An architectural Survey of Littlebourne Barn

AN ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF LITTLEBOURNE BARN RUPERT AUSTIN INTRODUCTION Littleboume Barn (N.G.R. TR 211 579) is one of the most impressive medieval barns in Kent and almost certainly dates from the first half of the fourteenth century. With the exception of an eighteenth-century granary to the west, other farm buildings which might have once surrounded the barn have long since vanished. An area in front of the barn, formerly the farm pond, is now covered in overgrown vegetation (Fig. 1, inset). In common with the majority of Kentish barns, Littleboume Barn is fully-aisled and built entirely of timber. The early barns at Court Lodge, Brook, and Manor Farm, Frindsbury, are perhaps the only surviving Kentish barns with features similar to Littleboume. Several slightly later medieval barns also survive, such as those at Lenham Court Lodge, Faversham Abbey Farm and Godmersham Court Lodge, but these are without some of the archaic features found in the earlier structures. Kent's population of medieval barns has not fared well this century. Numerous historic structures have been lost, in particular barns at Ightham Mote, Nettlestead, Chislet Court and Lenham Court Lodge, all destroyed by fire in recent years. Other barns such as Davington Court, Temple Manor, Strood, Great Delce, Rochester and Town Farm, Wrotham have sadly been demolished without adequate record. Canterbury City Council, fearing Littleboume Barn might fall into disrepair or worse succumb to the present vogue for conversion, recently purchased the structure. With so many of Littleboume's contemporaries lost, an accurate and detailed survey of this important building was considered prudent and this was undertaken by the author during the spring of 1995. 203 • .. <. .. .... , .. 􀀇• .. - 1)8ARN 2)CHORCH .:,)GRANARY 4} LlfflEBOORNE COORT S}POND , ..... Fig. 1. Littlebourne Barn: Reconstruction showing former arrangement at north-east end of barn. I AN ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF LITTLEBOURNE BARN THE PRIMARY FOURTEENTH-CENTURY STRUCTURE General description Littlebourne Barn, of seven full bays with outshots at either end, is presently 172 ft. long and 39 ft. wide. The core of the building (the principal PLATE I Littleboume Barn: General view of the interior, looking south-west. 205 RUPERT AUSTIN trusses and arcade-plates) dates from the fourteenth century. The roof, side elevations and one end have all been rebuilt, in some places several times over. Two porches were added to the front of the barn in the 1960s and at the same time the roof was re-thatched. As with many medieval buildings, the timbers were prepared in advance (perhaps in a carpenter's yard) and numbered to assist with assembly on site. A comprehensive set of carpenters marks (there are no inconsistencies although numbers are missing due to decay or replacement), can be seen on virtually every primary timber. Each truss is numbered in sequence, with additional tags to distinguish between similar components and identify one side of the building from the other. The arcade-braces and dragon-ties have independent number sequences. These numbers are sometimes difficult to find (the tie-beams for example are numbered on the soffit of the dovetail and only visible where the joint has withdrawn or decayed), but they proved invaluable during the survey. They revealed many important details about the building and enabled original timbers to be distinguished from later replacements. The aisled cross-frames are assembled in a manner typical of medieval Kentish barns. A substantial arch-brace rises from the front of each principal arcade-post to the tie-beam, whilst a long shoring brace descends from the rear to the post-plate beneath. Similarly substantial arcadebraces rise from the sides of each post to the arcade-plate above. These braces are all of irregular shape, following the natural curves of the timber from which they were fashioned. Their square and stocky section is characteristic of early work. An aisle-tie, tenoned into the rear of the arcade-post, passes (by way of a pegged housing) the descending shore, before securing the outer wall-post and eaves-plate. A substantial postplate, into which the posts and shores are tenoned, lies beneath the aisles of the cross-frames, laid on a low dwarf wall. Several ragstone blocks can still be seen terminating these transverse dwarf walls which have otherwise been rebuilt in brick. Several archaic features, suggestive of an early date, have been incorporated into the framing. Whereas the main arcade-posts support the tie-beams and arcade-plates with a conventional jowl assembly, the aisle walls are constructed using reverse assembly, a feature usually associated with early buildings. In addition, short spandrel struts, tenoned horizontally between the main arcade-posts and their arch-braces, survive in many of the cross-frames. Splayed and keyed scarfs, used to join the longitudinal arcade-plates together, also suggest an early date for the building. A table or step in the splay, together with four face pegs further strengthens these scarfs. Housings atop the arcade-plates and mortices in the sides of the original tie-beams indicate that dragon-ties, now missing, were once incorporated into the framing. 