How A Robot Fingertip 3-D Sensor Could Change Forensics, Medicine Forever – http://pulse.me/s/15o4W
Android
I am presently testing the pros and cons of using an android tablet for Archaeology.
I have just updated to the new Honeycomb 3.1. Its so much smoother. I really think it is better than the ipad!
Will update soon
Posted in digital archaeology, Interest, research
Tagged android, Asus, Eee pad, tablet, transformer
1 Comment
Recalibrating the work of Cecil Hewett
Recalibrating the literature
Prior to the creation of an English tree-ring chronology in the late 1980s, typology was the main method by which to date a timber structure. Cecil Alec Hewett (1926-1998) pioneered buildings typologies for medieval carpentry joints and timber-framed buildings in south-eastern England (Gibson and Andrews 1998, online). In Hewett’s seminal work English Historic Carpentry the inner sleeve reads “he [Hewett] has shown that the methods of assembling timber buildings, particularly the joints used, follow a strict historical sequence, as datable as ceramics” (Hewett 1980a, inner sleeve). In the case of Hewett, typology is defined as being “historically diagnostic because they are historically unique, that is, they are ‘peculiar to a given time and place’” (Sackett 1977, 371) and therefore, progress from the archaic to the mechanically advanced in a datable sequence of ‘style and function’ (Ibid.).
In 1990, Matthew Johnson warned of relying on typologies to date buildings (Johnson 1990, 247-8) primarily because they are not always reliable and are based on assumptions rather than science. This Chapter will address some previous errors made under the auspices of chrono-typologies forwarded by the likes of; Henri Deneux, Cecil Hewett and J. T. Smith, by applying corrected dates derived through the scientific practice of dendrochronology (Pearson 1997, 30-3; VAG 2000). By ‘recalibrating’ the existing dates arrived at by typologies and informed judgement by Hewett et al, with new solid dates derived from tree-ring analysis, it is hoped Johnson’s warning can be put to one side. This Section will also provide a response to a comment made by Sarah Pearson in which she suggested “one important aspect of construction which is likely to be considerably advanced through tree-ring dating is the typology of timber jointing techniques” (Pearson 1997, 32).
Hewett’s pioneering works have been a starting place for many research projects including this one. Because this thesis aims to test Hewett’s hypothesis that late-medieval timber framed structures can be dated by the joints and carpentry techniques used in their construction in the light of recent dendrochronological advances; it is important that his typology is also informed by tree-ring dating. Hewett himself was unable to achieve this in his lifetime, but this thesis will address by re-visiting his data and updating the chronology based on recent tree-ring data. Once completed (see Table 12) this Section will then retest some of Hewett’s typological assumptions. In doing so, some of his original work will be brought into question and modernised. The resulting recalibrated data will then be compared against the Hampshire data to test for similarities and anomalies.
4.1 Recalibrating Hewett
Hewett’s research focused mainly on the south-eastern county of Essex, though he also carried out various works in other counties – including Hampshire. Before Hewett, very few people would dare ascribe a date for a building to before the 15th or 16th century based on style alone (Gibson and Andrews 1998, online). Hewett changed this by firstly studying the barns at Cressing Temple, Essex, then taking the study further afield and dating other buildings based on the carpentry joints present in them. Using the Cressing barns as a starting point, Hewett would date a building based on whether the joints therein appeared older or newer than those at Cressing Temple. His assumption was that the more advanced a joint or structure appeared, the newer in the sequence it must be –i.e. built after the Cressing barn (Hewett 1962, 240). It can be suggested that Hewett’s methodology was one of teleological progression based on “The hypothesis that carpenters’ joints underwent processes of development towards mechanical efficiency” (Hewett 1980a, 325).
As the table below shows, his technique’s often yielded reasonably accurate results. He could however, be very inaccurate. In several instances he was out by over a hundred years and in one case by as much as 350 years (Table 11 below).
