|
|
Si
User
Location:
Otley
Joined on:
10-Oct-2007 11:52:40
Posted:
3395 posts
|
| LS1 wrote: |
| Si wrote: |
| LS1 wrote: |
| Phill_d wrote: |
| LS1 wrote: |
I wonder if that bricked up archway was a basement window if this was once the back of the building that houses Hills. It's not uncommon for them to look like this.
Some buildings had a basement window and like a space between the street and the window that let the light into the basement. |
Look at the map on this page Lee. The bricked up arch is in position No1.
http://www.secretleeds.co.uk/forum/Messages.aspx?ThreadID=1051&StartAtMessage=1300 |
Are we not thinking then if it is in position 1 it once might have looked onto a courtyard? |
I still think it's more likely a fireplace/range, Lee. It's built into a chimney breast.
|
Yeah true, but it doesnt look like the other fireplace in the cellar. However it could be as these basements were lived in by the poorest of the poor and had very little space in them. It was a real slum down in those areas I would have though in that area in particular it would have been similar. |
That area was a slum in later Victorian days with loads of people living crammed together in cellars like these. However, the place was built 1775ish (Georgian times) and would have been quite a substantial house (merchant's?) before it became a shop. The cellar would more likely house servants, hence the kitchen being down there.
What do you think?
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| Just because the buildings in Hills premises doesn't have doors onto the yard these days Chris ,It doesn't mean they didn't before. You can ask Andy how the stair lay out shows us you came in from the skull yard. You come down the stairs and are met by a blocked off wall mate. The doors are blocked up and rendered over these days. The yard wasn't needed for access. These were house dwellings. Andy who works there will back me up here. In my mind i'm 99.9% certain that hard facts can pin point this skull building to that 5 year period. |
From what i can gather you are saying that there were NO stables prior to 1836,then if thats the case then the recruits didnt die there as the Napoleonic wars ended 1815.
So this means the story is made up,so then you have to ask why were the skulls put on there?
This is going round in circles,why would anyone put these skulls on here,even if they were commisioned to be carved by John Ainley etc etc etc.
If this is the case then all this effort is really for nothing,because if the tale isnt even a remote possibility because the stables werent there before 1831-1836,and that the skulls were commisioned for whatever reason and placed on the skull building for whatever particular reason by John Ainley then as far as i can see then there isnt any value in them,either historically or legendary.
|
|
|
Lilysmum
User
Location:
Guiseley
Joined on:
28-Mar-2008 17:01:45
Posted:
470 posts
|
| Si wrote: |
| LS1 wrote: |
| Phill_d wrote: |
| LS1 wrote: |
I wonder if that bricked up archway was a basement window if this was once the back of the building that houses Hills. It's not uncommon for them to look like this.
Some buildings had a basement window and like a space between the street and the window that let the light into the basement. |
Look at the map on this page Lee. The bricked up arch is in position No1.
http://www.secretleeds.co.uk/forum/Messages.aspx?ThreadID=1051&StartAtMessage=1300 |
Are we not thinking then if it is in position 1 it once might have looked onto a courtyard? |
I still think it's more likely a fireplace/range, Lee. It's built into a chimney breast.
|
could it have been a bread oven? people used to make their bread and take it to be baked in a communal oven for a small charge
|
|
|
Si
User
Location:
Otley
Joined on:
10-Oct-2007 11:52:40
Posted:
3395 posts
|
| Lilysmum wrote: |
| Si wrote: |
| LS1 wrote: |
| Phill_d wrote: |
| LS1 wrote: |
I wonder if that bricked up archway was a basement window if this was once the back of the building that houses Hills. It's not uncommon for them to look like this.