206 AN ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF LITTLEBOURNE BARN Aisle walls/external elevations It is clear from mere cursory inspection of the external elevations that they have been rebuilt and modified many times, introducing several new scarfs into the building. Whether any original fourteenth-century fabric has survived in these elevations is not so clear. The most important clue to the original arrangement of the aisle walls can be seen along the north-west elevation in truss II, section D-D. Mortices, now partly cut away, are clearly visible on the sides of the post-plate where the original ground-plates were connected. A further mortice indicates where the wall-post was tenoned directly into the top of the postplate. Indeed, the original post still survives on the opposite south-east end of this truss, correctly tenoned into the plate. These details have unfortunately been lost on the other trusses where the ends of the postplates, due to decay, have been trimmed back several inches. The interrupted ground-plates, an important structural feature of Littleboume Barn, had not been recognised until the present survey. This discovery confirms that the existing ground-plates, which now oversail the post-plates, are all later replacements. The only exceptions are perhaps those along the north-east elevation. We can, as a result, eliminate the many and varied scarfs that patch together these later ground-plates from our picture of the original barn. Despite the loss of the ground-plates, something of the original arrangement of the aisle-walls can be seen in five of the bays along the rear south-east elevation. Mid-rails and centre posts survive in these bays, although several of the extant timbers are replacements. It seems that the aisle walls at Frindsbury Barn, which appear to be better preserved and retain much original cladding, are of similar construction. 1 The eaves-plates, joined over the principal wall-posts using splayed and pegged scarfs, also appear to be original. A groove, intended to take vertical weatherboards, runs continuously along the underside of these plates. It is possible, if a little unlikely, that some of the original oak boards have survived, albeit relocated. Unfortunately, it is clear, considering the ground-plates have been replaced, that none can have survived in situ. The original cladding may well have been spaced in a similar fashion to the extant boards with narrow gaps between the planks. This would have provided good ventilation for produce stored in the barn. 1 S.E. Rigold, 'Some major Kentish timber barns', Arch. Cant., lxxxi, (1966), I. 207 N 0 00 PLATE II Littleboume Barn: Arcade-post assembly, south-east elevation. PLATE III Littlebourne Barn: Detail of aisle wall, south-east elevation, showing reverse assembly. ;,:, 􀀁 ..., > C: (/) 􀀂 AN ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF LITTLEBOURNE BARN North-east terminal bay The north-east bay appears to have substantially survived in its original fourteenth-century form. The aisled construction of the barn continues around this 'half' bay in a fashion typical of many Kentish barns. Its terminal tie-beam is cantilevered atop the arcade-plates in the manner of a 'half' bay. An axial post, shored and framed (thus creating an identical aisle to the cross-frames), supports the cantilevered tie-beam. Features of many of the timbers in the north-east elevation suggest that they, too, may be original. Only here do the ground-plates tenon correctly into the sides of the post-plate. The eaves-plates, like those along the rear elevation, have a weatherboard groove and are scarfed with a simple splay over the principal wall-post. A substantial tension brace, the only brace to be seen anywhere along the aisle walls, drops from the east comer post to the ground-plate. Its sizeable square section and general appearance match the fourteenth-century braces elsewhere. A mortice, indicating a similar brace in the opposite comer, is clearly visible on the ground-plate. The east comer post, which interrupts both ground-plates and eaves-plates, may also be original. Missing south-west bays of the barn One of the most important discoveries, clearly indicated by the numbering system described above, was that the fourteenth-century barn originally continued further to the south-west. Truss