House Magazine Spring 2000
Re-Building Poplar Cottage
Museum research director Richard Harris describes the research and
restoration of the 16th century smoke-bay house which is the Museum's latest exhibit.
|
Original Site and Orientation
Fig 1 Diagram of the surroundings of
Poplar Cottage
|
Poplar Cottage was originally situated in the parish of
Washington, about halfway between the present main road (A283) and the scarp slope of the
Downs, and about half a mile east of Washington village (TQ 130129). Washington is one of
those parishes which take in Downland grazing in the south, while the northern half covers
the rapid sequence of geological exposures starting at the scarp foot of the Downs: a
narrow belt of Upper Greensand (here only 200 yards wide), intractable Gault Clay (400
yards), and then Lower Greensand. The Folkestone Beds of the Lower Greensand are exploited
for sand - the pits can be seen to the north of the main road - and the Sandgate and Hythe
Beds are variable, supporting woodland, heath, grazing and cultivation. The northern edge
of the parish coincides roughly with the start of the Weald Clay (fig 1).Most of the common grazing land for Washington was located on the
east-west strip of Gault Clay. To the west it is called Washington Common, and to the
east, New Common. The northern boundary of New Common coincides almost exactly with that
of the Gault, but to the south the Gault is wider, the intervening space being occupied by
a series of enclosures, some with cottages, others just fields. |
Fig 2 Poplar Cottage and its site as shown on the Tithe Map (1838). |
|
It is likely that originally the commons occupied the full width of the
Gault, and these enclosures represent encroachments. Poplar Cottage itself lay within a
small plot on the southern boundary of Washington Common, and therefore probably
represents part of a sequence of common-edge encroachment. Unfortunately it was not part
of Washington manor, and there are no documents that would enable us to positively
identify when the cottage was built and who lived there, but it is likely to have been
occupied by a landless or near-landless labourer. This was certainly the case in
1840, as recorded on the Tithe Map, when the occupant's name was William Fuller. The
cottage and its garden bordered Washington Common to the north and was surrounded by
meadows belonging to neighbouring Lock's Farm on the other three sides. Earlier maps show
that originally Poplar Cottage stood on its own, but by 1840 it had been joined by another
cottage to the west, which still exists. (fig 2). |
Thirty years later, when the first edition of the Ordnance Survey 1:2500 map
was surveyed, there was a third cottage adjoining to the east, but this had disappeared by
the time we first saw the site in the late 1970s. Poplar Cottage was discovered
through the work of the Wiston Survey Group, which the Museum's founder, Roy Armstrong,
started in 1976 with the aim of recording and analysing all the buildings on the Wiston
Estate. Roy recognised the building as a smoke-bay cottage, similar to those which had
been identified in ground-breaking work, in Surrey by Joan Harding, and the first survey
was done by Gordon Lawrie in August 1978. The building was completely derelict and in very
poor condition, and beyond restoration. The Wiston Estate kindly agreed to its rescue and
acquisition by the Museum, and dismantling was carried out in July and August 1982.
After dismantling, an archaeological investigation of the site was made by Fred Aldsworth,
then county archaeologist, whose work had been so important in establishing the sequence
of phases in the house from Walderton. In this case, however, the trenches revealed only
that all the walls were bedded very near the surface of natural clay and no early floor
levels had survived. It is virtually certain that Poplar Cottage was built on an empty
site. The date range for smoke-bay houses and cottages is from the mid-16th to the
mid-17th century, but from the style of the timber framing it is likely that Poplar
Cottage was towards the end of that period, perhaps circa 1630. Smoke bays are short (3-5
feet) bays in timber-framed buildings which enclose the smoke from a fire on the hearth (fig
3) |
| and they form a transitional stage between open hall houses, best
represented at the Museum by Bayleaf and North Cray, and houses with chimneys, such as
Pendean, Walderton, and Tindall's cottage from Ticehurst (still in storage, but to be
re-erected near Poplar Cottage). Smoke bays and chimneys co-existed side by side at this
period. For instance Pendean, with its fine brick chimney stack with three hearths, was
probably built up to 50 years before Poplar Cottage, and in some houses there is a
smoke bay in the "kitchen" and a contemporary brick chimney serving the living
rooms. However, the essential sequence of open hall > smoke bay > brick chimney is
demonstrated by houses such as North Cray, in which a sequence of alterations to the open
hall produced first a smoke bay and then a brick chimney stack. The sequence is also
demonstrated by Poplar Cottage itself, because 50-100 years after it was built, a brick
and stone chimney stack was built inside the smoke bay. |
Fig 3 The Smoke-bay partition showing (stippled) the area
to which smoke is confined in the smoke bay |
| Probably at the same time, an outshot was added to the rear of the cottage, and
these two alterations made it very similar to Tindall's cottage, which was built in the
early 18th century.These two buildings, which will be near one another in the Museum,
therefore demonstrate the 17th and 18th century development of cottages very well. Before
siting Poplar Cottage the Museum commissioned a report from David Martin. He identified it
as probably an example of a "wasteland cottage" - landless cottages built either
upon the wayside verge or by taking small plots out of common land. Such plots were often
long and narrow, and we have tried to reflect this in the plot for Poplar Cottage. It has
been sited in its original orientation, with the smoke bay at the east end and its west
end on the boundary of the access track, its front facing north over the expanse of
Greenways field, much as it originally looked out over the expanse of Washington Common.
