The Medieval Houses of the Marsh: the Missing Evidence

The image of Kent as a county with a multitude of medieval houses is a common one, and in many areas it has a firm foundation. One may, for example, cite Charing, which runs from the southern edge of the Downs, across the Vale of Holmesdale and into the sand and ragstone of the Chart Hills, where 24 medieval houses have been identified; or Smarden, lying in the low Weald, where at least 21 medieval dwellings are known. Although these large parishes have more houses remaining than most, the density of survivors is not unusually high, and it results in three, or even four or more, medieval houses occurring per 1000 acres. But densities of this sort are not universal, and among the regions where few early dwellings remain today is Romney Marsh. Work on the buildings of the Marsh formed part of a project on rural medieval houses in Kent which the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England has recently completed, the results of which have been published in three volumes (RCHME 1994). In terms of the project 'medieval' houses are those which were centred upon an open hall heated by an open hearth; and the time span covered begins in the late 13th century, when the first dwellings start to survive, and continues into the early or mid 16th century, when open halls were replaced by fully two-storeyed buildings heated by enclosed fireplaces. Three-quarters of the open-hall houses recorded were built after 1450, and if one excludes large and early stone dwellings, then around 80% date from after the mid 15th century. Thus the vast majority of what we term medieval houses were built during a relatively short period at the very end of the Middle Ages. On Romney Marsh the Commission surveyed four modern civil parishes: the rural parishes of Brenzett, Brookland and Newchurch, and the town and parish of Lydd. In addition, work was done in Aldington and Appledore, both of which lie off the Marsh, but are contiguous to it along one boundary. Within the Marsh itself medieval houses were only found in any number in Lydd, where eight early buildings remain, or remained until recently, in or on the edge of the town. They are all timber-framed and likely to date from the middle of the 15th century or later. Not one medieval dwelling was identified in any of the three rural parishes. However, at The Woolpack Inn in Brookland, as in several late 16th or early 17th-century houses in Lydd, smoke-blackened rafters, which must have come originally from open-hall houses, were reused as part of the later structures, indicating the former presence of sizeable and sturdy medieval buildings which were rebuilt in the early modern period. If one looks beyond the parishes surveyed by the Commission a similar picture emerges. In New Romney two or three early stone buildings, which survive to a greater or lesser extent, have been recorded (Parkin 1973, 124-7; Harris 1992), and a number of later timber-framed medieval houses have been identified (Parkin 1973, 120-4). In the countryside three medieval houses have been reported, one in each of the parishes of Burmarsh, Ivychurch and Old Rornney (DOE List 1985). But that is all. On the fringes of the Marsh the Commission found only two medieval dwellings in Appledore, one of which is the splendid and atypical Hornes Place, home of the knightly Horne family who supplied a number of Justices of the Peace, sheriffs and knights of the shire, during the 14th and 15th centuries. On the other hand, in Aldington, seven early buildings survive in addition to the remains of the archbishop's palace, but all of them are located at some distance from the Marsh, up on the greensand of the Chart Hills. Since timber-framed remains can lie hidden in later brick buildings, and since it was impossible to go into every later house on the off-chance of discovering an earlier core, it is possible that the odd example has been missed. But such problems of identification are universal throughout Kent, and it is inconceivable that the number of medieval buildings remaining on the Marsh bears any correspondence to the number surviving in the parishes of central Kent. Habitation reached its greatest density on the Marsh earlier in the Middle Ages. Field walking has produced evidence for far more pottery sherds dating between the Conquest and the early 15th century than from the periods either before or after (Reeves this volume, Table 5. l), with a greater number dating to the first than to the second half of that relatively long span of time. In the 14th century both the lay subsidy of 1334 (Hanley and Chalklin 1964,67-70; The Medieval