rather, it is presented as a reasoned assessment - based on publicly available historical data and a visual survey - of the archaeological potential and historical significance of the extant material structure and fabric of the buildings with respect to the received social and economic history of the area, relative to criteria adopted by lead heritage bodies such as English Heritage, the amenity societies and the LPA. The assessment does not address the aesthetic issues arising from modifications to, or demolition of, historic buildings or their settings and is not predicated on any particular or specific redevelopment proposals.
1.1.4 The terms ‘archaeology’ and ‘archaeological’ refer, in this report, to the material evidence of past cultural activity and its environmental consequences, irrespective of whether that evidence is contained within subsoils or built-structures. For the purposes of this report, therefore, evidence of modification of a building, for instance, is considered to be archaeological evidence.
1.2 Method
1.2.1 Data collection
a. The following sources were consulted for published and archive information pertinent to the building history of the site:
The owners, Wiltshire and Swindon Records Office, Wiltshire Buildings Record, Hampshire Records Office, Wiltshire Central Reference Library
Wiltshire sites and monuments record, National Monuments Record Centre, British Library
b. Regression analysis of the cartographic sources had been undertaken prior to site inspection, using AutoCADLt98 and CorelDRAW12
Ò . There are two surveys of 1752 and 1813 covering the site, but no Tithes survey, as well as the First and Second edition Ordnance Survey 25" surveys. All five have been used here to reflect the principal changes in land use and building development between 1752 and 2005.c. The site was visually surveyed on the 6th of January 2006. All areas of the affected buildings were accessible, except the roof spaces of the house. No opening-up was undertaken. Visible details of fabric, construction, layout and fixtures and fittings, together with evidence of variations therein, were recorded as annotations on measured surveys provided by the architect. The measured surveys are accepted as accurate for the architectural purposes for which they were prepared. Selected details were, additionally, photographed using a digital camera. Detailed recording per se has not been undertaken.
1.2.2 Report preparation
a. Sources consulted are listed in the bibliography, summarised in Section 1.3 and are referred to in the Conclusions. Historic maps are presented in two formats: as a map regression on Figure 2 and as inserts illustrating the descriptive texts in Section 3.1. Documentary sources are summarised in Section 3.2. The plan form layout annotated with principal fabrics and archaeological observations are illustrated on Figures 3 and 4, with drawing conventions following the English Heritage Specification for Metric Survey. Significant historical and archaeological details are described in a deliberately abbreviated syntax in Section 3.3, indexed by numeric references indicated on Figures 3-4. A selection of current photographs is presented on Figures 5 and 6
b. The measured surveys have been scaled off the 1:50 drawings provided by the architect and structural engineers and reproduced via AutoCADLt98 and CorelDRAW12. Disclosures manifest at the southwest corner of Bedroom 5 and in the south wall of the barn have been accommodated by adjusting the received survey data: The east wall of the house and the floor beams that extend its alignment northwards have been rotated slightly anti-clockwise and the south wall of the barn re-drawn with the meandering and slightly splayed alignment it actually follows. This resolves the disclosure at Bedroom 5 but creates a slightly rhombic ground plan for the house. The significance of this is discussed at the end of the report.
c. The chronological reconstruction presented in Section 4 is expressed in the indicative mood to avoid repetition of qualifying terms. It is nonetheless explicit that the chronological analysis is based on a superficial examination of the buildings’ fabric and layout and is, therefore, tentative and provisional.
d. Assessment of significance follows the guidances English Heritage (Clarke, 2001; Suddard and Hargreaves, 1996 p298) and is predicated on the assumption that the layout and fabric of an historic building can contain interpretable archaeological data, the potential and historical significance of which is dependent on the quantity, quality and completeness of that data within the building; the relative scarcity of any one data type within the locality and its relationship to established historical themes. Significance is assessed with reference to the architectural, social and economic history of this part of the south west of England and is defined using the terminology and classifications established by James Semple Kerr (1996): i.e. Exceptional, Considerable, Some, None, Negative.
1.2.3
Archivea. The work has created no new primary data. Accordingly there is no archive. The author’s site notes will be retained temporarily, but will not be deposited publicly.
1.3 Caveats
1.3.1 This report has been prepared with reasonable skill and care, following the guidances of the professional bodies cited above and based on information publicly available at the time of writing. Archaeological or historical discoveries made in the area after the date of writing, or changes in research strategies affecting the perceived significance of such discoveries, may affect the currency of the report.
1.3.2 No person other than the Client named in paragraph 1.1.1 to whom this report is addressed shall rely on it in any respect and no duty of care will be owed by the author to any such third party.
1.3.3 The executive summary contains an overview of the key findings and conclusions. However, no reliance should be placed on any part of the executive summary until the whole of the report has been read: other sections of the report may contain information that affects interpretation of the executive summary.
2
THE SITE2.1 Site and situation
2.1.1 The civil parish of Longbridge Deverill straddles the valley of the upper River Wylye approximately 3km south of Warminster in West Wiltshire, at the western edge of the chalk massif of Cranborne Chase. Hill Deverill is a hamlet on the southern edge of the village of Longbridge Deverill, ranged along the B3095. Manor House is situated at the southern edge of the hamlet, approximately 380m east of the B3095 and 120m east of the edge of the Wylye floodplain. It comprises a substantial country house and an attached barn with, to the north, the gardens of the manor house and, to the south, a range of converted farm buildings, centred on NGR: 386964 140168. The ‘site’ comprises the Barn and the structurally adjoining parts of the House that would be affected by a proposed extension of the domestic space into the west end of the barn and the forming of openings in the east end of the north wall of the barn.