Repair and re-erection
|
| The external wall frames of the cottage were in very poor condition
and many timbers were missing. In the two ends only the main posts and tie beams survived,
and in the two side walls most of the lower half of the frames had been replaced by
brickwork. Almost all of the original external timbers needed substantial repair. However,
sufficient timbers survived to give us the pattern of framing with near certainty and even
though 70% of the external timbers are new, the frame still has a very authentic feel to
it. Internally, moreover, only a few timbers needed repair or replacement. (Fig 4). Because
of the high proportion of missing timbers, it was essential to use every original external
timber. "Traditional" patch repairs of the sort that have been used on other
Museum buildings in the past can produce a rather disfiguring effect, with odd shapes of
new oak patches superimposed on gracefully weathered original timbers. Roger Champion
therefore devised a new method of repair in which the patch is slipped into a slot behind
the weathered surface, using oak for the patches and epoxy resin as a gap-filling
adhesive (fig 5). In this way the weathered character of the building has been maintained.
These repairs have created a good deal of interest among timber conservators, and their
performance will be closely monitored.Buildings can be rich time capsules. During
dismantling, ecologist Ruth Tittensor took a close interest in the cottage, and took
samples of organic materials, amongst them some ash staves from the wattle and daub panels
with original 17th century lichen still adhering to the bark. The results of her research
were published in The Lichenologist (17(3) 1985) with a list of eight identifiable
lichens. These are all individually still extant in Sussex, but the lichen community is
closer in luxuriance and diversity to what would be found today in West Somerset, Devon or
Cornwall. The samples have been deposited in the herbarium of the Royal Botanic Gardens,
Edinburgh. |
Fig 4. Front Elevation
of Poplar Cottage:
three stages of drawing and analysis
The surviving original timbers, as found
Proposal for reconstruction, showing existing and missing timbers
Final reconstruction.
|
As with other recent reconstructions, we paid close attention to the timbers in the
building, in terms of growth, species and conversion. All the framing timbers were either
oak or elm. All four tie beams were sawn from a single curved oak tree, which is unusual
most tie beams are either whole or half trees. The main posts, to our surprise, were
extremely difficult to interpret. They are oak, almost all their surfaces are sawn, the
grain tends to be wild and some clearly came from the outside of a larger tree. We are
tempted to suggest that they all came from a single, very large, parkland tree, which
would have been nearly 3 feet in diameter, but this has been impossible to prove. All the
other main timbers were elm: the primary timbers wall plates, girding beams and spine
beams - were all from small whole trees-, the purlins were a small tree sawn in half; and
the elm joists and rafters were converted six from a tree. The joists above the
main heated room were elm, while those in the unheated inner room were half oak,
converted eight from a tree, and half elm. The remaining smaller timbers, mainly studs and
rails, were a mixture of oak and elm, all multiple conversion (six or eight to a tree) and
including some re-used pieces. So it seems that the carpenter was working with two large
open-grown oak trees (for the tie beams and posts) and one or two smaller ones (for the
joists and smaller timbers), and several small elms of about 12-15in in diameter. All the
conversion was done with axe hewing and pit sawing in the usual way.Focusing
even tighter on the conversion process, by matching up saw cuts and noting their
direction we were able to work out exactly the sequence of sawing the eight oak floor
joists. The balk was cut in half, each half was cut into quarters, and each quarter into
eighths - much as one would expect, but it was nice to have our expectations
confirmed (fig 6). The saw cuts were all made starting at the top of the tree and
working towards the butt. The conversion of the tie beams was also interesting. They were
cut from a tree with a considerable curve. After hewing, the first pitsaw cut slit the
bulk in half following the curve, then each curved half was slit in half again but
with a straight cut. |
Fig 6 Diagram to show the conversion of an oak log into eight floor joists
 |
The frame of the building was re-erected over the weekend of 10-11 April 1999 by a
team led by Roger Champion under the gaze of many interested visitors, including members
of the Vernacular Architecture Group visiting the Museum following their annual Spring
Conference. Then, as always, followed another long period of quiet work finishing the
building. Roger Champion fixed the floors, stairs and doors, Ron Betsworth daubed the
infill panels, Mick Betsworth built the stone wall behind the hearth, and Chris Tomkins
thatched the roof with longstraw (grown at the Museum). The plot is now established, the
track through from the site road to Greenways field has been formed, and a garden is
planned. Visitors will be able to see the building from the start of the season, and
pioneering new methods of interpretation are going to be developed during the year. We
hope that Roy Armstrong, to whom the reconstruction is dedicated and to whom we all owe a
profound debt of gratitude, would have been pleased to see what has been achieved.
Fig 5 below. Recessed Patch Repairs as
used in Poplar Cottage
| 1. Consolidate the external face with low viscosity epoxy resin. 2.
Cut a slot about 3/8"-1/2" wide, leaving about 1/2" of the consolidated
outer surface. The depth of the slot depends on the extent of the defective surface.
3. Cut out the remaining timber between the mortice and the slot.
4. Prepare an oak insert to give a loose push fit.
5. Prime the insert and the slot, and apply epoxy resin as a gap-filling
adhesive.
6. Push in the insert, and clamp up the repair.
7. Clean excess resin with tools and/or solvents.
|
 |
[Back to
Magazine Index] |
|
