8. Luminescence Dating of Medieval Brick from Essex: An Example of the Physical Sciences Addressing Archaeological Questions

Thomas Gurling

Abstract

This paper considers the role that science can play in archaeology, especially in the field of dating historic brick buildings. The important role that both science and experimentation play in archaeology is briefly considered before attention is given to the current approaches employed by archaeologists in the county of Essex for dating historic brickwork. These approaches are individually critiqued, highlighting the potential that exists for the application of the physics-based dating technique of optically stimulated luminescence (OSL). Through the application of these conventional dating approaches, an archaeological model has been created for Essex describing how brick was used during the medieval and Tudor period. A brief account outlining the use of brick during the 15th and 16th centuries according to this model is given before attention focuses on the brick manorial complex of Layer Marney Towers. A description of the current archaeological understanding of the collection of buildings that constitute this manorial complex is given, illustrating how certain conclusions can be drawn using conventional archaeological approaches. The implications that the luminescence date has on this understanding of the manor and suggested revisions are then described. Ultimately, this illustrates the value that a scientific dating technique offers in order to further the archaeological understanding of the site. Finally, consideration is given towards the value of adopting multi-disciplined approaches in archaeology and the way in which the direct scientific analysis of archaeological artefacts can be of benefit to both other forms of experimental archaeology and the archaeological theorist.

Scientific Study in Archaeology

Science has long played an important role in archaeology for much of the discipline’s history. An early example occurred in the 1830s when Michael Faraday was involved in the chemical analysis of excavated Roman remains from the Bartlow barrows in Essex (Gage 1836, 306–310). Now, at the start of the 21st century there is a certain level of debate surrounding exactly how archaeometrists and archaeologists should be involved in archaeological projects in the future (see for example Jones 2004 and the subsequent comments in Archaeometry 2005). However, many consider archaeology to be a broad discipline, rooted in the study of the material remains of past peoples through the collaboration of a wide range of disciplines that covers both natural and social sciences as well as the arts and humanitarian disciplines (Schroeder and Bray 2007, 11–12). Naturally, this form of archaeology incorporates the usage of a wide range of scientific disciplines in order to gain as much insight into the material remains recovered, including physics, chemistry, biology, geology, mathematics etc. (Pollard 1995; Tite 1991, 139–140).

Given the significant role that science plays in contemporary archaeology, it is worth highlighting the process in which it operates. This chiefly involves the recovery of material remains from a site before they are interpreted by the archaeologist. The interpretations are based on the current knowledge framework within the relevant field of archaeology. These knowledge frameworks are themselves based on a combination of the records of earlier excavations, ethnographic studies and contributions from the systematic study of recovered material remains. Such systematic study includes analysis by established scientific disciplines. Ultimately, it is possible to produce an interpretation of a site. This leads to the need for testing any interpretation or hypothesis formed about a specific interpretation of an archaeological period, site or material remains (Reynolds 1999, 157). Experimentation is one of the key means employed in the normal archaeological procedure to refute existing hypotheses and, where necessary, draw attention to the need to revise them (Malina 1983, 71). It is important to appreciate that experimentation can take many different forms and is often used at many different stages in the archaeological analysis of a site (Malina 1983, 71, 77). Several of the earlier articles in this volume involve the form of experimentation described as ‘process and function’ in which the aim is to determine how things were achieved in the past (Reynolds 1999, 159). However, another form of archaeological experimentation is the testing of scientific equipment in order to improve the acquisition of archaeological data (Reynolds 1999, 162). Whilst this was the approach that was adopted for the principal study of this paper, it should be noted that the various forms of experimentation used in archaeology are not exclusive but are complimentary and inter-dependent (Reynolds 1999, 158). Thus, the use of established scientific techniques can be used as a new means of acquiring data or to improve the current means by which data is obtained from archaeological material remains. This new data can result in existing interpretations being revised, leading to a subsequent need for further investigation in order to determine the validity and feasibility of these new interpretations. The use of experimental replication is one such way to address this need of testing revised interpretations.