Houses of the Marsh: the Missing Evidence Glasscock 1965, 64) and the 1377 poll tax' (Smith 1988, 199) show the region as still being reasonably wealthy and well-populated; and in Ivychurch at least work continued throughout the century on the parish church (Tatton-Brown 1989, 259-61). But by the 16th century the number of inhabitants had declined (Harpsfield 1557) and the wealth of the area was considerably less pronounced (Sheail 1972, Figs. 14; Smith 1988,200-01). In addition the amount of pottery dating between 140011450 and 1500/1550 found from field walking was less than half that found from the period between 1250 and the early 15th century (Reeves this volume, Table 5.1). That no medieval houses, except for one or two stone buildings in New Romney, date from before the late 14th century, is hardly surprising. Early timber-framed buildings are rare anywhere, and in Kent they are largely confined to the region north of the Downs, where they seem to represent the homes of men of knightly rank. In general, the houses of men below this social level are not found before the late 14th century at the earliest. Whatever the reasons for this may be - whether the structures were too early to survive in any circumstances, whether they were insubstantial, or whether they were simply demolished because attitudes as to what formed an acceptable dwelling changed - a lack of early houses on the Marsh, at a time when inhabitants were numerous and some of them were wealthy, is not remarkable, since the same situation prevails in most parts of the county. The oddity concerns what happened later, for even though the population declined, it did not disappear altogether, and 93 in many parts of Kent large numbers of sturdy and sizeable late 15th and early 16th-century houses still remain. This lacuna raises the question of what the medieval houses of the Marsh were like, and whether they resembled the buildings which survive in Charing, Smarden and elsewhere. The houses which remain in Lydd fall into two categories. In the first place there are half a dozen high- walled buildings of 'wealden' or 'end-jetty' type. Two wealdens, at 16 and 18 High Street, and at 4 and 5 Park Street, were found. Considerable alterations, including later brick and tile cladding, have disguised the characteristic wealden form, with its appearance of a recessed open hall and storeyed end bays overhanging to the front; but large parts of both houses survive, including their crown-post roofs (Fig. 6.1). It is likely that several of the New Romney houses are also of this form (Parkin 1973, 123). Other buildings had flush-walled fronts, possibly with overhanging jetties at the ends, although examples such as 5 New Street and Poplar House, Poplar Lane are too altered for certainty on this point. The four houses mentioned so far were probably normal dwellings, with central open halls separating units of storeyed accommodation which contained the private rooms and service areas. But the building which now forms 13, 15 and 17 New Street is highly unusual, for it appears to have had two, two-bay, open halls lying end-to-end in the centre of a long range, with single units of two-storeyed accommodation at either extremity (Figs. 6.2,6.3). It lies along one side of the churchyard. It might have formed two semi-detached dwellings, as has been found elsewhere Fig. 6.1. Crown-po at 4, 5 Park Street, -0of dd. A L open h a l l A BLopen hallL OF--'- 5 scale for sections 30 Ft B r B1 0 Fig. 6.2. 13-1 7 New Strtzrr, Lydd. Two open halls, each with a two-storeyed bay at the end. Fig. 6.3. 13-17 New Street, Iqdd. View from the south. 2 10 M A1 The Medieval Houses of the Marsh: the Missing Evidence (Moran 1992, 12), but, given the large size of the 'halls' and the small amount of subsidiary accommodation, it was possibly not a house, serving instead some special and as yet undetermined function connected with the church or the town. Its nearest parallel occupies a similar situation near the church at Chiddingstone in west Kent (Gray 1988). It may be significant that the Old Court Hall, another building with an apparently non-domestic origin, lies not far to the south west on New Street (Parkin 1962). However, the important point about all these houses, whatever their precise form and function, is that they were tall and well-built, with plenty of room in their storeyed bays for sizeable first-floor chambers. This is the type of building which is familiar throughout Kent. The second type of medieval house is altogether different and is represented today by only one house in Lydd. This is Rype Cottage, which lies on the edge of common land, known as the