2.1.2 The site is situated within the valley of the River Wylye, just above the 120m contour that, here, marks the edge of the floodplain. The eastern side of the valley also marks the westernmost edge of the Lower Chalk, from where the underlying Greensand and Jurassic clays extends westwards. Within the valley, all three ‘rock’ types are sealed by localised alluvial and periglacial deposits of redeposited ‘combe’ rock chalk. The chalk and greensand are used locally as building rubble, the clays have supported a local brick making and pottery industry at Crockerton, but the nearest ‘freestone’ sources are the Oolitic limestones of Bradford on Avon/Bath and the siliceous limestones at Chilmark, both c. 15 miles away.
2.1.3 Manor House is one of five similarly named residences in the upper Wylye Valley and one of two in the parish of Longbridge Deverill. The others, spread between Longbridge Deverill and Kingston Deverill, are either of late 18th century foundation or, in the cases of Brixton and Kingston Deverill, of 17th century constriction on medieval foundations. The latter are distinguished by the multi-gabled elevations typical of vernacular building of that time. Manor House is distinguished by its Queen Anne style architecture, by the close juxtaposition of the house and barn and by the raked roof and upper wall structure of the barn, which are supported now by massive ‘giant order’ raking props formed of entire softwood bolls set into the concrete floor of the barn.
2.2 Archaeological and historical background
2.2.1 The chalk downland of Cranborne Chase is an area of
outstanding archaeological
survival, in which the overlapping remains of prehistoric, Roman and medieval
activity survive in densities unparalleled in the rest of Britain. All the
settlements that line the Wylye Valley are of at least Saxon origin, whilst
recent work (c.f. English Heritage, 1990, 1996; ASI passim) indicates
that many of these are of Roman and possibly prehistoric origin. All the
villages are surrounded by complex and well-defined networks of earthworks that
mark the extents of the earlier, Saxon and medieval, settlements, whilst
prehistoric and Romano-British material has been recovered from most of the
villages and most of the surrounding fields during metal-detector investigations
and archaeological surveys.
2.2.2 The civil parishes of the upper Wylye Valley – the ‘Deverills’ – are all based on pre-Conquest - i.e. pre AD1086 - Saxon manors and most have been occupied continuously since the 9th century at least. Hill Deverill is alone in not having been recorded at Domesday, and appears to have been founded as a 12th century ‘tithing’ of Longbridge Deverill. It is referred to in a small number of medieval charters and deeds, but does not assume a substantive historical profile until the 15th century, when Manor House – as it is now called - became sequentially part of the extensive Wiltshire and Hampshire estate of William of Ludlow and latterly the Coker family of Dorset. From the 18th century onwards it passed through the estates of the Dukes of Marlborough and Somerset and back into private ownership in the early 20th century.
2.2.3 The present buildings of Manor House are ascribed late 15th to early 18th century dates by most authors. They have been the subject of some antiquarian research, largely by virtue of their association with the Ludlow and Coker families, and because of the peculiar strutting of the barn’s roof that has been in place since 1896 at least. Drawings of some of the architectural details by the noted architect and archaeologist Harold Brakspear were published by the Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine in 1896 to accompany an article by the Diocesan Architect Charles Ponting, and the house has been covered by the 19th and early 20th century topographies of Elyard (1894), Powell (1896) and Hutton (1917).
2.3 Status
2.3.1 The house and barn of Hill Deverill manor are ‘Listed’ under the Planning (Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings) Act 1990, respectively Grade II* and Grade II. The List descriptions, which are presented as Appendix 1 at the end of this report, ascribe a late 16th century origin to the house and a date of "c. 1600" to construction of the barn. The barn is described, inter alia, as " a fine example of a large barn associated with an important manor, formerly a moated site".
2.3.2 The Act confers equal protection to all parts of the building and all structures within and forming its curtilage since 1947 (Suddard and Hargreaves, 1996), and requires the local planning authority, in determining applications for planning permission etc., to have regard to the aesthetic impact of new developments on listed buildings.
3.1 Documentary data
3.1.1 Hill Deverill is not itemised in the Domesday Survey of AD1086 and is, therefore, likely to have originated as a post-Conquest ‘tithing’ of the manor of one of the adjoining manors – Longbridge or Brixton Deverill – which are mentioned. It is mentioned, first, in 1154 when Elias Giffard granted the incomes of the church at Hill Deverill to the collegiate church at Heytesbury. He had established a number of parochial churches at that time, and it is likely that Hill Deverill church was broadly contemporaneous, suggesting there was a population of souls to curate (Powell, 1896). The establishment of a chantry at the church, with agricultural endowments, in 1324 (Daniell, 1864), also indicates the presence of a settled and productive population at that time.
3.1.2 Thereafter, the later medieval and early Post-medieval development of the manor is ambiguous. It is possible that the Ludlow family made their home here in the mid 15th century, but this is by no means certain. The late 15th century will (Powell, 1896) of William Ludlow describes the manor as containing "two tofts, two and a half carucates (c. 120 acres / carucate) of land, six acres of meadow, 15 acres of wood and 3 shillings rent in Hill Deverill." It is perhaps significant that the capital house is not mentioned in that will. Powell (ibid) considered it likely that building of the manor house complex was commenced by John Ludlow (d. 1519) in c. 1486, on the basis of a coat of arms that adorned the porch of a building demolished after 1924 (Brakspear, 1896. Indicated by arrow on Figure 2.D) and Hutton (1917) concurs in ascribing a 15th century date to the barn. However, cartographic evidence (below Section 3.2) suggests that the building recorded by Brakspear might have been an early 19th century construction utilising reclaimed details.