Some buildings had a basement window and like a space between the street and the window that let the light into the basement. |
Look at the map on this page Lee. The bricked up arch is in position No1.
http://www.secretleeds.co.uk/forum/Messages.aspx?ThreadID=1051&StartAtMessage=1300 |
Are we not thinking then if it is in position 1 it once might have looked onto a courtyard? |
I still think it's more likely a fireplace/range, Lee. It's built into a chimney breast.
|
could it have been a bread oven? people used to make their bread and take it to be baked in a communal oven for a small charge |
It could be, but if that's the case, it must have been added at a later date. I don't think a big, posh house (when originally built,) would have had a communal oven on the premises!
|
|
|
Si
User
Location:
Otley
Joined on:
10-Oct-2007 11:52:40
Posted:
3395 posts
|
| cnosni wrote: |
| Phill_d wrote: |
| Just because the buildings in Hills premises doesn't have doors onto the yard these days Chris ,It doesn't mean they didn't before. You can ask Andy how the stair lay out shows us you came in from the skull yard. You come down the stairs and are met by a blocked off wall mate. The doors are blocked up and rendered over these days. The yard wasn't needed for access. These were house dwellings. Andy who works there will back me up here. In my mind i'm 99.9% certain that hard facts can pin point this skull building to that 5 year period. |
From what i can gather you are saying that there were NO stables prior to 1836,then if thats the case then the recruits didnt die there as the Napoleonic wars ended 1815.
So this means the story is made up,so then you have to ask why were the skulls put on there?
This is going round in circles,why would anyone put these skulls on here,even if they were commisioned to be carved by John Ainley etc etc etc.
If this is the case then all this effort is really for nothing,because if the tale isnt even a remote possibility because the stables werent there before 1831-1836,and that the skulls were commisioned for whatever reason and placed on the skull building for whatever particular reason by John Ainley then as far as i can see then there isnt any value in them,either historically or legendary.
|
There's nothing to say there weren't any stables there before 1831, is there?
Either way, I don't think it will have all been for nothing.
I've met loads of new people and had a great time and lots of fun!!!
Don't give up now!
|
|
|
andyross
User
Location:
leeds
Joined on:
13-May-2008 21:14:54
Posted:
22 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| The area marked blue is a doorway leading to the premises above. |
And what is behind this door way????
well not much actually, the door mysteriously opened today,
cant say it looks too old in there,
breeze block walls, no way to the upper floors,
its a sort of 'L shape room'
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
| cnosni wrote: |
| Phill_d wrote: |
| Just because the buildings in Hills premises doesn't have doors onto the yard these days Chris ,It doesn't mean they didn't before. You can ask Andy how the stair lay out shows us you came in from the skull yard. You come down the stairs and are met by a blocked off wall mate. The doors are blocked up and rendered over these days. The yard wasn't needed for access. These were house dwellings. Andy who works there will back me up here. In my mind i'm 99.9% certain that hard facts can pin point this skull building to that 5 year period. |
From what i can gather you are saying that there were NO stables prior to 1836,then if thats the case then the recruits didnt die there as the Napoleonic wars ended 1815.
So this means the story is made up,so then you have to ask why were the skulls put on there?
This is going round in circles,why would anyone put these skulls on here,even if they were commisioned to be carved by John Ainley etc etc etc.
If this is the case then all this effort is really for nothing,because if the tale isnt even a remote possibility because the stables werent there before 1831-1836,and that the skulls were commisioned for whatever reason and placed on the skull building for whatever particular reason by John Ainley then as far as i can see then there isnt any value in them,either historically or legendary.
|
This isn't the case at all Chris. There is a valuable story behind the skulls to be found. They have come from somewhere. But at some point we are going to have to admit that the stables were not always there as we see today.
All the evidence says they were built after 1831, if that means the whole Press gang story isn't true, and the tale grew up around the skulls, then that's what's happened. I think Ainley having these skulls put on his hayloft isn't any less eccentric than the palatial smoking shelter Noel has erected at the Roscoe, and named it Noels arc. There is a fascinating tale and much history to be found in all this. None of it has been a waste of time. We've had some real fun doing it.
|
|
|
Si
User
Location:
Otley
Joined on:
10-Oct-2007 11:52:40
Posted:
3395 posts
|
Right. I've e-mailed the British Brick Society with relevant pics asking for their help. Let's see what happens!
