context

26 C O N T E X T 1 7 9 : M A R C H 2 0 2 4 customary tenant farmer (tenants who had almost a freehold), not by the owner of the freehold. The Solway lowlands provided abundant clay, which was a cheap and lasting building material. In 1910, over 1,200 clay dabbins survived on the English side of the border. In a recent survey, this had decreased to about 340. The method was common to both sides of the Solway: narrow lifts of a clay/straw mix with each layer separated by a thin layer of straw. This method did not require a drying-out period and allowed construction to be contin- ued until the wall was complete, whether it was a dwelling or a farm-building. Tree-ring dates range from 1462 to 1788. These buildings frequently show signs of adaptation and/or extension. The removal of cement render from Cross Farm revealed the earlier clay wall with its thin lifts and openings that had been infilled with brick. These walls of this cruck-framed house had been raised, first in clay and later in brick. Timbers in the house did not provide a date but those in the barn in the yard behind, also cruck-framed, provided a date of 1650. Cross Farm, lying close to the site of the Roman Fort, has an irregular courtyard. In 1802, a Roman inscribed altar stone was found nearby. When the two clay buildings were linked by a range of sandstone and cobble buildings, it was incorporated into the elevation facing the yard. Almost opposite Cross Farm is Lamonby Farm, a surviving longhouse with a cross- passage which originally led to both the house and byre. Later alterations closed off the byre from the cross-passage. This is another cruck- framed, clay dabbin which has been dated to 1615. In the 1990s, the gable end of the barn collapsed. It was successfully rebuilt using traditional techniques and materials in the first major clay-wall restoration for over a century. It is not known when this form of construction ceased but it is thought likely to have been by the end of the 18th century. Some oral evidence suggested that it was still carried out in the 19th century and recent research suggests that this may be correct. A handful of examples suggest that clay walling was revived but not using the traditional method. Instead, shuttering was used, a method that was being promoted in books about the improvement of agricultural buildings (such as The Book of Farm Buildings by Stephen and Burn, Blackwood, 1861), where it was called pisé. Examples include a barn at Drumburgh, close to the Roman Fort, and one from Wiggonby, a few miles inland. Several of the vertical recesses which mark the position of the posts survive around the interior of the barn. The posts were fixed to external posts by short timbers across the wall and then horizontal planking was fixed to create the shuttering. In this case, the pisé was used to replace damaged or lost clay and the steep junction of the two walls can be seen. The development of vernacular buildings in this area was impeded by the unsettled times and any development tended to be slow and incremental. Many owners were reluctant to invest in anything new. When they did, they would often retain anything that might be of use later. Old buildings were patched up. Damage to clay buildings would be repaired with brick or stone, with any material that was at hand. In the 20th century, what came to hand most readily were breeze blocks and cement. Unfortunately, many of these more modern materials and methods, including the use of concrete and cement in particular, are incompatible with clay structures, and are no doubt responsible for the loss of so many over the last century. Peter Messenger was formerly conservation officer at Carlisle City Council. His chapter ‘Tenure and the Survival of Cruck Buildings in North Cumbria’ in N. Alcock, P. Barnwell and M. Cherry (eds), Cruck Building: a survey (Shaun Tyas, Donington, 2019), was based on his PhD research. Bank Barn near Abbeytown Lamonby Farm, Burgh by Sands: a surviving longhouse with a cross-passage