no. 1 is clearly missing. Without further investigation one might assume that a single bay has been removed from the building. Examination of the arcade-braces, also numbered in sequence, reveals however that an odd number of braces are missing. This indicates that a bay and a half have been removed from the building. This end of the barn, therefore, terminated in a cantilevered half bay, almost certainly matching that of the surviving north-east bay. The addition of the missing fabric gives an original length of 202 ft. As a result of these discoveries, the present arrangement at the southwest end of the building is easier to understand. The axial post (a seemingly unnecessary inclusion at present), is very similar in appearance to that at the north-east end and has clearly been relocated following the demolition of the former end bay. The survival of this post confirms that the missing terminal bay was of cantilevered construction. What remained of the south-west end of the barn after demolition was necessarily rebuilt, hence the different scarfs and framing (to be discussed below). Re-used posts and tie-beams Numerous re-used timbers, some incorporated during the building's construction and others added during later phases of repair and alteration, 209 RUPERT AUSTIN can be seen in the barn. Three of the main arcade-posts and two tiebeams have drawn the most attention. The three re-used posts (all along the south-east arcade in trusses 4, 6 and 7) appear to have come from an earlier barn, or perhaps an aisled ground-floor hall. Whatever their source, the structure was clearly taller than the Littlebourne Barn. Empty mortices for earlier arch-braces and arcade-braces can be seen above the braces which are present today. Applied jowls, matching those throughout the rest of the fourteenthcentury building, have been added to the tops of these posts. Empty mortices on the sides of three main arcade-posts, close to their bases, have also drawn attention. It has been suggested that props were inserted into these mortices to support the posts whilst their feet, or perhaps the plates, were repaired or replaced. Whilst this may be the case, these mortices are only present on the three re-used posts, suggesting that this operation was undertaken during their former life in another building. Indeed, none of the three plates beneath the posts appear to have been touched, and a carpenter's number is still visible on one, indicating that it is an original timber. In addition to the prop mortices, free tenons are also present on the bases of these three arcade-posts. Whilst it is possible they have been repaired in their present location, it seems more likely that the free tenons were added whilst the timbers were being converted from their previous use. There is no evidence for decay or failure around their bases that would necessitate repairs. Indeed one such free tenon interferes with a prop mortice which suggests the tenons came later. A clear example of an arcade-post being propped and a plate replaced can be seen in truss no. 5 (see below). The two tie-beams at the north-east end of the barn have also been re-used from another building. Housings for passing braces, perhaps associated with a scissor-braced roof (an early form of roof structure), can be seen on the sides of these tie-beams. There is, however, no evidence to link the re-used arcade-posts and tie-beams. A noticeable difference in the condition of these timbers (the tie-beams are in a considerably advanced state of decay) might suggest that they came from different structures. The presence of an earlier barn, somehow incorporated into the existing structure, has been suggested as an explanation for the re-used posts and tie-beams. The five timbers discussed, which may or may not come from one building, do not, however, support this suggestion. Entrances None of the original entrances have survived; the extant porches were added in the 1960s. Several suggestions regarding the former fourteenth- 210 AN ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF LITTLEBOURNE BARN century entrances have been made in the past, but it was not realised that the ground-plates were entirely replaced and the aisle-walls rebuilt. The remaining evidence, therefore, only relates to later arrangements. The extant northernmost entrance has clearly been inserted through the framing of the north-west aisle wall, rebuilt at this point perhaps in the fifteenth century. An earlier entrance (now blocked) was clearly positioned in the adjoining bay to the south-west where there is a large break in the seventeenth-century ground-plate. Carpenter's marks associated with the rebuilt section of fifteenth-century aisle-wall clearly respect this entrance, indicating that it was present before this work was undertaken. Unlike the northern