|
|
Mick_SGC
User
Location:
Chicago!!
Joined on:
20-Mar-2008 19:31:16
Posted:
123 posts
|
I hope it's well hidden or pikeys will melt it down...
I'd be tempted to remove it and put it some place safe.
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
It's high up on a busy street Mick.
Ok guys. I'm just going through these pics I took today. I think a few of us noted there was one piece of stone bedded in the wall of the skull building that really served no purpose. We know the stone skulls were here too. What would we think if there was another block of stone also embedded into that same building as well. Might it suggest something a little strange here? A stone masons premises who liked practising maybe?
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Steve Jones wrote: |
These are my thoughts on the two skulls regarding possible meaning and origins.
Firstly, it is obvious looking at them they came from somewhere else before being placed on the building as has already been pointed out.
Secondly they reminded me of two things, a memento mori or rembrance of the dead as found in old graveyards and sometimes on lych gates in the entrance to churchs.these range from skulls to skeletons to crotting corpses and were popular as reminders to the public to lead moral lives as they must die and be accountable one day.the other thing is that carved heads are common on doorways,windows and entrances as a means of protection from evil in folklore(the best known is the foliate mask one sometimes erroneously called The green man).
Now it struck me that seeing as how St Peters Graveyard was dug up when the railway line was put through, bodies disenterred etc and then graves relaid in the present spots, it might be feasible that that is where these two skulls have migrated from to become a feature on a (then) new pub? |
Well Steve,this is something that has been speculated on,but the Parish Church was demolished 1838,and the pub,which we visited today,is certainly much older than the demolition date,possibly mid to late 18th century.
The ceiling inside was low,and though it was rendered with plaster throughout you could see that the ceiling was constructed from large rough cut timbers,indicative of the older type of buildings.
As for the building with the Skulls,as Phil says,we are no wiser as to whether it was a hayloft or a stable,or neither.
It is older than the dodgy chimney building,which itself appears to have a fair bit of alteration done to it,but appears to be newer than no2 building,which actually is part of the Hills furniture shop on Kirkgate.
The proprieters were very happy to let us through the back,into the ginnel and through the green gate and into th car park with the skull building.
As LS1 has stated it seems that EMCO have carried out some historical survey,perhaps we should reserve judgement on the age of these buildings until we see this.
As for the skull building i dont think its too far to have been part of the pub.
We know that the pub had stables and a brewhouse,and that the Dysons owned the old pub from 1933.
It seems logical to assume that is they owned the building with the skulls as well then the skull building must have come to them as part and parcel of the property.
The other option for the stables and brewhouse would have been the now demolished opposite side of the ginnle.
Having seen a photo of this today at the Strangely familiar it would appear that it belonged to Gelders the Drapers,as that is what is painted on it.
They would have probably inherited that building in the same way that Dysons got the Skull building,it will have been a traditional part of the property,passed on from owner to owner.
The problem is,the Skull building does not look big enough to be a stable,or hayloft.
My brain hurts.
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
The first piece of corner stone that served no purpose and really didn't need to be there I think we all agreed. In my eyes this looks the exact same type of stone as our skulls.
|
Phil wasnt that first piece of stone on the newer part of the dodgy chimney building,post 1906??
|
|
|
frisbee
User
Location:
Leeds, East End Park
Joined on:
01-Mar-2008 15:17:31
Posted:
40 posts
|
Had a really enjoyable afternoon out, it was great fun and a great learning experience. Will have to do it again soon.
frisbee
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
|
|
ggbix
User
Location:
East Yorkshire
Joined on:
13-Feb-2008 09:14:09
Posted:
11 posts
|
Regarding these two skulls.
I'm intrigued, I have had a look at the photo of the skulls on Leodis and the brickwork may give a better clue.
Beneath the skulls the bricks are turned so they show the small face, there is then five normal courses of bricks and then the bricks are turned again above the skulls.
On one of the colour photo's, the one that shows the silver extractor on the left looking down the yard and the rubbish on the right. The building on the right has exactly the same brick pattern as the one where the skulls are shown in Leodis, could this be a better clue for searching as all the buildings appear to be unique in construction.
May be barking up the wrong tree but it's definitely the same type of wall.
Good hunting.
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
I tend to think those skulls are no older than this building now. I think it must have been a stonemasons yard perhaps?
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
Didnt see that block phil,there was also one on the dodgy chimney building,but both of these could have been reused from something else and just banged in to make a repair,they were into recycling well before we were!!
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
That was near the Ladies loo. It was very dark down there. I do think there is no denying the top pieces of stone could have come from the same block perhaps? The similarity is overwhelming.
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| That was near the Ladies loo. It was very dark down there. I do think there is no denying the top pieces of stone could have come from the same block perhaps? The similarity is overwhelming. |
Possibly the same building Phil,possibly reused from a demolished building,dont forget the skull building is brick,the old hand made brick,that stone looks like a bit of repair work,its just there,no other stone above or below.
If any thing these bits of sandstone reinforce that the skulls came from an older building than that of the skull building that we see now.
We need some dating done!!
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
I just don't know what to think about them mate. You get an idea in your head then something else comes along, then it's back to the drawing board.