Breeze-blocks, Andy? Do you or your boss remember any building activity over the last few years?
|
|
|
Si
User
Location:
Otley
Joined on:
10-Oct-2007 11:52:40
Posted:
3395 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| cnosni wrote: |
| Phill_d wrote: |
| Just because the buildings in Hills premises doesn't have doors onto the yard these days Chris ,It doesn't mean they didn't before. You can ask Andy how the stair lay out shows us you came in from the skull yard. You come down the stairs and are met by a blocked off wall mate. The doors are blocked up and rendered over these days. The yard wasn't needed for access. These were house dwellings. Andy who works there will back me up here. In my mind i'm 99.9% certain that hard facts can pin point this skull building to that 5 year period. |
From what i can gather you are saying that there were NO stables prior to 1836,then if thats the case then the recruits didnt die there as the Napoleonic wars ended 1815.
So this means the story is made up,so then you have to ask why were the skulls put on there?
This is going round in circles,why would anyone put these skulls on here,even if they were commisioned to be carved by John Ainley etc etc etc.
If this is the case then all this effort is really for nothing,because if the tale isnt even a remote possibility because the stables werent there before 1831-1836,and that the skulls were commisioned for whatever reason and placed on the skull building for whatever particular reason by John Ainley then as far as i can see then there isnt any value in them,either historically or legendary.
|
This isn't the case at all Chris. There is a valuable story behind the skulls to be found. They have come from somewhere. But at some point we are going to have to admit that the stables were not always there as we see today.
All the evidence says they were built after 1831, if that means the whole Press gang story isn't true, and the tale grew up around the skulls, then that's what's happened. I think Ainley having these skulls put on his hayloft isn't any less eccentric than the palatial smoking shelter Noel has erected at the Roscoe, and named it Noels arc. There is a fascinating tale and much history to be found in all this. None of it has been a waste of time. We've had some real fun doing it. |
I know I have!
Have I missed something, or could the stables have just replaced earlier stables?
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
I agree,its been fun but if these skulls have no convenance then is it worth having them removed,stored and put up again?
Your theory is very credible Phil,so if there werent any stables there before 1831,and Jon Ainley had the skulls made around that time as an adornment for his hayloft then frankly they arent really of any interest apart from the fact that they are an early 19th century rough carving.
|
|
|
andyross
User
Location:
leeds
Joined on:
13-May-2008 21:14:54
Posted:
22 posts
|
| Si wrote: |
Right. I've e-mailed the British Brick Society with relevant pics asking for their help. Let's see what happens!
Breeze-blocks, Andy? Do you or your boss remember any building activity over the last few years? |
I dont remember any building work in past 11 years there,
Boss was out most of the morning but i will speak with him tomorrow and see what he has to say, i hav a few pics that i will email to phill, but they not too crackin as they wa taken on a 3.2mp phone
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
No there's no reason why there couldn't have been other stables around that area. There's also no reason to say that there was no 'press gang' and soldier story. What's been said is the skull building didn't stand there until after 1831..
I don't think Ainley had them made at all Chris. I reckon he bought them from a previous building.
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
No there's no reason why there couldn't have been other stables around that area. There's also no reason to say that there was no 'press gang' and soldier story. What's been said is the skull building didn't stand there until after 1831..
I don't think Ainley had them made at all Chris. I reckon he bought them from a previous building. |
Sorry Phil i read your post wrong,i tought it said had them made.
So what you are getting at is that the current skull building is probably 1831-1836,and that there is a possibilty that there were earlier stables on the site?
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
| cnosni wrote: |
| Phill_d wrote: |
No there's no reason why there couldn't have been other stables around that area. There's also no reason to say that there was no 'press gang' and soldier story. What's been said is the skull building didn't stand there until after 1831..
I don't think Ainley had them made at all Chris. I reckon he bought them from a previous building. |
Sorry Phil i read your post wrong,i tought it said had them made.
