Signs & satnavs
From Kedleston Road:
From Duffield Road:
Event posters (jpg at top of page and pdf below) can be downloaded by right-clicking on the image & selecting ‘Save As’
Event posters (jpg at top of page and pdf below) can be downloaded by right-clicking on the image & selecting ‘Save As’
This post is one of the series that explores everyday life in the early modern period,[i] through an early 17th century manor house in South Derbyshire, which the author recently had opportunity to visit.[ii] This private home, ‘Upper Hall’, is of interest to the historian in both the preservation of early features, and the availability of related written sources.[iii]
This post investigates the early residents of the house, using written evidence to produce ‘family histories’, and to consider social relationships between and within the families that occupied the Hall, and the wider community. This follows on from ‘Living in the Early Modern Past: the 17th Century Home’, which provides a backdrop for this series, outlining the domestic environment and material culture at this time for a smaller early modern yeoman household. Subsequent posts, beginning with ‘A 17th Century Home in South Derbyshire: In at the Ground Floor’, will describe the domestic environment and material culture commonly associated with such households in the middle of the 17th century. These descriptive and interpretative posts adopt an ‘archaeological story-telling’ approach – a method discussed in the preceding post ‘Expedition into the Past: Tales of a 17th Century Derbyshire Manor House’.
Benskin family (variously spelt Benskyn or Benskine – the different forms perhaps used to differentiate between different branches of the family),[iv] prosperous yeoman farmers from at least the mid 16th century (see below), built (or more likely, had built) Upper Hall as built their home.[v] As was typical until the mid 20th century (the explanation for which would be out-of-place here!), the family was large, with each generation perpetuating the names of their forebears (a factor that holds the potential to cause confusion when needing to differentiate between successive family members).
In the late 16th – early 17th centuries, the head of the family within the village was Johannis (sometimes spelt Johannes; often abbreviated as Johis. or Johes.), who shall here be referred to as John I (and highlighted in red on the family tree below). Sometime after the birth of his son Johannis in 1600 (here referred to as John II, highlighted in green, on the family tree below), John I came to be known as Johannis Snr. in the records.
Tentative family trees: John Benskin I, highlighted in red, showing siblings of John II (highlighted in green)
In the years after the death of his father (John I) in 1637-38, John II became known as ‘old’ John, in order to differentiate between him and his own son Johannis (here referred to as John III, probably born in 1627 or 1630, and highlighted in blue on the family tree below).[vi] John III – known in the records as ‘John Jnr.’ – may have had a son called John: the parish records record the burial of a John ‘son of Johannis Juinioris’) in early April 1663. Seven years later, in recording the burial of his (also named John – consequently here IV) mother Maria, she is described as wife of ‘old man’ John, which it must be presumed is John II, who in this year would have reached 70 years of age. (There are also several nephews and cousins named John, who we shall pass over.)
Tentative Benskin family trees constructed from parish records (liable to modification with further investigation of historic records).[vii]
The family had evidently achieved remarkable success over several generations, as tenant farmers of grazing lands.[viii] In the middle of the previous century, the goods of a certain Ralph Benskin were assessed for tax purposes; his payment recorded as the highest in the village.[ix] The exact location of the Benskin household within the manor at this time is uncertain, although the 1616 pew plan for the local church might tentatively be used to investigate the composition of the community, and to consider social hierarchies within the village, between this time and the first records for the church rate assessments in 1619 (see below). The plan does not record the ‘Upper Hall’ as it now stands, which they had not yet built; dendrochronological investigation provides dates from building timbers that support stylistic conclusions of construction in the early 17th century.[x] However, a pew at the front of the church for residents of ‘The Hall’ suggests the presence of an earlier important residency, perhaps on lands in the Upper Hall manor. (Alternatively, ‘The Hall’ is perhaps instead associated with nearby Newhall, formerly the seat of the rectory patrons, the Dethick family).[xi] ‘Ould Hall’ recorded in the 1666 rates assessment (see below)[xii] arguably corresponds to this building.
The plan names most pew occupants; however, although wealthy members of the community (see below),[xiii] it does not record the Benskin family by name. Considered in conjunction with their subsequent construction of Upper Hall manor house, this raises the possibility that they occupied the earlier Hall, and the associated box pew, although one of the other properties named on the plan might alternatively represent the family.[xiv] The plan also records pews for Nether Hall, the adjoining manor that with Upper Hall lands forms the village, and located approximately 1 ¼ miles to the west of the Upper Hall.[xv]
Plan of the box pews in the nearby church, 1616[xvi]
By 1619, John Benskin (I) pays the highest rates; his son (John II) pays a much smaller amount; and Samuel Benskin (the probable brother of John I; highlighted in orange, on the family tree above) likewise pays comparatively little, at times much less than John Jnr. (II), who was at other times (1628) un-rated.[xvii]
John I pays rates in the summer assessment of 1629 on his ‘livings’ (income or revenue, commonly from lands or property), but in the winter is assessed for his new house, which is interpreted as Upper Hall.[xviii] This terminus ante quem for Upper Hall correlates with the dendrochronology dates of 1618-28.[xix] From the information currently at hand, it seems most likely that the house was built on the more substantial manor estate of the two that formed the village (probably on land rented, rather than purchased, from the gentry, though see below),[xx] some time (at most a few years) before or after the death of this first wife, Sarah (obit. 1625). If the above family tree is correct, the surviving children of John would at this time have been in their late 20s (which does not preclude their living with their parents, or father, at this time);[xxi] his grandchildren seem to have mostly been born in the second half of the 1620s.
John’s (I) continued to pay the highest rates in the village through the 1630s, though the amount declines during this time.[xxii] The rate assessments of 1636 and 1637 entries are incomplete, with possible missing pages; but those dating to and after 1638 do not list him, suggesting that he died during this period;[xxiii] his will was proved in 1637.[xxiv] Samuel’s fortunes seem to rise during this decade, as in 1635 he occupies the second manor house in the village, Nether Hall.[xxv] John II appears to have inherited his father’s estate by 1638, residing within Upper Hall, his rates valued at a similar level to that paid by his father during his possible final assessment, making John II the highest ratepayer.[xxvi] The surviving rate assessments suggest that this pre-eminence continued through to the 1650s,[xxvii] despite family involvement within at least one dispute over property in the village. In 1655, when John II and Samuel are still living at Upper Hall and Nether Hall, respectively, there is a chancery case between plaintiffs John (presumably II) and Samuel Benskin (I?), and Richard Compton (and other defendants).[xxviii] An early 18th century ‘history’ by William Woolley refers to a Henry Compton selling manor lands in the later 16th century to ‘Berkins’ (a scribal or transcription error for ‘Benskin’??), who then sold land to ‘Capt. Thomas Colson’, whose son sold the land to the author of the ‘history’.[xxix] This chain of events raises interesting possibilities with respect to this court case, and others that follow (see below).
Though the rates returns are then unavailable until 1663,[xxx] other documents tantalisingly hint at some of the accommodation, activities, and attitudes, of Benskin family members during this time. A James, son of Samuel Benskin (perhaps Samuel Benskin the younger, highlighted in brown on the above family tree), begins a London apprenticeship in 1661-62, at which time his father is described as a ‘gentleman’.[xxxi] The 1662 Hearth Tax payment for seven hearths suggests that John continued to occupy the Hall, or a building in the village of similar proportions; he pays the highest amount behind Thomas Coulson, who apparently occupied a house equipped with one more chargeable hearth than John.[xxxii]
It would be interesting to hear from local historians as to whether the ‘Newhall’ owned by ‘Capt. Thomas Colson’ referred to by Woolley (see above) may or may not corresponds to this building.[xxxiii] The payment of tax by Samuel Benskin may either suggest that Nether Hall was a small dwelling with only a single hearth (which seems unlikely), or that only one Samuel Benskin resided in the village at that time, the elder by then having moved from the Hall; the return does not mentioned Compton.[xxxiv] When the rates records resume in the following year, this change in prominence seems to continue, with ‘Mr Coulson’ paying the highest rates for an unnamed property in the Upper Hall manor (again, perhaps ‘Newhall’ – see above), though only slightly more than John Benskyn and his sons.[xxxv] Samuel Benskin is again associated with the Nether Hall manor, paying the highest rates.[xxxvi] Another property dispute (potentially relating to the Upper Hall manor) is recorded in this year,[xxxvii] between Benskin and ‘Oldershaw’ (who, though not mentioned on the Hearth Tax return,[xxxviii] appears at the top of the rates assessment list in 1665, for an apparently unnamed property: see below).[xxxix]
Upper Hall manor (south-east: below centre right) and Nether Hall manor (north-west: above centre left) sectors of the village (image: Bing Maps). Note the medieval ridge and furrows (wide s-shaped rows of earth) within the curved fields around the village (narrower, straighter ridges usually date to a later period)
The following years appear to be a time of change for the Benskin family, although without examining the original documents, it is only possible to speculate the extent to which further chancery cases affected this change. The legal dispute of 1664 was within the family, between the plaintiffs John (II?) and Samuel (II?), and John (III, or son of Samuel I?), alongside other unnamed defendants.[xl] The 1665 rate assessment does not mention of Upper Hall, but records a John Benskin as paying rates on the ‘Coppies’ (perhaps the Coppice Farm, to the north-east of the village centre;[xli] if referring to John II (and not his son, or a son of Samuel), this may support the suggestion that Upper Hall was vacant at this time.[xlii] The assessment also mentions payments from Samuel and Richard Benskyn (the latter probably a son of John II; highlighted in purple on the above family tree), although with no reference to their abode.[xliii] Though perhaps by now their occupation of the Upper Hall (though possibly not of the lands: see below) had ended, it might be conjectured that the connections of the Benskin family with the manor aided their ascendant social status. The author has not yet had opportunity to undertake further study of the Parish records, which might determine the extent to which the Bubonic Plague (particularly that of 1665) affected the village (and property ownership or occupation).