Table 11 A list of buildings dated by Hewett based on typology and compared against recent tree-ring data
Following on from the above table, it is now possible to recalibrate Hewett’s chronology into one informed by science. The results are shown below, in Table 12.
Table 12 Hewett’s chronology recalibrated by recent tree-ring data and placed in chronological order
If Table 12 is examined, it can be noted that Hewett has two buildings dated to the Anglo-Saxon era. Based on these two buildings – The Church of St. Mary, Sompting, Sussex (Hewett AD950-1050) and the barn at Paul’s Hall, Belchamp St Paul, Essex (Hewett pre-AD 1180) Hewett named Chapter 1 of his Seminal work English Historic Carpentry – “Examples from the Anglo-Saxon Period (AD 449 to 1066)” (Hewett 1980a). Of Sompting, Hewett suggests “the structural method at Sompting is competent, and the workmanship wrought with an assurance that must indicate the previous existence of a long tradition” (Hewett 1980a, 29). Therefore according to Hewett, carpentry was introduced into England in the early Saxon period and reached a ‘competent’ level prior to the Norman Conquest (1066). Both buildings have since been dendro dated to 1300-30 and 1240-75 respectively and therefore, not Saxon carpentry at all. Instead Walker suggests carpentry entered England via the Norman’s around AD1180 (Walker 1999, 28).
Four examples of Hewett’s work will now be analysed in greater detail to illustrate both how accurate, and inaccurate, his dating could be. All four buildings were also surveyed as part of this research in order to gain a greater insight into Hewett’s work and the buildings which formed his research. The four buildings are listed chronologically:
* The barley barn, Cressing Temple, Essex
* Grange barn, Coggeshall, Essex
* The wheat barn, Cressing Temple, Essex
* St. Mary’s Church, Sompting, West Sussex
The barley barn, Cressing Temple, Essex
The barley barn is another example of the three different types of dating – typology, radiocarbon dating (14C) – and much later – dendrochronology; all being used to investigate one building.
* Hewett suggested late 12th to early 13th century (Hewett 1980a, 59-63)
* 14C dated the barn to 940 +/-70 (c.1023) (Hewett 1962, 271)
* dendrochronology 1205-35 (Tyers et al. 1997, 50)
If the dendrochronologically derived dates are taken as the most precise (see Section 2.3) Hewett’s suggestion was very close. Unfortunately, Hewett would never have known how close he was to tree-ring date. Radiocarbon dating, however, was over 200 years out with an unacceptable date range. These three examples, of various dating techniques, highlight the importance of the ability to rely on precise dates, as the implications of inaccurate dates can be profound. Although Hewett was sure his date was accurate, it did lead him to write “this [the radiocarbon date] suggests a date in the eleventh century, centring on 1023, for the felling of the oaks used in its original building. It is perhaps surprising that this date is earlier than the gift of the estate by King Stephen to the Templar’s, but there is no obvious reason why the barn should not have been built whilst the estate was in the possession of the Crown” (Hewett 1962, 271). This would imply that although Hewett doubted the radiocarbon date, he was open to the idea that it could be validated.
Grange Barn, Coggeshall, Essex
Grange Barn was, originally, Radiocarbon dated (14C) to 1130 +/-90 (Essex SMR 8808). Oddly though, Hewett reports the 14C date as being 1020 +/-90 (Hewett 1980a, 47) but later in the same publication he agrees with the 14C date (Hewett 1980a, 289). The associated Savignac Abbey was formed in 1140 and although there is no documentary evidence that gives a construction date for the barn, it was assumed that the building was contemporary (Ibid, 47-8). Hewett had noted the use of open lap joints in its construction (Figure 19) and therefore, based on this joint and its use in the barley barn at Cressing Temple, he suggested the barn was built soon after the formation of the Abbey in the mid 12th century (Andrews 1984). The barn has subsequently been dendro-dated to between 1237 and 1269 (Tyers et al. 1997, 141) and therefore, a late example of an open lap joint (Andrews 1984). Hewett also wrote that “the main posts stood upon stone stylobates about an inch larger all round than the posts’ feet” (Andrews 1984, 49). A stylobate is a raised stone pad upon which the upright post is placed to mitigate rotting. However, the Essex SMR suggests that “observations during restoration suggest the arcade posts were originally set on base plates, as proposed initially, and not on stylobates as suggested by Hewett in 1980” (EssexCC 2003).