So what you are getting at is that the current skull building is probably 1831-1836,and that there is a possibilty that there were earlier stables on the site? |
Yes that's absolutely true Chris. All i'm trying to say is, all the evidence we have says our skull building wasn't there until after 1831. We only have the old sketch that indicates a house dwelling was on that corner, We can't take that for certain and we don't know what's behind there. I just reckon that the skulls went up with that building in the 1830's. That's just my opinion from everything i can see.
|
|
|
Si
User
Location:
Otley
Joined on:
10-Oct-2007 11:52:40
Posted:
3395 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| cnosni wrote: |
| Phill_d wrote: |
No there's no reason why there couldn't have been other stables around that area. There's also no reason to say that there was no 'press gang' and soldier story. What's been said is the skull building didn't stand there until after 1831..
I don't think Ainley had them made at all Chris. I reckon he bought them from a previous building. |
Sorry Phil i read your post wrong,i tought it said had them made.
So what you are getting at is that the current skull building is probably 1831-1836,and that there is a possibilty that there were earlier stables on the site? |
Yes that's absolutely true Chris. All i'm trying to say is, all the evidence we have says our skull building wasn't there until after 1831. We only have the old sketch that indicates a house dwelling was on that corner, We can't take that for certain and we don't know what's behind there. I just reckon that the skulls went up with that building in the 1830's. That's just my opinion from everything i can see. |
I think we're all in general agreement here. The skulls are old, and there's no reason to say they weren't on the wall of a previous stables, after all, they may have been moved before (apart from going to Buslingthorpe Lane!) The bricks the skulls were set in are newer than those lower down the wall. They could have been reset in the wall after alterations (flat roof, etc.) I reckon the older bricks are the 1831 build, and the newer bricks are probably early 20th century.
|
|
|
Tasa
User
Location:
Headingley, Leeds
Joined on:
08-Oct-2007 15:41:52
Posted:
328 posts
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Tasa wrote: |
I don't want to be a party-pooper but...
Here's an 1864 map (from the Discovering Leeds site) which omits the pub buildings fronting Crown Street entirely! Just goes to show that we need to be careful when interpreting maps.
|
Yes the 1770 map is a prime example of a "plan" rather than a map,as is the case with this one you have posted Tasa
|
|
|
LS1
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
23-Jul-2007 13:00:30
Posted:
1307 posts
|
I think we have two things here really
1. Is the legend of the soldiers true
2. When and why were the skulls put where they were.
I think if we can find the answer out to one, then we may find the answer automatically to the other!
In terms of the building, you only have to look at buildings in Leeds all over the place to know that bits are used and reused over and over again. at the top of Park Row where the Cafe Nero is, the coulding there was totally demolished save for the frontage that still survives. all the rest was totally removed and the back is 1980s.
A better example would be the Metropole hotel wher the cupole from the old cloth hall was reused and plonked on the top! I'm sure there are loads more examples.
All I can say is that if it were me, and there was a building of note or somethign that was personally relevent to me that was being demilished, I would take a bit of it and have it in my house if i could -
Example, if they demolished the Civic Hall I would have an Owl for my garden, or at least a bit of those wonderfull fossilised fireplaces that they have in the entrace hall incorporated into some part of my house.
I know I'm rambling now but I really want to trace the story as far back as we can. But where do you start????
|
|
|
chameleon
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
29-Mar-2007 22:46:49
Posted:
3607 posts
|
Chris - don't be despondent. This may not yet be panning out the way everyone may wish, but the bottom line is that there is still no real answer.
This is such an unusual artefact, for which no doubt some effort was spent in their original mounting, there still remains in my mind, a significant probability that there is a story behind their presence.
This thread is now some 57 pages long and almost every post is significant in content - rationalising information and discussing the implications. Goodness knows how many people are involved, but for those in the thick of it (I for one only wish I could be the more so), relative strangers at best, the sense of team working and motivation and dedication is something many managers would dream to achieve in the work place.
For your own part. you have endlessly used your own expertise to guide newcomers along the road of quite formal research at times (give or take the odd pint - which I think we are already good at  )using resources some would probably never have ventured in to, and always with patience and understanding.
