the sandford inventory of earth buildings constructed using a gis

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0360-1323/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.bu

�Correspond

fax: +441752 2

E-mail addr

Building and Environment 40 (2005) 964–972

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

The Sandford Inventory of Earth Buildings constructed using a GIS

Margaret Ford, Richard Griffiths�, Linda Watson

School of Architecture and Design, Faculty of Arts, University of Plymouth, Hoe Centre, Notte Street, Plymouth, Devon, PL1 2AR, UK

Received 12 February 2004; received in revised form 16 August 2004; accepted 1 September 2004

Abstract

The Sandford Inventory of Earth Buildings documents over 140 earth constructions. The Royal Commission on the Historical

Monuments of England recording methodology is followed. The inventory has been constructed using (1) the historical context of

the building and site, (2) the topographical data for the building site and its immediate surroundings, and (3) the architectural

characteristics and details of the building. A geographical information system (GIS) integrates this information to produce some

conclusions important to the conservator. To illustrate the Inventory, three farm buildings are described in depth, including results

from field studies, and it is significant that two of these buildings are non-Listed. The GIS is used to explore the location of the earth

buildings in relation to the archaeological sites, the contours, water systems, road systems, field boundaries and the geology of the

area.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Earth building; GIS; Conservation; Cob

1. Introduction

The Sandford Inventory of Earth Buildings is adocument detailing over 140 earth constructions. Theinventory has been constructed using sources ofinformation from three clearly defined study areas.These three study areas are (1) the historical context ofthe building and site, (2) the topographical data for thebuilding site and its immediate surroundings, and (3) thearchitectural characteristics and details of the building.A geographical information system (GIS) has been usedto integrate these three areas of information, and allowthe manipulation and analysis of the data to producesome conclusions important to the conservator. EssexCounty Council Heritage Group has used a similarmethod to integrate the material for their HistoricTowns Survey [1].

An over-riding concern driving the production of theSandford Inventory has been the need to identify

e front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ildenv.2004.09.006

ing author. Tel.: +441752 233605;

33634.

ess: [email protected] (R. Griffiths).

important heritage buildings that may or may not beListed as being of architectural or historical importance.Discussion on relationships between earthen buildingsand physical, social or historic contexts was found to belacking in the literature, but there was widespreadagreement on the urgent need to classify and inventorysurviving historic earthen buildings.

One of the major difficulties facing the conservator isthe identification and classification of cob structures anda fundamental tool would be an inventory of thebuildings. Cob is a mixture of earth, straw and waterused for walling. To this end two works have beenproduced. Ford et al. [2] suggested the application ofGIS with historic and geographic data to the analysis ofvernacular architecture. Ford [3] employed GIS toconstruct an inventory of earthen buildings for theparish of Sandford, Devon. Sandford was chosen as thestudy area since it was in central Devon, a districtwhere cob has been an important traditional buildingmaterial. Moreover, the conservation officer for MidDevon District Council had been concerned for thesurvival of the cob buildings within the area [4]. For theinventory to be significant, certain criteria would be

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Ford et al. / Building and Environment 40 (2005) 964–972 965

required of the selected study area: it needed to containa number of known cob buildings and required relevantsmall scale topographical and geological maps andarchival records relating to the area to be readilyavailable. Sandford met these criteria.

Three aims are identified for this work: (1) to reportthe establishment of the Sandford Inventory, (a) basedupon a triangular concept using the three sources ofinformation, and (b) including the results of field studyvisits, (2) to demonstrate the application of the GIS tothe integration of the separate data sources, and (3) todemonstrate the analysis of the cob building data usingGIS to correlate the positioning of the cob buildingswith topographical factors.

2. Methodology

The proposed methodology for establishing an inven-tory presented a complex undertaking and for this reasona relatively small study area was necessary. The workrequired a multi-disciplinary approach covering andcombining the three study areas of information. Theimportant discovery of previously unrecorded historicliterary material on earthen building in the UnitedKingdom, particularly cob building, provides a signifi-cant contribution to the body of existing references.Because of the importance of these historic referencesthey have been fully described in a separate report for theCentre for Earthen Architecture at the University ofPlymouth [5]. Ford et al. [2] outlines the three funda-mental issues supporting the methodology. These threeissues are (1) the chosen recording methodology, whichclosely follows that of the Royal Commission on theHistorical Monuments of England (RCHME), whichmerged with English Heritage in 1999 [6–8]. (2) Thechoice of the study area, and (3) the construction of therelational database from the three areas of historical,topographical and architectural data. The chosen record-ing methodology for the Sandford Inventory developedfrom two factors: (a) a critical review [3] of six nationaland six British recording methodologies, including theEnglish Heritage and RCHME methodologies, and (b)the need to integrate the three diverse sets of information.