Dating Historic Brickwork in Essex

The project upon which this paper is based focused on the scientific dating of historic brick structures, ranging from the 12th to the 16th centuries, in the county of Essex using OSL (Gurling 2006). The project itself is contributing towards the wider archaeological need for absolute dates and chronologies for historic buildings of all social levels in order to provide archaeologists with a better understanding of the interpretation and meaning behind such buildings (Johnson 1998, 215). OSL has already been successfully applied to date historic brick structures in other parts of the country, including Lincolnshire (Bailiff 2007) and Suffolk (Antrobus 2004), illustrating the feasibility of using this science based dating tool.

The reason for selecting Essex was the fact that it is an area rich in historic brickwork dating to the medieval and Tudor periods, including structures which have long been thought to be some of the earliest examples of post-Roman brickwork in the country (Andrews 2005a, 142). It is also a region to which a great deal of archaeological attention has been given towards understanding the use and development of medieval and Tudor brick, resulting in a detailed chronological framework being formulated which describes how brick was employed as a building material (Ryan 1996). In order to derive this framework, several different archaeological dating approaches have been employed across the county. These include brick typologies, archaeological building analysis, documentary sources and some scientific dating approaches. Each of these approaches is critically discussed in more detail below.

Brick Typologies

The principle behind this approach is that the physical properties, such as dimensions, colour or fabric, of an individual brick or a portion of brickwork are compared to a series of bricks for which the provenance and date is known (Ryan and Andrews 1993). Another approach involves the analysis of specific features on the brick in question that are produced through the manufacturing techniques that were characteristic of certain historic periods (Campbell and Saint 2002; Harley 1974). The key advantages to such a dating approach include speed and ease of analysis as well as its cost effective nature. However, the approach requires a comparative brick typology for a specific region or period, which can take time to establish. There are also certain periods when the physical properties of brickwork altered very slowly, resulting in poor resolution when dating by this approach. An example of this can be seen in the red ‘Tudor’ type brickwork of the 15th century which is typologically similar in many respects to red ‘Tudor’ brickwork in the 16th century (Ryan and Andrews 1993, 94; Harley 1974, 74–75). In turn, this makes it difficult to detect brickwork that might have been re-used in later contexts. It has been proposed that the brick typology that exists in Essex allows brick to be dated to an accuracy of 50–100 years (Ryan and Andrews 1993, 93).

Architectural Analysis

A common approach to determining the date of brickwork found within a structure is that of architectural analysis. This involves two key stages. First, the different components of the building are phased, forming a relative chronology through the recognition of continuities and breaks in wall fabrics (Morriss 2000, 157–162). Once this relative chronology has been established, absolute dates are, where possible, allocated to different parts of the structure through the identification of diagnostic fittings, such as date plates, or decorative features (Hall 2005).

Whilst such a dating approach can potentially offer a relatively quick and cost effective approach of dating, it is dependent on several factors in order to derive an effective chronological sequence. This includes the rate at which architectural fashions changed in a particular region and diagnostic features being either present or observable within the building fabric (Brunskill 1992, 124–127). The fact that it is often only high status buildings which have such diagnostic architectural features incorporated into their fabric represents another potential limiting factor to this dating approach. The possibility of materials being re-used or of structural alterations being made to a building in later periods are further ways in which archaeologists can be misled by this dating approach (Laws 2003, 26). The use of date plates for deriving absolute dates for parts of a building can also be highly misleading, since the date plate itself might refer to a non-architecturally significant event, such as a change in ownership (Brunskill 1992, 128).

Documentary Evidence

Documentary evidence is a dating source that can potentially be highly informative and insightful with regards to how historic brickwork was used in the construction of a building. There are several sources that are available to the archaeologist, including building contracts, especially for royal building projects, licences to crenellate and bequests left by individuals in wills towards the construction of specific projects, such as church additions.