Rype, to the south-east of the town (Hasted 1799, 423). Initially the house was much smaller than at present (the outline of the original is marked in black on the plan, Fig. 6.4), and it had an aisle on its west side. Aisled building, in which the width is divided like a church into nave and aisles separated by open arcades, was a form of construction used in the earliest surviving houses, and in many which are known only from excavation. Most of the earliest examples are fine buildings erected for men of wealth and position; but by the early 14th century ways had been found of spanning wide spaces without having to insert obtrusive intermediate arcade posts; so at the highest social levels aisled halls were soon obsolete. Nonetheless, there is increasing evidence that less wealthy men continued to erect such structures right through the 15th and even into the 16th century. Rype Cottage falls into this category. Although there is nothing about it which allows it to be dated precisely, the small size of its open hall, which ran between B and C on plan, possibly with a separate bay for the 95 hearth between C and D, the use of a single aisle only, and the style of details and joints, suggest a date late in the 15th or early in the 16th century. As well as the open hall the house had subsidiary bays at each end. That to the north, between A and B, has evidence for a very low ceiling dividing the ground-floor room from a loft above. That to the south, between D and E, has been largely rebuilt and may at first have been open to the roof. The kind of accommodation provided by Rype Cottage was very different to that found in the other Lydd buildings. Comparison of the wall heights in the cross sections of Rype Cottage and 13-17 New Street shows how very much lower the former was, particularly in view of the aisle on the east side. Most medieval houses in Kent had hipped roofs at the ends, as indicated on the long section of the New Street building. At Rype Cottage the hip over the two-storeyed north bay has been rebuilt as a half hip (Fig. 6.5) which gives far greater head room in the loft space, particularly as the ground-floor ceiling has been raised. At a later date a gabied window was pushed out to the west in order to allow a chamber, lit by a window of reasonable size, to be created above the former open hall. When a second 'aisle' had been added to the front, the south end rebuilt, and a further bay added to the end, the house had assumed a form which made it acceptable to later generations. This amount of adaptation is in marked contrast to that required to modernise 13-17 New Street and other high-walled, unaisled open-hall houses. All they needed was to have the hall ceiled over to create an upper floor, and a chimney inserted to heat the house. In the New Street building all other work was secondary, and concerned with dividing the building into cottages. Houses as small and low as Rype Cottage seldom survive. Another, in Skinner Road, Lydd, was recorded before demolition in the 1960s, and a few post-medieval examples of the same low form have been found, as at Grisbrook Farm, also on the Rype, a house of 17th- later addition RCH M <NC,.W" 0 5 6M B 20 Ft Fig. 6.4. Rype Cottage, Lydd. A single-aisled open-hall house. 96 Sarah Pearson F:+, '---- !- gw - " 7-- , . y- - . -~ - -- . .-:- ,.' - --- . -=+G&% - .- . - _ >- - /':: ...- -.: - - - - - - -- . -- - - , - - - - - - -. - - ~ . -- -- - ~~ . r - - -. ~ -- . , - ;r : . ~ . . ?h~ '* -) ., -. - - . .- - .- . . , <, - ,,- . . ~ . ~-- ....- - . . . - - ,,. d. : v .- . , ,j ; ! . ? C -:,, .. -.- - - ,-+ ; , '..l.v-. -, .?<2?"*' : l - -- . -~ . - - - ~. - - -- ,--.c . - ,G: ". ' L*:*.# 1.- .,., - :,: . I . I- ,,; ,% ?' . . ; , 8 . - .- .J ,.,,.,'r f" > .. . , , 4, ;-,,,,.-':, !', . , "h:' i, R,$ ?!!L _- ~%, . .! '&',W .- .:l ,;.,<P#. 1 , . , 1 ;,!; , , . .1. .-. ' ,,;,-;'.,,\!flj fl'!, , m ,'l . " ' , ,_..: _. . 7 ' . .. :.,. .. ,' . . I: .~ , d4. ;,, .-... ',,:i:',d I ; , qre VI .S 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ d. il!:!U, l,., m l . !,, ,,, <?. F,: 7- ' > 1;; ~=/]l;,,~ ]l,.. , , . ' , ,- l ~ l ' l l ! 1, ,: ,,-y-$* U*--+ I 1 , , m .,..I, ;i: :. .':Jlt, ~ ~ ; ~ I I , I I-- l l ! , ' . l ! 2k : ; l , ! i b 'l &, ,.