entrance, the extant porch to the south clearly replaces an earlier entrance perhaps of seventeenth-century date. Above the modem posts, which are replacements, two earlier eaves-plates (which create the projecting porch) survive. Unfortunately, the door-head and rafters have been replaced, but birdsmouths and empty housings indicate the positions of the missing timbers. Slender arch-braces once rose internally from the original posts to the porch-plates above; one of these still survives. A tenon (now slightly trimmed), which secured the aisle-wall to the door post, can still be seen. In the absence of any direct evidence, one can only speculate and hope that the positions of these two early entrances respect the original fourteenth-century arrangement. At present they lie further to the southwest than one might expect. However, if the missing bay and a half is added to the plan of the barn, the suggested locations fall symmetrically about the centre of the building. This arrangement, with two bays between the entrances and two and a half at either end, would seem to afford the best access. LATER ?FIFTEENTH-CENTURY CROWN-POST ROOF An attractive and fully-braced crown-post roof presently runs the length of the barn. With the exception of the south-west end, which has been rebuilt, the roof has survived virtually unaltered. Even a quick glance suggests it to be of a different build to the framing below. In contrast to the irregular shape and square section of the fourteenth-century timbers, the posts and braces of the roof are slender and well defined. Its timbers are in excellent condition with little or no decay, whilst the fourteenthcentury framing has suffered considerably over the years. An edgehalved scarf has been used to join the collar-purlin throughout its length. This distinctly later style of scarf contrasts with the earlier splayed scarfs used in the primary structure. In one or two places the rafters of the present roof clearly rest in the empty housings left by the former dragon- 211 RUPERT AUSTIN PLATE IV Littleboume Barn: Detail of Cl4th splayed, tabled and keyed scarf. ties, confirming that the present roof structure was assembled after the dragon-ties were removed. In general, it seems that there are two different groups of historic rafters in the present roof structure. One set, perhaps the earlier, comprises adzed timbers whilst the remainder retain the characteristic marks of a pit saw. It is possible that many of the original rafters were re-used when the roof was rebuilt, and those that had failed or decayed replaced by new timbers. Evidence for the original roof is, not surprisingly, scarce and the fourteenth- century tie-beams provide the only clues. These beams have no further mortices on them other than those used by the posts and braces of the present crown-post roof and certainly no evidence for passing braces, etc. Closer inspection gives the impres ion that the extant timber sit in earlier mortices as these are noticeably decayed around the edge . An early crown-post roof is po sible although unlikely. A braced kingpost or crown-strut roof without longitudinal support is perhaps more likely. Whatever its form it seem reasonable to assume that the original roof failed. Raking was common when purlins were not used. 212 AN ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF LITILEBOURNE BARN EARLY REPAIRS TO THE SOUTH-EAST AISLE WALL Replacement of the ground-plate along much of the length of this elevation introduced a new and distinctive scarf into the building. These new timbers are joined using an edge halved scarf with housed tenons. Above this plate the three north-east bays of the aisle wall have been further rebuilt. The former mid-rail has been replaced by studding (the original centre post appears to have been kept) and the eaves-plate replaced. The reversed assembly of the aisle-ties has not been altered. REBUILDING OF THE NORTH-WEST AISLE WALL, NORTH-EAST END A further distinct area of rebuilding can be seen in this elevation. The reverse assembly of the original aisle-ties/wall-posts has been replaced by more conventional jowled posts and normal assembly. Closely spaced studs, which have been further rearranged in recent years, again take the place of the mid-rails. A numbering system, knifed rather than incised onto the timbers, can still be seen on these studs. This numbering system, as discussed above, clearly respects the position of an earlier entrance which has since been blocked. This work is of perhaps fifteenth-century date. REBUILDING OF THE SOUTH-WEST END OF THE BARN It was clearly necessary, following the demolition of one and a half bays from the south-west end of the barn (see above), to construct a new terminal bay and complete the truncated end of the roof with a hip. It is, therefore, no surprise to see a short