3.1.3 The manor was still held by the Ludlow Family as late as 1580 (HRO: 44/M69/D12/3/31) but by 1645 had passed by marriage to the Coker family of Dorset, to whom building of the house is ascribed, on the basis of the ‘Queen Anne’ appearance of the main elevations (Hutton, 1917). It passed to the Duke of Marlborough in 1738 and thence to the Duke of Somerset in 1796. Powell (op cit) opines: "The manor house presents some features of interest, but it must have been greatly altered in the 18th century, when it became a farm house, and perhaps was most altered when a fresh tenant came in 1808 (present author’s emphasis). Certainly the grounds were altered, for there were fish ponds, and many buildings were pulled down. There are traces of a banqueting hall at the back of the house, with a dais.. (and)..the entrance to the manor house may have been on the north west side of the barn." He continues.."..there still remain five loopholes in a wall commanding the only approach….worked stones in the bridge parapet…medieval tiles found c. 1893….ancient buildings in the farmyard were of chequerboard work."
3.1.4 Ponting (1896) describes the house and barn thus: "The
Manor House was the seat of the Ludlows, and
was apparently built by them at
about the middle of the Elizabethan period and remodelled in the south front and
west end at about 1700 (after the manor had passed into the hands of the Cokers),
to which period…I assign the oval window over the porch and the four-light
mullioned windows with elliptical heads. The date 1781 on the gate piers refers
doubtless to their erection… Adjoining the house on the east is a barn of 15
bays in length, of early sixteenth century date: the superstructure had fallen
over westwards before erection of the house, which was, perhaps, built to
support it…In the farmyard south of the house are some interesting remains of
buildings of the end of the fifteenth century, and it seems not improbable that
this was the original site of the manor house. The parts existing seem to have
been the gateway or porter’s lodge, for the thickness of the walls (about 2ft)
would exclude their being considered part of the main building. What looks like
the porch, with a doorway about 5ft. 9in. wide, having the typical four-centred
arch under a square head, with coeval niche over it (now occupied by a shield),
remains; also much of the wall sand roof of the building against which it was
erected, and one window; but the plan is by no means easy to be traced, owing to
the alterations which have been made in incorporating it with the modern farm
buildings.".
3.1.5 Plans submitted to West Wiltshire District Council (WBR: B3489) indicate the nature and extent of refurbishment and alterations, of what had been a badly neglected building, carried out by the present owners in 1994 with the approval of West Wiltshire District Council and English Heritage. In addition to general refurbishment of the decorative finishes, floor coverings and services, the works blocked up a first floor door opening from the house into the barn (1) and replaced it with the present ground floor door (2) in the southwest corner of the barn; re-arranged the partition walls to create larger rooms and a central inner hall; removed one possible structural support (3) beneath a main floor beam spanning what is now the east end of the kitchen, and installed a structural support (4) at the south end of the that beam in what is now the Inner Hall. They also removed a hollow composite masonry and timber structure from the west end (E1) of what is now the inner hall, that had formerly separated Cells A and B from the rest of the house (this feature is not indicated on the figures accompanying this report because the survey plan of 1994 is ambiguous and incomplete in this regard). Comparison with current survey drawings suggests all the internal partition walls are of 1994 construction. In 1996, the owners commissioned a structural survey of the barn, to assess the feasibility and desirability of correcting the raked roof structure. The survey drawing (Trigram Partnership, Ref. 1625) presents a schematic layout of all the structural members, including the ‘giant order’ props. The structural restorations of the timber frames were not undertaken, but the timber props were replaced and the masonry walls were strengthened with additional buttresses along the north wall, founded on mass concrete piers.
3.2 Cartographic data Figure 2
3.2.2 Higgins’ 1813 survey of the parish, five years after
the ‘fresh tenant’ of 1808 had made the many alterations referred to by Ponting
(1896), suggests that perhaps four of the southern farm buildings had been
demolished or at least substantially altered since 1752, as well as the outbuildings north of the house. The house and barn are
shown separated by the structural break implied by the 1752 survey and the
westernmost two bays of the barn (i.e. west of the westernmost porch) appear to
have been partitioned-off along a line (5) indicated on Figures 3 and 4.
Since 1752 the two porches on the south side had been joined together by pentice
lean-to’s (6), and a separate structure of c. eight metres square plan
had been appended to the north side of the barn at its mid point and through
which, one of the surface water drainage channel ran.
3.2.3 By 1887, when the Ordnance Survey made the first
geodetically accurate survey of the parish, the building layout had changed
significantly and, for the first time, the si
te is referred to as Manor Farm.
Most of the farm buildings present at 1813 had been demolished and replaced by
the elongated structures that now define the courtyard group south of the barn.
Only the north west and south east corners of this groups can possibly comprise
earlier structural fabric, but it is highly likely that much stone and
decorative detail was re-used. Significantly, the only building matching the
plan recorded by Brakspear, appears for the first time on the 1887 survey. The
house had been joined by two adjoining ‘L-shaped’ outhouses at its north west
corner; and the barn had been joined at its east end by a small building c. 4m
wide with a small enclosure in front of it, and by a small ‘L’-shaped structure
on its north side. The latter may have been the structure recorded in 1813, but
it is substantially smaller. The structural partition (5) between the
house and barn lay between what are now bays two and three and spanned the full
width of the barn at that point. The pentice lean-tos against the south side had
been extended westwards (7) to create the present outline.