Samuel still pays rates for Nether Hall in 1672,[xliv] the year of another chancery case, in which the defendants are Samuel (probably III, as a will for a Samuel Benskin, of the same village, is dated to 1671), John (II or III?), and Richard Benskin (I: see above). Chancery records name the plaintiffs as John Hope, Thomas Greene (who may subsequently occupy the hall: see below, and whose family may have lived in the village at least since the early 1660s).[xlv] Another is John Cantrell, who belongs to a local family, some of whom may have held land outside the village, and whose likely descendants (and perhaps himself), later occupy the Hall (see below).[xlvi] It is uncertain whether this dispute relates directly to manor lands or the Hall, but subsequent developments (see below) perhaps support this possibility.
Despite (or because) of these disputes (it is at this stage unknown to the author whether they increased or diminished family fortunes), the social position of some members of the Benskin family seems to rise, or at least remain stable. In the mid 1670s, Richard (I: see above), like his relative (probably uncle) Samuel before him, is described as a ‘gentleman’, at the beginning of the apprenticeship of his son Richard (II: highlighted in pink on the family tree above).[xlvii]
By 1678, Thomas Benskin (possibly the eldest surviving son of Samuel I, who was perhaps by then deceased: highlighted in yellow on the Benskin family trees, above) pays rates on Nether Hall, and continues to do so for the next two years.[xlviii] After this, the family appear to be absent from the village rates assessments, although they perhaps continue to fight in the courts with local landowners over property within, and possibly around, the village.[xlix]
Upper Hall had not been mentioned in the rates since 1655 (though as mentioned above, the records between this date and 1663 are missing), and the name remains absent for some time. However, ‘ould hall’ occurs in 1666, on which ‘Mr Ouldershaw’ (see above) pays rates.[l] Although it has been suggested that this building is unlikely to represent Upper Hall,[li] there is perhaps some connection with the Upper Hall manor lands, considering the aforementioned legal dispute between ‘Oldershaw’ and Benskin (see above). If not referring to Upper Hall, ‘old Hall’ might instead represent the building mentioned in the 1616 pew plan (see above). A late 19th century OS map records an ‘Old Hall’ to the north-west of the village, perhaps Nether Hall.[lii] (Local historians with greater knowledge of the area may be able to dismiss or verify this possibility, and comment upon the origins of this building – and whether, instead, the land (and possibly buildings) relates to the ‘Newhall’ mentioned above). By 1668, Thomas Greene becomes the highest rated villager in paying for Old Hall, where he remained until at least December 1671.)[liii]
As noted above, there is a property dispute between the Benskins, Thomas Greene, John Hope, and John Cantrell, in the following year. It has been proposed that Old Hall is partitioned in this year (perhaps indicating the equation of this building and Upper Hall, considering division of the latter seemingly early in its history; otherwise, this change may reflect substantial social changes in the village at this time; John Beighton is named as a tenant.[liv] This surname had appeared in the Hearth Tax return (see above), with reference to a certain Sam. Beighton who paid tax on a single hearth, and to a (petty) constable Samuel Beighton (who was responsible for collecting the tax) – probably either the same person, or close relatives. Chancery records again name Thomas Greene and John Cantrell as plaintiffs (along with a certain John Browne) in a property dispute of 1678, now against Arthur and William Taylor (both alias Leighton).[lv] An Arthur and William Taylor are recorded on the Hearth Tax return, paying 4s and 2s, respectively, the former amount indicating a relatively well-to-do Yeoman dwelling for the time, the latter quite a comfortable house for a successful small tenant farmer or artisan family (see the previous post).[lvi] The William Taylor named c. 1712 as at that time having ‘a good new brick house and estate’ in Nether Hall perhaps represents another family connection.[lvii] Old Hall subsequently seems to disappear from the church rates, and Upper Hall reappears in the assessment for the following year (1679), though without reference to the occupant.[lviii] There is no reference to either Old Hall or Upper Hall in the 1681 assessment.[lix]
The next recorded occupant of Upper Hall is John Cantrell. The Cantrell family appear to have resided in or near the village for some time, with a Thomas Cantrell named on the 1616 pew plan (see above). A John Cantrell pays relatively low rates in the 1619 assessment, though this value very gradually rises over the years.[lx] (This person is perhaps equated with or related to the yeoman John Cantrell who is recorded as owning land in nearby Kings Newton, in his will, proved 1616.)[lxi] He paid only a shilling Hearth Tax, suggesting that he occupies a small house;[lxii] in the following year, he appears on the assessment for the Nether Hall part of the village.[lxiii]
It might be conjectured that John Cantrell did not do badly in the 1672 property dispute mentioned above against the Benskins (which it is presumed sought to establish ownership of manor lands or dwellings). By the early 1680s, the Cantrell family were wealthy members of the local community, the men referred to as ‘gentlemen’ by the early decades of the following century.[lxiv] In 1681, John Cantrell (presumably the elder, suffixed hereafter I) is rated for Lea Wood, located to the west of the Upper Hall village; though the occupant is not recorded, Nether Hall is listed below this entry; John continues to be associated with this manor for several years after.[lxv] The younger John Cantrell (suffixed hereafter II) is described as heading the list for Hartshorne, although the assessment neglects to mention either Old Hall Upper Hall.[lxvi] Upper Hall and Lea Wood lands are assessed together by 1688, though separately from Nether Hall; it is been noted that, though the occupants are not specified, John Cantrell I is involved with approving the accounts.[lxvii] If this comment refers to Nether Hall, this may indicate that by this time, John I either no longer, or had not previously, occupied the Netherhall house, despite paying rates on surrounding land. John (presumably II) paid by far the highest poor rates in 1690 (which assessed land and buildings, rather than goods); the assessment also records Nether Hall, though its occupant is unnamed.[lxviii] The suggestion that John II occupied Upper Hall in the 1681s has been tempered by his marriage settlement of 1694 not mentioning the house.[lxix]
Woolley’s History of Derbyshire records that by 1712, ‘John Cantrell’ (I) occupied Upper Hall, ‘a good brick and stone house’ (note the attempt to play-down the timber-frame construction, which was by this time unfashionable), who owned much of the manor lands, and had done so for some time.[lxx] (Due to apparent OCR conversion inaccuracies in the detailed summary from which most of the information in this section derives; the following reading is therefore likely to be imperfect, and will be modified when mistakes become known.)[lxxi]
In this year, John Cantrell (II), a ‘gentleman’, granted consent for Robert (the younger son of John I, and younger brother of John II) to receive a 500-year lease of the manor house and lands (including receipt of their revenue); John I devised this scheme in order to provide Robert with a share of £1000.[lxxii] The elder John was to continue to hold the manor until his death, when it would transfer to Robert and his trustees for what was left of the 500-year lease, unless John II paid £1000 within 6 months of his father’s death, thereby cancelling Robert’s lease.[lxxiii]
John II died in late 1722 or early 1723, leaving his lands in trust.[lxxiv] His will provided his daughter Anne (born c. 1705: see below) with an annual allowance of £30 derived from their revenue, until her marriage or coming of age, after which she would receive a portion of the £1000.[lxxv] His eldest son John (III, born c. 1704: see below) – again described as a ‘gentleman’ – inherited what was left of the revenue from the estate, which if he had no heirs was to pass to Anne, and if she had no children, to Robert.[lxxvi]
Several chancery cases involving the Cantrell family may have either derived from, or were a cause of, John the elder’s scheme to provide for his dependants. A case of 1722 lists the defendants as John (presumably III), aged 18, Anne, aged 17, and Robert, ‘an infant’, and Robert Orton, the guardian of Anne and Robert, suggesting that by this time their father (John II) had died.[lxxvii] One plaintiff is John Browne – apparently the same person named as plaintiff with John Cantrell in a 1678 property dispute (see above); the others are a Joseph Ragg and one Leonard Piddock.[lxxviii]
A case of the following year (1723) indicates that John II died in debt. The defendants of the previous case are named as plaintiffs in this writ, and referred to as creditors of the recently deceased John Cantrell (II): Joseph Ragg and John Brown are described as yeomen (of a nearby village, and as a previous resident of the manor, respectively), Leonard Piddock is a ‘gentleman’ (of a nearby small town).[lxxix] The defendants were William Orton, Thomas Broad, Anne Cantrell, and Robert Cantrell (both Cantrells still minors at this time).[lxxx] Another case in the same year names as plaintiff, Anne as ‘spinster, an infant (by Richard Orton)’, as she has not yet reached her majority; the defendants are Thomas Broad (described as ‘gentleman’), William Orton, Robert Cantrell and John Cantrell.[lxxxi]
The dispute continues with a case in the next year (1724). Anne is defendant, still an ‘infant’ and acting under the guardianship of Richard Orton, and described as ‘spinster (daughter of John Cantrell, deceased …)’; the plaintiffs are John Cantrell ‘son and heir of said John Cantrell’ (also still legally ‘an infant’), ‘William Orton and Thomas Broad (executors of said John Cantrell, deceased)’, and Robert Cantrell.[lxxxii] Anne (by then aged 20) yet again seeks justice in the following year (1725), bringing a case against William Orton and John Cantrell, ‘an infant aged 18 years, ([acted for] by William Noon)’; the age of this John suggests the possibility that he may not be her brother, but another family member.[lxxxiii]
Perhaps in the following year, John III and the executors of his father’s estate (named in the above mentioned chancery case of the previous year as William Orton and Thomas Broad)[lxxxiv] mortgaged Upper Hall manor house, lands, and buildings, paying Robert his share of the £1000, ending his lease on the property. The chancery records document what seems to be a final case in this year (1726), between the defendants Ann (evidently unmarried, and before her 21st birthday, as still a ‘spinster’ and ‘infant’), with Robert Orton, against Robert Cantrell.[lxxxv] Other chancery cases might provide further information on the property.[lxxxvi]
It seems that John I lived at the Hall until 1729[lxxxvii] – at which time (it might be speculated) perhaps he died. By early 1729 or 1730, a Cantrell ‘heiress’ (most likely Anne) had married William Cant, a ‘gentleman’ of Nether Broughton, Leicestershire.[lxxxviii] At around this time, John Cantrell III (who was then also residing in Broughton) mortgaged the manor and hall to his ‘brother-in-law’ ‘as security’ of his sister’s share of the £1000, and it is assumed that the couple took up residency of Upper Hall.[lxxxix]
William Cant still held the Hall and lands in 1765, named as ‘Lord of the Manor’ when giving consent ‘for a cottage to be set up for Abraham Harvey’, dated to 17 May.[xc]
A final note that may be of interest to modern readers is the (albeit distant) link between the Hall and international politics (and recent TV period drama!). According to 19th century directories, William Bayley Cant – a grandson of William Cant, who died in 1800 – bequeathed the manor to the Lord Thomas Erskine.[xci] The intended recipient was a lawyer, to whom Cant made the bequest in acknowledgement of his defence of John Horne Tooke, Thomas Hardy, and John Thelwall, who were tried for high treason in 1794. The case, an important test for British constitutional rights, was portrayed in the superb (though not always entirely accurate historically) BBC series, Garrow’s Law (Series 1, Episode 4). However, a legal error with the will resulted in John Murcot, Esq. holding the manor, through a certain Miss Partridge (cousin and heiresses of Cant).[xcii]
Now familiar with the characters that lived in and were involved with Upper Hall during the first two centuries after construction, the reader is invited to look inside the dwelling, to discover what home life was like in the 17th century for the families discussed above. The next post, ‘Living in the Early Modern Past: A 17thcentury South Derbyshire Home’, explores the everyday existence of the Benskin family, by exploring their home.