The GIS software was personal computer based,running in Windows NT, and is comprised of ArcInfo(7.2.1) and ArcView (3.1). This software, together with asuitable database, enabled the management, integration,display and archiving of various types of data, rangingfrom digitised maps to photographs. ArcInfo is de-scribed as a powerful analytical tool that permits datafrom disparate sources to be displayed, unexpectedrelationships to be discovered and correlations proposedand tested [9].

The dBASE IV database was chosen as the relationaltabular database for the input of the descriptive data.

Forty of the items included in the database have beensuggested by the written information contained in theListed descriptions and from items included in The

Buildings at Risk Survey [10]. An additional eight itemsare specific to the study area and relate to informationobtained from the various sources. The database fieldswere grouped in the order suggested in The Monuments

Information and Data Standard Manual (MIDAS)produced by the RCHME [8]. The 48 data fields weregrouped under four headings: (a) identification andlocation (nine fields), (b) architectural characteristics (28fields), (c) historic context (eight fields) and (d) addi-tional information (three fields). English Heritage’s Listof buildings of architectural and historic interest for theparish of Sandford [11] directed the original selection ofcob buildings for this study. However, archival searchesfound that there were other buildings in the study areathat might be of equal historic interest to those includedin the Lists. As a result the Sandford Inventory databasecontained information on 112 Listed structures togetherwith a further 22 non-Listed buildings, which theresearch had suggested were likely to be constructed ofcob. To meet aim 1, as stated earlier, the establishmentof the Sandford Inventory will be illustrated with theresults of three field visits to study prebendary farmswith cob structures; the first is Listed, WoolsgroveFarmhouse, and two examples of un-Listed structuresAller and Cross Farms. These field visits are animportant aspect of the Sandford Inventory as theyenable the present building status and condition to beintegrated with the data from all the other sourcesincluded in the inventory.

3. The historical information; a brief review

Hoskins [12, p. 54] concludes that the Devon land-scape, as we know it, dates primarily from the AngloSaxon period and mentions that Sandford was likely tohave dated from the earliest days of Saxon occupation.Hoskins also comments that certain farmstead sites,including sites in Sandford, were described in an AngloSaxon Charter of 930. This Charter is also referred to byRose-Troup [13, p. 238]. Hoskins suggests that thelarger villages, such as Sandford, were likely to haveoutlying hamlets and farmsteads. He agrees withCollingwood and Myers [14] that historic farmsteadsin Devon were likely to be sited on a valley slope facingsouth or south-east, sheltered but exposed to the sunand close to a source of clean water. In his introductionto the 1992 commemorative edition of Devon Beacham[15, p. xxii] comments that Hoskins was one of the firstto realise the importance of farmsteads to the history ofthe locality.

Hoskins [12, p. 70] discusses the rise in populationthat led to an increase in building prior to the 1348

ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Ford et al. / Building and Environment 40 (2005) 964–972966

outbreak of plague. A later period of increased houseconstruction and reconstruction occurred in the 16thand 17th centuries, which he relates to the profits madeby Devon landowners from the woollen trade, see [12,p. 62]. Such is the case in Sandford, where the majorestate owner, John Davy (1541–1611) was a wealthywoollen merchant. The re-structuring of earlier build-ings, Hoskins [12, p. 160] warns, may lead to mis-conceptions as to original dates with apparently 17thcentury buildings concealing much older parts. Thispoint illustrates the need to use documentary evidence tosupport the visual evidence of architectural featuresobtained by the field study visits.

Hoskins [16, p. 146] raises interesting points withregard to certain elements in the landscape directlyrelated to the larger landowners, including the establish-ment of private chapels and the division of largeholdings as a result of inheritance. Evidence of twoprivate chapels, both built in cob, occur in Sandfordaccording to Reichel [17, p. 272] and one of the largerfarmsteads is quoted by Munday [18, p. 53] as havingbeen divided into multi-ownership.

The concomitant increase in buildings and trade is,according to Hoskins [13, p. 151] associated with thecreation of better road systems in the 18th century. Thisin turn caused the rebuilding of bridges and theconstruction of toll houses and the placing of mile-stones. He describes the arrival of the railway system inDevon in the 19th century which, he considers, led to theavailability of non-local construction materials and thedemise of local styles of buildings, see [16, p. 268]. In thishe is supported by Morriss [19, p. 20], who alsocomments that, until the advent of the railways, buildingwas dependent on local materials.