&& L * , i@ century date (Mercer 1975, 176). More often than not it must have been considered easier to rebuild a house of this sort than to adapt it to later living standards. This decision might not be taken until the 20th century, as in the house in Skinner Road, but it was frequently taken much earlier. It is likely that those late 16th or early 17th- century houses in Lydd which re-use earlier smoke- blackened rafters were replacing buildings of this form, and that the 16th-century Woolpack Inn in Brookland, which also re-uses sooted rafters, was another case in point. Thus the chances are that the missing buildings throughout the rural parts of the Marsh should be envisaged as low, small and possibly aisled, like Rype Cottage before it was altered. As Hasted noted in the late 18th century of the Marsh generally, and of Appledore in particular, "the houses are but meanly built" (Hasted 1798, 253; 1799, 469). It is not easy to demonstrate that what is now rare was once as, if not more, numerous than the more sophisticated medieval houses which are commonly found today. But there is evidence for a number of such buildings elsewhere in the county, often surviving in fragmentary condition, swallowed up by later and larger structures. Those few that are still complete can be shown to be smaller and lower than the average medieval house, often with at least one inner bay which was not lofted over but left open to the roof. Some were aisled, but this was not always the case, and a typical unaisled example remains in the village of Frogholt, in Newington parish near Hythe (Mercer 1975,177; Parkin 1986, 182-5, where the suggested date Fig. 6.5. Rype Cottage, Lydd. View from the north west showing the secondary aisle, half-hip, and gabled window lighting the upper chamber inserted in the former open hall. is rather earlier than that assumed here). Although such buildings may be found in many parts of Kent they are particularly noticeable in the north east and east of the county. The total absence of medieval houses in the rural parishes of the Marsh which were surveyed by the Commission has only been matched in a few other places, such as the north coast and the Isle of Sheppey. However, the plenitude of surviving medieval dwellings in the centre of the county, in parishes such as Charing and Smarden, is by no means the rule elsewhere. A number of surveyed parishes, particularly in north-east and east Kent, produced only one or two early houses, repeating the pattern found in Appledore, and reported in Rurmarsh, Ivychurch and Old Romney. So the situation on the Marsh is probably not quite as singular as it looks at first sight. Where only one or two houses occur they might be large and impressive, and sometimes of early date: the equivalents of Hornes Place, Appledore. Or they might be poor and small and probably late in date, like Rype Cottage, Lydd. The reasons for this disparity seems to lie in the historical circumstances which prevailed over much of northern and eastern Kent. A number of studies have been undertaken on ecclesiastical manors in north-east Kent (Chartham: Langridge 1984; Eastry: Mate 1991, 688; Gillingham: Baker 1964; Ickham: Baker 1973,4 1 O), and they have all painted a picture of continuing depopulation during the 15th century, accompanied by a reduction in tenant numbers and a redistribution of land which resulted in a The Medieval Houses of the Marsh: the Missing Evidence great disparity in the size of holdings. At the top there were a few men with exceptionally large holdings, and at the bottom a large number of people with very small tenancies. In Chartham, for example, by the early 16th century the tenants with the largest holdings lived out of the parish, in Canterbury and elsewhere, leaving husbandmen with only medium-sized holdings as the wealthiest residents. Below that level there were many men with little land or none at all (Langridge 1984, 238, 242). When one combines that evidence with the physical evidence of the surviving buildings, the two seem to complement each other. It is not difficult to see why there are only a few large houses in north-east Kent, and equally to appreciate why, despite the originally large number of smaller ones, only a few have made it into the 20th century. The situation on Romney Marsh seems to have been somewhat similar. Andrew Butcher's work on the freemen of Romney (Butcher 1974) and more recently on the Marsh as a whole (Butcher 1992) indicates that by the middle of the 15th century the same kind of social and economic polarisation had taken place. He conjures up a picture of wealthy men residing away from the Marsh, but holding large estates there which were primarily used for grazing. In addition there were townsmen investing in the countryside, the better-off among them also living off rents and using their land for pasture. Finally, there were numerous people farming small holdings of ten acres or less. In 1525 Sir Edward Guldeforde commented that the Marsh was in decay, with many great holdings "held by persons who neither reside