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.).
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 2) 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.
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 1).
Table 2.
If Table 2 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:
14
C dated the barn to 940 +/-70 (c.1023) (Hewett 1962, 271)
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.
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 2) 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 2 A typical notched lap joint with open refined entry from Wherwell
Priory stables, Hampshire (1249)
(Author, 2006)
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.
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.