Figure 19 A refined entry lap-joint noted by Hewett at The Grange Barn, Coggeshall in Essex c.1237 (Author 2008)
What should be noted though is that this building, although framed and free-standing does not employ a ground sill for stability. Whereas the Barley Barn at Cressing Temple, Essex (c1200 +/-60) of a slightly earlier date does (Hewett 1980a, 49). The notch lap joints found in this barn, can also be seen at Wherwell ‘stables’ in Hampshire (Figure 20) dendro-dated to 1250 (Roberts 2003, 248). This shows two very similar and coeval joints in separate parts of the country – Essex and Hampshire. This type of joint is also common amongst the majority of the buildings examined by Walker (Walker 1999, 28). Six of the eight buildings used notched lap joints; the implications of which are explained by Walker:
“These dated buildings do not support Cecil Hewett suggestion that there was a development from the late 12th century in the notched lap joint from unrefined entry to secret notched lap. If there was, it was before the late 12th century. Both the unrefined entry and refined entry were being used in the late 12th and early 13th century”. (Ibid.).
Figure 20 A typical notched lap joint with open refined entry from Wherwell Priory stables, Hampshire (1249) (Author, 2006)
The wheat barn, Cressing Temple, Essex
Hewett dated the wheat barn to around 1255 (Hewett 1980a, 102-5). The barn has since been scientifically dated, by dendrochronology, to 1257-80 (Tyers et al. 1997, 51). As Hewett was fairly accurate with both the barns at Cressing Temple, Hewett had a solid datum by which to date other buildings. By his own admission, Hewett would date buildings based on them appearing less advanced, or more advanced than the joints at Cressing (Hewett 1962, 240). As he was so accurate with Cressing Temple barns, one would assume the rest of his chrono-typology would be fairly accurate too. However, the following case study tells a very different story and highlights the need for his work to be recalibrated now dendrochronologically derived dates are available.
St Mary’s Church, Sompting, West Sussex
The timber frame that supports the western tower at St. Mary’s church, Sompting, West Sussex is of a Rhenish helm type (Figure 21). Hewett suggests a date “somewhere between c AD950 and c 1050. It is unlikely to be later than this” (Hewett 1980a, 15). Due to Hewett’s belief that this church roof dated to pre-conquest England, he wrote “The architectural and structural concept of the Rhenish helm is extraordinary, but its execution in carpentry at Sompting is a work of such assurance and competence, achieved with such economy of means, that it both indicates the work of a master and suggests the previous existence of a tradition of framing such works” (Hewett 1989, 15). If this statement were to be true, it would put the introduction of framing back from AD1180 (Walker 1999, 28) to AD950, before the introduction of the French style, even before the Norman Conquest (Hewett 1982, 341). Clearly then it is essential to the understanding of the evolution of carpentry, that this building be scientifically dated, in order to validate whether 950 or 1180 are to be used as the start of the carpentry tradition in England. Indeed, Hewett assumes “the structural method at Sompting is competent, and the workmanship wrought with an assurance that must indicate the previous existence of a long tradition” (Hewett 1980a, 29). Therefore, Hewett is suggesting carpentry existed in England before AD 950 based on Sompting alone suggesting “it is no longer possible to ascribe the introduction of any types [of carpenters’ joints] to the Conquest, or the Normans” (Ibid.).