One of the most relevant aspects of Hoskins work isthe argument he makes that evidence from informedobservation of the landscape and from historic docu-ments helps identify early sites and settlements. Theidentification of such sites gives an indication as towhere existing, potentially important, historic buildingsmay be located.

The arguments of Hoskins [16], Darby [20] andRoberts [21] support one of the underlying concepts ofthe Sandford Inventory—it is necessary to understandevidence contained in the physical surroundings ofbuildings in order to gain an understanding of theirdevelopment, use, role and status.

Other specific aspects of the development of thelandscape that may be of importance to the siting ofbuildings relate to particular elements that indicatehistoric landuse including field systems, track and roadsystems and evidence of the management of woodland.Taylor [22] illustrates how an understanding of differenttypes and forms of fields can provide evidence as toearlier regional settlement patterns and former agricul-tural use.

4. The case studies

Turning to the case studies supporting this work onthe Sandford Inventory, the prebendary farms, threecases will be described, starting with the largest andmost important farm, the Listed Woolsgrove. A reviewof two of the non-Listed former prebendary farms, Allerand Cross, will also be presented. Each case study willbe divided into five sections, including an introductionand a report of a field study.

4.1. Case study: Woolsgrove Farmhouse Listed. Map

SS70SE, grid reference 279238/102741

Introduction: Woolsgrove farmhouse and farm build-ings and Higher Woolsgrove form an interesting groupof cob buildings. They are considered to be of 16thand 17th century origin [11], and formed one of theprebendary farms belonging to the collegiate church ofCrediton, prior to the Acts of Parliament of 1536 and1539 that dissolved the monasteries and the abbeys.

Location: The group of cob buildings is sited at thehead of the valley, facing south-east, close to the westernboundary of the parish and within 1 mile of thesettlement of New Buildings.

Architectural Characteristics, from Listed Description

[11]: Higher Woolsgrove is described as being con-structed of cob on a rubble plinth, facing south-west andto have originally been built to a three-room and cross-passage plan. Few earlier architectural details remain asthe building was extensively altered in the 19th and 20thcenturies. However, the site, plan form and survivingprojecting lateral chimney-stack are evidence of itsearlier existence. Woolsgrove farmhouse, previouslyLower Woolsgrove, is considered to be of similar dateto Higher Woolsgrove and was also considerably alteredin the mid 19th century. It is described as constructedusing cob on a rubblestone plinth, facing south-east andof three-room cross-passage plan. There is a projectinglateral stack to the rear of the hall constructed ofvolcanic stone block with a castellated top. The sevenbay roof contains side pegged jointed cruck trussesseveral of which have cambered collars. The adjoiningoutbuildings of Woolsgrove farmhouse are also Listedas well as a separate barn 150m south-east of the maingroup.

The outbuildings to the rear of the main house areconstructed of cob and are considered to date from the17th to the 19th centuries. In the 17th century rangethere is a bakehouse with a massive granite fireplace, asix bay roof structure of A-frames with pegged lapjointed collars and a 17th century flat arched door. Theseparate barn is considered to be of 17th century originand, like all the buildings in the group, is constructedusing cob on a rubblestone plinth. This is a threshingbarn with opposing doors and a central threshing floor.


The central doors have short midstrey walls and a smallporch.

Historic references: The present Woolsgrove is con-sidered to be of 16th century origin, but historicreferences are found from 1281 when the farmstead ismentioned in the Devon Assize Rolls. A mid 19thcentury account of the diocese of Exeter shows thatWoolsgrove was a prebendary farm and in 1333 washeld by the Precentor, the senior ecclesiastical dignitary,of the collegiate church at Crediton [23]. An impressionof the value of the property, at this date, is shown in theentries relating to tithes or taxes paid to the church:Woolsgrove is comprised of 102 acres and was valued atd0:8: This indicates a prestigious and valuable propertywith a considerable amount of land. By the time of thefinal dissolution of the monasteries in 1539, Woolsgrovepaid an annual tithe of d2:80: This was paid in the formof wheat, meat and dairy products, which illustrates theagricultural use of the land in the earlier part of the 16thcentury. Woolsgrove is also included in the Nordernterrier of 1598 and further documents exist that relate tosubsequent owners and tenants from 1642 to 1834, see[3, Appendix 2]. These give information regardingleases, inventories and sales. The layout of the farmsteadin 1839, is illustrated in the tithe map, reproduced byFord [3, Appendix 1, p. 305] and the tithe apportion-ment lists the fields and describes the crops grown or theuse of the land at that date.

