In 1997, three charts were published, illustrating the chronological
distribution of 410 tree-ring dated buildings falling between the late twelfth
century and 1600 and published in VA between 1980 and 1996 (Footnote 1). It is
now possible to add the results of five more years,
and the accompanying chart of 712 buildings, or major phases of building,
illustrate the revised figures.
Figure 1: Rural aristocratic and gentry houses (273 examples, sampled 1980-2001)
As was made clear in my previous paper, these figures should be read with caution. The charts illustrate three categories of building dating between the twelfth century and 1600. They are divided into 33-year blocks – those with date ranges which span two periods being assigned a mid-date for this purpose. No agricultural buildings, and no churches, have been included, although all other structures associated with ecclesiastics or ecclesiastical institutions have been incorporated under ‘Rural Aristocratic and Gentry Houses’. The inclusion of buildings in this section has been a ‘best-guess‘, based on what is revealed by name or description in the tree-ring dating information, and they range from royal palaces to small manor houses. Vernacular buildings include all those apparently below aristocratic or gentry status. Urban buildings, as before, include both vernacular and public buildings, and the decision to call a building ‘urban’ has been a matter of judgement based on the description given. No entries have been made for reused timbers, since their provenance and status must often be questionable.
Despite its imperfections and ambiguities, the chart is of interest. Although the numbers have nearly doubled, the chronological patterns have remained unchanged. This consistency is significant, as several new areas have been sampled since the previous charts were published. Material is now available for Cumbria, Devon, East Anglia, Somerset, Surrey and West Sussex (East Grinstead), and far more is known about Hampshire and Wales than in 1997.
In the case of rural buildings of high status (Fig. 1), the number of pre-1233 buildings has been growing steadily, from seven in 1996 to ten in 2001. The dates range from 1167 onwards, and most are aisled halls, whose early development has recently been discussed by John Walker (Footnote 2). The outburst of building activity in the first third of the fourteenth century is even more marked than before, and appears to have been followed by a crisis of confidence that lasted until the mid fifteenth century. It has been suggested that the late fourteenth century was a period of intense building activity among the higher aristocracy (Footnote 3), but this is not apparent in these figures, either in the overall results or in the detail. Does this mean that, despite the large numbers of tree-ring dates commissioned by English Heritage on important properties, a skewed picture is emerging? Since it is certainly possible that the pattern of building among the aristocracy, gentry, and religious institutions varied, it will be important, once the sample is larger, to divide up the present broad category, and analyse what happened to the different social strands and in different regions of the country.
Figure 2: Rural vernacular houses (270 examples, sampled 1980-2001)
Rural vernacular buildings (Fig. 2) seem, on the
other hand, to have increased in number slowly but surely, with the main
flowering occurring from the mid fifteenth-century onwards. That this reflects a
real state of affairs among surviving buildings is extremely likely, for
projects aimed at understanding the chronological development of vernacular
building in several regions have now taken place, and researchers tend to make a
point of dating what they suspect are the earliest survivors in their region.
While some thirteenth and early fourteenth-century vernacular buildings have
been found, they do not occur, or at least have not been dated, in any quantity.
The evidence from towns is extremely interesting (Fig. 3). Far fewer
examples have been dated so far than in other categories, but systematic work
has recently taken place in Hampshire, Newark (Nottinghamshire) and East Grinste
ad (West Sussex). It seems clear that the troubles of the mid fourteenth century
were far less catastrophic to the building trade in towns than in the
countryside. Despite the smaller numbers overall, precisely as many urban
buildings (41) have been dated to the period 1334-66 as have rural ones of
whatever kind. There may have been a hiatus in building towards the end of the
century, but during the first half of the fifteenth century construction in
towns gathered momentum, reaching a peak in the middle third of the century,
although apparently declining thereafter. This information is not entirely new;
both Alan Dyer and Christopher Dyer have remarked upon the fact (Footnote 4).
Tree-ring dating evidence underlines the point strongly and unequivocally. Many
towns experienced economic decline in the latter part of the fifteenth century,
but in the middle of the century people perhaps thought that they were
experiencing an economic hiccup which would soon be over. That their confidence
was misplaced is suggested by the tree-ring dates which shows a far more serious
drop in numbers than occurred for rural buildings of any kind.
The results in all categories will become more statistically valid as the number of buildings sampled increases, and the information should soon become robust enough to be subdivided and sustain serious argument. Meanwhile, it is heartening to see that, so far, a considerable increase in the number of buildings dated has confirmed first impressions, rather than modified them. During the last five years many more later buildings have also been dated, and before long it should become possible to analyse this data in the same way.
Figure 3: Urban buildings, status not differentiated (169 examples, 1980-2001)
I would like to thank Nat Alcock and Edward Roberts for advice and encouragement in the compilation of this piece.