3.2.4 That basic structural layout – of the house extending into the barn as far as the third truss – appears to have remained essentially unchanged until 1924 at least. Between 1887 and 1901 a porch was added to the main southern elevation, which was still present in 1924 but removed prior to the photograph taken in 1945 for the sale particulars of that date. Comparison with current Ordnance Survey data suggests the c. 1887 structures at the east end of the barn were demolished between 1924 and 2005, probably during the works initiated in 1994
3.3 Building analysis
3.3.1 Structural Layout.
a. The barn comprises a single elongated block nominally 50m
x 7m and open to the ridge, formed by three structural walls (S, N and E) and a
full-height partition at the west end (8), with three por
ch structures of
c. 4m x 3m each, defined by pairs of masonry walls abutting the south wall, with pentice lean-tos (6) between them. The westernmost two bays of the barn
are separated from the rest of the interior by a stud and weatherboard partition
(9). The south wall is not straight - the length between porches 1 and 2
being broken forward by 0.5m, c. 4m from eastern reveal of porch 1 – and may
splay generally outwards towards the west.
b. The house, in plan, is a slightly rhombic rectangular block 14.8m x 17m with a four metre long extension eastwards into the barn from its north east quadrant and pentice outhouses extending from the house along the south side of the barn. The main block is divided internally by structural walls and chimney stacks into four unequal rectangular cells (A-D) with passages (E) and stairwells (F) formed by partition walls. The internal structural walls do not join at the centre of the house but, rather, have been cut away to create a square inner lobby (E1) nominally 4m square. Two suspended floors and a mezzanine landing divide it vertically into two and a half floors over Cells A and D and two floors over Cells B and C. The structural walls rise through the first floor, giving approximately the same disposition of spaces Cell ‘C’ is the largest on both floors and the only one without an enclosing structural wall. The principal entrance (10) is in the south wall, slightly off-centred to the west, and there are subsidiary entrances in the west (11), north (12) and east (2) walls. Circulation is effected via the Inner Hall/landing (E) and staircase (F) that run at right angles to the main entrance axis and are not intervisible with it.
3.3.2 Wall fabrics.
a. The barn is of composite masonry and timber construction, with a minimum of seven masonry fabrics supporting a weatherboarded upper frame. The central porch, alone, has masonry walls to the eaves. Buttresses abut the external faces of the entire north wall and the easternmost quarter of the south wall. The long north and south walls, both c. 0.5m thick, rise to c. 1.9m and are of random greensand rubble in a weak sand/lime mortar with large adzed Bath stone blocks flush with the wall face below the roof trusses and inserted (i.e. later) brickwork details. There is a considerable variety of stone types within the fabric - including non-local greensand, Bath type Oolites and Pennant sandstones – and a similar variety in the condition and dressing of the stone. The north wall west of porch no. 3 is battered internally with a wallhead (13) set back c. 0.20m. The remainder of the walls are true, but have been extensively covered with cementitious render which may be covering a multitude of variations. The porch walls, varying from 0.35m to 0.6m thick, are formed of regularly coursed, quarry-faced squared rubble blocks with integral brickwork details, in a sand/lime mortar, and are separated from the barn wall by vertical joints. The west wall of porch no. 1, which is also the thinnest, appears slightly different in the mix of stone, some of which is freshly finished using relatively modern tools. The central porch – No. 2 – is alone in having full height walls, which also incorporate a door opening detailed in hand-made stock bricks as an original feature. Elsewhere, these bricks appear to have been inserted into existing fabric. The south walls of the pentice lean-tos are in a variety of brickwork fabrics, with at least three sizes of handmade stock brick and machine-made wire cut bricks present. The south and north masonry walls support a scarfed wallplate, from which rise the half-height wall posts (see Roofs) and studs of the weatherboarded upper elevations. The weatherboarding is predominantly 20th century, but large panels of pit-sawn elm with waney edge attached survive along the south side of the barn, protected by the later cladding of the lean-tos. The western ‘gable’ (8) is a timber cross frame, in oak and elm filled with handmade stock brickwork noggin to the tie beam (Figure ‘Frame’) and lath and plaster above. The frame comprises a central, full height, wall post of softwood roundwood with two rails abutting it on each side at c. 2.5m above floor level. Below the rail are two storey posts/studs with subsidiary rails tenoned into them, and above the rail three slender studs rise to the tie beam with, in the northern half, a subsidiary rail. The main rail does not engage with the central wall post or the two outside storey posts, where it is supported by piers of brickwork. Much of the timber is re-used, the main rail has been cut in antiquity to create a first floor door opening (1) and the subsidiary rails and struts have been cut/repaired in antiquity. As well as displaying numerous and extensive pieced repairs, the brickwork also differs above and below the rail. While the majority, except blocked door (1) and the surrounds of inserted door opening (2), are of ‘thin’ 210x90x50mm handmade stocks, there at least three different bonds: stretcher bond with aligned perpends (14) and un-aligned perpends (15) and herringbone work (16). The latter is random, in that the herringbone work is in single, double and treble courses and the proportion of herringbone work in each panel varies. The east gable is of fletton brickwork with internal buttresses.
b. Variations in the house wall fabric are evident in the north and south external elevations. The south elevation (Figure 3) displays three fabrics: random greensand rubble (17), coursed squared blocks of Chilmark stone (18) and ashlar blocks of Chilmark stone (19), all c. 0.75m thick. These are arranged either side of an irregular vertical joint on the east side of the main door opening and above/below a stepped joint that runs along the top of the easternmost bedroom window and below the western window. The north elevation (Figure 4) is primarily of well-coursed, quarry-faced greensand rubble (20) generally 0.90m thick, with a pier of ashlar Chilmark wrapped around the north west corner similar to (18). There are also two, possibly three, window bases blocked with a common hand-made stock brickwork (21), a gable repair also in handmade stock brickwork (22), and at least two large expanses of much coarser rubble facing (23 and 24) associated with window and door openings. The majority fabric (20) is subdivided by two structural joints: a vertical and quoined joint (25) rising from behind the westernmost buttress, part of which has been utilised in a window opening, and a less distinct horizontal boundary (26) extending the wallhead of the barn westwards towards the house.