Topography: Higher Woolsgrove faces south-west andWoolsgrove farmhouse faces south-east. This group ofcob buildings lies on a sloping site between 130 and165m above sea level. There is a nearby source of waterthat is spring fed and leads into a pond between the twooriginal farmhouses. The roadway that leads north-wards to New Buildings passes between the buildings.The nearest source of head, the material suitable for cobwalls, is found below and to the east of the buildings.The likely source of the volcanic material used toconstruct the plinths of the buildings, and the chimneyat the rear of Woolsgrove farmhouse, is at Meadowend,approximately 1 km from the buildings. Here there is aunused quarry that contains purple-grey lamprophyriclava, a part of the Exeter Volcanic Rocks series. Thisquarry is fully described in the Memoir of the 1:50,000Geological Sheet 325 [24, p. 104].

Field visit: The field visit to Woolsgrove revealed twoseparate farmhouses and groups of farm buildings.Higher Woolsgrove has been extensively altered and thefarm buildings are now converted into further dwellings.Woolsgrove farmhouse, the former Lower Woolsgrove,still retains much of its former identity despite 19th and20th century alterations and additions.

The complex of cob buildings consists of the farm-house with an integral courtyard of domestic out-buildings on the south-east side of the road and a groupof agricultural buildings on the north-west side. The

large Listed cob threshing barn is part of a further groupof cob buildings. The original cob farmhouse isconcealed behind a mid to late 19th century stuccoedfacade with a porticoed entrance and sash windows.Within the remodelled interior, however, there are signsof the former building, originally of three-room andcross-passage plan. In particular, the evidence of thesurviving jointed cruck roof structure which, as found inCombe Lancey and Gaters, has the feet of the crucksvisible in the upstairs passageway. There is a deep lateralstack to the rear and the steep pitched roof indicates thatthe building was formerly thatched. A photograph,taken in the early 20th century, confirms this (see list ofCopeland photographs in Ford [3, Appendix 2]. Thegroup of relatively unaltered domestic buildings to therear of the farmhouse also gives an indication of the ageand likely former appearance of the original house.These outbuildings are Listed separately and areconsidered to be of 17th century origin. As describedin the Listed description, the former bakehouse containsa granite fireplace that extends the full width of the gableend of the building and the rooms above indicate formerdomestic use and contain a flat arched doorway. Thecarriageway doors that lead into the courtyard havedecorative hinges and are thought to be of similar age tothe buildings. The farm buildings on the north-west sideof the road contain open fronted linhays, with survivingstone and cob circular pillars. There is a large cob applestore and probable pound house, for the production ofcider, at the south side of the buildings.

The tithe map of 1839 indicates that there wereformerly extensive orchards close to this group of farmbuildings and the tithe apportionment identifies theexistence of a pound house for the production of cider.The separate cob threshing barn, probably of 17thcentury origin, and the adjoining group of partiallyderelict cob buildings are also interesting. The barn isnot rendered and the separate cob layers, or lifts, used inits construction are clearly displayed.

The entire group of buildings at Woolsgrove isinteresting. Its former status as an ecclesiastical pre-bendary farm, its documented history and its topogra-phical siting indicate that this substantial farm holdingis of importance.

4.2. Case study: Aller Non-listed. Map SS80SW, grid

reference 281051/102015

Introduction: Aller is one of the former eightprebendary farms that were in the ownership of thecollegiate church at Crediton until the dissolution of themonasteries.

Location:The farmstead is sited close to the formertithe or toll road that passes along the south of the parish.

Historic references: The first historic reference to Alleris in 1333 when it is mentioned in conjunction with the


other prebendary farms. The size of the rents or tithepaid to the church, shows that Aller was of lesserimportance than Woolsgrove, but of greater value thanCross. Over the period from 1333 to 1538 Allermaintained its relative importance. References to Allerare recorded at the time of the dissolution of themonasteries and again in 1547 [23]. Aller is included inthe Nordern map and terrier of 1598, see [3, Appendix 2]at the time when it was in the ownership of theChichester family. There are baptismal records referringto Aller in the early 17th century and by the time of thecensus in 1790 the farm was occupied by a family and sixapprentices, or farm servants. In 1826 the farmhousewas apparently destroyed by fire [18]. From the tithemap and tithe apportionment it is apparent that Aller, atthat date, owned 117 acres, the majority of which wasused for arable purposes.

Topography: Aller is sited on a slope, facing south.The buildings are close to water and the road mentionedabove. It is also close to an ancient trackway and theWatching Seat or lookout point mentioned by Rose-Troup [13, p. 241] and referred to in the case study onCombe Lancey, to be published separately. Thegeological map of the area indicates that sources ofhead are close.