[i] In the UK, archaeological studies generally define the Early Modern period as the time after the late medieval era, and before widespread industrialisation, i.e. most commonly mid 16th – mid 18th centuries. For a discussion of the term, see the preceding post ‘An Expedition into the Past: Tales of a 17th Century Derbyshire Manor House’.
[ii] For information on the circumstances of access to the property, see ‘Expedition into the Past’ (op. cit.).
[iii] In order to retain the privacy of the occupants, the full address of this property is withheld.
[iv] The names of the occupants of Upper Hall, and approximate dates when the property changed hands, were initially obtained from a small pamphlet on the property compiled by South Derbyshire Conservation Officer Philip Heath, printed by SDDC in 2000, revised 2011, provided by the owners of the property during the visit. Further information from Daniel and Samuel Lysons, 1817 Magna Britannia, pp. 176-77; and with regard to the family and estate in the 16th century, the village Parish Council website.
[v] Ralph Benskin was given the status of ‘Yeoman’ in the mid 16th century (Parish Council, ibid.), which is also given to John Benskin (perhaps his son or grandson) of in his 1637 will (National Archives, Prob. 11/175/408).
[viii] Village Parish Council (op cit., note iv.).
[ix] Rated at £20 (ibid.), which according to the National Archives Historic Currency Calculator, is approximately equivalent to £4000 in today’s money (which seems a reasonable estimate), and could pay the wages of a builder for three days (which seems less reasonable!).
[x] ‘Tree ring’ dating of timbers from the hall provide a bracket of 1618-28 (Heath, op cit., note iv.).
[xi] See William Woolley, c.1712, History of Derbyshire (Trans. & ed. Catherine Glover and Philip Riden 1981, Derbyshire Record Society, Vol. 6, pp.153-5, Date accessed: 16 October 2014). However, legal records perhaps allow for a transcription error, whereby the ‘Berkins’ of this text (who held property in Newhall before selling to Thomas Coulson – another named that appears several times in a variety of records: see below) might instead be read as ‘Benskin’, the family might still be associated with an earlier Hall, before Upper Hall was built. The numerous chancery cases, including several involving members of the Benskin family, that dispute property ownership in the villages, will be discussed briefly below.
[xii] Parish Council (op cit., note iv.).
[xv] Bagshaw’s Trade Directory of Derbyshire, 1846.
[xvi] Photo: copy of a document on display in the parish church.
[xvii] John I was rated at 8s.10d. in 1619, more than twice as much as the next highest payer (James Royle); 9s.4d in 1620; and in 1627 at 10s.6d. and 10s.5d., in the summer and winter assessments, respectively. John II is first rated in 1627 at 5s., appearing in only in the summer (earlier) rates assessment. In 1628, his relative Samuel Benskin was rated at 2d. (Parish Council: op cit., note iv.).
[xviii] The 1629 Mr Benskin (it must be presumed John I) is recorded as first paying 16s. rates on his livings, and then 8s. for his new house; in addition he paid £l.l0s.ld. rates on beasts and sheep – again the highest for the village. Samuel Benskin paid 12s. on his house (though lower than John I, only one other person paid this amount, with others paying no more than 9s.4d.), and 7s.2d. on beasts and sheep; John II was un-rated for this assessment (ibid.).
[xix] Heath (op cit., note iv.).
[xx] Woolley records that the Upper Hall manor land was held in the early 16th century by a daughter (under William Abbot) of John Ireland, after the death of their father; the Compton family is described as owning land from the mid 16th century (op cit., note xi.). However, this source is scanty, confused, and perhaps inaccurate, and ownership of the lands in the 17th century is uncertain within one local history (Parish Council: op cit., note iv.). Legal records perhaps allow for a transcription error, whereby ‘Berkins’ might instead be read as ‘Benskin’.
The complexities of land and / or property ownership in the villages is complex and frequently contested (with several chancery cases involving members of the Benskin family, potentially indicating their ownership of some manor land, as well as dwellings), as will be seen below. The attribution of some family members as ‘gentleman’ in the second half of the 17th century may also suggest land ownership: see below.
[xxii] In 1630 John I continued to pay the highest rates, though this had dropped to 8s.10d.; Samuel Benskyn paid the next largest amount at 3s.2d (with no one else paying above 2s.lld.); John II is again rated, but at only a few pence. John I is recorded as paying 4s. rates on the Upper hall in 1635 and 10s.4d. on his goods or beasts and sheep. His son John (II) paid 5d. for the residue of the ‘Halls and Roes’ tenements (on part of which one Thomas Mellor paid 16d.), with a joint payment of 16d. for goods (Parish Council: op cit., note iv.).
[xxiv] National Archives (Prob. 11/175/408).
[xxv] In 1635, Samuel Benskyn paid 3s. for the Nether Hall, with his goods rated at 3s.3d. (Parish Council: op cit., note iv.).
[xxvi] During and after 1638, now the head of the family, John II paid 4s.8d. on his living and 9s.4d. on goods; Samuel Benskyn was paying 3s. and 4s.6d., respectively (ibid.).
[xxvii] In 1655, John II paid 7s.7d. and Samuel Benskyn 4s.3d. (with only one other paying more than 3s.); the assessment from 1655 to 1663 are missing (ibid.).
[xxviii] National Archives, C 5/406/122; other cases may relate to the relevant Derbyshire families, though this possibility needs verification, e.g. .a case in 1652 (C 6/118/123), regarding property at nearby Melbourne and Kings Newton, involving one Thomas Benskin – perhaps son of John II (Rivett v Rivett. Plaintiffs Theodore Rivett and John Bucknall; defendants William Rivett, Mary Rivett, Bryan Beanly and Thomas Benskin), is particularly interesting, and could provide insight into the location and extent of lands farmed by the Benskin and Cantrell families (see below).
[xxix] See Woolley (op cit., note xi.).
[xxx] The church rates assessments are missing 1655-63 (Parish Council: op cit., note iv.).
[xxxi] In January of 1661 or 1662, Samuel Benskin [of the village in which Upper Hall is located] is described as a gentleman, when his son James is taken on as an apprentice distiller, James Etwall, in London (John Palmer, n.d. The Wirksworth Website).
[xxxii] For information on the Hearth Tax, see ‘Expedition into the Past: Tales of a 17th Century Derbyshire Manor House’. Thomas Coulson (perhaps the ‘Captain Thomas Colson’ recorded as owing property in Newhall during or after the late 16th century in Woolley’s History of c. 1712, op cit., note vi.) pays the highest amount, at 8s.. This compares to John Benskin’s payment of 7s., suggesting that Coulson’s house had an additional hearth, and therefore may have been either larger, or better appointed. The odd amount is due to this being the first collection: in subsequent years, two yearly collections were made, resulting in a payment of 2s. for each hearth p.a. (1662 Hearth Tax return, op cit.: note vi.). Thomas Coulson is perhaps the ‘Captain Thomas Colson’ recorded as owing property in Newhall during or after the late 16th century in Woolley’s History of c. 1712 (op cit., note xi.).
[xxxiv] Parish Council (op cit., note iv.).
[xxxv] John II and his sons pay 8s.10d.; Coulson pays 9s. (ibid.).
[xxxvi] Samuel Benskyn pays 7s.10d. (ibid.).
[xxxviii] Hearth Tax return 1662, op cit. (note vi.).
[xxxix] Parish Council (op cit., note iv.).
Family disputes continue in the 1680s, though most likely regarding land or other property outside the village. A writ is issued (ibid.: C 6/279/15) regarding the personal estate of the deceased Robert Granger by ‘Elizabeth Granger ‘widow’ (likely to be the daughter of John II: see family tree, above) and her possible brother, Thomas Benskin, in 1685 against William Tomlinson, Walter Bagnold and Alexander Walthall. At least one the defendants had married a Benskin daughter: the parish records record that Jana (an abbreviation of Johanna) Benskin married Walter Bagnold in the village, on 23 January 1611 (Parish Council: op cit., note iv.).
[xli] Later maps record a ‘Coppice Farm’ to the northeast of the village (OS 1:2500 1st Ed. Sheet).
[xlii] John Benskyn pays 4s.10d. (Parish Council: op cit., note iv.).
[xliii] Samuel pays 7s.10d., and Richard 2s.8d. (ibid.).
[xlv] One Robert Greene is listed as paying a shilling Hearth Tax in the 1662 return (op cit., note vi.).
[xlvii] In 1675, Richard Benskin [of the village in which Upper Hall is located] is recorded as ‘son of Richard…gentleman’ being apprenticed to the Waxchandler Paul Ridly, March 1675 (London Apprenticeship Abstracts, 1442-1850).