3.3.3
Openings.a. The barn walls are pierced by three full-height cart-width door openings in the south side and one slightly narrower (2.5m) cart door at the west end of the north wall that does not extend above the wall plate. These are detailed variously: Both jambs of porches 1 and 3 have a c. 0.2m long rebate formed in the inner wall faces, one of which (27) retains an iron wall clamp for a timber upright. The internal reveals of Porch no. 2, all the door openings within the porch side walls and all openings in the north wall (see below: Archaeological Details) are finished internally with handmade brick quoins. Those in the porch wall themselves appear to be original to the porch wall fabric; the others appear to have been inserted into pre-existing fabric.
b. The window and door opening detail in the house is equally varied. The majority of window openings are splayed, but at two angles: those serving cells A and B being noticeably shallower than the broad splays evident in the windows of Cell D and, possibly, Cell C. The window openings in the south elevation contain elliptically headed, four-light mullioned stone casements in (mainly) Ham stone, those in the north elevation contain square-headed Ham stone mullioned casements with, in the case of the large ‘Dais’ windows serving the kitchen, transoms. The smaller openings serving the scullery end of Cell C, the bathroom over Cell B and the 2nd floor are straight-revealed and contain modern timber casements. The vertical disposition of window openings is irregular: This is most noticeable in the south elevation, in which the first floor window of Cell D (28) is approximately 0.60m lower than its neighbour to the west. That pattern is not reflected in the north elevation, where first floor window height rises to the east (the uppermost are probably 20th C insertions, so this observation is of less significance). At least one window opening in the north elevation (29) uses a relic quoined joint for its western reveal. Door openings in the house, except for the recent insertion (2) are splayed, which is abnormal for domestic door openings, and in the case of the doors (10) and (11) in the main architectural elevations, the splay is asymmetric. Both these doors are situated against internal structural walls, also an abnormal position.
3.3.4 Roofs.
a. The barn is covered by a single roof structure, elements
of which form the upper halves of the side walls,
which has been extensively
repaired and dramatically propped. Aerial photographs suggests the roof is
asymmetric with respect to the main structural walls of the barn, the ridge
being half way between the north wall and southernmost wall of the pentice
lean-tos, but this does not appear to be the case when viewed from the ground.
Constructed in pit-sawn elm and fully carpentered with pegged and faced-up
joints, it is of collar and tie beam construction with raking struts off the tie
beam and through purlins lapped into the upper edge of the principals. The tie
beams are supported by square-jowled wall posts, apparently with normal TBLD
joints, that rise of a scarfed wallplate running the entire length of the
masonry walls with simple edge-halved scarf joints. Raking braces rise from the
wall posts to the tie beam and the upper wall plate of the side walls, and wind
braces formerly connected the principals to the purlins. The roof originally
lacked a ridge purlin, but this has been added subsequently, supported by a
nailed apex gusset and there are intermediary high level collars between the
uppermost side purlins. The collars and main braces have a very slight camber;
all other timbers are straight. The roof supports a combination of new and
salvaged common rafters beneath a new covering of felt and plain tiles. As well
as a great deal of salvaged timber incorporated throughout the structure, the
roof is extensively strapped and there are splints bolted to many of the
principal structural joints and members. Porches 1 and 2 have been modified at
least twice in antiquity; secondly, by removal of the top wall plate to create a
taller opening, and firstly by removal of an earlier overhanging porch, the
braces of which are still visible in the outer faces of the posts that now for
the opening. However, the defining peculiarity of the roof structure is its
dramatic racking and the props that have been installed to restrain it: The
whole structure (except the common rafters) has racked to the west by
approximately one metre, apparently breaking the wind braces in the process (see
Ponting, 1896 above). Whole conifer poles have been inserted at angles of c. 60
b. The house is covered by at least four roof structures, some of which are superimposed on earlier structures. However, the sealed ceilings prevent close inspection of the carpentry. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the relative positions of the ridges (in plan) and the pitch of the principal rafters (in elevation) as black dashed lines and indicates the position of a wide common valley over cell E1. Aerial photographic evidence suggests the ridge over Cell C is not exactly aligned with the ridge of the barn roof. Superficial examination from below the ceilings suggests that these are collar-tied roofs joined at the corner to form hips, except over Cell D where the east-west ridge has been extended to form a full gable. The principals of the south-north roof over Cell D are visible in the bedroom over Cell D, but these do not appear to run northwards over the eastern end of Cell C. The common valley over Cell E1 is carried by a large beam spanning the landing, which does not appear to continue into the bedroom over the west end of Cell C. The roof over Cell C appears to be a continuation of the barn roof and is of a much shallower pitch than the others. This is evident in the shallow pitch of the exposed principal that crosses the landing S-N. Potentially, three roof structures join over the east end of Cell C.
3.3.5 Floors and ceilings.
a. Floor coverings and ceiling finishes prevent inspection of floor and ceiling constructions.
b. The relative levels of the barn and house floors vary: The barn floor is approximately 0.50m above the ground floor of the house and the first floor over Cell C appears to correspond with the principal rail of the west gable frame of the barn (indicated by white arrow on Figure Frame).
c. The barn floor appears to be a 20th century cementitious concrete of several phases.
3.3.6 Finishes and decoration.
a. The barn walls are variously rendered and whitewashed internally. All the render appears to be a cementitious preparation of 20th century date. Whitewash survives on the brickwork and timber of the lower panels of the west gable frame
b. Finishes and decorative details throughout the house have not been investigated.
3.3.7 Fixture and fittings.
a. A 20th century grain chute passes through the upper half of the south wall of the barn adjacent to Porch no. 2. No historically significant fixtures or fittings were observed within the barn, other than those described above in connection with Openings and Roof structure.
b. Historically significant fixture and fittings within the house are described in the ‘List’ description and, as these are not affected by the proposals, they are not further described here.
3.3.8 Services.
a. No historically significant services were observed in the barn.
b. Other than the three chimney stacks and associated hearths and flues, no historically significant services were observed in the house.