Such documentary evidence is highly valuable but has several limitations associated with it. First, it is a form of evidence that is rare for most historic medieval structures. Where it does occur, it is most often found for high status buildings, such as the late 15th century brick castle Kirby Muxloe, Leicestershire, which was built by Lord Hastings, a Yorkist Leader and favourite of Edward IV (Wight 1972, 132). Secondly, documentary accounts are not always reliable. This can be seen in licences to crenellate which were intended to illustrate the social status of the household rather than to represent oficial Royal licences for construction work to be undertaken on a building (Liddiard 2005, 44; Coulson 1993). Another limiting factor inherent to documentary sources is the fact that, even where they do provide a detailed and accurate account of the building works, there is no guarantee that there will be any details of later alterations to the building in the documentary record.

Scientific Dating Techniques

There are several scientific dating techniques currently available to archaeologists for dating historic brickwork. The most common of these techniques is dendrochronology, an approach that can potentially offer high precision for the felling date of trees (Morris 2000, 142–143). However, there are a number of factors that can prevent or limit a date being derived by dendrochronology. These include the lack of exterior bark, an insuficient number of tree rings or the absence of a master chronology for the type of wood being studied (Aitken 1990, 46–47). Ultimately, dendrochronology is an indirect means of dating brick since there is an underlying assumption that the date of the timber is the same as that of the historic brickwork.

There are other scientific dating techniques that can be used to directly date the brickwork itself, including archaeomagnetism. This approach commonly requires that the brick be sampled in its original position since firing in the kiln, posing a serious problem for most brick buildings, although recent research focusing on the intensity component of the archaeomagnetic field offers the opportunity to refine and date brick that is not in situ (Casas et al. 2007). Luminescence, as mentioned earlier, is another approach that has been shown to be highly effective in directly dating historic brickwork (Bailiff 2007). Finally, radiocarbon dating is another method that can be used to try and determine a date for when a portion of brickwork was erected by dating the mortar component of the structure, although such work requires an awareness of several different contamination effects that can produce false dates (Lindroos 2007). With the exception of dendrochronology, none of these scientific techniques have been routinely used for dating historic brickwork in Essex.

***

The above discussion serves to illustrate the various approaches that are available to archaeologists for dating historic brickwork. Often, it is largely non-scientific dating approaches (brick typologies, architectural analysis and documentary sources) that are used to date historic brickwork, with dendrochronology representing the most common scientific dating tool used (Morriss 2000, 142). Whilst such approaches do provide highly valuable information, they all have the fundamental caveat that they only date the brickwork indirectly. Nevertheless, it has still allowed a chronological model describing the development and usage of brick in Essex to be formulated and it is important to note that these approaches are continually used to revise and refine this model. An example of this can be seen in the brick church tower at Billericay. Originally, this had been dated to the late 15th century based on a bequest to the church dated to 1496 (Ryan 1996, 63). However, subsequent analysis of the building fabric revealed a series of decorative tiles which were stylistically dated to the third quarter of the 15th century, suggesting that the tower might actually be of an earlier date (Andrews 2005b, 167–168). Essex therefore presents the ideal opportunity to experimentally apply a scientific dating approach which dates the brick directly in order to test the current archaeological understanding of the development and use of historic brick during the medieval and Tudor periods.

Late Medieval Brickwork in Essex

Before considering the case study of Layer Marney Towers below, it is worth focusing attention briefly on the archaeological context to which this building relates. Specifically, this involves considering the use of brick as a building material during the 15th and early 16th centuries in Essex. The brick type in use during this period was the red ‘Tudor’ brick, a form that first appears in Essex at the start of the 15th century and was used through to the early 17th century (Andrews 2005a, 145; Ryan 1996, 47).

