|
|
chameleon
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
29-Mar-2007 22:46:49
Posted:
3608 posts
|
'Tasa the majority of the building that is attached to the skull building is 20th century,though the central part of its south facing wall ,adjoining the skull building, has older bricks'
We know from the maps that the building next to the skulls was 'squared-off' to loose the chopped off corner between ~1830 and 1850, are you saying it was rebuilt again later?
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
| chameleon wrote: |
'Tasa the majority of the building that is attached to the skull building is 20th century,though the central part of its south facing wall ,adjoining the skull building, has older bricks'
We know from the maps that the building next to the skulls was 'squared-off' to loose the chopped off corner between ~1830 and 1850, are you saying it was rebuilt again later? |
I think we would start to have to ask questions about the skulls been placed on that wall if it was as late as the 20th century myself.
|
|
|
chameleon
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
29-Mar-2007 22:46:49
Posted:
3608 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| chameleon wrote: |
'Tasa the majority of the building that is attached to the skull building is 20th century,though the central part of its south facing wall ,adjoining the skull building, has older bricks'
We know from the maps that the building next to the skulls was 'squared-off' to loose the chopped off corner between ~1830 and 1850, are you saying it was rebuilt again later? |
I think we would start to have to ask questions about the skulls been placed on that wall if it was as late as the 20th century myself.
|
I've only managed a brief look in person phill and that was a few weeks ago now, but I agree, my impression was not of a reconstruction within 20cent. That does not mean that they were not extensively altered though, inside and out, indeed it appears that they have been, but in essence, surely 19cent. And that flat roof bothers me, just doesn't seem right for the time or in terms of materials available..... (Do we know what it is covered with now and the composition of the decking?).
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
Dating that building, and the age of that brickwork is relevant to giving us a clue to this story, The newer that brickwork is were the skulls were, says it's less likely someone remembered an event many, many years ago and just happened to know were they could get there hands on a pair of carved skulls to put there. In that case you would have to ask were the skulls there for another reason and simply placed back in position as it was the right thing to do?
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| Also the map showing the stables dates from 1886. We know it was 2 separate buildings and wasn't like that when the pub was built. The later in years you get the less likely the chance of a Press gang story been 100% accurate. |
We know its two sperate buildings now,but the 1886 map shows that it is one building at the time.
In 1886 we are roughly 70 to 90 years away from the supposed date of the recruits death.
Therefore the topography of the area and its buildings and in turn their respective uses would be more accurately reflected in the 1886 map.
The 1886 map is so far the best source we have.
Not only is it geographicaly correct,as in the 1847/1850 OS map but it also goes much further.
It details all the uses of notable buildings as does the 1847/1850 map,but it also details the use of all the other buildings.
If i had such a tool for doing my family history id be doing cartwheels,this is as good as you will get,in fact i never thought we would get as good a source as this.
It proves that the buildings were stables.
The folklore says they died in the hayloft of the stables.
The 1886 map indicates that the skull building contained a 1st floor(the dotted line).
So this 1st floor could have been the hayloft,which makes the positioning of the skulls on that building even more an accurate reflection of what went on.
I have not said that these skulls were "laying around"to be used,thats just unrealistic and should be discounted.
What my theory is,is that sometime AFTER the supposed event that someone who had had either first hand involvement/knowledge of the event or were alive at the time of of the deaths had come to a position where they could commemorate the deaths of the two men when the skulls had come into their possession.
Im sure you all know my pet theory as to the origin of the skulls prior to the Crown Court,and i dont really want to go through it all again,but clearly they are older than any of the known earliest stone/brick buildings on the site,so they must have come from elsewhere,not the Kirkgate or Briggate timber buildings.
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| chameleon wrote: |
'Tasa the majority of the building that is attached to the skull building is 20th century,though the central part of its south facing wall ,adjoining the skull building, has older bricks'
We know from the maps that the building next to the skulls was 'squared-off' to loose the chopped off corner between ~1830 and 1850, are you saying it was rebuilt again later? |
Yeah it looks like it,the corner of the Chimney building is modern (20th C)brick.