[xlviii] Thomas paid 7s.10d. (Parish Council: op cit., note iv.).
[xlix] The exact dates of some disputes, recorded as taking place between 1558 and 1714, require verification at the National Archives, e.g. between Benskin and Cantrell: C 22/236/53; C 22/238/13, and C 22/329/41; also with Royle (C 22/418/23).
[l] Mr Ouldershaw is recorded as paying 2.10d. (Parish Council: op cit., note iv.).
[lii] Ordnance Survey, op cit. (note xli.).
[liii] Thomas Greene pays 7s.8d. on this property (Parish Council: op cit., note iv.).
[liv] John Beighton paid 5s.; the Old Hall is rated at 7s.7d. in 1679 (ibid.).
[lv] National Archives, C 6/209/13. Though perhaps a coincidence, the similarity between the uncommon alias, and name of the Old Hall tenant, the conjecture of either an early spelling mistake in the records, or later transcription error, and the same family (Beighton) being involved in litigation, tenancy, and taxation might be looked into further.
[lvi] Hearth Tax return, 1662, op cit. (note vi.).
[lvii] Woolley, op cit. (note xi.).
[lviii] Parish Council (op cit., note iv.).
[lx] The 1619 assessment records 15 rate payers in the village who pay less than John Cantrell, though this is likely to be a comparatively small amount; in 1629 he pays 2s., and in 1638 he pays only 6d. on his living, and ls.8d. on goods (ibid.).
[lxii] Hearth Tax return 1662, op cit. (note vi.).
[lxiii] Parish Council (op cit., note iv.).
[lxiv] Woolley (op. cit., note xi.).
[lxv] Parish Council (op cit., note iv.)
[lxviii] Cantrell paid 17s., nearly twice the amount of the next highest occupier, who paid 9s.6d.; 7s.10d was paid on Nether Hall (ibid.).
[lxix] The entry for Nether Hall, which has no name provided, follows that for Lea Wood; John Cantrell Jnr. pays 7s.7d. (ibid.).
[lxx] Woolley (op cit., note xi.).
[lxxi] This author has found it difficult to interpret the series of events regarding ownership and lease of manor lands from the online summary, which appears to contain textual (apparently OCR recognition) errors; differentiating between the many and various ‘Johns’ is also at times difficult! For example, difficulties derive from the comment that John Cantrell the elder still occupied the Hall in 1792, and was still living in 1796 (Parish Council, op cit.: note iv.).
[lxxii] Robert is described as previously abiding in the City of London, but at that time being a Hartshorne haberdasher, and John II as at that time living in Cirencester (ibid.).
[lxxv] Parish Council (op cit., note iv.).
[lxxvi] Ibid.; the text reads ‘1796’ for this act, though it is anticipated that inaccurate OCR recognition is at fault for converting what should be 1726 to this figure – see note lxxi.
[lxxxiii] Ibid., C 11/2387/27. A further dispute (C 11/525/12) regarding property within the region may or may not involve the young John mentioned in the previous chancery case (a person called Piddock is also mentioned: see above); if relevant, it provides names and other details for members of the extended Cantrell family.
[lxxxvii] Parish Council (op cit., note iv.).
[xci] Daniel and Samuel Lysons (op. cit, note iv.).
[xcii] Ibid.; John Murcot possibly continues to own the manor for some time, being mentioned three decades later as a property owner (though not resident) in Derbyshire, Stephen Glover (Thomas Noble ed.) 1830 The Peak Guide.
A recent open day enabled exploration of an early 17th century private home, built in South Derbyshire during the 1620s to house a wealthy yeoman and his family.[i] This provided a useful opportunity to revise knowledge of early modern domestic contexts,[ii] which when considered alongside other bodies of evidence – such as burials and mortuary memorials of this period – so as to potentially allow for a more rounded consideration of life in the early modern past.[iii]
Posts specifically on this building will be published soon, but before doing so, it seemed appropriate to produce a post that might provide a basic background on the Early Modern home. As a counterpoint to the forthcoming post on the yeoman house, this post will concentrate upon mid – late 17th century cottages occupied by less wealthy families of the nascent ‘middling sort’:[iv] artisans, trades-people, and small holders, with means beyond those of the poor husbandmen, but not as substantial as those of the notable yeoman landowner.[v] This expanding group benefited from financially, and enhanced their own comfort (and increasingly social position), from recent and continuing growth in trade and commerce, and concomitant consumerism, providing a broader range of household material culture, with more opportunities to emulate wealthier and higher status homes. Material culture from high status households will be illustrated below in briefly noting the changes in domestic space and in the functions of rooms, and occasional comparisons made with the housing of poorer families.[vi]
The geography of what is commonly seen today as the ‘traditional’ family home (comprising entrance hall, two or three ground floor rooms, and two or three bedrooms above), is in essence a product of the early modern period. This time was one of widespread change that bought opportunities to some (through manufacturing and trade – marking the advance of consumerism, and social and political change), but also declining fortunes to many (through the many epidemics, famine and social dislocation – to some extent provoked by civil war).[viii]
The medieval hall influenced the development of the Tudor and Stuart yeoman hall house; internal space had become increasingly divided (both horizontally and vertically) so as to provide separate rooms beside the communal hall (and corridors to allow movement around and through the house), for storing, preparing, and eating food and drink, and domestic chores. The ceiling of the hall, previously open to the roof, had been lowered by the addition of a first storey floor, providing rooms above for sleeping, and for more private socialising.
Late medieval hall, Haddon Hall, Derbyshire, showing later fireplace and chimney (©Grand Tours)[ix]
By the end of 16th century, chimneys had been fitted in place of the central hearth of the hall, often within (and sometimes blocking) a cross passage between doorways that opened onto the front and rear of the property dividing the building; stairs to the first storey were typically fitted beside the chimney.
In turn, these houses influenced those of less well-off yeoman (which for convenience will below be referred to as ‘yeoman cottages’), which were inevitably smaller with access to fewer funds (with less ‘curtilage’)[x] than the occupants of the post-medieval hall.
Mid-late 17th century cottage (with 18th century modifications), 117 West Street, Alford, Lincolnshire (from Google Maps)[xi]
Yeoman’s cottages in this era were typically half-timber framed, the timber walls resting upon low stone walls, the spaces between the timbers in-filled with wattle panels or lathes, covered with daub (clay and / or dung, containing binding material such as horse-hair). However, since the late 16th century, bricks were increasingly used in place of wattle and daub, and by the end of the 17th century in many areas, houses were more commonly brick built. Thatched roofs were typical, although ceramic tiles, and later slates, soon replaced this highly flammable material in built-up areas.
Above: 17th century style casement window with leaded lights in iron frame (Photo NEN); below: excavated remains of 17th century iron casement window frame, Jamestown, Virginia, US[xii]
Dwellings were frequently double-fronted (and typically one room deep, commonly built of two, three or four ‘bays’), with a centrally placed front door between one or two ground floor timber casement windows, and dormer windows above. Over the century, small leaded lights, sometimes fitted within iron frames, were increasingly fitted, which in turn were often replaced with sash-windows during and after the 18th century. This layout immediately demonstrated to neighbours and passers-by the relative affluence of the householders, whose home had not the single ground floor room that was typically occupied by labourer’s families (examples of which can be seen here), but two rooms, facilitating the cultivation of social relationships with a degree of privacy. However, in built-up urban areas, cottages were often one room wide, and two – four deep, extending into land at the rear of the road.
The façade was generally simple, with minimal decoration, although where houses were constructed of bricks, this material was sometimes used to provide some form of ornamentation, e.g. bricks arranged in patterns such as chevrons, and herringbone. Timber framing could also to some extent be used decoratively, with the plaster infill painted using lime-wash tinted with natural pigments, such as ochre or iron oxide (for information on historic lime-wash, see here). The chimney was commonly situated approximately in the centre of the building, although another layout was the placement of a chimney at each end of the house.
Such houses were often built in pairs or in short rows, and often had only a small yard or area of ground (which was frequently shared with neighbours) abutting the house at the front or rear.[xiii] Sanitation remained basic: where not beside a watercourse that might flush waste down-stream or -river, sewage was commonly thrown onto the street, or onto the household midden (a pit or surface dump of domestic waste), which was sometimes deposited as garden or agricultural fertiliser.
Layout (not to scale) of a typical mid-late 17th century yeoman cottage (e.g. comparable to the example in Lincolnshire, pictured above) (©Grassroots Heritage)[xiv]
The 17th century yeoman’s cottage was accessed through a timber plank front door, either directly from the street, or from a small front garden. There was sometimes a small lobby between the door and the wall formed by the central chimneystack, with doors to left and right leading to the rooms that came to be known as the kitchen and parlour.[xv] However, corridors were rare (thus limiting privacy). In houses without a lobby, the front door opened directly into the kitchen, although the parlour was still commonly separated from this room by a door.
Fireplace and table in reproduction 17th century kitchen-living room (Photo NEN)[xvii]
For the multitude of neighbours who continued to inhabit single room dwellings, the kitchen as a separate room would remain a novel and unattainable reality for many generations. The labourer’s dwelling differed from the yeoman cottage in commonly having only a single, multi-purpose, ground floor room, whereas that of yeoman might have a kitchen in addition to a living room. Though comparable in having low ceilings, the thick oak beams supporting the floor above were absent from smaller houses (which at best had a simple loft above the living space for sleeping and storage, reached by a ladder). The provision of a kitchen, in which food was cooked and eaten, and many household chores were carried out, allowed the division of domestic time and space according to position within the family and in wider community. For the household servants, it remained a living and working (and for some, perhaps also sleeping) room. Though the family may have also often used this room for various purposes (including access to the rear yard and stairs to the bedrooms above), they now had an additional, more private, space, to which they might retire, in the parlour (see below).