Hewett also notes the use of carpenters’ marks in the form of chisel cut Roman numerals, suggesting that the frame was measured and framed elsewhere. Therefore, Hewett suggests the carpenters who constructed the frame at Sompting had “anticipated ensuing carpenters’ methods” which would not be seen again until 1180 (Hewett 1989, 15). Even though Hewett was convinced the roof was Saxon in origin, he noted that some of the joints – “a tenon with one shoulder ‘scribed’ to fit over a waney edge” – are unknown elsewhere until the 13th century, yet he remained convinced he was looking at a Saxon roof.
Fortunately, Hewett’s date was off by around 380 years (Aldsworth and Harris 1988, 140; Pearson 1997, 33). In 1985 two timber samples were Radiocarbon dated to AD 1323 +/-51 by Jill Walker. A tighter date range was sought and in 1987, 17 samples were taken for dendrochronological analysis giving a new date range of AD 1300 to 1330, by Ian Tyers (Aldsworth and Harris 1988, 140-3; Tyers 1990, 45). It should be noted that the main body of the church is of a pre-conquest date, it was added to in the later part of the 11th century which, it seems, Hewett based his date on (Aldsworth and Harris 1988, 139). Before the recalibration of Hewett’s dates for St Mary’s church, it is plain to see the implications that an incorrect date can have our knowledge of the past. 380 years in the medieval to late medieval period sees many profound historical changes – from Saxon England, through Norman occupation, to the beginning of the 14th century dominated by famine, plagues and war.
Figure 21 St. Mary’s church, Sompting, West Sussex (1300) (Author 2007)
4.1.2 Summary
Hewett has published many articles and books, mainly on the subject of joints and structural carpentry. Any student of structural carpentry is therefore, a student of Hewett’s work. Thus, it is important that his dates and assumptions are re-examined in the light of dendrochronological data when, and if it becomes available. This needs to be done to forward the discipline, not prove Hewett right or wrong. Hewett worked with the data available to him and when Radiocarbon dates were available, he would use them, or at least acknowledge them, because as we have seen the 14C data is often more inaccurate than Hewett ever was. This Section has highlighted how important the recalibration of his chrono-typology is. When fundamental principles of carpentry are pinned to an inaccurate timeline and alternative method of dating must be sought. For now, that method is dendrochronology. With it, previous dates, such as those given by Hewett can be revisited and updated in the light of recent advances in the field.
This Section has illustrated several inaccuracies in Hewett’s method. The two structures he suggested provide evidence for an Anglo-Saxon carpentry tradition were misinformed by inaccurate dates. Instead, it would appear that carpentry developed in England around 1180 (Walker 1999, 28) and not prior to 950 as Hewett suggested (Hewett 1980a, 29). The following Section will also prove Hewett’s evidence for a transitional scarf c1350 from splayed to halved scarf is also misinformed. It must be noted though, that Hewett was right about a great deal of other important facts relating to joints. Much of which shall be evidenced in the following Sections regarding joint typologies and chronologies.
Medieval Buildings Archaeology
In Hampshire over 107 medieval timber-framed buildings survive and have been successfully tree-ring dated, between AD 1250 and 1530 (Miles et al. 2007, online); 95 of which have been surveyed as part of this project. The Hampshire Dendrochronology Project has been one of the largest and most extensive thus far undertaken in the British Isles” (Miles 2003b, 220). Key events with regard to the preservation of historic buildings and the built environment that have conserved such a rich corpus of buildings are listed below. This list refers to Hampshire and the rest of the country and includes the Town and Country Planning Acts of 1944, 1947 and 1968. These acts provide various legislations for “buildings of architectural or historical interest”, in order to provide a means to mitigate further losses (Gerrard 2003, 110), by making the owners responsible for their maintenance (OSPI 2009, online). This also grew out of a desire to keep the landscape intact, in the face of rebuilding and development, following the need to re-house and expand following the wars (Gerrard 2003, 110).