Look at the middle of the south facing wall on Phills last post.
Its old brick,to the left of this and the chimney is much newer brick.
Also the windows on the first floor of the chimney building are definitely 1920s/1930s
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
What date is the brickwork were the skulls were then do we know?
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| So what were saying is the skulls were placed in that position on that building in the 20th century after alterations to the bottom of the building? I for one cannot see any difference in the type of brick, colour, size and date in the 2 walls. It's a perfect match in my opinion. |
I think that the skulls were in 20th century brickwork,BUT,this is clearly because some repair or alteration was made to the roof,hence the flat roof.
I think the skulls would have possibly been taken down from out of the old brickwork or worked around, when the roof was sorted out.
The bricks below the camera are different to those above,they are less uniform in their appearance because they were not mass produced,unlike the more modern bricks at the top and of those on the chimney and the left hand side of the chimney building.
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
So the skulls were placed there in the 20th century and doesn't necessarily mean they went back in the exact same position as that building has changed beyond all recognition?
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
If that's the case then there is nothing to suggest the skulls were originally in that position in the first place, and weren't just put on the gable end simply to make them more visible from the yard.
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| So the skulls were placed there in the 20th century and doesn't necessarily mean they went in the exact same position as that building has changed beyond all recognition then? |
Perhaps so.But also the brickwork could be around the skulls ,after all the flat roof is above their old position.
But we know the site,if not the building itself,was a stable and therefore if it had been known in the 20th C that it was stable then why put the skulls there if they were put up in the 20th C?
All of this is conjecture,all we have is a bit of folklore.
Its easy to lose site of the big picture.
If we find proof of the story of the two recruits then all well and good.
If we dont then we can say either one of two things,either that it never happened (which then leaves us with a headache as to why they were there) or'that we cannot find the written evidence because of the low value attributed to human life at this time,and therefore the two mens life would not be worthy of a mention.
What we do know is that we have the skulls,we know where they were,where they are now,and we know where we would like them to be .
Proving the story would be nice,but its the skulls themselves that are the star attraction,and maybe we should say that if we cannot prove the story of the recruits then we should at least say
"as legend has it.....,"
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
Absolutely Chris. As you know I'd love the skull story to be true myself mate. But I do think if we go into this tunnel vision i.e... that wall X marks the spot and the Press gang story is 100% to be believed, then never in a million years will we solve this puzzle if it turns out to not be true. We simply won't be looking in the right direction. I know the whole thing is dam frustrating, For every plausible explanation, you can find another 3 things that says it just might not be possible. We'll keep at it 
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| Absolutely Chris. As you know I'd love the skull story to be true myself mate. But I do think if we go into this tunnel vision i.e... that wall X marks the spot and the Press gang story is 100% to be believed, then never in a million years will we solve this puzzle if it's not true. We simply won't be looking in the right direction. I know the whole thing is dam frustrating, For every plausible explanation you can find another 3 things that says it just might not be possible. We'll keep at it |
absolutely,i dont want to try and prove something thats not true,ive been doing FH far too long to want to do that.
The proving/disproving of the story has been enlightening to say the least.
But the Skulls are number 1 in my book,the story of the recruits is a nice to know if we cant prove it.
and if we cant then lets just say "as legend has it...."
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
Any way Phil,Shandys on Sunday??
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
| cnosni wrote: |
| Any way Phil,Shandys on Sunday?? |
Nice one
|
|
|
Steve Jones
User
Location:
Wakefield
Joined on:
18-Jan-2008 19:11:33
Posted:
651 posts
|
It is a pity that there has been no input on here from anyone at the YAS or WYAS.
I haven't heard back from my contact there' and he hasn't joined the site as far as I know.
If anyone has time to spare during the day and fancies enquiring, it might be worthwhile asking the West Yorkshire Archaeological Society whether they have any information in their sites and monuments record for the buildings or area.
For those who don't know, this is their record of all archaeological finds and sites known to them, or where digs/investigations have been done in the past.
They might have a record from when the skulls were still in place or details on the age of buildings etc if they were ever the subject of an investigation.