17th century firedog, from excavations of early settlement phases at Jamestown, Virginia, US[xviii]
The fireplace was typically located within the centre wall of this room, although was sometimes built along the outer wall of the building. A stone or oak lintel generally supported this wide and deep feature, with a brick or stone hearth. It often contained wrought iron firedogs (bars to hold logs), commonly with hooks to hold spits (the combination known as ‘andirons’), possibly ‘cup dogs’ (upright stands to hold vessels in order to war liquids). Brand tongues (large, long-handled wrought iron pincers) hung within the fireplace, being used to place and move wood upon the fire.
Where space (and wealth) allowed, the kitchen fireplace incorporated a brick-built bread oven (sometimes with a stone base), recognisable as a deep, arched, opening into the side of the inglenook. The oven was brought up to temperature by burning brushwood, the ashes from which were raked out (using a long-handled wrought iron or wood spade-like instrument known as a ‘peel’), before placing dough, and sometimes small cakes and biscuits, within the recess to bake. The oven was sealed by a removable wooden door, and later by a hinged cast iron door.
Peels (above) and bread oven doors (below), Haddon Hall, Derbyshire (©Grand Tours)
Other fitted equipment was commonly used in cooking, such as a wrought iron ‘trammel hook’ (or ‘chimney crane’: an adjustable apparatus used to suspend pots) may have been used for cooking over the open fire.
Early wrought iron trammel hook, found during excavations at the colonial settlement at Jamestown, Virginia, US;[xix] and in use within a reconstructed fireplace (centre of image), with cast iron fireback, and ceramic curfew, bottom right (Photo NEN)[xx]
Horizontal wrought iron spits were placed across the andirons, and used to turn large joints of meat to ensure even cooking over the fire, whilst smaller pieces of meat were cooked within an iron gridiron or basket spit (cages suspended horizontally over the fire); drip pans were placed beneath spits. Various devises (spit jacks), using ropes, chains, and pulleys, regularly turned the spits, either powered by hand, by the hot air from the fire, or, in some larger houses, small dogs within treadmills![xxi]
Engraving showing the dog-powered turnspit c. 1800 (Image Wikipedia)[xxii]
Although the kitchens of the royal, aristocratic, and otherwise wealthy had long benefited from the most advanced technologies of the day, there was a delay – in many cases, of several centuries – before small houses had access to even basic amenities. Consequently, most early post-medieval kitchens significantly differed to those of today in that they were rarely built with sinks before the development of the ‘standardised’ terrace house in the mid-late 19th century (which incorporated a scullery extension off the ground floor back room).[xxiii] Water would instead be brought inside from the outdoor source (at this stage usually a well) within earthenware or wooden bowls, and laundry would usually be done outside in the yard, using wooden troughs. However, a shallow stone sink was often fitted in the buttery (see below), or a scullery frequently built as a lean-to extension, or where space allowed, a wash-house built in the back yard, in later years.
This room would have been sparsely furnished in comparison to modern kitchens, containing simple stools or benches, possibly an oak fireside chair, and a table, commonly of ash, to withstand regular scrubbing (with a concoction of salt, rosemary, and vinegar – for abrasion, antiseptic treatment, and to degrease, respectively). The floor of bricks or stone flags, which provided a surface that was less expensive and could be cleaned with water without damage to the material. The windows may have been shuttered at night, although these features seem less common during the 17th century with the wider adoption of glazed windows.
17th century fireside chair (Photo NEN)[xxiv]
Bell-metal mortar, Haddon Hall, Derbyshire (©Grand Tours)
Although occupants spent much time in this room, ornaments generally had little place in the 17th century kitchen; however, this room was often filled with numerous objects associated with food preparation, cooking, eating, and drinking, which could to some degree be decorative. The range of artefacts kept and used within the kitchen inevitably depended upon income, need, location, and availability, and changed over time, though often with a long delay between the development of innovations, and their acquisition and use beyond the elite household. Some items were seen as essential by most, in all periods (that is, up until the late 20th century), and where unaffordable to the poorer household, improvisation or community cooperation and exchange became necessary.
17th century cast iron cauldron from Jamestown, Virginia, US[xxv]
Round-bottomed copper alloy (‘bell-metal’ – lead and zinc rich bronze) and brass pans, cauldrons, and skillets (that could be placed directly onto the open fire – requiring the use of long-handled wooden spoons to prevent injury to the cook), had been used for centuries. These continued to be used in many households into (and in some cases beyond) the 19th century; cast iron, though still at this time of poor quality, was also used for these vessels during the 17th century, improving in quality as casting technology developed during the 18th and 19th centuries. But with the provision of the chimney within lower status houses during and after the late 16th century, a wider range of kitchen equipment developed, particularly vessels that could be suspended from the fireplace chimney interior, over the fire. By the 17th century, these included brass, and later better quality cast iron, hanging griddle pans, frying pans, and kettles (which at this time generally consisted of large open pans).
17th century bell-metal cauldron, wrought iron firedog, andiron, and mechanical spit jack (above); and brass roasting pan, skillet, and wrought iron pot hanger and toasting fork (below) (Photos NEN)[xxvi]
Although the kitchen fire was often kept alight for long periods of time (not least due to the difficulty of relighting), a tinderbox was usually kept close by. Kitchenware was often stored on nails in, on and around the fireplace, and on an oak mantel, over which oak spit racks were sometimes kept. Wooden wall racks and shelves were also often used to store equipment. Where there was no pantry, consumables were often stored within a ‘food-safe’: a perforated cupboards (so that air might flow), mounted on the wall (away from vermin).
17th century table and artefacts, showing taper holder (within pewter bowl, foreground) (Photo NEN)[xxvii]
Vessels both familiar and unfamiliar to us today were used in the kitchen for eating and drinking, with food served in a ‘saucer’ (shallow bowl), on a trencher (by this time a flat round or square plate), platter, a pottinger (or porringer, i.e. deeper bowl), and drink served in beakers, mugs and tankards. They were made from materials that are now rarely used sycamore or beech, or pewter, for plates and bowls; and horn, wood, sometimes leather, and pewter for beakers, mugs (handled drinking vessels), and tankards (lidded mugs).
17th – 18th century oak shelf with pewter plates and mugs (above), and wall-mounted food safe (below) (Photo NEN)[xxviii]
The range of cooking utensils was expanding. Elaborate toasting apparatus, made from cast iron, were also sometimes used. With the acquisition of sugar colonies, sugar was increasingly consumed in Britain, giving rise to the need for sugar cutters (large wrought iron pincers), to cut sugar from the ‘loaf’. A mortar and pestle of stone, marble, iron, bronze, brass, or wood, was also usually used in the kitchen, as were brass ladles and nut roasters, and dairy equipment, such as milk skimmers. Cutlery was limited, with personal multi-purpose knives used to stab and cut food, and horn, wooden or pewter spoons (with deeper bowls later in the century) used to eat broths and cereals; simple (two-pronged) forks were only slow adopted, and did not appear in many houses until the 18th century.
17th century kitchen utensils, with pothooks, bottom right (above), and cutlery (below), found during excavations of Jamestown, Virginia, US[xxix]
Other vessels and containers were made of wood and leather, such as leather water buckets, and wooden storage containers, for example for flour. The kitchen salt box was often a wooden lidded box stored next to the fireplace, to keep dry larger amounts of salt than that used when dining socially (see below: The Parlour). Wooden bowls were used for mixing ingredients, and wooden troughs used when kneading and proving dough; and wooden moulds used in making gingerbread.
17th century ceramic kitchen storage and cooking vessels, from excavations of Jamestown, Virginia, US (made both in England and locally)[xxx]
These utilitarian objects were capable of withstanding long use, and the numerous accidents that occur when carrying out domestic chores; some cooking and storage vessels were made of less durable pottery. Being easier to clean, and not affecting the taste of contents, ceramics were the most suitable material for dairying (see below: The Pantry and Buttery). Other ceramic objects include the ‘curfew’: a large ceramic (in later years, metal) dish called a ‘curfew’ was placed over the fire at night, letting the embers smoulder thus both conserving fuel, and as a safety measure.[xxxi] Some cooking vessels were occasionally ceramic, such as the skillet and pipkin.
Above: 17th century ceramics (including pipkin, bottom centre), from excavations of early settlement phases at Jamestown, Virginia, US[xxxii]
Below: wooden mixing (or blood / keeper) bowl and salting trough, Haddon Hall, Derbyshire (©Grand Tours)
(An)other small room(s), to store food and drink (where space allowed subdivided into pantry and buttery), sometimes led off the kitchen (the pantry reached through the buttery, or vice versa). The pantry would be fitted with wall-mounted wooden storage shelves, and a brick or stone ‘thrall’ (plinth) on which items were placed to cool. The Buttery was used to store ale – which was made in many households. Pantries and butteries were often fitted with sinks in later years.
17th century dairy vessels, from excavations of Jamestown, Virginia, US, with a pancheon, top centre[xxxiii]
Dairy products, many of which were made in the home, were usually stored within the pantry, within ceramic vessels (which remained cool, and were easy to clean). The ‘pancheon’ (a large deep bowl, with an interior glaze to overcome the porosity of the earthenware body, which continued in use until after WWI) was commonly used in 17th century dairies and kitchens. Locally made undecorated (with the exception of coloured glaze) earthenware jugs and bowls were also useful in making and storing dairy products. The wooden (or in larger houses, stone) salting trough – within which meat was preserved – was commonly stored in the pantry.
On the other side of the entrance was a room that over the course of the 17th century becoming known as the ‘parlour’. The primary function of this room was as a space for private conversation, entertainment (particularly dining), and recreation (away from domestic servants), and in some situations as a bedchamber, though it was also put to other uses (such as storage) when necessary.
In the early 17th century, this room was fitted with a wide open stone and / or brick fireplace, containing wrought iron fire-dogs, ‘cup dogs’ (see above: The Kitchen), and cast iron back. However, this arrangement was frequently modified in later years to suit fashionable tastes (particularly the aspiration towards more ‘genteel’ surroundings), and for efficiency. The grate became increasingly enclosed over time, often culminating in the insertion of a cast iron hob-grate in the 18th century (the recess sometimes decorated with blue and white tin-glazed Delft tiles from Holland, or with English imitations, portraying Biblical stories, or decorated with other simple images), and in the 19th century a register grate. But changes began early in some houses – especially those within coal-rich areas – as coal was increasingly burnt as an alternative to wood. This required a dog grate (a fire-basket: essentially fire dogs with horizontal bars between) to hold the coals; the fender was later introduced to prevent the coals from falling from the hearth.