Field visit: A field visit to Aller revealed a cobfarmhouse of early 19th century origins, but withapparently earlier cob walls incorporated that may havesurvived the fire of 1826. A large barn appears to be ofan earlier date than the remainder of the farm buildings.The site of Aller conforms to the pattern established bythe analysis of Listed cob buildings in the study area,and seen in the Woolsgrove farm, but the majority of theearlier farmhouse has been destroyed. The cob farmbuildings, that survived the fire, may contain earlierfabric.

4.3. Case study: Cross Non-listed. Map SS80SW, grid

reference 280610/102276

Introduction: The history of Cross proved to besimilar to that of Aller, a former prebendary farmwhere the farmhouse was destroyed by fire in the 19thcentury.

Location: Cross is sited a short distance to the west ofAller, close to the former toll road. The Devon Sites andMonuments Register records evidence of the remains ofa stone cross close to the entrance to Cross.

Historic references: The same documents that refer toAller, Woolsgrove and the other prebendary farms alsorefer to Cross. From the amount of tithe paid Crosswould appear to have been a smaller farmstead. One ofthe early prebendaries at Cross, Thomas de Crosse, tookhis name from the farmstead. As with Aller andWoolsgrove there are continuous records of the differentowners or tenants of the farmstead from 1333 to the

present day. Again, the tithe map and apportionment of1839 show that the landholding at that date was inexcess of 100 acres and that the land was both cultivatedand grazed. Orchards and a pound house are alsorecorded.

Topography: Cross is in a similar topographicallocation to Aller. It faces south and is on a slope, thereis water nearby and the buildings are close to a historicroute. Moreover, the geological material, head, is closeto hand.

Field visit: The present Cross farmhouse was built atthe end of the 19th century and occupies a site to thewest of the former house. The original site is closer tothe farm buildings, which consist of massively walledcob buildings built around a courtyard.

This summarises the three case studies of the chosenprebendary farms, and outlines the textual informationstored in the Sandford Inventory. Time did not permitcase studies to be undertaken on all the non-Listedbuildings included in the Inventory. However, frompreliminary field visits to the sites it is thought that themajority is likely to be constructed using cob, or tocontain cob within the fabric of the buildings. Themajority of the buildings have adjacent cob outbuild-ings. The sites of both Aller and Cross conform to thelocation pattern established by other cob buildings inthe study area, but both the earlier farmhouses havebeen destroyed. In the case of Aller there is likely to beoriginal material incorporated in the present early 19thcentury farmhouse, but Cross has been completelyrebuilt. The interest in these two former prebendaryfarms lies in the cob farm buildings. It would beworthwhile to investigate these further.

The Inventory is much more powerful than thesetextual case studies suggest. The GIS Sandford Inven-tory allows complex queries of all the stored data sets tobe undertaken.

5. The GIS analysis

In this section the GIS will be used to explorerelationships between the Listed and un-Listed cobbuildings and the surrounding topography and geology.The advantages to be gained from integrating thedescriptive and the spatial data sets in order to identifythe location of specific cob buildings has been suggestedby Ford et al. [2]. Cob buildings are likely to have beensited with regard to the slope, orientation and produc-tivity of the land, the proximity of water sources andcommunication systems, and the availability of suitablebuilding materials.

By locating the cob buildings on a map and relatingthe descriptive data to the topography and geology ofthe study area, a further complex and extensive analysisis possible. To explore whether or not such relationships


are evident in the study area and whether they can bedemonstrated, all of the Listed cob buildings have beenconsidered in relation to six topographical variables; (1)archaeological sites, (2) contours, (3) water systems, (4)road systems, (5) field boundaries, and (6) geology.

5.1. Archaeological sites

An example of the value of analysing the integrateddata is seen in the relationship between existingbuildings and archaeological sites. For example, mapscan be produced for visual analysis at differing levels ofresolution and scale, and since the data is storedelectronically the data can be used repeatedly. As anexample of the application of the Sandford Inventory, itwas interrogated to produce a map of the parish ofSandford, showing the parish boundary, roads, riversand field boundaries. This map is reproduced by Ford[3, Fig. 5.5, p. 194]. On this map, the position of theprebendary farms was marked along with SaxonCharter sites, Domesday Book sites, and other docu-mented buildings and non-Listed cob buildings. Thisfigure demonstrates the effectiveness of the GIS plat-form for the Sandford Inventory, most importantlyshowing the positions of the non-Listed farm buildings.The sites, shown in Ford [3, Fig. 5.4, p. 190], confirm theprobability that the early settlement pattern of the studyarea did not focus on the village of Sandford. Bycomparing the archaeological sites in Fig. 5.4 with thedocumented sites shown in Fig. 5.5 it is seen that there isa correlation between the siting of earlier cob buildingsand the prehistoric sites. This concurs with the workdescribed by Aston [25, p. 29], who suggests that presentsettlements may be sited close to earlier sites. A group offarmstead sites to the west of the parish, including AshBullayne, Bagborough and the Furzelands are close torecorded prehistoric sites and in the area around theDomesday manor of Ruxford and the prebendary farmof West Sandford two fords, an ancient boundary markand a chapel are sited. There is also a group of similarlyancient sites around Combe Lancey and Creedy Park inthe south of the parish, including the Watching Seat orlookout, mentioned in the Sandford Charter of 930, seeRose-Troup [13, p. 240].