During the course of the 15th century, the red ‘Tudor’ bricks were largely used by the wealthy nobility to erect substantial manorial complexes, of which there are several surviving examples in Essex. The earliest is the Moot Hall, Maldon, a three storied tower house (see Figure 8.1). Originally part of a much larger manorial complex, the surviving building exhibits many of the advanced skills which the brick craftsmen of the time were capable of, including an impressive carved brick newel staircase, decoratively carved trefoil brickwork and traces of decorative ruddling (a decorative scheme whereby brick surfaces are covered in red ochre before the white mortar joints are highlighted to enhance the aesthetic impact) on the internal surfaces (Andrews 2007). Many of the brick craftsmen in the 15th century are thought to have originated from northern Europe, something that is evident at Nether Hall, a moated manorial complex erected in the 1450s and 1460s. Here, a break in one of the outer walls to the moated site indicates a change in the quality of the craftsmanship, attributed to a change in the workmen involved in erecting the building. The high quality brickwork has been attributed to foreign craftsmen whilst the remainder is attributed to English craftsmen who were still learning the art of brick production and construction (Andrews 2004, 94–96).

Figure 8.1. Maldon Moot Hall. This three storied town tower house is the oldest standing complete brick structure in Essex, dating to the first quarter of the 15th century.

In the period between the end of the 15th century and the early 16th century, brick began to be used to a greater extent among the lower echelons of society. This is most evident in the architectural additions that were generally being made to local churches around this time (Morris 1989, 353–355). In Essex, such additions were often undertaken in brick and included towers, clerestories, porches or, occasionally, the entire church being built out of brick, as was the case with the church at Chignal Smealy (Ryan 1996, 71–73). Work was often funded through wealthy patrons, including local nobility and wealthy merchants, as well as bequests left by members of the local community (Ryan 1996, 71–73; Morris 1989, 355–356). Brick was just as fashionable among the nobility during the early 16th century, largely due to the building activities of Henry VIII. An example of his work in Essex can be found at New Hall, Boreham, where he constructed a palatial complex between 1516 and 1521 on the site of an earlier manor (Tuckwell 2006, 4–7). The early 16th century therefore saw a culture develop in Essex in which large brick manor houses were being built throughout the county, many by the ‘new men’ of Henry VIII’s court who wished to extend or re-build an earlier, less fashionable manor houses (Andrews and Ryan 1999, 42; Ryan 1996, 74). It is amongst this group of structures erected by the ‘new men’ in the early 16th century that Layer Marney Towers belongs.

Application of Luminescence to Layer Marney Towers

The following case study serves to illustrate how a combination of both scientific and non-scientific analytical approaches can result in different archaeological conclusions being derived for an individual building. It also demonstrates how a greater amount of information can be obtained through a combination of both approaches. It focuses on the imposing gatehouse complex at Layer Marney, Essex (see Figure 8.2).

The gatehouse is a tall brick building and was originally intended to be the entrance to an impressive courtyard manorial complex. It is surrounded by several other historic brick structures including two side wings, a church, a southern ‘gallery’ range and a timber barn (see Figure 8.3). It has long been thought that large parts of the present manorial complex were erected in the early 16th century under Henry Marney, with work coming to a halt upon the death of his son John Marney in 1525 (Ryan 1996, 79; Andrews et al. 1986, 172; RCHME 1922, 157). This idea has been derived through several sources of evidence, including historic, architectural and documentary evidence, a summary of which is provided below.

Figure 8.2. Layer Marney Towers. The gatehouse was originally intended to be part of a large courtyard house complex which was never finished.

Figure 8.3. Layout of the principal buildings at Layer Marney. With the exception of the barn, all the structures are built principally from brick (note that only the corner of the church is shown in the diagram) (source: RCHME, 1922, 159).

Historically, Henry Marney had risen through the social hierarchy under the early Tudor kings during the late 15th and early 16th centuries. Under Henry VII he was made a privy councillor, an MP for the county of Essex and knighted. Henry VIII continued to appoint him to a number of other positions, including captain of the kings guard, electing him knight of the Garter in 1510, and promoting him to baronial status just prior to his death in 1523 (Carley 2004, 735–736). It is therefore likely that Henry Marney and his son had the resources to undertake a major construction project at Layer Marney in the early 16th century. As mentioned earlier, this would have also been in keeping with the general trend of the time in which royal courtiers were creating large, fashionable manorial complexes, many based around a central courtyard, in an attempt to emulate the building patterns of the monarchy and the royal court (Howard 1987, 24, 27).

