lewes heath house, horsmonden, kent. - Archaeology South-East

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Archaeology South-EastLewes Heath House, Horsmonden, Kent,Interpretative Historic building Survey Rev 00 / Nov 06face of the western end wall in modern times the infill framing is now exposed. It istypical of the style of infill framing introduced late in the 17th and early 18th centuries,incorporating raking struts which triangulate the main wall posts. Otherwise the wall isinfilled using regularly spaced studwork. Only the studs at the sides of the windowopenings and the raking struts have pegged joints to the main frame. All theintermediate (ie lesser) studs are fixed at their heads into round-ended stave holes andat the base into grooves. This is an interesting mix of old and new constructional details,for usually where the frame was intended to be hidden the regularly-spaced secondarystuds are jointed to the frame using un-pegged square-ended mortices top and bottom.At the point where the main range and rear range meet the southern 'wall' dividing thehall chamber from the kitchen chamber utilizes the adjacent wall frame of the rear range:here the entire width of the main range's wallplate remains exposed with no structuralframing beneath it. The plate is given additional strength from beneath by smallbrackets attached to the wall of the rear range: these may be later insertions. Atinternal truss C1-C2 the frame is not triangulated by means of raking struts (as in theexternal walls) but by a straight, pegged-in headbrace rising from the front principal post(hidden) to the tiebeam. A notched-in door head adjacent to the fireplace and nail holesin the underside of the brace indicate the position of a doorway, and the jambs of thedoorway between landing and hall chamber (at the opposite end of the same truss) arelikewise nailed into position, rather than being fixed by means of pegged joints. Withinthe adjacent truss (B1-B2) all of the infill framing is hidden from view and probablyalways has been. However, there is doubt as to whether the framing within truss C1-C2was initially masked - the brace and door jambs show no obvious evidence of havingbeen plastered over and, as the hall chamber within which this truss is visible is of lessstatus than the parlour chamber, it is indeed possible that these timbers were leftexposed.Within the attic area of the main range the two trusses (B1-B2 and C1-C2) are infilledwith daub, and there has always been a midrail within the partition at this level. Thisindicates the lesser status of the attic rooms, as does the fact that the wall framing wasleft exposed to view. Indeed, within the stub gables at either end of the range even theintermediate studs supporting the external cladding was left exposed internally. Thatthis is not the result of modern stripping of plaster is evident at the western gable wherethe old external surface is exposed within the roof void of the adjacent extension. Here,in one area, the original cleft battens which supported the tile hanging survive anddouble as supports for thick daub infill. The infill still shows the impressions of the tileson its external face. This feature proves that the studs did not support an internal skin oflath and plaster, but instead the daub was applied between the secondary studs, leavingthem exposed within the attic area.Only at attic level can the wall infill of the stair turret be seen. This shows that, as withinthe main range, the walls are infilled using regularly-spaced studs with only the heavier(principal) studs having pegged joints to the wallplates. As in the main range, thesecondary studs are fixed at the apex into round-ended mortices. At this upper levelthese secondary studs were left exposed to view, whereas within the two lower storeys- 8 -
Archaeology South-EastLewes Heath House, Horsmonden, Kent,Interpretative Historic building Survey Rev 00 / Nov 06they would almost certainly have been masked by lath and plaster - after all, these wallsformed the enclosure to the display staircase! Further evidence that they were hidden atlower level is to be seen in the turret's use of small-scantling principal posts (absent ofjowls) at the outer corners, allowing these too to be masked from view. It is these postswhich support the southern tiebeam, which is held in level assembly at the junction withthe wallplates. There are no dragon ties at the corners.Sited beneath the parlour is a brick-built cellar. This is mainly set above the level of theexternal ground. Internally the walls incorporate segmental-headed niches within theeastern, southern and western walls, whilst there are two windows within the northernwall and a third in the southern end of the eastern wall. This latter opening is nowclosed by a dwarf boarded door and may always have doubled as an access hatch.WINDOWSAlthough the glazing has been adjusted, the original scheme of crossed-transom-andmullionwindows still survives intact within the front elevation and (with minor revisions)in the eastern end wall. At ground-floor level the window in the eastern wall, serving theparlour, is deliberately offset in order to compensate for the area which was formerlydivided off at the rear of the parlour, and here an 'extra' narrow window is included (headnow rebuilt at a lower level).Most of the original window frames survive. They have cyma-moulded leading edges tothe internal face of the mullions and transoms, with a neat and pronounced, chamferedrebate on the external face in order to accommodate either leaded lights or outwardopening metal casements, depending upon location. This design is typical of theperiod, though the lower lights of the frames are less tall than is usual. Those windowframes on the ground floor are recessed back slightly from the face of the brickwork,whereas those on the first floor are 'pushed forward' in order to compensate for thethickness of the tile hanging.At first-floor level the position of an identical-sized window is evidenced centrally withinthe former western end wall. This window was made redundant when the westernextension was added - indeed the new doorway leading to the extension cut through thenorthern part of the opening. Subsequently, in the late 20th century the southern end ofthe wall infill was removed, leaving a small section of window cill trapped at the doorjamb. It was at this date that the stud which formed the southern jamb of the windowopening was refixed further south as a post.Originally three regularly-spaced dormer windows were incorporated within the front roofslope. Although only two now survive and both of these have been rebuilt and enlargedin size, the original dormers are evidenced by a lack of peg holes and mortices in thepurlins, indicating where common rafters were not needed because of the dormers.Originally the dormers were quite narrow, requiring the omission of only one rafter. Thecentral dormer was located directly over the front door and first-floor window, whereas- 9 -
Page 1 and 2: Archaeology South-EastASEA Revised
Page 3 and 4: STANDING BUILDINGSARCHAEOLOGICAL IN
Page 5 and 6: Archaeology South-EastLewes Heath H
Page 11: Archaeology South-EastLewes Heath H
Page 25: Head OfficeUnits 1 & 22 Chapel Plac

lewes heath house, horsmonden, kent. - Archaeology South-East

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?