A reader asks: “What guidance can be given on the dating of older houses and cottages?”
Generally, knowledge of domestic architecture is limited. Most people are aware of both the range and variety of types of construction and styles of building within the locality with which they are most familiar, but, as evidenced by a competition held some years ago, even surveyors find it difficult to determine the age of properties with precision.
This is not really surprising, as dating older houses accurately is a specialised skill which can be developed only by looking at a large number of houses over a period of time. However, where it can be determined, the age and history of a house is useful additional information of more than passing interest to clients and prospective purchasers. While this may not have a particular bearing on value, those who are involved in selling and valuing domestic property should at least know something of the different styles and features of particular building periods and the materials used in different parts of the country.
Of course, few surveyors are likely, to be concerned with the grander scale of domestic architecture, but it is the smaller houses which present the greatest problems. The histories of larger houses are usually well documented and invariably there will be a clear architectural style that can be placed within a specific period. With small houses, though, dating by style is much less certain and there will rarely be any documentary evidence, as neither the houses nor their occupants will have been considered sufficiently important to have made their mark in contemporary records.
It is not only the lack of written evidence which makes the dating of smaller houses particularly difficult. The length of time which it took for particular styles of building to spread throughout the country is a further problem. Many changes in style and materials were imported from the Continent and first appeared in coastal areas, particularly the South and East. However, these developments could take a century or more to spread to other parts of the country. Although this “architectural time-lag” affects all domestic property, the tendency for new styles, used first in the larger houses built for the wealthy, to filter slowly down the social scale makes it much more of a problem for smaller properties where the identification of a particular style or use of building material is less likely to be conclusive as evidence of age.
A more obvious problem is the tendency for properties to be extended and altered over time so that the original style and structure is very difficult to determine. Furthermore, at certain periods, it became fashionable to plagiarise styles from earlier periods, even to the extent of reusing materials and whole features, such as staircases and panelling, from older properties.
Even so, in the absence of documentary information, the main evidence will be the property itself, its location, the materials used and the technology of its construction. Valuable clues will include the arrangement of the accommodation as well as the details of doors, windows, chimneys and other features.
Historical development
The obvious starting point is an appreciation of the historical development of domestic architecture, and it is important to understand how styles, methods of construction and the use of materials evolved as a consequence of the technological, economic and social change which occurred, particularly during the so-called agricultural and industrial revolutions.
Many older, smaller dwellings, in both rural and urban areas, are loosely described as cottages. The derivation of the term is uncertain, perhaps corrupted from the medieval word “cotage” which was used to describe a single-roomed peasant dwelling. The earliest cottages would be simple structures built in local materials, with no windows and a single door, constructed in boulders, with a turf or gorse roof supported on branches. Built in short-lived materials, such cottages will not have survived for long, but structures of this type can still be seen in the more remote regions such as Wales and the Scottish Highlands.
It is also suggested that the “cottage” was used originally to describe the dwelling of the “cotar” or serf. Many such “cottages” would have been constructed by landless labourers, displaced from common land by the enclosure movement. These would often be built, without legal title, on small plots of wasteland at the edges of villages and on the verges of turnpikes. Generally, though, these dwellings were not intended to survive for longer than the generation of the people who built them. However, from the Elizabethan period, the use of more durable materials and more sophisticated building techniques has meant that many more smaller domestic buildings have survived.
Most of the earlier surviving smaller houses would have been built by the increasingly wealthy class of yeoman farmers or by trades-people. The styles of these houses tended to be derived from the larger, more aristocratic manor houses which were at the social and economic centre of the medieval feudal system. By about 1500 the Black Death had reduced the population significantly, making land cheaper but labour scarce. In those areas suited to it, pastoral farming grew in importance and the wealth and power of the feudal system declined, while new farming methods were improving the financial standing of the yeoman farmer who could, as a consequence, now afford to build to a better and more durable standard.
The style of the manor house, the inspiration for much of this early domestic architecture, had evolved by the end of the medieval period. Dating back to the Norman conquest, the earliest houses were grouped around a large hall which was the main living and communal area. Originally, the hall would be located on the first floor, approached by an external staircase. The ground-floor area would be used for storage and housing animals. As the need for defence diminished, the hall could be located at ground-floor level, extending up to the roof void, perhaps with a small private room, or solar, at one end. The solar might be raised above the ground floor, with space for storage beneath. At the other end of the central hall, further accommodation, a pantry and buttery for the storage of dry foods and liquids, might be provided. The hall would be heated by an open-hearth fireplace, smoke being emitted through a louvre in the roof.