Modern fire-basket, and fragment of mid 17th century rush matting (below), Haddon Hall museum, Derbyshire (©Grand Tours)
The room would have been lit by the fire, and (only when necessary) by rush tapers in wrought iron holders (see image of kitchen table, above, and as shown here), tallow (and on occasion if sufficiently well off, beeswax) candles in pewter, brass, or ceramic candlesticks, and later in the century, sconces. Oak wainscoting (wall panelling) was fitted in the early 17th century (as reproduced here), and pine panels, which would have been painted, in later decades (as reproduced here).
17th century candlesticks and wrought iron wick-trimmers, from excavations of early settlement phases at Jamestown, Virginia, US[xxxiv]
In comparison to humbler dwellings (but more sparsely and less comfortably furnished than the living rooms of most houses today), this room would have been well furnished. Furniture was generally of oak, although mahogany became fashionable in the second half of the century in wealthy households (the expansion of trade to the New World providing access to this timber). The parlours of larger dwellings might house a substantial rectangular table in the early 17th century. However, the oval gate-leg tables of the later 17th century were more suitable for the smaller rooms of less affluent households, as the leafs could be folded when not in use.
The room may have contained chairs for adult family members (upholstered if sufficiently well off), and perhaps benches or stools. For those with the means, a court cupboard (display sideboard) and corner cupboard were used for display and storage.
17th century (possible reproduction) chair and late 16th – 17th century gate-leg table (above), and court cupboard (below), Haddon Hall, Derbyshire (©Grand Tours)
Wooden shutters may have enclosed the windows at night (although see above: kitchen), and a single panel of plain woollen fabric, hung from an iron rail, would have kept out drafts from the windows, although pairs of curtains, often decorated, became more popular in later years. Tapestries and painted cloths (perhaps in imitation of tapestries) were often displayed on the walls, and the wide oak floorboards were typically covered by rush matting (see above).
In the earlier 17th century, ornaments were few in comparison to later centuries; many were decorated functional items, predominantly used in social dining, which provided opportunities to exhibit expensive tableware. But with increased trade and manufacturing both provoking and responding to a rise in consumerism, a greater range of objects became available not only to the wealthier ‘middling’ sort, but also those of lesser means, such as the husbandman.
17th century English wine glasses (above), and bottles (below), Jamestown, Virginia, US[xxxv]
Within affluent households, objects of silver, and imported ‘china’ (porcelain), could be displayed to demonstrate status and position – particularly if embellished with the heraldic device of the family. Glass vessels were not yet commonly used, but were increasingly found within such houses, as were glass bottles.
Reproduction 17th century slip-decorated earthenware, pewter plat, and glasses, on oak display shelf (Photo NEN)[xxxvi]
Yeoman households used pewter (in imitation of silver), and when affordable, tin-glazed earthenware (cobalt blue decoration on a white – pale blue ground) imported from Holland (and subsequently made in England), Italy and France, some of which imitated finer, eastern, ceramics. Stoneware from Germany was also used (up until the middle of the century, brown salt-glazed Bellarmine ‘Bartmann’ or ‘beardman’ ware, shown here, and from the later 17th century, grey and cobalt blue Westerwald ware, shown here, both illustrated in the image beneath the photo below).
17th century English tin-glazed earthenware (above), and German stoneware (below), found at Jamestown, Virginia, US[xxxvii]
Decorated regional ceramics, such as slipped- or scraffito- decorated earthenware, were also often displayed, and used in serving food, and for ‘salts’, used at the table when dining socially. Cutlery developed and became more widely adopted during and after the 17th century (see above: The Kitchen), with simple dining forks, rounded knives, and deep-bowl spoons, slowly adopted outside the elite household, though in houses occupied by lower status families, of pewter rather than silver. Depending on income, paintings and prints may have adorned the walls.
Above: 17th century English scraffito-ware, Jamestown, Virginia, US[xxxviii]
Below: 17th farmhouse century table laid with slip-decorated ceramics (Photo NEN)[xxxix]
17th century bedroom, within relatively prosperous household (Photo NEN)[xl]
The relatively high roof and wide dimensions of the ground floor rooms of the 17th century yeoman cottage provided sufficient space for an upper floor that could contain bedrooms – an improvement on earlier, and contemporaneous poorer, dwellings (which had only a single ground floor room, with limited loft space above, entered by a ladder when used for sleeping; see above). Wooden stairs to the upper floor were typically placed beside the central chimneystack, and entered by a door beside the fireplace, by the interior rear wall of the kitchen; or in houses built with and entrance lobby, sometimes facing the front door.
The top of centrally placed stairs often led directly into the bedrooms, although a small landing lobby, with doors either side to each bedroom, which were entered by a plank door, were frequently later constructed. In houses with chimneys in each end wall, the stairs would lead into one bedroom, through which the second bedroom was reached. Where there were three rooms of the floor below, there might be a small third bedroom upstairs, again reached through other rooms.
The bedrooms, being within the eaves, had sloping, often un-plastered, ceilings, and were lit by dormer windows; thick, low, roof timbers might have to be carefully negotiated in the dark! It was not unusual for one bedroom to be more carefully finished in comparison to the other, and used by servants, lodgers, or children. Grates were not usually fitted at this time on the first floor, although upper rooms were lightly warmed by the heat of the chimney.
During the 17th century, beds with wooden frames (as opposed to a mattress placed on a pallet on the floor) were becoming more common for those who could afford this expensive piece of furniture. A typical form was the oak or walnut ‘four-poster’ or ‘tester’, which had several components. Below a mattress of feather and down (contained within ticking) was one of straw, which lay upon the bed-strings: a rope lattice (which had to be often tightened to limit sagging) strung between the rectangular horizontal frame closest to the floor, which was joined at each corner to the upright bedposts. A woollen canopy covered the horizontal rectangular frame closest to the ceiling, and curtains hung from rods attached to this frame to provide warmth, and some degree of privacy. Servants may also have slept within the room, on a truckle, foldout or pallet bed – families commonly slept within the same bed as a matter of course, the children laying either side of their parents). The bedroom would commonly contain an oak chest, used to store clothing, bedding, and private possessions; the room might also contain a stool and / or simple chair.
Late 17th century oak chest (Photo NEN)[xli]
Rush matting (see example above) may have been used to limit the drafts that came through the wide oak floorboards; wall hangings may have also kept out drafts (although any expensive tapestries are more likely to have adorned the parlour than the bedroom). During the early 17th century, curtains were likely to have been of plain wool, though more decorative fabrics may have subsequently been used. Bedclothes would have been simple in less wealthy households, with linen being increasingly used for sheets and counterpanes, alongside woollen covers.
Paintings of sentimental significance may have been hung in the bedrooms of those with sufficient means (although, as with tapestries, such expensive decorations may have been restricted to the parlour) and occasional prints might have decorated the walls. By the 17th century, the bedroom may have had a chamber pot, for use during the night, and during illness. In the less wealthy yeoman’s house might be made of earthenware (a regional sherd of which can be seen here; and complete pot here), although pewter examples are known (e.g. see here).
The second chamber on this floor may have had a variety of functions, depending upon the composition and needs of the household. Where a family member of similar status to that of the ‘bread-winner’ (e.g. a parent or sibling) occupied this room, it may have been furnished well, if not as well as the main bedroom. However, if occupied by domestic servants, apprentices, or farm workers, it would not have been furnished as well or as extensively as the other bedroom (i.e. may have contained only pallet or folding beds, and had no ornamentation), and may also have been used as a store- and / or work-room.
17th century iron door keys, Haddon Hall, Derbyshire (©Grand Tours)
The following posts will explore Upper Hall – a manor house built during the early 17th century in South Derbyshire – against which above the information might be compared, bringing the higher social status of the Hall into sharp relief.
[i] In comparison to terms previously used to denote social status (e.g. see here for the 16th century) those used in the 17th century (such as within wills and inventories) are less easily defined. The changing nature of commerce, economy, and social organisation at this time may resulted in greater ambiguity surrounding the terms ‘yeoman’ and ‘husbandman’, as opportunities to accumulate capital beyond landownership expanded. For example, potters of the late 17th century might be defined as yeomen, it might be presumed due to their independent social position and accumulation of wealth through trade (e.g. see Lorna Weatherill 1971 The Pottery Trade and North Staffordshire, 1660-1760, p 148). However, in representing landownership (the ‘yeoman’ being of the higher status, as a freeholder), they appear to remain significant well into the 19th century.
[ii] A major element of coursework as an undergraduate student (many years ago now!) at the University of Nottingham was the production of a portfolio. With the benefit of specialists in vernacular architecture on the teaching staff, including Philip Dixon, the requirement of archaeological standing building surveys were informed by a superb series of lectures. I was fortunate enough at the time (1994) to have access to a mid-late 17th century cottage in Lincolnshire. Staying in the property for several days (with my 2-year-old son as surveyor’s assistant!), this proved a fabulous opportunity to study the building in detail over several days, unhindered by furniture or furnishings.
[iii] Photos (which are more quick snaps than technical images) taken during visits made over the past couple of years, to a number of churchyards in and around Derby, are available here; annotations will follow when time allows.
[iv] A large body of work is available on the growth of the ‘middling sort’; freely accessible resources include ‘The Search For The ‘Middle Sort’ of People’ In England, 1600–1800‘, by H R French (2000); and in Google Books, sections of Margaret R. Hunt’s 1996 The Middling Sort: Commerce, Gender, and the Family in England, 1680-1780.
[v] See note i.
[vi] Images of material culture dating to or around the period covered by this post have been obtained from photos taken of artefacts recovered during excavations of a 17th century site in Virginia, North America, where many English objects were discovered in association with domestic contexts (from the 1957 excavation report, available via Project Gutenburg here. Further, more up-to-date, information on this site can be found here, here, here, and here (several articles and books are also available, some of which can be easily found through internet search engines).