The study of medieval buildings has always sat between the disciplines of archaeology and art-history. This is due, in part, because both documentary evidence for buildings, especially those of a higher status, and the standing building itself, survive. The building, when studied in an archaeological context, can tell us as much about its architectural elements as of the social history of the people that built and lived in them; if we know how to read them properly (Morriss 2000, 10). This though, according to Richard Morriss, has only been acknowledged since the late 19th century (Ibid.). Prior to this, Morriss describes the study of ancient buildings as being one of ‘pure’ architectural history. That is to say people were more interested in the aesthetics of the building, than its social history (Ibid.). This changed in 1877 with the founding – by William Morris – of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) (Anon 2009, online). Morris promoted the “link between art and society, between style and culture, between architecture past, present, and future (Crook 1984, 555). The Victorian period (1837-1901) saw the forming of many local history and archaeological societies following in the theme set by SPAB. One such group is the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society. They were formed in 1885 and have “always been actively involved in the study of historic buildings” (Hantsweb 2009, online). The proceedings of the club have played an important role in providing research on various medieval timber-framed buildings and joints for this thesis. They claim “the Society was founded principally to forward the study and appreciation of Natural History, Archaeology and History within the County and to encourage the preservation of buildings and other historic remains of importance.” (Anon 1980, inside cover).
Vernacular architecture is defined by Brunskill as being that of a more local style, built by local craftsmen from local materials; as opposed to the politer form of national styles (Brunskill 1993, 21-4). Brunskill gives vernacular the alternative title of ‘folk’ housing and polite he classes as being ‘academic’. He suggests that whereas the former follows local tradition and needs, the latter tends to pursue “academic styles understood by a cultural few whose home is wherever an international cultural movement is accepted” (Ibid., 22). To paraphrase Brunskill, it could be said that vernacular architecture represents the working classes who build utilitarian architecture based on function. Polite, however, tends to be the preserve of the elite and powerful and is built in formal architectural styles that promote conformity, power and wealth (Ibid.). Richard Harris takes the definition further, suggesting that architecture is similar to grammar and, that although the people of England tend to speak English, there exist regional ‘vernacular’ dialects, within the umbrella of the parent language (Harris 1989, 1). He also suggests that both vernacular grammar and architecture are “cultural activities devoted to a practical end” (Ibid.). In Figure 3, Brunskill has set out a map showing what he believes are the various regions of Britain sharing vernacular traits, with area 1 representing the south east, of which Hampshire is a part (Brunskill 1993, 133). Because the aim of this thesis is to ascertain any changes in carpentry styles, between 1250 and 1530, in Hampshire, the study has drawn on evidence from both types of architecture to more fully understand how carpentry evolved, and why, over this period. Therefore, any differences between social levels could also be observed. This could help answer the question: Did the academically trained architects influence the local builder?
Figure 3 A map showing Brunskill’s “vernacular divisions of Great Britain”
(Brunskill 1993, 133)
Some important publications relevant to this research include the works of Nikolaus Pevsner (1951-74, and published more recently by John Newman (various dates)) and the joint works of Cyril Fox and Lord Raglan on Monmouthshire Houses (Fox and Raglan 1951, 1953, 1954). Of particular note here is Pevsner and Lloyds’ Hampshire publication, of 1967, in which they describe some of the more polite and religious buildings of Hampshire that were surveyed as part of this research (Pevsner and Lloyd 1967). In the introduction to the Hampshire book, Pevsner writes “in a county so poor in good building stone, it is odd that no major use was made of TIMBER. There are no really interesting timber-framed houses at all” (Pevsner and Lloyd 1967, 29-30). This research suggests otherwise, with several key buildings located in Hampshire including the earliest known hammerbeam roof – The Pilgrims’ Hall, Winchester (1295) – and the earliest known Wealden type house – 35 High Street, Winchester (1340) (Roberts 2003, 251 & 250 respectively). Such volumes demonstrated the value of detailed comparative studies, on a regional level, to understand the evolution of plan forms and structural techniques (Sheppard 1966). This was also the primary reason for the founding of the Vernacular Architecture Group (VAG) in 1952, to promote the study of the “lesser traditional building” (VAG 2009a, online). The group began publishing a peer reviewed journal, Vernacular Architecture, in 1970. This journal is still published annually and has proved an invaluable resource during this research project. The journal covers the whole of the British Isles and has, more recently, switched focus from general studies to a more regional one, including many articles relating to buildings of Hampshire.