on them, nor till nor breed cattle, but use them for grazing" (quoted in Furley 1874, 97 450). In the circumstances it is hardly surprising that, despite the evidence of continuing late-medieval occupation, the quality of the houses was not high. When this is set alongside the fact that the region suffered further depopulation after the Middle Ages, the absence of survivors is not difficult to understand. It is not necessary to postulate that the houses were meant to be impermanent, nor too flimsy to have survived if looked after adequately. Rather, it is likely that small but sturdy dwellings, dissimilar to those in central Kent, but not unlike the rare survivors in the east, may once have been common, but have been swept away leaving virtually no trace. Acknowledgements The views discussed in this paper arise from the survey of medieval houses in Kent recently conducted by the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England; and I am grateful to the Secretary for permission to publish it independently of the Commission's own publications. I owe a great deal to my colleagues, Allan T. Adams, who helped record the houses illustrated here, and prepared the line drawings; Dr P. S. Barnwell, who surveyed the parishes of Appledore, Brenzett, Brookland and Newchurch; Jan Cornell, who typed the text, and Peter Williams, who took the photographs. Outside the Commission, Dorothy and Robert Beck and Beryl Coatts provided invaluable and much appreciated help in the survey of Lydd. Finally, I would like to thank the owners of the properties recorded, for without their generosity in allowing access to their homes this study could not have been undertaken. References (The superscript number in the text refers to the unpublished source, given below.) Published Sources Baker, A.R.H. 1964: Open fields and partible inheritance on a Kent manor. Econ. Hist. Rev. 2nd Ser. 17, 3-23. Baker, A.R.H. 1973: Field systems of south east England. In Baker, A.R.H. and Butlin, R.A. (editors), Studies of Field Systems in the British Isles, 377-411. Butcher, A.F. 1974: The origins of Romney freemen, 1433-1523. Econ. Hist. Rev. 2nd Ser. 27, 16-27. Butcher, A.F. 1992: Citizens and Farmers in the Romney Marshes, 1350 - 1540. Lecture to the Second Romney Marsh Conference, September 1992. Department of the Environment, 1985: List of Buildings of Architectural and Historic Interest, Shepway District. Furley, R. 1874: A History of the Weald with an Outline History of the County, pt 2. Glasscock, R.E. 1965: The distribution of lay wealth in Kent, Surrey and Sussex, in the early fourteenth century. Arch. Cant. 80,61-8. Gray, P.J. 1988: The Castle Inn, Chiddingstone, Kent. Vernacular Architecture 19, 42. Hanley, H.A. and Chalklin, C.W. 1964: 'The Kent lay subsidy roll of 133415. In Kent Records, Documents Illustrative qf Medieval Kentish Society (Kent Arch. Soc. Records) 18, 58-172. Harpsfield, 1557: Archdeacon Harpsfield's visitation returns. Catholic Record Society 45, 46 (1950,1951). Harris, R. 1992: Medieval Buildings of New Romney. Lecture to the Second Romney Marsh Conference, September 1992. Hasted, E. 1798, 1799: The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, 2nd edn, reprinted 1972, vols. 7 & 8. Langridge, A.M. 1984: The population of Chartham from 1086 to 1600. Arch. Cant. 101,217-44. Mate, M. 1991: Kent and Sussex. In Miller, E. (editor), The Agrarian History of England and Wales, 111, 1348-1500, 680-703. Mercer, E. 1975: English VernacularHouses: a Study of Traditional Farmhouses and Cottages. Moran, M. 1992: A terrace of crucks at Much Wenlock, Shropshire. Vernacular Architecture 23, 10-14. Parkin, E.W. 1962: The Old Court Hall, Lydd. Arch. Cant. 98, 107-20. Parkin, E.W. 1973: The ancient buildings of New Romney. Arch. Cant. 88, 117-28. Parkin, E.W. 1986: Newington, near Hythe: the threatened village. Arch. Cant. 103, 167-89. 98 Sarah Pearson RCHME 1994: Kentish Houses in the later Middle Ages: an historical analysis. RCHME 1994: The House Within: interpreting medieval houses in Kent. RCHME 1994: A Gazetteer of Medieval Houses in Kent. Reeves, A. 1995: Romney Marsh: the fieldwalking evidence. In Eddison, J. (editor), Romney Marsh: the Debatable Ground. OUCA Monograph 41,78-9 1. Sheail, J. 1972: The distribution of taxable population and wealth in England during the early sixteenth century. Trans. Inst. Brit. Geogr. N. Ser. 55, 11 1-26. Smith, R.M. 1988: Human Resources. In Astill, G. and Grant, A. (editors) The Countryside in Medieval England, 188-212. Tatton-Brown, T. 1989: Church building on Rornney Marsh in the later Middle Ages. Arch. Cant. 107, 253-66. Unpublished source 1. PRO E 179/123/44.