Other images of in situ objects of a similar date were taken by the author at Haddon Hall, Derbyshire (a location full of fabulous late medieval – early post-medieval artefacts), which is certainly worth a visit if in the area: further information can be found on the Haddon Hall website.
The remaining images (except where otherwise noted) have been obtained from the National Education Network Gallery of educational photographic resources, and are the work of Diane Earl, who retains copyright ownership. Please contact this website if their use here is considered as inappropriate.
Unfortunately, there was a dearth of appropriate copyright free images available for bedroom interiors and material culture, though illustrations will be added as and when they may be encountered. Any pointers to more suitable images (i.e. copyright free, non-commercial, and contextually correct) would be welcomed.
[vii] The chronological brackets of this era vary according to geographical location, and often differ within as well as between the various fields of study concerned with historic buildings, remaining a matter for debate.
Archaeological studies in Britain tend to conflate the start of the Early Modern period with that of the post-medieval era (which again has varied definitions, beginning at various points in the late 15th – mid 16th centuries). The termination of the Early Modern era is usually seen as coinciding with the widespread effects of the ‘industrial revolution’, i.e., broadly the late 18th century. Here, the beginning of the post-medieval period, as defined by English Heritage and Historic Environment curators, i.e. AD 1540, will be adopted as a very general starting point for the Early Modern era.
However, it should be remembered that such dates are used merely for the purposes of organising research and source material, and do not reflect the disparity of cultural and social change in the past, which inevitably depend upon access to resources and knowledge, and are affected by economic and political circumstances.
[viii] For example, see Peter Jupp and Claire Gittings (eds.) 1999 Death in England: An Illustrated History.
[x] Private land around and associated with the house: usually comprising a yard, and often a garden, which became increasingly defined by walls and fences from that of neighbouring properties.
[xi] See note ii. The plans, drawings and photographs from the archaeological survey and interpretation of this building carried out in 1994-95, were unfortunately mislaid by the institution that used them in a display / as a teaching aid, and have yet to be found and recovered. More information on this property can be found on the HER here.
[xii] Top image obtained from the National Education Network: http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/asset60101_218-.html (accessed 3-10-14), ©Diane Earl. Bottom image from John L. Cotter & J. Paul Hudson 1957 (2005), New Discoveries at Jamestown. Site of the First Successful English Settlement in America (accessed 17.30, 2-10-14).
[xiii] Families headed by labourers would occupy less substantial dwellings than those of artisans, generally comprising a single room, sometimes with loft above, and might share such buildings with other families. The poorest families that had some form of roof over their head might reside within a roughly constructed, essentially temporary, building. Archaeological site reports often continue to place such dwellings – alongside the single room cottage with loft – within the somewhat broad and barely defined category of ‘hovel’. Unmarried servants and labourers of this period commonly lived within their employer’s house, or in temporary shelters at their place of work (e.g. shepherd’s bothies).
[xiv] This possibility requires verification; the information was obtained from personal communication with the owner at the time of the building survey (see notes i & v), and derives from associated property documentation.
[xv] Where the chimney had been fitted within a cross-passage, a small entrance lobby would be formed (however, lobbies were also often added later by constructing a diving wall between the front wall and fireplace).
[xvi] The kitchens of medieval halls were located within an associated outbuilding, due to risk of fire and to avoid cooking smells; but due to limited space (and perhaps fewer servants) was situated within less high status dwellings.
[xviii] Cotter & Hudson, op cit..
[xx] NEN (op cit.): http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/asset90309_2922-e2bn.html
[xxi] For information on turnspit dogs see, e.g. here, here, and here; the remains of reputedly the last turn-spit dog (the 19th century ‘Whiskey’) was preserved by taxidermy, and is on display at Abegavenny Museum
[xxii] Image accessed 13.30, 6-10-14: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Turnspit_Dog_Working.jpg
[xxiii] There are various reasons for this change (the confines of time and space precluding discussion here – though this topic will likely be considered in future posts). One significant factor was change in credit regulations that enabled those on lower incomes to take advantage of ‘HP’ for more expensive domestic goods such as a gas or electric cooker, which could replace the dirty and inefficient kitchen range. The small ‘portable’ cooker would fit into the scullery, transforming this room into a kitchen-scullery, and the kitchen into a dining room. Sculleries were often used in conjunction with the washhouse, but where no additional washhouse was provided, many terrace houses had a second sink within the cellar (basement); where neither cellar sink nor washhouse was possible, sculleries were often referred to as scullery-washhouses.
[xxiv] NEN (op cit.): http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/asset90312_2922-e2bn.html
[xxv] Cotter & Hudson, op cit..
[xxix] Cotter & Hudson, op cit..
[xxxi] I must thank the owner of the South Derbyshire house for reminding me of this object, which I had forgotten since being taught about such artefacts in the early 1990s (although my experience of ceramics ‘curfews’ was of those dating to the medieval period).
[xxxii] Cotter & Hudson, op cit..
[xxxvi] NEN (op cit.): http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/asset90323_2922-e2bn.html
[xxxvii] Cotter & Hudson, op cit..
This introductory post is the first in a series that discusses home life during the 17th century, through standing buildings and contemporaneous domestic material culture (some of which archaeological excavations have uncovered, and some of which survive in situ in houses that are still standing), considering a range of written evidence alongside material sources. This series was inspired by a recent visit to an early 17th century private home (‘Upper Hall’), built in the Swadlincote area during the 1620s to house a prosperous farming family.[i]
The unusual level of preservation of Upper Hall, with many surviving historic features (most likely due to the presence of tenants limiting 20th century modernisations), makes this building a particularly interesting topic for investigation. Furthermore, the current owners are clearly sympathetic to the historical significance of the building, and have sourced fixtures, fittings, and furnishings compatible with the period of construction, and with modifications made in the 18th and 19th centuries. Though a comfortable living home today, this attention to detail brings alive the history of the dwelling, capturing aspects of the domestic material world for the well-to-do householder in the Early Modern period.[ii]
The primary aim of writing this series is to disseminate information on this property. Through viewing the interior, much might be learnt about domestic life; the residents not only went to the trouble of taking us around their home and pointing out (and explaining) historic features, but also of showing us the artefacts that they had found in the garden, sharing a wealth of knowledge during our visit. They have very kindly granted for LIPCAP consent to display photographs taken during the visit on our website.
This visit (and the writing of these posts) provided a useful opportunity to revise knowledge of early modern domestic contexts,[iii] which when considered alongside other bodies of evidence – such as burials and mortuary memorials of this period – potentially enables a more rounded consideration of life in the early modern past.[iv]
As research into the property developed, the wealth of readily available relevant sources soon became apparent: family histories, Hearth Tax returns,[v] and records relating to several chancery cases, suggested the possibility of going beyond basic analyses and historical contextualisation of material evidence. The content of easily accessible written evidence opened up the possibility of attempting a form of detailed interpretation that, though less frequently adopted within British archaeology than by archaeologists in North America and Australia, holds the potential to provide a perspective on the past in a format that might be more meaningful than is usual.
Posts describing the property will adopt an ‘archaeological story-telling’ approach – an unconventional, but well-established, genre that brings the material culture of the past back to life through imaginative rendering of historical contexts.[vi] The resultant ‘tales’ differ from historical fiction in both method and intent, presenting detailed, accurate archaeological and written evidence (usually incorporating primary research) within a fictitious narrative. This process aims to interpret sources in a way that might capture the historical imagination of a wider audience than are usually attracted to academic texts (though an academic audience is not excluded). Though set in the mid 17th century, the stories will at times jump forward to later periods, in order to consider features of historic interest that date to after this time.
This particular endeavour represents only the early stages of research: time and financial constraints, restricted mobility, and limited access to resources, have not permitted examination of previous archaeological reports, which the author hopes to achieve in the future. After further research (and taking into consideration any feedback that readers might provide), this series of posts will most likely be modified, and may be developed within a collection of similar articles addressing a range of historical domestic contexts (hopefully including sites of particular interest encountered through LIPCAP fieldwork). For the time being, these narratives incorporate preliminary evidence, as seen during the visit to the property; information provided by the occupants; data within the Historic Environment Records;[vii] information from reports outlining archaeological investigations carried out within the immediate vicinity of the building;[viii] and that derived from independent investigations into family, local, regional, and wider histories.[ix]
Posts will use the photographs of interior historic features taken during our tour of the house,[x] with interpretations drawing upon what remains of the early fabric of this building, and the material culture used within comparable housing (i.e. dwellings in this area, and elsewhere of similar and lower status). This approach enables the consideration of everyday domestic life and environment during the early phases of occupation within this dwelling, although in a less detailed way than might be achieved by a more detailed archaeological standing building investigation. Although it considers buildings and other material from outside the East Midlands (including artefacts manufactured in Britain but discovered through excavations in former British colonies), the series concentrates upon Derbyshire – in particular, the southern districts of the county. Being rich in early modern buildings, and incorporating LIPCAP study areas, this area is of special interest to the Living in the Past Community Archaeology Project.
For those who might wish to know a little more about housing and household material culture in the 17th century, a supplementary post ‘Living in the Early Modern Past: the 17th Century Home’ considers the typical artisan house, outlining domestic life for the family of the less wealthy ‘yeoman’.[xi] This may be used as a comparison for the more affluent home we are about to visit, highlighting the high status of those who lived within Upper Hall, and the relative splendour of their home environment. This supplement also considers the influence of late medieval halls upon the dwellings of yeomen, and the development of different social categories, in the 17th century. Where descriptions of the interiors, objects, culture, and society within the narrative posts do not go into detail, readers may refer to the supplementary and other posts for further information.
Though what follows represents only preliminary work (as it has not yet been possible for the author to obtain copies of previous publications), it lays out the initial stages of multi-disciplinary historical research that holds potential to go beyond descriptions of domestic material culture and environment, and the practicalities of home life, in the early modern period. Feedback from readers on the ‘story-telling’ method (or other issues) will be welcome, so that the process might be refined, although it may not be possible to respond individually to comments.