3.3.9
Archaeological details.a. In addition to the variations in wall fabric and opening details described above, details not obviously associated with the more recent uses or layout of the barn comprised modified openings, relic structural features and relic structural relationships. The most visible of these are the blocked cart width doors (30) and (31), both of which have inserted brickwork reveals internally but apparently original ashlar reveals externally. Immediately west of (31) is an external panel of brickwork repair or blocking (32) partially obscured by a modern buttress, which is not apparent internally. Although these blocked openings are opposed to the porches in the south wall, they are significantly narrower at c. 2.3m wide. Furthermore, at no, (30) the scarfed wall plate of the timber wall frame above it over sails the opening by c. 0.20m. Barn porches 1 and 3 have both been raised and modified at least twice in antiquity (see above)
b. Corbels project from the inner wall face of the barn approximately 0.2m below the wallhead at three places (33), (34) and (36) close to the ends of the barn. Two of these are almost opposed and, whilst no. (34) is of modern brickwork, (33) and (36) are of Bath stone and (33) has a crucifix scratched into its southern face. These may simply be examples of the ‘through’ stones that appear elsewhere beneath most of the wall posts, left exposed by a progressive erosion of the wall face. However, as they correspond with the non-battered lengths of wall, this explanation may be unsatisfactory. Protruding from the eastern reveal of blocked opening (30) at ground level, is a rendered ?brickwork pier base (35).c. Hacked stonework at several places (37) in the north elevation of the barn appear to indicate the positions of former buttress or other external excrescences, whilst handmade brick inserts at the base of the wall at the south east end (38) indicate there has been intrusive repair to the wall fabric, possibly underpinning.
d. Relic beam/joist sockets are visible in the west face of the timber and brickwork partition wall (8), 300mm above the main rail.
4 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Chronology, Form and Function
4.1.1 The basic chronological parameters have been established by others (Section 2.2) and there is no reason to doubt the 15th century date ascribed to the commencement of construction at Manor House. However, the process of construction and development here has not been purely linear: Documentary, cartographic and archaeological evidence suggests that Manor House and its barn, like the courtyard of farm buildings to the south, have developed piecemeal over a period of c. 500 years. During that period, there have been wholesale demolitions and substantive alterations to the form of the buildings and, therefore, probably also their function. This has resulted, in part, in the racking of the roof.
4.1.2 A suggested sequence of the principal stages of development is presented on Figure 6. The archaeological evidence available to a necessarily superficial examination such as this cannot provide precise chronological dates for the stages identified, so broad date ranges are suggested. Some attributes of the development process cannot be illustrated in plan – such as modifications of the roof structure of the barn - so these are described in the accompanying texts.
4.1.3 Variations in wall fabric, the internal layout of
structural walls, the difference in window levels
and the anomalous position of
external door openings in the house suggest it is of at least three principal
phases. The earliest phase is represented by the rubble fabric (17) that
forms Cell D, which is ascribed the c. 1500 date suggested by Ponting etal
(1896). Ponting suggests that the Manor House per se was situated south
of its present site, within the cluster of farm buildings demolished in the
early 19th century, and there is no reason to dispute that
interpretation. The present Manor House may have originated as a single cell
non-domestic structure adjacent to – but not joined to – the barn, such as a
dovecote, stable or a dairy. The barn had only two porches in 1752, both of
which originated as simple overhanging shelters braced off the wall posts, with
door leaves rebated into the inner wall faces. The central porch was added by
1813, probably 1808, with full height masonry walls and it is likely that
Porches 1 and 3 were given their masonry walls at the same time. As the central
porch appears to be the only structural rubble masonry incorporating brickwork
details in its original fabric, it is likely that the inserted brickwork details
which occur throughout the barn were pieced in at this time: This includes all
three door openings in the north wall. It is unlikely that a 15th or
16th century barn would have been fitted with porches of any sort and
the present roof structure is not typical of the 15th century
(rounded jowls, cambered braces, ties and collars and oak would be expected
here, probably fully hipped). As the roof structure – or at least the wall
frames - cannot have been contemporaneous with the use of the blocked openings
in the north wall, it is suggested that it was installed in the 18th
or early 19th century replacing, possibly, a base cruck type roof
rising of the wall-fast corbels that survive at the east end with, probably,
fully hipped gables.
4.1.4 The off-centre door in (10) the main elevation of the house was created by addition of the ‘opus quadratum’ fabric (18) of Cell A which created a two-cell structure of domestic form, c. 1600. If of two storeys, it would probably have been served by an internal ladder or an external stair turret against the back wall that may have survived as the hollow masonry and timber structure in E1, removed in 1994. This form of dwelling was becoming common by the late 16th and early 17th century and may have marked the formal adoption of the site as a place of residence separate from the Manor House. The barn would have remained essentially unchanged.
4.1.5 Substantial additions were made around 1700, the date most authors ascribe to the ‘Queen Anne’ elevations. The addition of the parapet and the upper courses of ashlars facework (19) represented a considerable investment in the house, but was also an extremely effective way of homogenising an otherwise incoherent architecture, and was extended around the west elevation. This created the ‘neat compact little box’ plan favoured by Restoration and Queen Anne architects and the plan form recorded by the 1752 survey, but one that utilised the west gable of the barn as a structural wall. Blocked window openings (21) in the north elevation indicate the ‘new’ rear half of the house had the same two and a half storeys as the front, a floor arrangement that has been altered subsequently. The abnormal arrangement of wall ends around E1 – the west end of the inner hall – suggests this larger plan form may have contained a central stairwell facing the main door and, possibly, lit naturally from the valley above and rising through all three storeys. The roof of the newly added Cell C did not – and does not – engage perfectly with the roof of the barn, the two ridges being slightly offset. This suggests the barn gable remained a structural element at this time and that the barn and the house were essentially separate. Porches were added to the two original barn door openings before 1752, with the openings possibly widened.