length of clasped side-purlin roof, the only major alteration to the crown-post roof, over this end of the building. An approximate date for the reconstruction of this end of the barn is indicated by the style of this new roof structure. Clasped sidepurlin construction was first introduced in the second half of the sixteenth century and continued in use for another two hundred years. A date during the seventeenth century seems likely for the modifications to this end of the barn. It would seem reasonable to assume that demolition and rebuilding took place within a short period of time. In addition to the roof structure, modification and reconstruction of the framing below was necessary. The rebuilt elevations clearly differ from our understanding of the original fourteenth-century fabric. Gone are the tension-braces, mid-rails, and interrupted plates (indicated or surviving in the opposite north-east terminal bay) replaced by a simpler arrangement of closely spaced studs. Much of the timber used in the 213 RUPERT AUSTIN rebuilding has clearly been salvaged from the former terminal bay. Part of the original fourteenth-century eaves-plate, which retains its weatherboard groove, has been relocated in the new south-west elevation. The original axial-post, which once supported the former cantilevered terminal bay, has also been retained. The arcade-plates and braces in the last whole bay have also been renewed and the new plates secured to the old by an edge-halved scarf with bridled abutments. This scarf has been used throughout the rebuilt south-west end of the barn. FURTHER REBUILDING OF THE NORTH-WEST AISLE-WALL An early phase of repair to the north-west aisle-wall, distinguished by its jowled posts and normal assembly, has been discussed above. What remained of this elevation was further rebuilt, probably on several occasions, and the original fourteenth-century aisle-walls entirely replaced. Both eaves and ground-plates have been renewed and new studding introduced. The result of the many repairs and patches to this side of the barn is a rather messy and confusing elevation. The north-west side of the barn, which catches the worst of the prevailing weather, seems to have suffered the most over the years, whereas the better-protected south-east side has retained many of its original timbers. MISCELLANEOUS REPAIRS, ALTERATIONS AND FEATURES In addition to the major phases of work discussed above the barn has undergone a vast number of minor repairs and alterations during its lifetime. Many of the joints in the barn, which have withdrawn or failed over the years, have been repaired early in its history with wooden ties and patches. Steel ties and straps have been used to similar effect in more recent years. Cross frame no. 8 (section J-J) has been virtually rebuilt with its tiebeam, arcade-braces, arch-braces and arcade-posts all being renewed. The new timbers are clearly re-used, taken perhaps from another barn. Substantial repairs such as these were undoubtedly difficult to undertake. The surrounding frame of the barn had to be propped while the failed timbers were removed and new ones inserted. The crown-post in this cross frame now hangs to the side of the new tie-beam, its tenon exposed. Clearly, the new beam rises slightly higher at its centre than its predecessor. It was obviously considered too much trouble to shorten the crown-post, re-cut its tenon and engage it in the new tie-beam. Further repairs can be seen in frame no. 5 (section F-F). The south- 214 AN ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF LITILEBOURNE BARN east arcade-post together with its braces has been replaced. A small niche in the face of this post indicates perhaps where a prop was housed in order to hold or lever it into place. More niches, albeit different in style, can be seen on the opposite post in this frame. The post-plate beneath has clearly been replaced; its outer end follows the shape of the branch or rootstock of the tree from which it was converted. This crude piece of timber, unlike the squared and neatly converted post-plates elsewhere, was never intended to accept the interrupted ground-plates of the original fourteenth-century aisle-walls. The post above was clearly propped (hence the niches) while the original plate was removed and the new one inserted. An obvious flaw, in a building using reverse assembly, is for the eaves-plate to slip out under the thrust of the rafters. Empty housings, visible on several of the arcade-posts along the north-west side, suggest that secondary aisle-ties were added to the barn, above those already present, in an attempt to prevent this type of failure. These secondary ties were removed once the north-west aisle-wall had been rebuilt. It has been suggested that the aisles were partitioned in frame no. 3 (section E-E) in order to provide