5.2. Contours

The relationship between selected Listed cob build-ings and the contours, and water systems is illustratedby Ford [3, Fig. 5.6, p. 200]. Here is an illustration of theGIS integrating the descriptive and spatial data sets todemonstrate the siting of the Listed cob buildings, thatare described in the List as having been constructedprior to 1800. From information contained in the Listeddescriptions it has been shown that the cob buildings inthe study area predominantly face south or south-east,

and that the majority of those with origins in the 15th and16th centuries tend to face south while later buildingstend to face south-east, see [3, Histogram 5.3, p. 168].This analysis shows that the pre 1800 Listed cob buildingsare sited on rising slopes with the exception of those onthe valley floors, or in the centre of settlements.

An individual example is shown in Fig. 5.7 [3, p. 203],which demonstrates the siting of Ruxford Barton, a 16thcentury former manor house on a Domesday site. Thedescriptive data have identified that the building facessouth, the contours indicate that it is sited on a gentleslope. Fig. 5.7 [3] also demonstrates the advantage ofusing the digitised data to create a visual elevationmodel to illustrate these factors.

5.3. Water systems

The proximity of a water source is also considered tobe an essential element in the siting of buildings, see [26,p. 18]. Again [3, Fig. 5.6, p. 200], illustrates the use of theintegrated descriptive and spatial data sets to show theproximity of the cob buildings to water sources. Themajority of the cob buildings are seen to be close towater sources, as for example Woolsgrove, the formerprebendary farm, and Higher Furzeland, a 16th centuryfarmhouse, Listed Grade II*.

5.4. Road systems

Farmstead groups are also identified, including High-er and Lower Furzeland and Higher and LowerWoolsgrove [3, Fig. 5.8, p. 204]. The farms tend to besited close to the routes into and out of the parishincluding the toll road on the west of the parish, thesouth to north route across the parish and the north-eastern route leading towards Tiverton. These are allancient routes that are mentioned in the Anglo SaxonCharters of the 10th century, Rose-Troup [13, p. 241].

The significance of the proximity of historic routes toListed cob buildings was also illustrated in this GISanalysis. It was found that a few of the buildings in NewBuildings have been developed as a result of theturnpike or toll road. A similar relationship betweenroutes and Listed cob buildings was found in EastVillage, in the north-east part of the study area. Here thepattern of the existing roads is similar to the routesshown on the tithe map of 1839. The road was formerlythe major route from Sandford to the neigbouringvillage of Cheriton Fitzpaine and the market town ofTiverton. Close to the road are Prowse (previouslynamed Lower Dodderidge), considered to be of 15thcentury origin and Dodderidge, of 16th century originwith the site mentioned in the Domesday Book. TheChantry is Listed as early 16th century and may haveoriginally been in the ownership of the Plympton Prioryaccording to Munday [18, p. 5].


5.5. Field boundaries

The importance of field boundaries as a means ofidentifying early settlements has been discussed byTaylor [22] and Rackham [27]. Both authors haveidentified the importance of relict hedges and small,irregular fields as a means of locating the sites offormer or early farmsteads. The digitised spatialdata set of the field boundaries allows the relationshipbetween the Listed cob buildings and their surroundingfields to be examined. Field boundaries shown onearlier maps, including the tithe map and estate maps,demonstrate the number of orchards present in theearly 19th century. This assists in the identification ofancillary cob buildings within the farmstead such asformer apple lofts and pound houses. The fieldsystems around Hynams and Swannaton and alsothe orchards close to Mooracre are shown in Fig. 5.10[3, p. 207]. From this figure it can be seen that the firsttwo farmhouses mentioned are surrounded by small,irregularly shaped fields with several larger fields in thearea between the two farms. Hynams, in particular,retains several very small enclosures close to thefarmstead, a pattern that indicates a likely early farmsite, see [22].

