Excavations at Oxford castle 1999-2009

Pub Date : 2022-01-21 DOI:10.1080/00665983.2021.2013604
J. Haslam
{"title":"Excavations at Oxford castle 1999-2009","authors":"J. Haslam","doi":"10.1080/00665983.2021.2013604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"within the series of all known surviving barns (mostly in the south east of England but including one in Yorkshire). In this way, the technological advances of the Wheat over the Barley Barn can be better appreciated, although Stenning maintains that developments demonstrate a ‘marked similarity of approach’, the main differences relating to size rather than detail. Even so, and most interestingly, the fifteen barns discussed do suggest two traditions at play. The ‘distinctive multiple triangulation of the trusses’ at the Barley Barn appears to relate more to a north European methodology, while others (such as the Great Coxwell Barn, Oxfordshire) seem to be more closely related to the mainstream French carpentry style. The Wheat Barn fuses some elements of both traditions. The fact that most of the barns were the work of monastic orders that were part of active European networks and, also, given that these barns were probably the product of ‘standard, workshop, laybrother practice’ (craftsmen brothers were a feature of Templar organization) will largely explain this application of continental practice to local situations (quotes from pp. 105–6). Other essays, little altered, have weathered the test of time. Oliver Rackham notes that, although the Barley and Wheat Barns represent an occupancy of woodland comparable to half and one-third of a cathedral respectively, they are made up of relatively small timbers, probably produced on locally managed coppiced woodlands together with some large hedgerow trees. Ian Tyers’s important note on tree-ring dating, which underlines the difficulties of working in a county of largely fast-grown trees, has been updated by John Walker and is reviewed at some length by Tyers in the completely new chapter on the seventeenth-century Granary (which incorporates re-used medieval timber), where some of Rackham’s earlier conclusions are refined. Other buildings are covered afresh while the brick and tile chronology by Pat Ryan and David Andrew still provides (as was noticed in a review of the first edition) ‘a model of how to set about such a typology’. Overall, the wealth of detailed analysis and new graphics makes this an important source for the understanding of thirteenth-century timber construction and site development over a longer period. It is also commendable in terms of accessibility, coming in at a price that in real terms is less than was charged when the original book was published in 1994.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2021.2013604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

within the series of all known surviving barns (mostly in the south east of England but including one in Yorkshire). In this way, the technological advances of the Wheat over the Barley Barn can be better appreciated, although Stenning maintains that developments demonstrate a ‘marked similarity of approach’, the main differences relating to size rather than detail. Even so, and most interestingly, the fifteen barns discussed do suggest two traditions at play. The ‘distinctive multiple triangulation of the trusses’ at the Barley Barn appears to relate more to a north European methodology, while others (such as the Great Coxwell Barn, Oxfordshire) seem to be more closely related to the mainstream French carpentry style. The Wheat Barn fuses some elements of both traditions. The fact that most of the barns were the work of monastic orders that were part of active European networks and, also, given that these barns were probably the product of ‘standard, workshop, laybrother practice’ (craftsmen brothers were a feature of Templar organization) will largely explain this application of continental practice to local situations (quotes from pp. 105–6). Other essays, little altered, have weathered the test of time. Oliver Rackham notes that, although the Barley and Wheat Barns represent an occupancy of woodland comparable to half and one-third of a cathedral respectively, they are made up of relatively small timbers, probably produced on locally managed coppiced woodlands together with some large hedgerow trees. Ian Tyers’s important note on tree-ring dating, which underlines the difficulties of working in a county of largely fast-grown trees, has been updated by John Walker and is reviewed at some length by Tyers in the completely new chapter on the seventeenth-century Granary (which incorporates re-used medieval timber), where some of Rackham’s earlier conclusions are refined. Other buildings are covered afresh while the brick and tile chronology by Pat Ryan and David Andrew still provides (as was noticed in a review of the first edition) ‘a model of how to set about such a typology’. Overall, the wealth of detailed analysis and new graphics makes this an important source for the understanding of thirteenth-century timber construction and site development over a longer period. It is also commendable in terms of accessibility, coming in at a price that in real terms is less than was charged when the original book was published in 1994.
分享
查看原文
1999-2009年牛津城堡发掘
在现存的谷仓中(大部分在英格兰东南部,但约克郡也有一个)。通过这种方式,小麦比大麦仓的技术进步可以得到更好的理解,尽管Stenning坚持认为,发展表明了“方法的显著相似性”,主要差异与大小有关,而不是细节。即便如此,最有趣的是,讨论的十五个谷仓确实表明了两个传统在起作用。大麦谷仓的“独特的多重三角桁架”似乎更接近北欧的方法,而其他(如牛fordshire的Great Coxwell Barn)似乎更接近主流的法国木工风格。小麦谷仓融合了这两种传统的一些元素。事实上,大多数谷仓都是修道院命令的工作,是活跃的欧洲网络的一部分,而且,考虑到这些谷仓可能是“标准,车间,外行实践”的产物(工匠兄弟是圣殿骑士团组织的一个特点),这将在很大程度上解释这种大陆实践在当地情况下的应用(引自第105-6页)。其他的文章,几乎没有改变,经受住了时间的考验。奥利弗·拉克姆指出,虽然大麦仓和小麦仓所占的林地面积分别相当于大教堂的一半和三分之一,但它们是由相对较小的木材组成的,可能是在当地管理的覆盖林地和一些大的树篱上生产的。伊恩·泰尔斯关于树木年轮年代测定的重要笔记,强调了在一个以快速生长的树木为主的县里工作的困难,约翰·沃克对其进行了更新,泰尔斯在关于17世纪谷仓的全新章节(其中包括重新使用的中世纪木材)中进行了较长时间的回顾,其中对拉克姆早期的一些结论进行了改进。其他建筑被重新覆盖,而Pat Ryan和David Andrew的砖瓦年表仍然提供(正如在第一版的评论中所注意到的)“如何设置这种类型的模型”。总的来说,丰富的详细分析和新的图形使其成为了解13世纪木结构建筑和较长时期内场地发展的重要来源。这本书的易读性也值得称赞,它的实际价格比1994年原版书出版时的价格要低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信