The next section of this post will provide an outline of the series, should readers have an interest in any particular aspect of the topic.
Following on from this post, ‘Living in the Early Modern Past: the 17th Century Home’, considers housing for those categorised at the time as ‘yeoman’ – the social group to which the person who built Upper Hall attested as belonging.[xii] During and after the 17th century, the ‘middling sort’ essentially developed from this group:[xiii] artisans, trades-people, and small holders, with means beyond those of the poor husbandmen, but not as high status (nor often as wealthy) as the landed gentry.[xiv] This expanding group both benefited financially and enhanced their own comfort (and increasingly social position), through recent and continuing growth in trade and commerce – concomitant consumerism, providing a broader range of household material culture, with more opportunities to emulate that of wealthier and higher status homes.
This post acts as a counterpoint to those describing the Hall, and illustrates and discusses domestic material culture found in less substantial homes, through to more high status households.
The third post examines family and social relationships within and beyond the village, considering inheritance, including (through numerous chancery court records) disputes over land ownership, and perhaps possession of the Hall. Although the latter concerns ostensibly tedious and complex legal disputes, by studying this material alongside archaeological evidence and other historical sources, we may ultimately learn much about everyday life and death in the past. Such information holds the potential to elucidate the mutability of family ties and social bonds at this time: family and community cooperation and conflict emerge from this body of evidence. It is therefore a useful source with regard to attitudes towards group identities and individuality, the acquisition and transference of ‘goods’ (and perhaps the growing power of consumerism), and processes by which social status is constructed and transformed during this transitional period.
The fourth Upper Hall post begins the archaeological story-telling posts, using documentary sources to contextualise the material evidence encountered at Upper Hall. We follow the petty constable Samuel Beighton as he approaches the manor house in 1662 in order to carry out checks for the first Hearth Tax.[xv] His journey provides opportunities not only to consider the appearance of house, but also the social and cultural environment of the day.
In this first story, Samuel travels from the nearby church and along the main road of the village, encountering traffic en route to market. When he arrives at the property Samuel knocks at the front door and looks at the outside of the building, reflecting upon the status of the resident family – the Benskins, and comparing this grand house to neighbouring buildings.
In this second archaeological narrative, we follow Samuel around the ground floor and cellars of Upper Hall, during his visit to determine whether the Master of the house, John Benskin, has been honest in his tax return. This provides constable Beighton with an opportunity to see how those with good fortune live: he sees servants about their daily tasks, and gazes upon the decor and fine things that fill the manor house, as he is shown each room. But with dusk approaching, Samuel must leave to return another day…
As Christmas draws near, and time must be applied to other LIPCAP tasks (including a second 1930s House Xmas Open Day – see what happened last year here), there will be a break in Upper Hall series. If sufficient interest has been shown in the above posts, and if other commitments permit, the series will continue in the New Year with:
Onwards and Upwards: exploring a 17th Century Home in South Derbyshire
Out back: exploring a 17th Century Home in South Derbyshire
The third story (‘Onwards and Upwards’) will follow Samuel Beighton when he returns to Upper Hall in order to investigate the bedrooms of the first floor, and attic rooms, in order to search out hearths that Master Benskin might be trying to conceal so to avoid paying the twice-yearly tax on these features.
The final archaeological story (‘Out back’) examines the back of the house and outbuildings, in search of further hearths. As in the other stories, we travel forward in time to explore later buildings, such as the washhouse and privy.
We hope that you enjoy these posts – please let us know if you do, or if you have any thoughts on how they might be improved.
In the mean time, sign up for the blog email list, to receive notifications of new articles – including extracts from a Victorian book on folklore in Derbyshire, which shall this time look at Christmas customs, beliefs, and rituals.
[i] In order to retain the privacy of the modern occupants, the full address is withheld. Should this information be sought for genuine research purposes, please contact the project (using the website form), so that the author might pass on enquiries to the residents (who are, however, under no obligation to release this information).
[ii] There are various definitions for the term ‘Early Modern’ within and between the different fields of study concerned with historic buildings and domestic material culture. Archaeological studies in Britain tend to see the Early Modern period as beginning at the start of the post-medieval era (which itself is accorded different points in the late 15th – mid 16th centuries). The termination of the Early Modern era is usually seen as coinciding with the widespread effects of the ‘Industrial Revolution‘, i.e., broadly the late 18th century. Here, the beginning of the post-medieval period, as defined by English Heritage and Historic Environment curators, i.e. AD 1540, will be adopted as a very general starting point for the Early Modern era. However, it must be made clear that this historical period, as with others, has been defined by historians for analytical purposes, and does not necessarily reflect the way that people at the time saw themselves as situated within an era of specific cultural change or continuity.
[iii] During undergraduate studies (long, long ago…) the author was given the opportunity to conduct a standing building investigation of a 17th century cottage in Lincolnshire, which both provided grounding in detailed archaeological building surveys, and sparked an interest in early modern vernacular housing (for more background information, see note iii, ‘Living in the Early Modern Past: the 17th Century Home’)
[v] For more information on the Hearth Tax, see Hearth Tax Online – the website of the Centre for Hearth Tax Studies at the University of Roehampton. For hearth tax records, see the National Archives online catalogue.
[vi] The ‘story-telling’ approach is applied and considered within a range of works (e.g. Gibb, James G. 2000 ‘Imaginary, But by No Means Unimaginable: Storytelling, Science, and Historical Archaeology’, Historical Archaeology 34(2), pp.1-6; Beaudry, Mary C. 2005 ‘Stories That Matter: Material Lives in 19th Century Lowell and Boston, Massachusetts’, Post-Medieval Archaeology, Monograph 3, pp.1-20). This method presents the facts uncovered through the study of historical material remains within a narrative framework intended to convey the social and cultural environment to the modern reader; the author has found such an approach most effective when teaching archaeology in adult education, and to the general public.
[viii] A watching brief consists of the observation by archaeologists of construction work within historically sensitive areas, to see what historical information might be revealed through excavations, and as a precaution against damage to any hitherto unknown buried remains.
Various archaeological reports are freely available on the ‘grey literature’ (unpublished reports) section of the Archaeological Data Service (ADS) website, here. In order to retain the privacy of the current occupants, this information is not cited in detail here, due to its inclusion of the address.
[ix] Sources includes parish records and other material associated with the nearby parish church; brief investigation of local industries, particularly ceramics; contemporaneous taxation reports; family history information obtained from public sources, and extended through independent research, e.g. using parish and ecclesiastical records, and documents such as wills, apprenticeship records, and chancery court records, obtained from the National Archives, and other sources. Several unpublished archaeological reports have been completed on the property: should the opportunity subsequently arise to access these documents, this post may be updated with additional information, or a new update post published.
[x] The images of Upper Hall that illustrate the narrative of this series were taken during an open day in Autumn 2014, preventing use of tripod, scale and technical photographic techniques, and precluding the production of a representative archaeological record (in order to avoid obstructing other visitors and residents, and with limited time). Photographs are displayed on this website with the kind permission of the residents of this property; in attempting to avoid the exhibition of personal belongings, some areas, or sections of rooms, were not photographed. All images of the building and associated artefacts are ©LIPCAP, and may not be reproduced without the express permission of the LIP project and property owners.
[xi] Those categorised, and self-identifying, as ‘yeoman’ belonged to a broad social group that ranged from the tenant farmer of modest means, to the better-off, land-owning, farmer. However, in comparison to terms previously used to denote social status (e.g. see here for the 16th century) those used in the 17th century (such as within wills and inventories) are less easily defined. The changing nature of commerce, economy, and social organisation at this time may have resulted in greater ambiguity surrounding the terms ‘yeoman’ and ‘husbandman’, as opportunities to accumulate capital beyond landownership expanded. For example, potters of the late 17th century might be defined as yeomen, presumably due to their independent social position and accumulation of wealth through trade (e.g. see Lorna Weatherill 1971 The Pottery Trade and North Staffordshire, 1660-1760, p 148). However, in representing landownership (the ‘yeoman’ being of the higher status, as a freeholder), the term yeoman appear to remain significant well into the 19th century.
[xii] See note xi.
[xiii] Freely accessible research on the development of the ‘middling sort’ includes ‘The Search For The ‘Middle Sort’ of People’ In England, 1600–1800‘, by H R French (2000); and
in Google Books, sections of Margaret R. Hunt’s 1996 The Middling Sort: Commerce, Gender, and the Family in England, 1680-1780.
[xiv] Husbandmen were typically small-scale tenant farmers, and farm hands, i.e. of lower status, and less well off, than the yeoman. The ‘gentry’ – ‘gentlemen’ – often owned large areas of land, and / or held professional positions (e.g. lawyers, doctors, and some clergy).
[xv] For information on the petty constable, see E. Trotter (ed.) 1980 Seventeenth Century Life in the Country Parish, p. 83 ff..
‘Living in the Past’ (LIPCAP) is a community archaeology project that works with occupants of pre-WWII housing, and other members of the public, to explore everyday life in the past, principally through standing building, garden, rubbish tips, and graveyard, surveys.
The pilot phase of the project ran over several years, primarily examining working-class houses and related contexts of the late Victorian period to WWII, within urban industrial neighbourhoods in Derby, East Midlands, UK.
In response to preliminary investigations, focus of the project’s next phase in some ways broadens, and in others narrows, to examine domestic and related contexts within the wider county of Derbyshire (occasionally beyond).
Case studies include rural and urban sites from the late 16th – early 19th centuries, comparing accommodation and other aspects of material culture associated with a wider range of socio-economic groups, from the destitute, to the aristocracy.
In this way, we may better compare the effects of poverty, wealth, and social mobility upon beliefs and behaviours, considering the affects of increasing urbanisation, commerce, and industrialisation upon daily life.
By attention to detail, we might explore the often otherwise ‘silent’ material expressions of identities, relationships, and emotions – in particular of those less often given a voice: the poor; women and children; and migrants.