Sadly due to a thing called work, i haven't spare time to look during the day<LOL>!
|
|
|
Si
User
Location:
Otley
Joined on:
10-Oct-2007 11:52:40
Posted:
3397 posts
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| wiggy wrote: |
| Steve Jones wrote: |
It is a pity that there has been no input on here from anyone at the YAS or WYAS.
I haven't heard back from my contact there' and he hasn't joined the site as far as I know.
If anyone has time to spare during the day and fancies enquiring, it might be worthwhile asking the West Yorkshire Archaeological Society whether they have any information in their sites and monuments record for the buildings or area.
For those who don't know, this is their record of all archaeological finds and sites known to them, or where digs/investigations have been done in the past.
They might have a record from when the skulls were still in place or details on the age of buildings etc if they were ever the subject of an investigation.
Sadly due to a thing called work, i haven't spare time to look during the day<LOL>! |
respect to you sir...but is there any chance that the said 'wyas' believe they are above the rest of us.....like a certain other 'society' (r t) no disrespect to you,but you know what these pretentious *unts can be like.....answers on a postcard please...or stuck down envolope, if you are just a serf as most of us are treated.
|
Well i have contacted the YAS again,and have told them of the progress thats been made ie permission to remove the skulls and also a potential future home etc etc.
All i have asked them is to see if they could look at the skulls,give us a potential date for their carving and if they could lend or at least point us in the right direction of the recources/personnel we will probably need to remove the skulls safely.
Frankly at least a no would suffice and then we could move on.
Im not sure if they take us seriously or not.
Steve,the WYAS,where are they then?
|
|
|
Tasa
User
Location:
Headingley, Leeds
Joined on:
08-Oct-2007 15:41:52
Posted:
328 posts
|
Thinking back to my visit to Bradford on Wednesday, although the skulls inside the cathedral were not of the same sort as ours, I did see some sandstone carved shapes just under the roof on the exterior of the original part of the cathedral, which were very weathered but the carvings were of the same depth as our skulls (unlike most grave memorials, which tend to be carved fairly low-relief). I didn't want to put anything speculative on here until I'd found out more, but I've now found out the proper name for these stones are corbels and here's a bit of history about skulls and corbels:
------------------------------------------------------------
In medieval churches, castles, and mansions where there is a parapet rising from the wall and obscuring a portion of the roof, this parapet is supported at intervals by corbels, that usually represent heads of either men or beasts, very frequently grotesque. These corbels are not of any great structural importance, though they add to architectural decoration. They are, in fact, a perpetuation of a traditional usage earlier than the construction of buildings of stone. When buildings such as halls were erected of wood, and even later, when the walls were of masonry, the lye beams of the roof projected beyond the supporting walls. These tye beams sustained the principals and the king-post, and rested on the wall-plate. Such was the earliest and simplest form of roof, and it is one that remained in use till Norman times. The stability of the roof depended on the tye beam, which, where it protruded beyond the walls, was sawn off against the grain, and was there most vulnerable, subject to the drive of the weather, and liable to rot. For its protection skulls were hung upon these extremities; and when stone buildings came to be erected with parapets upon them, then under the string--course that marked the wall--plate corbels were added, and the place of the skulls was supplied by stone figures representing the heads of men or beasts. This was not the case only in Gothic architecture; the same adaptation or modification may be seen in that of Greece and Rome, where the skull, mainly of an ox, forms a principal feature in the ornament of an external cornice, and seems to indicate that in early days the heads of the victims sacrificed were thus employed.
-------------------------------------------
I'm wondering if our skulls were originally corbels under the roof of a chapel or church in the area. If they were, they would need to be fairly deep - does anyone know the depth of the sandstone behind the actual skulls themselves?
|
|
|
Tasa
User
Location:
Headingley, Leeds
Joined on:
08-Oct-2007 15:41:52
Posted:
328 posts
|
The corbels can be seen in this photo of Bradford Cathedral (rows of individuals stones under the roof and lower down).
|
|
|
Si
User
Location:
Otley
Joined on:
10-Oct-2007 11:52:40
Posted:
3397 posts
|
Nice find (again) Tasa,
For the skulls to be a corbel (or springer,) they need to be fairly deep. I have a feeling ours don't go that far back (see pic of skulls in new building) but that's not to say they haven't been cut-back.