Architecturally, it is evident that there was probably an earlier manorial complex on this site pre-dating some of the early 16th century buildings seen today. This includes an earlier church, the evidence for which was discovered in the early 20th century during restoration work which uncovered carved Romanesque stonework used as a rubble core infill in the church (Chancellor 1918, 65). The southern ‘gallery’ structure is also thought to be an earlier structure given its unusual alignment in relation to the other buildings, such as the eastern range (see Figure 8.3) (Bettley and Pevsner 2007, 529). It was also shown that there was an isolated window jamb at the western end, indicating that it had originally extended further westwards (RCHME 1922, 159). This would have partially obscured the view and approach to the central gatehouse suggesting it belongs to an earlier series of buildings. The barn has also recently been dated to the mid-15th century (Bettley and Pevsner 2007, 529). Other buildings at Layer Marney were almost certainly erected in the early 16th century, including the central gatehouse, west wing and the church. The presence of terracotta in the fabric of the central gatehouse and west wing is one source of architectural evidence which offers a precise dating range for these two structures. This is due to the fact that terracotta was briefly fashionable in England from c.1510 until the Reformation in the 1540s (Ryan 1996, 81; Wight 1972, 180).

With regards to documentary evidence, consultation of the wills of both Henry Marney (died 1523) and John Marney (died 1525) offer further clues that building work was underway at Layer Marney at the end of their lives. Henry Marney left instruction that the chapel adjoining the parish church which he had begun to construct was to be finished (both the chapel and church are made from red ‘Tudor’ brick) and that brick alms houses were to be built (an alms house is recorded as having stood close to a pond near the house) (King 1869, 150–151; Morant 1768, Vol. I, 409). John Marney left £200 towards the completion of the church and also refers to ‘the newe galery on the west side of the tower’ (King 1869, 157, 160), suggesting that this part of the manorial complex had recently been erected.

Based upon the above evidence, it is clear to see how many have come to the conclusion that both brick production and building work was underway at Layer Marney in the early 16th century. The presence of terracotta in the fabric of the gatehouse itself and reference to the adjoining west wing in John Marney’s will also supports the idea that this part of the manorial complex was being erected in the 1520s. Based on this understanding of the building, there was an opportunity for a scientific dating approach to be employed in order to evaluate the current archaeological understanding of the building. A luminescence sample was collected from a brick in the south east turret of the central gatehouse for analysis. The result obtained was AD 1447±35, a value that is approximately 70 years earlier than the conventional age many have previously assigned to this building. The result suggests that the sampled brick had been produced at some point in the mid-15th century and was probably re-used in the construction of the current gatehouse complex. In light of this, the question arises as to where the brick originated. Given the fact that there is evidence for two manorial complexes at Layer Marney, it seems that the earlier one was being sequentially demolished and the material re-used in erecting the new buildings. The earlier manorial complex is most likely to belong to the first half of the 15th century, based on the luminescence result and the age of the timber barn. Further evidence to support this date range and to also offer a potential source for the use of brick at Layer Marney in the 15th century exists when we consider that Anne Marney, the daughter of Sir William Marney, the owner of the estate in the early 15th century, married Thomas Tyrell of East Horndon, Essex (Morant 1768, Vol. I, 406). The Tyrell family are thought to have been involved in the use of brick for building projects in the early 15th century (Ryan 1996, 51). It is possible that the idea of building in brick or possibly even the craftsmen used by the Tyrell family might have been exchanged or recommended between these two families.