This project has already made in-depth use of all sources made available and dissected all the possibilities these have presented - this I suspect will continue as new avenues emerge. Comparing this to the technical research in which I have been involved, the depth and attention to detail is quite astouding.
The purpose of any research is surely to determine the worth of the subject matter; even if ultimately the result was to disprove the theories and legends, although sad, it would not devalue the work which has been done and history would be then at least be correctly recorded.
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
Well well .
Went to the library for a couple of hours to do a bit of FH(needed a skull break) and who was there but Tasa with her head buried in a book, a couple of pieces of poaper with potential source targets listed and abottle of whiskey!!
Ok,no whiskey but then LS1 turned up,and the FH turned in.
Before you know it we were knee deep again in maps,directories and voters rolls.
Okay,ive had some news from Peter Connelly of the York Archaeological trust,who is the supervisor of the Hungate dig.
Here is what he said:-
Thank you very much for sending the images of the skulls through, they are rather characterful to say the least. I have seen similar (not identical but at least similar) on a gravestone or two in the churchyard of St Nicholas Buccleuch, Dalkeith, Midlothian, Scotland (a town close to my own hometown) and as far as my memory serves me they were either 17th century or early/mid 18th century in date. I haven't been able to find a picture of the headstones on the web but if you want to check out the church here's a link:
http://www.stnicholasbuccleuch.org.uk/
I have shown the images to our architectural specialist and she says that the only thing she has ever seen like them is on stone gate posts at the entrance to a churchyard in Ashbourne, Derbyshire. As far as she remembers they were probably 19th century. She is going to check her records this evening and we may know more tomorrow. However, she does she that she is no specialist when it comes to gravestones and they do look like they may have come from a gravestone (which is also my first impression).
To find out about gravestones and gravestone imagery you may want to speculatively e-mail Dr. Harold Mytum at the University of Liverpool (here is a link to his profile from the U of L website: http://www.liv.ac.uk/manxstudies/people/mytum.htm) as he is an expert on the archaeology of graveyards. Don't be put off by all of the archaeological jargon on his profile, Dr Mytum has done a wealth of research on historical graveyards and he may have seen parallels to the skulls that you have been researching. If you mention that I have put you on to him and your current dilemma he may be able to help.
I'm sorry if all of this seems rather vague but I hope that this information may help you out with your further quest for information on the rather enigmatic mystery that you have on your hands.
All the best,
Peter.
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
Needles to say ive already fired off an email to the chap Peter has recommended.
Took a quick look at the skulls at the Derbyshire church,and they look more like the one that Phil came across in the parish church.
So bo conclusive result either way at the moment.
Peter is very interested in what we are doing and would like to know how things progress.
Just a question,does anyone know what stone the Parish Church is made from?
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
|
|
chameleon
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
29-Mar-2007 22:46:49
Posted:
3607 posts
|
I think that's a very encouraging result cnosni - like I sadi abve - new things must be there to find....
|
|
|
Tasa
User
Location:
Headingley, Leeds
Joined on:
08-Oct-2007 15:41:52
Posted:
328 posts
|
The present Parish Church is "constructed from stone from the locality and mainly taken from the local Bramley Fall and Horsforth quarries. The interior décor is pure and the detail of the quartz pebble and large sand stone walls still stands firm and expelling vibrancy throughout."
The old church, according to Thoresby, was constructed of freestone (anyone know what that is?). Si, is there a British Freestone Society you can join to find out?!
|
|
|
LS1
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
23-Jul-2007 13:00:30
Posted:
1307 posts
|
According to Wikipedia:
A freestone is a stone used in architecture for molding, tracery and other work required to be worked with the chisel. The stone must be fine-grained, uniform and soft enough to be cut easily without shattering or splitting. Some sources say that the stone has no grain, but this is incorrect. Oolitic stones are generally used, although in some countries soft sandstones are used; in some churches an indurated chalk called clunch is employed for internal lining and for carving. Some believe that freemason originally meant one who is capable of carving freestone.
Freestone is also a family name, the origins of which date back to lace makers in the middlelands in England in the 1700's.
|
|
|
|