4.1.6 The greatest changes were made between 1752 and 1887, probably by the ‘fresh tenant’ of 1808 referred to by Ponting (1896). It is likely that the many changes to the barn (see above) were made at this time. Certainly, by 1813 (Figure 2, E) the west end of the barn had been separated-off by a partition at the westernmost porch and by 1887 (Figure 2,D) the west gable of the barn had been removed as a structural element. The sequence is best illustrated by the details evident in the north elevation (Figure 4). The ‘Queen Anne’ house ended at vertical joint (25), with the barn wall extending towards it represented by (26). The barn wall was raised to full height in rubble with brickwork closing (22) that was wrapped to create the timber and brick partition wall (8) that now separates the house from the barn. The buttressing effect of the raised barn wall – now incorporated in the house – facilitated insertion of the dais windows (23) which in turn required raising of the first floor over Cell C. It is suggested that the first floor is supported by the middle rail of the timber and brickwork frame (8) and that it extended into the – now enclosed - west end of the barn through the first floor door opening (1). At this point, most of the barn’s west gable was demolished to create a large space at ground and first floor level, leaving a narrow pier of masonry (3) as the sole survivor of the barn’s gable. The only explanation for retention of (3) is that it supported floor beams and, or the roof structure. Extension of the domestic spaces into the barn, especially at first and second floor level, would have occasioned re-positioning of the stairs and required modification or removal of the west end of the barn roof structure. If the barn roof was hipped, this modification would have removed the longitudinal bracing of the roof. As the barn is built on a slight slope, there would have been a slight tendency to rack westwards. Given that the roof structure incorporated wind braces and was, from the 18th century at least, probably covered with plain tiles, racking would have been a very slow, almost imperceptible process. It is possible that, currently, the racking of the roof is being partly borne by the chimney between Cells B and C.
4.1.7 The rest of the superstructure of the barn was also modified between 1752 and 1813, by the addition of a third porch and insertion of its associated door opening. As the opposing openings in the north wall are all similar and appear to correspond with the tripartite opening arrangement in the south wall, it would be reasonable to assume that the northern openings are of early 19th century formation as well. The rebuilding of the rest of the south wall of the barn, suggested by the irregular line and mixed building materials, may have been contemporaneous with the central porch. Modification of the other barn walls, creating vertical rather than battered faces, may also have taken place at this time. The roof was badly racked by 1896: installation of the raking props is understood to have been undertaken during the First World War, whilst rebuilding of the east gable in fletton bricks must have post-dated demolition of the gable-end outbuilding recorded on the 1924 Ordnance Survey map. Fletton bricks are generally recognised as having been a Second World War introduction to this area of the South West.
4.2 Significance
4.2.1 Buildings are the largest of human artefacts, potentially embodying more archaeological information on the experiences and aspirations of the societies that designed, built and used them, than any other class of artefact. The value of that information – its Significance – varies according to criteria outlined in Section 1.1.4. It also varies between the building as an historical landmark and its individual components.
4.2.2 As an historical landmark, the manor of Hill Deverill is associated with two of the South West’s principal commoner families – the Ludlows and the Cokers – as well the Dukes of Somerset and Marlborough. However, there is no direct evidence that any of these landowners resided here, and there is some archaeological evidence that the capital house – the Manor House – of the medieval manor was situated elsewhere (Ponting, 1896). The present house may have originated in the late 15th century, but as a non-domestic building adjacent to the barn, that did not reach its present size until c. 1700 and from which, much of the significant architectural and archaeological detail has been removed. Specifically, there are few historical fixtures and fittings, all the internal partitions are of late 20th century construction, the probably stair turret/central stair in E1 has been removed, as has the gable of the barn which formerly accounted for 25% of the structural envelope. The barn has been similarly modified over the last 200 years or so, involving wholesale reorganisation of its principal openings, demolition of one gable and complete rebuilding of the other, rebuilding of all buttresses along the north wall and, probably, complete renewal of the roof structure in the late 18th – early 19th century. Whilst the development of these structures is undoubtedly interesting and of archaeological potential, the house itself is arguably of only ‘Some’ historical significance at National or Regional level. It is difficult to subscribe to the DCMS’ List description assessment of Hill Deverill as an ‘important’ medieval manor or the barn as not a ‘fine example of a medieval tithe barn’.
4.2.3 Nonetheless, the individual components of the house and barn embody archaeological data that illustrate the historically abnormal development of this house and its barn. These are of varying level of relative significance at the Local level, i.e., relative to the house. The most important are undoubtedly the principal structural walls and the boundaries between the different fabrics employed in them, and those components of the original roofs that might survive, particularly at the junction between Cell C and the barn roof, and the possible relics of the original barn roof. In addition to illustrating the principal stages in the development of the house, there is likely to be a great deal of highly informative archaeological detail within the inner faces of all the structural walls, particularly around cell E1 where all stages of the house’s development meet. Traces of the former stair turret (removed 1994) and the central stair might survive here. This also applies to the modified window openings at the top of the north elevation, which allude to alterations in floor level not evident now internally, and to the fabric boundaries in the south and north elevations. Relative to the history of the house, these elements are of Considerable Significance. They are also of Exceptional structural significance: Manor House is not a monolithic structure, but the aggregate of several widely separated construction episodes, each of which was undertaken in ignorance of the preceding modifications.