One of the first academics of note to write a general review of buildings during this period, was W. G. Hoskins, in his book The Rebuilding of Rural England, 1570-1640 (Hoskins 1953). Hoskins suggested that many of the buildings of the Middle Ages were rebuilt in the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods, based on the decline of the open hall and the insertion of a fireplace (Hoskins 1953; Platt 1994, 229; Quiney 1994). More recently the work of Edward Roberts has shown that Hoskins’s dates of 1570 to 1640, for the demise of the open hall, is not the case in Hampshire (Roberts 2007, 17). Roberts was able to use dendrochronology, not available to Hoskins, to create a precise chronology of buildings which show the last house built in Hampshire with an open hall was in 1533 at 56-8 Winchester Street, Overton (Roberts 2003, 242). Roberts’s work clearly illustrates the need for accurate chronologies and the reinvestigation of past theories, in the light of recent advances in dendrochronology, a sub aim of this thesis.
‘The dating of timber-framed buildings was revolutionised from the early 1960s by Cecil Hewett’ (Gibson and Andrews 1998, online). Cecil Alec Hewett (1926-98) is widely regarded as the key name in joint chronology and typology and his work will form a major focus for this thesis (Gibson and Andrews 1998, online). His two major publications, The Development of Carpentry 1200-1700: an Essex study (Hewett 1969) and English Historic Carpentry (Hewett 1980a), have been the starting point for this research. As the titles suggest though, Hewett’s main area of research has been, primarily, in the South-eastern county of Essex. Even so, his work is still the main starting point for anyone undertaking research into the field of timber framed buildings; reflected in the bibliographies of those that follow him. In the introduction to both books (Ibid.) Hewett gives credit to a Frenchman, Henri Deneux (1874-1969) as being the true pioneer of joint typologies (Hewett 1980a, 1). Although Deneux’s work focused on French ecclesiastical buildings, rather than English ones, his work was really the start of such investigations (Gibson and Andrews 1998, online ; Hewett 1969, 21). Deneux published “L’Evolution des Charpentes du XIe au XVIIe Siẻcle”, in the French journal L’ Architecte, July 1927 (Deneux 1927) and, it is his attention to detail, and creation of joint typologies, that Hewitt pays homage to in the introduction to his main work (Hewett 1980a, 1). Deneux’s work was revisited, and republished, in 2002, showing its importance and relevance in today’s world (Collectif 2002). In this republished book, modern scholars have reappraised his work, in the light of dendrochronology, and recalibrated his chronologies, similar in essence to this project with regard to Hewett’s work in Essex, following the Author’s reinvestigation of some of Hewett’s key buildings, by both physical survey and desk based research. Hewett was also involved in the dating of some carpentry styles in Hampshire, including ‘King Arthurs Round Table’, from the Great Hall at Winchester, 15-16 The Abbey, Romsey and Winchester Cathedral. The results of his research will be looked at in greater depth, in subsequent Chapters, alongside the results of dendrochronology and, in the case of the round table, also Radiocarbon dating.
Hewett’s work, along with many of his contemporaries, tends to reflect the surviving ecclesiastical and high status, politer buildings of the middle ages. This is shown by some of Hewett’s other publications, English Cathedral and Monastic Carpentry (1974) and Church Carpentry (1974); what separates his work, from theirs, is his detailed study of joint types. J. T. Smith wrote a review on Hewett’s English Cathedral Carpentry (1975) which describes Hewett’s style of ‘3d’ illustration as being a great improvement over purely linear presentations (Smith 1978, 365). Hewett used a technique of hatching and shading to create the illusion of dimension, although Smith is unhappy about the lack of scaling from such techniques. Hewett’s aim however, was to illustrate chrono-typologies over individual case studies. This project has taken Hewett’s style of representing joints one stage further, by using 3d software to create computer generated models that allow the viewer to ‘see’ into the joint, to better understand its inner complexities as shown in Figure 4. Beyond this, as the models are solid entities, they can be animated to show the sequence of construction, as will be shown in later Chapters.