separate storage space within the barn. Unfortunately, the niches beneath the aisle-ties have been misinterpreted as evidence for studs. These niches are in fact empty birdsmouths, once intended to take rafters. Clearly these timbers have been re-used, indeed one of the birdsmouths has been partly cut away by the shoring brace of the present barn. POSSIBLE DISMANTLING AND RE-ASSEMBLY Several details observed during the recording of the barn suggest, albeit tentatively, that the fourteenth-century building may have been dismantled, repaired and then faithfully re-assembled. Three of the original arcade-posts (frames 3, 5 and 7, north-west side), have free tenons fitted to their jowls. These tenons are clearly a later fitting or repair; two of them interfere with the original face peg that secures the arcade-plate to the head of the post. Indeed their condition is fresh whilst the posts are badly decayed. It would have been extremely difficult to insert these tenons in situ. Either the arch-brace was disengaged and the tie-beam and crown-post assembly raised, or the post was dropped, disengaging shores, braces, tie-beam, arcade-plate, etc. Both these options would have proved extremely difficult to undertake. A chased tenon would have been infinitely easier to fit, and required no dismantling whatsoever. Even this would have been a surprisingly keen repair, compared with the almost universal botch seen in most of these situations. It would, however, have been relatively simple to accomplish 215 RUPERT AUSTIN PLATE V Littleboume Barn: General view of exterior, looking south. this fonn of repair on the ground prior to reassembly. Indeed, repairs of this sort must have been inevitable when attempting to re-erect a dismantled building. Other free tenons can be seen on braces, ground-plates and not least the bases of several of the arcade-posts (see above). Once again, are these repairs undertaken on the ground, prior to reassembly? ln a few places, where timbers have withdrawn and the tenon is exposed it appears that peg-holes have been re-drilled, suggesting perhaps that the timbers were assembled for a second time. Why are the three re-used arcade-posts and two tie-beams, integral components of the fourteenth-century barn and not insertions, randomly distributed around the building? Would these not have been used first or last at one end of the barn, or perhaps in the same frames? Did these replace failed timbers before re-assembly? Clearly it is difficult to be convinced of such a drastic event, the dismantling and reassembly of the barn, from these small details. The observations and ideas suggested above have been included as a pointer to future avenues of investigation. The possibility of reassembly fortunately does not affect the obser- 216 AN ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF LITTLEBOURNE BARN vations and interpretations made throughout this report. The assumption that a timber is original, because it could not have been inserted, has not been used to form any arguments. Clearly, if this was the case, and the barn had indeed been reassembled, any conclusions drawn in this way would be suspect as such timbers could have been included during reassembly. It would be necessary, however, to determine which aspects of the building's development occurred in its original location and those which were introduced during or after its reconstruction. Another question which would arise, and of course cannot be answered, is whether the barn came from a distant location or was rebuilt on or near its original position. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND A charter of A.O. 696 reveals that in March A.O. 690 Withred, king of Kent, gave 'in pure and perpetual alms, five ploughlands called Litleborne' to St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, on condition that the queen and himself were remembered in prayers during mass.2 The abbey's holdings were further increased in A.O. 1047 when King Edward granted a ploughland at Littleboume to the archbishop, who in tum granted the land to the monastery.3 It is clear that St. Augustine's Abbey became a major landowner around Littleboume at an early date, and continued to increase its holdings through the years until by the fourteenth century they owned most of the lands in and around Littleboume. During the time of Abbot Ralph (elected 1309-1334) a monk named Salamon of Ripple, was warden of the manors of Northboume, Littleboume, Stodmarsh and Chislet. It seems that he was praised in these places for many good works. At Northboume he built from the foundations a very beautiful chapel, and several large barns. At Little Mungham and Chislet he set up further chapels on the sites of earlier buildings. At Littleboume he united into one property, by purchasing new holdings, lands scattered in various places. The buildings of the manor there were almost completely built and erected at great expense by him alone.4 Salamon was still involved in the abbey's affairs in 1335 following the election of Abbot Thomas Poucy whereupon he was appointed as the collector of moneys. Although no further references to Salamon were found it seems likely that his appointments continued for the next few years. : A.H. Davis, William Thorne' s Chronicles of St. Augustine' s, Canterbury, (1934), 24. Ibid., 44. 