The value of consulting and comparing historiccartographic material was illustrated by the discoverythat the apparently early field systems around DowrichOutbuilding, a 15th century cob building that isconsidered to be a former farmhouse, proved to be of19th century origin when compared to the tithemap of 1839. In the digitised map, shown in Fig. 5.11[3, p. 209], three small irregular fields are shown to thenorth-west of Dowrich. When these are compared withthe pattern shown in the lower illustration, taken fromthe tithe map of 1839, it can be seen that these fields arenot part of an earlier field system, but were created afterthe tithe map was drawn and are on the site of a formerorchard.

The relationship between the buildings and fieldboundary patterns proved less conclusive. Rackham[27] and Taylor [22] consider that small and irregularfield boundaries may indicate the sites of earlierbuildings. The integrated data showed that a proportionof the earlier cob buildings were sited close to smallirregular fields, as in [3, Fig. 5.10, p. 207], but evidencefrom the tithe map shows that, in some instances, thesehad been created from larger fields in the later 19th or20th centuries [3, Fig. 5.11, p. 209]. However, the fieldboundaries were of value in identifying previous landuse, including the existence of orchards, and the sites offarmsteads that no longer exist, but have documentaryproof of their earlier existence. The tithe maps of1839 show a landscape with fewer and larger fieldboundaries than that of the current Ordnance Survey1:10,000 maps.

5.6. Geology

The final topographical variable considered, in rela-tion to the Listed cob buildings in the study area, wasthe underlying solid and drift geology. The proximityof the geological materials, head, alluvium and riverterrace deposits may be of importance in the identifica-tion of earlier cob buildings as these materials,particularly head, are likely to be suitable for theconstruction of cob, [28, 24, p. 132].

The solid and drift geology for one section of thestudy area was digitised into the GIS. This allowed thesites of Listed cob buildings to be determined in relationto nearby sources of constructional material. Fig. 5.12,Ford [3, p. 210], shows 14 Listed cob buildings, allconsidered to be former farmhouses. The buildings aresited close to suitable constructional material, particu-larly to the material, head.

All the buildings demonstrated in Fig. 5.12 wereconstructed prior to 1800, with eight identified as likelyto have been built prior to 1700. At the time of theconstruction of these cob buildings the customary meansof transport for building materials was restricted to aprimitive sledge, locally termed a ‘‘truckamuck’’ [12,p. 150]. This would necessitate using materials that wereclose to the proposed site of the building.

The relationship between the earlier cob buildings andthe probable source of building material may be themost important result to have been obtained from thisGIS analysis of the topographical variables. It isimportant for the survival of these historic buildings asthese same sources are capable of providing suitablematerial for the repair of damaged cob walls.

The above descriptions of the GIS analyses under-taken on selected Listed cob buildings and the topo-graphy and geology of the study area show that the cobbuildings are likely to have been sited with due regard tothe slope and orientation of the land, the nearness ofwater and road systems and the proximity of suitablesoil for constructing cob walls. The results of theanalysis of relationships between Listed cob buildingsand the selected topographical items is consideredparticularly important in order to understand andidentify sites that are likely to have been occupied forthe longest time.

6. Conclusions

Three aims were identified in the introduction, and allthree have been fulfilled. To meet aim 1 it has beendemonstrated that the Sandford Inventory provides aworking model for the cataloguing of both Listed andnon-Listed earth structures. Three prebendary farmsprovided the case studies for this work, and it isimportant to underline that two farms were non-Listed.


The importance of the field studies was also demon-strated since they allowed both the confirmation ofexisting data concerning cob structures, as well asidentifying further structures that might be conserved.The Sandford Inventory has revealed a number of farmand ancillary domestic buildings that are constructedfrom cob. Keefe and Child [29, p. 38], suggest it is these,often redundant, buildings that are important to inspectand catalogue as they are more likely to be at risk ofdestruction than the occupied farmhouses and houses.

The case studies on the non-Listed buildings alsodemonstrated the problems of identifying interestingcob buildings that have been altered. This clearlydemonstrates the potential of the methodology todiscover previously unknown cob buildings. In otherwords with historical, topographical and architecturaldata maintained on a GIS platform, like the SandfordInventory, it is possible to identify buildings orstructures at risk.

Aim 2 has been fulfilled since there is a demonstrationof the GIS integrating widely different sources ofinformation, ranging from maps, photographs to topo-graphic data. The ability to include scanned graphic andcartographic material proved valuable in illustratingarchitectural features relating to the cob buildingsand in demonstrating changes in the landscape of thestudy area.

The demonstration of the application of GIS to theanalysis of various queries has satisfied aim 3. Forexample, the positioning or siting of the cob structuresclose to the geological material head and sources ofwater, both required in the construction of cob walls,has been illustrated.

The analysis of the documentary data providesinformation about the probable age and origins of someof the buildings in the parish. This historical evidencemay be of particular value in indicating buildings wherethere may be earlier and important fabrics concealed.