There are a few documented cases across England indicating that brick was reused in the 15th and 16th Centuries. One example that has parallels to Layer Marney involves Fulbroke Castle, Warwickshire, a structure built in brick and stone by John, Duke of Bedford, in the early 15th century. It had fallen into ruin by 1478 and was largely demolished by Sir William Compton who was granted permission by Henry VIII to use the material in his new house at Compton Wynyates, a brick structure that still survives (Fox 1945, 92). Studies at other sites with OSL have also indicated that brick was re-used in the post-Medieval era (Bailiff 2007, 846; Bailiff and Holland 2000, 618) and there is some archaeological evidence to support this at other sites in Essex, such as in the 15th century clerestory of Bocking church where a 12th century medieval ‘great’ brick was found re-used among the masonry (Andrews and Crouch 2001, 289). It is also important to note that there was a general culture of re-using other types of building material, such as stone, during the medieval period (Stocker 1990). Therefore, the case at Layer Marney can now be seen as contributing to the wider understanding of how brick was employed in Essex during the late medieval period, suggesting that brick from 15th century structures was being robbed for building new structures during the 16th century.

As has already been discussed, attributing a precise date to red ‘Tudor’ brick can be a difficult task for the non-scientific dating approaches often adopted by archaeologists. It can therefore also be difficult to successfully identify the re-use of this brick type. From a brick typological perspective, this task is difficult due to the inherent similarities that exist between 15th and 16th century bricks. Architecturally diagnostic features can also struggle to identify the re-use of ‘Tudor’ brick and can result in misleading conclusions being derived. It is clear that decorative features inherent to the brickwork itself, such as brick bonding patterns, can easily be replicated in new structures, again preventing the identification of brick re-use. Equally, if a more modern structure was to be constructed using re-used materials, as was the case with Layer Marney, then it is likely that more fashionable, contemporary decorative features would be employed in the new structure. This casts another source of doubt on the reliability of such features as a means to date the brickwork associated with them. At Layer Marney this can be seen in the use of the fashionable material of terracotta in the windows and doorways of the early 16th century structures as opposed to the stone which had been adopted for the windows and doorways of the earlier 15th century buildings (RCHME 1922, 158–159). Finally, the few documentary records that describe brick being re-used from this period might only provide a small account of an activity that was probably much more commonplace.

The case of Layer Marney has illustrated the means by which a scientific dating approach, such as OSL, provided valuable additional archaeological information on how a building material was employed in the late medieval and Tudor periods. This in turn complemented the existing archaeological information of the site and allowed a more detailed understanding to be derived. The use of OSL to identify the re-use of red ‘Tudor’ brick at Layer Marney and other sites has also presented the opportunity to revise and update the current archaeological model that had been derived for the use of this building material during the 15th and 16th centuries.

Conclusion

The case of Layer Marney demonstrates the role that science based dating can play in the field of buildings archaeology today. On a broader scale, this example illustrates that, whilst the common methods currently used for analysing historic structures do provide a large amount of important and valuable information, the luminescence dating provided further information that had largely eluded any previous archaeological or historic accounts of Layer Marney. Furthermore, this allowed the chronological relationship between the two manorial complexes to be determined. On a broader scale, this case serves to illustrate the critical distinction between what events were undertaken at an archaeological site and exactly how they were executed. In this situation, the event was the construction of a new manorial complex and the means was the re-use of material from the earlier structures. It is also evident how certain information about historic brick buildings, namely the re-use of brick in later structures, could potentially be easily overlooked through the use of more conventional archaeological approaches to dating brickwork.