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| I just don't know what to think about them mate. You get an idea in your head then something else comes along, then it's back to the drawing board. |
Yeah we are going round in circles.
The other thing is that the dodgy chimney building,which we now know had some alteration done to its wall post 1906 had a sandstone block in it,the one with the visible masons chisel marks,that was set amongst the modern brickwork that the wall we could see now was mad eup of,so that stone had been reused for a repair to that more modern wall as well.
Where was the source for these stones?
We definitely need those skulls dating,come on YAS!!!
|
|
|
chameleon
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
29-Mar-2007 22:46:49
Posted:
3609 posts
|
| ggbix wrote: |
Regarding these two skulls.
I'm intrigued, I have had a look at the photo of the skulls on Leodis and the brickwork may give a better clue.
Beneath the skulls the bricks are turned so they show the small face, there is then five normal courses of bricks and then the bricks are turned again above the skulls.
On one of the colour photo's, the one that shows the silver extractor on the left looking down the yard and the rubbish on the right. The building on the right has exactly the same brick pattern as the one where the skulls are shown in Leodis, could this be a better clue for searching as all the buildings appear to be unique in construction.
May be barking up the wrong tree but it's definitely the same type of wall.
Good hunting.
|
The brick pattern is the traditional English Bond construction. The wall will be two bricks thick - laying courses (typicaly every 5th) at right angles (as a 'header' course, effectively ties the two halves together for stability. It's quite common on older buildings without a cavity.
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| I must admit this building is crazy. I agree the bottom are altered different buildings, But just look at the top of the building. The gable wall near the chimney. It's the same?? |
Yes it is mate,its doing my head in.
Might be an idea to give it a rest,recharge the brain and lets see what,if anything,we find at the library or from the YAS or indeed EMCO.
That snot to say we cant press on with the campaign,nothing changed there!!
|
|
|
Phill_d
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
21-Feb-2007 10:52:59
Posted:
2638 posts
|
| cnosni wrote: |
| Phill_d wrote: |
| I must admit this building is crazy. I agree the bottom are altered different buildings, But just look at the top of the building. The gable wall near the chimney. It's the same?? |
Yes it is mate,its doing my head in.
Might be an idea to give it a rest,recharge the brain and lets see what,if anything,we find at the library or from the YAS or indeed EMCO.
That snot to say we cant press on with the campaign,nothing changed there!! |
Time for a few Shandys mate 
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| I must admit this building is crazy. I agree the bottom are altered different buildings, But just look at the top of the building. The gable wall near the chimney. It's the same?? |
Phil,i know i said about giving it a rest,but you may have hit the nail on the head.
When you build something you build up or on top of something.
The brick at the top of both these buildings is newer than the bottom of both of them,is there not then the possibility that the top of both completely replaced the tops originally in place that should really have been constructed of the brick at the bottom?
In other words the old tops have gone and a new one built,that may explain th eodd appearance of the skull building roof.
So if that was the case then god knows what was up there originally!
Oh no,oh no,oh no,not more intrigue.
|
|
|
cnosni
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
28-Mar-2007 21:17:06
Posted:
2685 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| cnosni wrote: |
| Phill_d wrote: |
| I must admit this building is crazy. I agree the bottom are altered different buildings, But just look at the top of the building. The gable wall near the chimney. It's the same?? |
Yes it is mate,its doing my head in.
Might be an idea to give it a rest,recharge the brain and lets see what,if anything,we find at the library or from the YAS or indeed EMCO.
That snot to say we cant press on with the campaign,nothing changed there!! |
Time for a few Shandys mate
|
Psssshtt.......glug glug glug...........ahhhhhh
|
|
|
chameleon
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
29-Mar-2007 22:46:49
Posted:
3609 posts
|
| Phill_d wrote: |
| I must admit this building is crazy. I agree the bottom are altered different buildings, But just look at the top of the building. The gable wall near the chimney. It's the same?? |
Phill, wouldn't a flat roof be unusual for that period? They certainly wouldn't have the materials we have to waterproof and I'd expect them to rely upon a pitch to get rid of the water. Extrapolating the angled section of the skull building to the chimney doesn't work though.
The pitch on the other roof looks asymetric from the picy - the right side looks as though it goes higher up the stack and that lack of tiying in is very odd.
|
|
|
chameleon
User
Location:
Leeds
Joined on:
29-Mar-2007 22:46:49
Posted:
3609 posts
|
| cnosni wrote: |
| Phill_d wrote: |
| I must admit this building is crazy. I agree the bottom are altered different buildings, But just look at the top of the building. The gable wall near the chimney. It's the same?? |
Phil,i know i said about giving it a rest,but you may have hit the nail on the head.
When you build something you build up or on top of something.
The brick at the top of both these buildings is newer than the bottom of both of them,is there not then the possibility that the top of both completely replaced the tops originally in place that should really have been constructed of the brick at the bottom?
In other words the old tops have gone and a new one built,that may explain th eodd appearance of the skull building roof.
So if that was the case then god knows what was up there originally!
Oh no,oh no,oh no,not more intrigue.
|
That fits with what I'm seeing too cnosni and would explain the odd lines.
|
|
|