The fact that there are two skulls on one piece of stone may lend credence to your theory (two beams.)
PS A springer is the base stone (set in a wall) from which vaults or beams "spring." This, I suppose, is also a possible origin of the skulls, and would have to be even deeper, due to the great weight they help to support.
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Tasa wrote: |
Thinking back to my visit to Bradford on Wednesday, although the skulls inside the cathedral were not of the same sort as ours, I did see some sandstone carved shapes just under the roof on the exterior of the original part of the cathedral, which were very weathered but the carvings were of the same depth as our skulls (unlike most grave memorials, which tend to be carved fairly low-relief). I didn't want to put anything speculative on here until I'd found out more, but I've now found out the proper name for these stones are corbels and here's a bit of history about skulls and corbels:
------------------------------------------------------------
In medieval churches, castles, and mansions where there is a parapet rising from the wall and obscuring a portion of the roof, this parapet is supported at intervals by corbels, that usually represent heads of either men or beasts, very frequently grotesque. These corbels are not of any great structural importance, though they add to architectural decoration. They are, in fact, a perpetuation of a traditional usage earlier than the construction of buildings of stone. When buildings such as halls were erected of wood, and even later, when the walls were of masonry, the lye beams of the roof projected beyond the supporting walls. These tye beams sustained the principals and the king-post, and rested on the wall-plate. Such was the earliest and simplest form of roof, and it is one that remained in use till Norman times. The stability of the roof depended on the tye beam, which, where it protruded beyond the walls, was sawn off against the grain, and was there most vulnerable, subject to the drive of the weather, and liable to rot. For its protection skulls were hung upon these extremities; and when stone buildings came to be erected with parapets upon them, then under the string--course that marked the wall--plate corbels were added, and the place of the skulls was supplied by stone figures representing the heads of men or beasts. This was not the case only in Gothic architecture; the same adaptation or modification may be seen in that of Greece and Rome, where the skull, mainly of an ox, forms a principal feature in the ornament of an external cornice, and seems to indicate that in early days the heads of the victims sacrificed were thus employed.
-------------------------------------------
I'm wondering if our skulls were originally corbels under the roof of a chapel or church in the area. If they were, they would need to be fairly deep - does anyone know the depth of the sandstone behind the actual skulls themselves?
|
Hi Tasa
I posted this a while back,it shows that some corebel had been discovered in York,in the shape of a skull
"Interesting link,no picture though.
http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2008/04/medieval-corbel-found-in-york.html
carved skull in York "
Click on the link,it might be worth seeing if we can find a pic of this or at least conntact the people concerned
|
|
|
Steve Jones
User
Location:
Wakefield
Joined on:
18-Jan-2008 19:11:33
Posted:
651 posts
|
Interesting stuff by Tasa. It was that idea that I had as well regarding possible origin of skulls.
WYAS are this lot:
http://www.arch.wyjs.org.uk/Aswyas.htm
slight name change so I got it wrong.it appears that the Sites & Monuments record for West Yorkshire is kept in Wakefield at West Yorkshire Archives , you have to make an appointment to consult it.
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
Got in contact with the people at the Hungate dig,and the Corbel isnt what the article describes.
However we may be getting some assistance.
I have sent some pics of the skulls to a very helpful chap called Peter Connelly,he says he will try and show them to the Masonry expert at the dig.
No promises of a result but at least we may get an expert eye to look them over.
Peter has also given me another organisation that could be of help,called the Portable antiquities scheme.
Lets see what results come of this and then perhaps contact the WYAS.
|
|
|
Brandy
User
Location:
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 12:33:58
Posted:
1469 posts
|
[quotenick="Tasa"]The corbels can be seen in this photo of Bradford Cathedral (rows of individuals stones under the roof and lower down).
i love that word 'corbels' it sounds like its just fell straight from the lips of fred dibnah
|
|
|
|