Science and experimentation are both critical aspects of contemporary archaeology, offering archaeologists the means to objectively critique, evaluate and revise theories in the different areas of the discipline. As mentioned before, there are several different ways in which experimentation can be applied in archaeology. All ultimately have the goal of enhancing our understanding of the archaeological record. Some of the earlier articles in this volume have involved replication experimentation in order to confirm or falsify existing hypotheses in order to try and achieve this goal. This case discussed in this article illustrates another form in which experimentation, specifically the testing and application of scientific equipment in order to improve the acquisition of archaeological data, can be undertaken to improve our knowledge of archaeological remains. It is important to emphasise that the different approaches are not exclusive and that the greatest understanding of the past can only be derived through the close collaboration of these different approaches. It is possible to illustrate this using another example from Essex. At the sites of Pleshey Castle and King John’s Hunting Lodge, Writtle, archaeologists have recovered highly unusual and rare late medieval chimney bricks which occur in two different forms. With the exception of these two sites, these forms of brick are not currently known to occur anywhere else. Samples of these unusual bricks were included in a scientific study which involved the use of Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) to provenance pottery in Essex (Wickenden 2001). The results indicated the likely origin of these brick types within Essex. Such information demonstrates one manner in which science can provide archaeological information about historic brick. However, this information could potentially be taken further. It would provide experimental archaeologists investigating the likely production techniques with the knowledge of what source of clay to use in their experiments, thus reflecting the situation faced by the original medieval craftsmen. This in turn would enhance their understanding of the likely production methodologies. When combined, the knowledge of the provenance of the raw materials and the likely production methodologies would offer the archaeological theorist with invaluable information to formulate new archaeological models surrounding the craftsmanship of medieval brick production. Ultimately, it is only through such unified and multi-disciplinary approaches that a greater and more accurate understanding can be derived of the archaeological record, something that is surely the principle aim of all archaeologists today and therefore to be encouraged in future archaeological investigation.

Bibliography

Aitken, M. J. (1990) Science-based Dating in Archaeology. London, Longman.

Andrews, D. (2007) Maldon’s Moot Hall: Observations on the Repairs of 2006. Essex County Council: Historic Buildings and Conservation Report. Andrews, D. D. (2005a) The use and manufacture of brick in eastern England in the Middle Ages. In Perlich, B. and van Tussenbroek, G. (eds) Technik des Backsteinbaus pp. 139–150. Petersberg, Michael Imhof Verlag (Berliner Bietrage zur Bauforschung und Denkmalpflege 2).

Andrews, D. D. (2005b) Billericay St. Mary Magdalen, the Spanish tiles over the doorway. Essex Archaeology and History 36: 167–168.

Andrews, D. D. (2004) Nether Hall. A fortified manor of the Wars of the Roses. Essex Archaeology and History 35: 78–97.

Andrews, D. D., and Crouch, B. J. (2001) Bocking, St. Mary. Essex Archaeology and History 32: 287–290.

Andrews, D., and Ryan, P. (1999) The 16th and 17th Centuries: manors, mansions, parks and fields. In Green, L. S. (ed.) The Essex Landscape: In search of its history, pp. 40–50. Chelmsford, Essex County Council.

Andrews, D., Bedwin, O., and Hall, R. (1986) Plaster or Stone? Some observations on Layer Marney Chrch and Tower. Essex Archaeology and History 17: 172–176.

Antrobus, A. (2004) Luminescence Dating of Brick Chimneys. Vernacular Architecture 35: 21–31.

Bailiff, I. K. (2007) Methodological Developments in the Luminescence Dating of Brick from English Late-Medieval and Post-Medieval Buildings. Archaeometry 49: 827–851.

Bailiff, I. K., and Holland, N. (2000) Dating bricks of the last two millennia from Newcastle upon Tyne: a preliminary study. Radiation Measurements 32: 615–619.

Bettley, J., and Pevsner, N. (2007) The Buildings of England: Essex (3rd edn). London, Yale University Press.

Brunskill, R. W. (1992) Traditional Buildings of Britain: An Introduction to Vernacular Architecture. London, Victor Gollancz.

Campbell, J. W. P., and Saint, A. (2002) The Manufacture and Dating of English Brickwork 1600–1720. Archaeological Journal 159: 170–193.

Carley, J. P. (2004) Henry Marney, first Baron Marney. In Matthew, H. C. G. and Harrison, B. (eds) Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Vol. 36: 735–736. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Casas, L., Linford, P., and Shaw, J. (2007) Archaeomagnetic dating of Dogmersfield Park brick kiln (Southern England). Journal of Archaeological Sciences 34: 205–213.

Chancellor, F. (1918) Layer Marney Church. Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society (New Series) 14: 65–75.

Coulson, C. (1993) Specimens of Freedom to Crenellate by Licence. Fortress 18: 3–15.