Later medieval manor house plans were still dominated by the open hall, with service rooms at either end. These end blocks were often separately roofed at right angles to the main hall, forming separate wings. Both wings and central hall were usually confined to the depth of one room because it was not yet possible to span wider areas.
The introduction of the cruck roof was a significant development, and many of the structures built between the 11th and 16th centuries were constructed around A-shaped cruck frames. The cruck was made from a curved tree which was cut in half lengthways, reversed and joined at the top to form an arch. To this was added a strengthening cross-piece that formed the characteristic A shape which supported the roof and allowed for a greater headroom. With the roof supported on a series of pairs of crucks spaced at intervals, the walls no longer had to be substantial enough to support the roof, allowing materials other than stone to be used.
Construction improvements
The main drawback of cruck construction was that the span and height of the building were limited by the size of the cruck timbers. The box frame overcame these limitations. The walls of many Tudor and Elizabethan cottages were constructed using a heavy timber frame in order to transmit the weight of the roof to the ground. The substantial frame meant that non-structural materials could be used to fill the spaces between the timbers, with wattle and daub (hazel sticks interwoven and covered with a mixture of clay and chopped straw), and later brickwork, often laid in herringbone patterns.
Even with these developments, the main living area remained the open-hearthed hall extending to the full height of the building. Such houses often had a separate byre for the accommodation of animals, and, possibly, separate inner rooms. In plan, these early cruck and box-frame constructions resembled the earlier manor houses and are sometimes referred to as long houses.
Box-frame construction allowed for higher buildings. Upper stories were often constructed to overhang the lower floors, a process known as jettying. It is not clear whether this had any structural significance, but it created the familiar external appearance associated with timber-framed buildings of the Elizabethan period.
The houses built by the late-medieval and Tudor yeomen were similar in plan to the manor house. Some of the better examples are found in the chalk areas, particularly the Weald of Kent, and are, for this reason, often referred to as Wealden houses. These reflected the growing economic importance of the wool and cloth trades and the corresponding prosperity of the yeoman farmers in such areas suited to sheep grazing. The internal accommodation remained dominated by the central hall, open to the roof, with, in two-storey wings at either end, a parlour with solar over, and pantry and buttery with sleeping rooms or stores. A separate kitchen for cooking might be added in a lean-to structure at the side or rear of the main building. Access to the upper-floor areas would be by ladder, and the upper storey would often be jettied over the ground floor.
Improvements in carpentry during this period allowed the development of new joints and bracing techniques which improved the rigidity of the structure so that posts could be rested on plinths, making the structure more durable. Prior to that it was common to bury the posts in the ground and so they tended to rot, reducing the longevity of the structure. As wood became more expensive, owing to demands from shipbuilding and the need for charcoal for iron smelting, lighter timbers were used in the box-frame construction.
Town houses of the period would be similar, although, confined by lack of space often on long and narrow plots, these were often rectangular in shape with the gable end fronting the street. Frequently developed by tradespeople, the front part of the house was sometimes used as a shop with a hall and a counting house or office behind this, with stores and living accommodation above. Again, the upper stories would be jettied where the elevation fronted the street.
During the Tudor period the open hearth was gradually being replaced. This was partially a reflection of socio-economic change — the decline of the feudal system which resulted in a reduced emphasis on communal living and the need for more comfort and privacy, and the increasing availability of brick as a safe material for the construction of chimneys. The open hall became less important, providing the opportunity for the separation of family living quarters from those of the servants. Open halls, which no longer needed to be open to the roof to allow the smoke to escape, were ceiled over to provide additional private accommodation.
Many older houses were rebuilt, extended and remodelled during this period and many new houses were built. The use of window glass increased so that shuttering was replaced by glazing and windows became larger. Houses were still normally one-room deep (single pile) because steep pitches were needed for traditional roofing materials, and extra space was provided by lengthening or adding wings. The addition of attic storeys and dormer windows was a further means of making existing houses larger.
In smaller houses the chimney stack was often inserted in the inner screens passage, with a parlour on one side and a kitchen on the other. It was now possible to add to comfort by providing a lobby entrance to reduce draughts. As there was no longer a need for open halls, the more ornate styles of interior roof-construction declined, and examination of this part of a house’s structure can often provide vital clues to its origins.