4 Ibid., 484. 217 RUPERT AUSTIN Littlebourne Bam was undoubtedly built by St. Augustine's Abbey and belonged to a complex of buildings comprising the Manor Court of Littlebourne. The Court Lodge, now replaced by a later eighteenthcentury building, was located to the north of the bam whilst further structures, cowsheds, stables and granaries, etc., would have been located around about. The activities and extensive building campaigns of Salamon Ripple during the first half of the fourteenth century suggest he may have been responsible for the construction of Littleboume Barn although this is of course conjecture. SUMMARY The medieval core of the building has remained largely unaltered whilst further elements of the original framing have survived in the rear southeast aisle wall and north-west terminal bay. Archaic features used in this primary fabric, such as the splayed and keyed scarfs, spandrel-struts and dragon-ties, all suggest a date during the first half of the fourteenth century. A comprehensive set of carpenter's marks, clearly visible on the primary timbers, proved an invaluable aid to our understanding of the building. The loss of one and a half bays from the south-west end of the barn was one of many alterations indicated by these carpenter's marks. Evidence for the former arrangement of ground-plates, once interrupted by the post-plates, helped confirm that the aisle-walls (which now oversail the post-plates) had been largely rebuilt over the years. Several bays along the rear south-east elevation appear to retain the original mid-rail and centre post arrangement; however, the vertical weatherboards, once let into grooves in the plates, have since been renewed. Much of the north-east end of the barn, which terminates in a cantilevered half bay, appears to have survived. A comer post, with tension brace, and perhaps the original ground-plates survive in this end elevation. It seems likely that the missing south-west terminal bay was of a similar design. The original axial post, which matches that in the northeast end, has been retained and re-used in the new arrangement. Although no direct evidence for the original entrances remains, the earliest surviving fabric (which hopefully respects the original arrangement) suggests perhaps that the fourteenth-century barn was entered through two doors, symmetrically placed about the two central bays. This would have afforded the best access to the interior of the barn. Unfortunately, the original roof structure does not survive. The present crown-post roof, which probably dates from the fifteenth century, is clearly a replacement. In addition to the roof, several other extensive areas of reconstruction can be seen in the barn. A section of clasped side-purlin roof can be seen 218 AN ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF LITTLEBOURNE BARN over the shortened end of the building which appears to have been rebuilt in the seventeenth century. Several bays of the north-west aisle-wall have also been renewed, replaced by posts and ties of normal assembly. Several details observed in the barn, in particular the free tenons atop three of the arcade-posts, suggest that the building may have been dismantled and then re-assembled on the present site. This is, however, only a suggestion which merits further research. A dendrochronological survey might clarify some of these areas of speculation and could provide more precise dates for various phases of the barn's construction. CONCLUSION In addition to a detailed set of drawings, a far better understanding of the original form and subsequent development of Littleboume Barn, one of Kent's largest and earliest barns, has been gained as a result of this survey. The survey not only provided a permanent record of the barn in its present state, but uncovered features previously undiscovered or misunderstood. This greater understanding of the building and its development will hopefully ensure that future repairs are undertaken in an informed and sympathetic manner. The survey of Littleboume Barn was grant-aided by English Heritage. Copyright of all the work contained within this report is held by them. 219 )N.••\N. I I I I - - 1i--- II ..,,,- I\ II 11 :;..- 􀀈"I \\ 􀀑 II II I \\ I ,_, - :J.,J . I ,,7 I􀀂 II \I \k 11\􀀔 )) 􀀕 11!1 l - . - . . II 􀀄!..1' '"" 􀀐 -...:, I '\1 I I I -:!.,.,---