Fox, L. (1945) Fulbrook. In Salzman, L. F., and Styles, P. (eds) The Victoria History of the Counties of England: Warwickshire Vol. III: 91–94. London, Oxford University Press.

Gage, J. (1836) The recent discovery of Roman sepulchral relics in one of the greater barrows at Bartlow, in the parish of Ashdon, in Essex. Archaeologia 26: 300–317.

Gurling, T. (2006) Luminescence dating of medieval brickwork in Essex. Essex Archaeology and History 37: 179–181.

Hall, L. (2005) Period House Fixtures and Fittings 1300–1900. Newbury, Countryside Books.

Harley, L. S. (1974) A Typology of Brick: with numerical coding of brick characteristics. Journal of the British Archaeological Association 37: 63–87.

Howard, M. (1987) The Early Tudor Country House: Architecture and Politics 1490–1550. London, George Philip.

Johnson, M. (1998) On science, buildings archaeology, and new agendas. In Bayley, J. (ed.) Science in Archaeology: An Agenda for the Future, pp. 211–217. London, English Heritage.

Jones, A. (2004) Archaeometry and materiality: materials-based analysis in theory and practice. Archaeometry 46: 327–338.

King, H. W. (1869) Ancient Wills. Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society (Old Series) 4: 147–163.

Laws, A. (2003) Understanding Small Period Houses. Ramsbury, The Crowood Press.

Liddiard, R. (2005) Castles in Context: Power, Symbolism and Landscape, 1066–1500. Oxford, Windgather Press.

Lindroos, A., Heinemeier, J., Ringbom, Å, Braskén, M, and Sveinbjörnsdóttir, Á. (2007) Mortar dating usinf AMS ¹⁴C and sequential dissolution: examples from Medieval, non-hydrauliclime mortars from the Åland Islands, SW Finland. Radiocarbon 49: 47–67.

Malina, J. (1983) Archaeology and Experiment. Norwegian Archaeological Review 16: 69–85.

Morant, P. (1768) The History and Antiquities of the County of Essex. London.

Morriss, R. K. (2000) The Archaeology of Buildings. Stroud, Tempus.

Morris, R. (1989) Churches in the Landscape. London, J. M. Dent & Sons.

Pollard, A. M. (1995) Why teach Heisenberg to archaeologists? Antiquity 69: 242–247.

Reynolds, P. J. (1999) The Nature of Experiment in Archaeology. In Harding, A. F. (ed.) Experiment and Design: Archaeological Studies in honour of John Coles, pp. 156–162. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Royal Commission on Historic Monuments (England) (RCHME) (1922) Essex. London, HMSO.

Ryan, P. (1996) Brick in Essex: From the Roman Conquest to the Reformation. Chelmsford, Pat Ryan.

Ryan, P., and Andrews, D. (1993) A Brick and Tile Typology for Cressing Temple. In Andrews, D. D. (ed.) Cressing Temple: A Templar and Hospitaller Manor in Essex, pp. 93–103. Chelmsford, Essex County Council.

Schroeder, H., and Bray, P. J. (2007) The opportunities and challenges of crossing disciplinary frontiers in archaeological research. In Schroeder, H., Bray, P., Gardner, P., Jefferson, V. and Macaulay-Lewis, E. (eds) Crossing Frontiers: The opportunities and challenges of interdisciplinary approaches to archaeology. Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 66.

Stocker, D. (1990) Rubbish Recycled: A Study of the Re-Use of Stone in Lincolnshire. In Parson, D. (ed.) Stone: Quarrying and Building in England AD43–1525, pp. 83–101. Chichester, Phillimore.

Tite, M. S. (1991) Archaeological Science – past achievements and future prospects. Archaeometry 33: 139–151.

Tuckwell, T. (2006) New Hall and its School. Free Range Publishing.

Wickenden, N. P. (2001) A medieval octagonal chimney stack: evidence from Pleshey and Writtle. Essex Archaeology and History 32: 168–177.

Wight, J. A. (1972) Brick Building in England. London, John Baker.