During the late 17th century the influence of the Renaissance becomes increasingly evident, even in small houses. This was characterised by formal design, where the front elevation was dominated by style rather than by the shape of the interior. This was accompanied by the development of a more compact rectangular plan, with the hall relegated to the lesser role of entrance and circulation area, although the staircase became a feature of greater importance. Brick was becoming more popular where stone was not available and replaced timber as the main construction material.
The influence of Renaissance design was also felt in rural areas. Farmhouses were built with a central door and through passage, with the main rooms on either side. Service rooms would usually be contained within a lean-to addition at the rear. In earlier examples single-pile structure prevails, giving way to double pile with a central valley gutter and, later, as Welsh slates became more widely available, shallower pitches which allowed wider spans to be covered under a simple coupled-roof construction.
In towns medium-sized houses were built to a double-fronted plan, two rooms deep, but in some older towns, where sites were more restricted, this pressure on land led to the development of the terraced house and an entrance door and rooms on one side of a side passage.
In many rural areas upper floors were built as loomshops or weaving lofts with long bands of windows for light. As the lights were separated by narrow stone mullions, they counted as only one opening for window-tax purposes. Such development was common in areas of pastoral farming where agriculture was less labour-intensive, allowing spare time to be utilised in cottage industry. This type of building can still be seen in the Pennines where areas of cattle farming and dairying enjoyed the plentiful supplies of water which were needed for the industry. Increased wealth meant that building in stone became more common, giving the dual advantage of providing protection from the harsh climate and keeping the weaving lofts dry. Even small, two-roomed houses were built with weaving lofts over the main living accommodation, and the putting-out process led to the development of the weaving terrace.
The 18th century was a period of increased uniformity, owing to the rediscovery of classical principles of architecture and the development of pattern books which led to widespread copying of styles and features. It was also the beginning of speculative development of terraces. In towns the terrace represented an opportunity for grandiose design and, at the same time, provided a solution to overcrowding by efficient use of expensive urban land. The terraces were built by aristocratic landowners with estates on the then rural fringes of large cities when the influx of population into the cities was at its height. Pressure on land resulted in a greater emphasis on vertical development, with cellars providing workrooms for servants, kitchen and scullery and storage, and, later in the 19th century, a coal cellar. The ground floor was above ground level, with steps up from the street and either a central staircase between the two main rooms, parlour and dining room, or a long passage with stairs at the end. The first floor provided the main bedrooms, and a further floor or garret was above. Terraces had the additional advantage of providing the ideal location for fireplaces which could be placed on the party walls.
During the French wars of 1793 to 1815 the price of building materials increased along with interest rates. Building was expensive, encouraging economy and the development of smaller and cheaper “two-up, two-down” terraced houses, with narrow alleys and “back-to-back” developments to house the newly urbanised cotton mill workers. The 19th century saw further increases in the growth of towns and resulted in the building of large numbers of these cheap houses to rent, providing accommodation for factory workers. The terrace, which started life as a rather grand concept in urban housing, became somewhat debased and began to lose its appeal. As conditions in urban areas became more insanitary, those who could afford it started to look towards the rural fringes of the growing towns, and the process of suburbanisation, which was to continue through much of the 20th century, began.
Such a historical overview is, of course, no more than an outline, indicating the major changes which have influenced the design and building of smaller houses. A future article will consider how the details of a house, the materials used and its main features, can provide evidence of its history.
Architectural periods
The precise dates of architectural periods are not always agreed on, but are usually based on the reigns of the monarchs. Styles do, of course, overlap these periods, which offer no more than a convenient guide to the terminology used. The medieval period is normally taken to end with the Battle of Bosworth. This period is usually further subdivided, but, as so little of the period remains except religious architecture and larger domestic buildings, it is not directly relevant here.
Further reading
The precise dating of houses is extremely complex and can be developed only with a detailed knowledge of the locality. The Pevsner guides, while tending to concentrate on grander houses and religious buildings, do provide valuable detailed information on the locality covered. Lloyd is more concerned with the larger house, but provides detail on architectural features. Quiney’s companion text to the BBC2 series and Cunnington are both specifically concerned with smaller houses, and, finally, Munro gives a simple pictorial guide with many examples of particular styles and periods.
Pevsner N, The Buildings of England, Penguin.
Lloyd N, The History of the English House, Architectural Press, London, 1975.
Quiney A, House and Home: A History of the Small English House, BBC, 1986.
Cunnington P, How Old is Your House?, Alpha-books, 1980.
Munro B, English Houses: Notes and Pictures for Auctioneers, Estate Agents, Surveyors, Owners and Others, Estates Gazette, 1979.