Figure 4 A comparison between Hewett’s line-drawn illustration of an Essex scarf and the Authors rendered 3D model of a Hampshire scarf
2.1 The dating of medieval timbers
This Section will explore dating techniques available to the buildings archaeologist, from the height of Cecil Hewett’s work on historic carpentry, the 1960s and 70s, to the present. Alongside this, the evolution of such techniques and their integration into archaeological methodologies will be explored. The ability to date buildings with a high degree of accuracy has obvious advantages within building archaeology. Key events, such as the Black Death, happen over such a short period – only 2 years – that the ability to identify a buildings date of construction, before or after such an event, can have huge ramifications. J. T. Smith suggests that inscribed dates are the “surest evidence”, though warns, “they do not exist before the sixteenth century” (Smith 1970, 239). Smith also notes that documents can be unreliable, as they often relate to a plot of land rather than the building upon it, and therefore, it is difficult to identify the actual building to which the document refers (Ibid.). Alternative methods were needed in order to date buildings before the sixteenth century.
As a result, the development of secure chronological data has always been at the forefront of archaeological theory and research, and this has led to the testing of various dating methods (Truncer and M. Pearsall 2008, 1077). These methods include, among others:
• typological dating (by style) – see Section 2.2.1
• Radiocarbon dating (14C) – see Section 2.2.2
• dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) – see Section 2.2.3.
These three methods will now be examined, in detail, and their usefulness in dating timber buildings analysed. On the subject of dating Hewett wrote: “[Radiocarbon dating] is a valuable but very expensive method, and [dendrochronology] is not yet available to the extent that is desirable. How useful these methods will become has yet to be established, and typological assessments that have due regard to the technological typology herein proposed are the best method available at the present time” (Hewett 1980a, 2). It is Hewett’s typological dating method that will be examined first.
2.1.1 Typological dating
Johnson defines typological studies “as local descriptions and classifications of house types, building materials and techniques, and decorative styles, with the intention of producing controls over dating and regional variation” (Johnson 1990, 246). Within the wider definition given above subsists joint typologies – i.e. the dating of buildings based on the timber joints used to construct them. This was pioneered in England by Cecil Hewett. When Hewett published his major work, English Historic Carpentry, in 1980, 14C dating was expensive and unreliable and, dendrochronology was yet to be established, in northern Europe, as a reliable and inexpensive alternative (Hewett 1980a, 2). Because of this, scientific techniques were not widely utilised by scholars at the time and thus, dating by type and technological progression were the only reliable techniques. This assumes that an ‘archaic’ joint is replaced by a more efficient one, and so forth and, that when a new joint is created, it is immediately employed by all carpenters introduced to it (Hewett 1962, 240). On this Hewett wrote: “in many instances different forms of the same joint are seen, and these can be arranged in such orders as give them the appearance of constituting evolutionary sequences, by way of which it may be assumed the joint has attained the form in which it is most familiar in our time” (Hewett 1962, 240). Hewett’s translation of Henri Deneux, regarding the dating by type and style, reads: “by examining all these examples of frame-work we have been able to prove, despite their great variety, that each period is characterised by definite assembly-methods” (Hewett 1968, 80).
The certainty, by which Deneux, Hewett, Smith and others date buildings, purely by style, is based on 20th century human assumptions, about work carried out over four hundred years previously: the validity and, more importantly, the accuracy of which, needs reassessing where possible, by the recalibration of such chronologies with recent scientific methodologies. These methods will now be discussed.