Finally, this work has demonstrated that the pro-posed methodology provides an effective method forinventorying and characterizing the cob buildings in thestudy area and that a GIS provides an effective tool forthe analysis of the disparate data relating to the cobbuildings. The Sandford Inventory demonstrates theapplication of the GIS technique to earth buildings in asmall part of Devon, but clearly the method can beexpanded both geographically and to other buildingmaterials and types. However, the time and effortrequired to establish the Sandford Inventory wasconsiderable, but the field study information did allowerrors and omissions in the Listing of buildings at risk tobe identified. Moreover, having established the Inven-tory, the patterns of data have been explored toinvestigate the potential of the Sandford Inventorymethodology to predict sites of unrecorded and pre-viously unknown cob structures [30]. The modern

developments in GIS software, together with the greateravailability and penetration of GIS, into Local Autho-rities for example, and with relevant digitised data setsthe Sandford methodology would be simpler.

References

[1] ESRI (UK) Case Studies 2003. Securing a future for Essex’s past.

Available at http://www.eriuk.com/Our Company/CaseStudies.

Accessed on 19 November 2003.

[2] Ford M, Watson L, El Kadi H. The relevance of GIS in the

evaluation of vernacular architecture. Journal of Architectural

Conservation 1999;5(3):64–75.

[3] Ford M. The development of a methodology for creating an

earthen building inventory. PhD thesis, University of Plymouth,

2002. Unpublished.

[4] Stocks M. Private communication, 1995.

[5] Ford M. Sources of literature relevant to the study of cob

buildings. Unpublished internal report for the Centre of Earthen

Architecture, University of Plymouth, 2002.

[6] Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.

Recording historic buildings: a descriptive specification. 3rd ed.

Swindon: RCHME; 1996.


MONARCH: database of information on architectural and

archaeological heritage, http://www.rchme.gov.uk, 1998.


MIDAS: a manual and data standard for monument inventories.

Swindon: RCHME; 1998.

[9] Zeiler M. Inside Arc/Info. Sante Fe, USA: On World Press; 1994.

[10] English Heritage. Buildings at risk: a sample survey. English

Heritage: London; 1992.

[11] English Heritage. Twenty-first list of buildings of architectural

and historic interest as compiled under Section 54 of the

Town and Country Planning Act 1971. London: English Heritage;

1985.

[12] Hoskins WG. Devon (Reprint). Newton Abbot, Devon: David

and Charles; 1954.

[13] Rose-Troup F. Crediton Charters in the tenth century. Transac-

tions of the Devonshire Association 1942;74:237–61.

[14] Collingwood RG, Myers JNL. Roman Britain and the English

settlements. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1937.

[15] Beacham P. Introduction. In: W.G. Hoskins commemorative

edition of Devon. Exeter: Devon Books; 1982. p. xi–xxviii.

[16] Hoskins WG. The making of the english landscape, 3rd ed. 1985.

London: Penguin Books; 1955.

[17] Reichel OJ. The manor and hundred of crediton. Transactions of

the Devonshire Association 1922;54:150–79.

[18] Munday D. A parish patchwork. Callington: Penwell; 1985.

[19] Morriss RK. The archaeology of buildings. Stroud: Tempus;

2000.

[20] Darby H, editor. A new historical geography of England.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

[21] Roberts B. Landscapes of settlement. London: Routledge; 1996.

[22] Taylor C. Fields in the English landscape (revised Ed., 2000).

London: Dent and Sons; 1975.

[23] Oliver G. Monasticon dioecesis exoniensis. Exeter: Hannaford;

1846.

[24] Edwards, RA, Scrivener RC. Geology of the country around

Exeter. In: Memoir of the British Geological Survey, Sheet 325

(England and Wales). London: HMSO; 1999.

[25] Aston M. Interpreting the landscape, landscape archaeology in

local studies. London: Routledge; 1985.

[26] Roberts B. The making of the English village. Essex: Longman;

1987.

http://www.eriuk.com/OurCompany/CaseStudies

http://www.rchme.gov.uk


[27] Rackham O. The history of the countryside. London: Dent;

1986.

[28] Scrivener RC. Personal communications 1997 and 2002.

[29] Keefe L, Devon Child P, Cornwall. In: Hurd J, Gourley B,

editors. Terra Britannica: a celebration of earthen structures in

Great Britain and Ireland. London: James and James; 2000.

p. 34–9.

[30] Ford M, Griffiths R, Watson L. The Sandford Inventory of earth

buildings: a conservator’s tool. Journal of Architectural Con-

servation, March 2005, in press.

the sandford inventory of earth buildings constructed using a gis

Documents