4.2.4 The timber and brickwork partition (8) despite its aesthetically pleasing brickwork, is possibly of less significance. Brickwork is inherently difficult to date, mainly because of the inherent re-usability of the bricks themselves, which results in older bricks being re-used in newer structures. Bricks were not widely used in buildings in this part of Wiltshire until the late 18th century, and then they were employed chiefly as quoins and opening details in otherwise greensand rubble walls. Brickmakers were active in Longbridge Deverill in the late 17th century, but it is not until the early-mid 19th century that the Crockerton brickworks became established on an industrial scale. The small size of these bricks – 210x90x50mm – is consistent with a late 17th or early 18th century manufacture and they appear to be the only ones of that size in this building, but archaeological evidence suggests the wall itself is an early 19th century introduction to the barn, which utilised timber as structural members to support a first floor. It is possible that these, smaller bricks, were used as ‘place’ bricks, intended to be covered with a protective render, whilst the larger 220x100x65 bricks used to form the inserted openings throughout the barn. Certainly, the use of roundwood softwood as a structural member is not a 17th or early 18th century trait, and the large amounts of re-used timber in the partition suggests a later rather than an earlier date. Furthermore, the many variations in brick bond – not least the two large panels of 20th century brickwork, one of which is blocking a possibly original first floor door opening – suggest the partition has been extensively repaired, if not wholly rebuilt, on many occasions. It may incorporate 17th or early 18th century bricks, but it is a 19th and 20th century internal partition within the extension into the barn, the east end of which has been lost. It does not appear illustrate a principal chronological phase in the house’s development, merely a spatial subdivision within it, and has been subject to extensive and deleterious modification. Its contribution to the house and barn is mainly aesthetic and, therefore, it is of only ‘Some’ Significance.
4.2.5 The barn is a complex archaeological palimpsest in its own right, but also one that has been subject to much modification. Previous authors disagree on its construction date, but there is unambiguous evidence that it was substantially altered c. 1808 and it would be reasonable to assume the roof structure was added at that time. There is also much evidence of extensive and recurrent modification and rebuilding. If it was founded in the late 15th century, very little of the original fabric survives. Because of this ambiguity, the boundaries between the principal wall fabrics/alignments and possible relics of the original roof are of Considerable Significance to the archaeology of this building because they may illustrate the detail of the building’s development. Most of this archaeological data is contained within the south wall, particularly details relating to the development of the main openings and their porches, associated works to the walls and the development of the lean-tos. The north wall contains substantially less data, other than the three inserted door openings, two of which are now blocked. Arguably, the most important details are the possible corbels at the east end may indicate the form of the original roof structure: They are of Considerable significance, not least because they are few in number. The form of the present roof structure is aesthetically important (despite the props, which add nothing aesthetically or historically to the barn), but its individual timbers are of ‘Little’ archaeological significance as they are likely to embody little usable data and the external weatherboarding, in particular, is of ‘No’ significance. Details such as the blocked openings are also likely to have been relatively late additions to the fabric and layout of the barn: their positions are important, but the blocking fabric itself is likely to be less than 100 years old. The present floor, which is of 20th century construction, is likely to rest on an earth floor, possibly with brick paviours between the entrances, together of ‘Little’ archaeological significance.
4.3 Methodology
4.3.1 Commissioning of an Assessment of an historic building group within a late medieval manorial setting, is appropriate to the site’s status and accords with the published guidances of government, learned and professional organisations, developing professional opinion (Gould, 2004) and the conservation policies of the local planning authority.
4.3.2 The assessment has been prepared in accordance with the only published guidances pertinent to the of study of archaeological sites and historic buildings in a professional context; namely those of English Heritage (Clark, 2001), the Institute of Field Archaeologists (2000), and the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (1993, 1997). The work has been carried out by a single professional, academically qualified in archaeology and building conservation and specialising in the archaeology and construction history of this area of south-west England, whose work has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals
4.3.3 The conclusions evinced above are derived, in part, from a rapid and necessarily superficial assessment of readily available public documents allied to a review of pertinent academic analyses. The cartographic sources are unlikely to be bettered and the large volume of academic work devoted to the liturgical and architectural history of churches assists, greatly, in ascribing significance to the building. Whilst neither completeness of historical record or infallibility can ever be guaranteed, the conclusions above are offered as a reasoned and verifiable assessment of the data, subject to the constraints affecting all antiquarian and archaeological data.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Assoc. of County Archaeol. Officers, 1993, Model Briefs and Specifications for Archaeological Assessments and Field Evaluations (now ALGAO c/c Essex CC)
Assoc. of Local Govt. Archaeol. Officers, 1997, Analysis and recording for the conservation and control of works to historic buildings
Brakspear, H., 1896, ‘Hill Deverill’, Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Magazine 28
Clark, K, 2001. Informed Conservation (English Heritage)
Elyard, S.J., 1894, Some Old Wiltshire Houses. (Clark, London)
Hutton, E., 1917, Highways and Byways of Wiltshire
Institute of Field Archaeologists (2001), ‘Building Investigation and Recording ,Standard and Guidances.(IFA, Reading University)
Ponting, C., 1894, ‘Hill Deverill’, Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Magazine 27
Powell, J.V., 1896, ‘A sketch of the history of Hill Deverill’, Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Magazine 28.
Slocombe, P.M., 1989, Wiltshire Farm Buildings 1500-1900. (Devizes)
Slocombe, P.M., 1988, Wiltshire Farmhouses and Cottages 1500-1850. (Devizes)
Suddards, R., and Hargreaves, J., 1996, Listed Buildings: The Law and Practice of Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments and Conservation Areas (Sweet and Maxwell)
Victoria County History, 1955,
Wiltshire
Non-published
Wiltshire Building Record: Card index of brickmakers and brickmaking sites
Wiltshire Building Record: B3489 – Hill Deverill Manor House
Wiltshire Records Office: 1332/H1 – Map of manor of Hill Deverill, Elstobb and Hill, 1752
1332/L2 – Map of manor of Hill Deverill, Higgins, 1813