216 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 
Artefactual Data 
No datable artefacts were recovered during the 
operations, other than post-18th-century material 
such as roofing slate and bricks. These have been 
discarded, and are described in the stratigraphic 
descriptions above. 
Palaeoenvironmental Data 
No deposits suitable for palaeoenvironmental 
analysis were revealed; and no coarse materials, 
such as animal bone, were recovered. 
CONCLUSIONS 
Wall (1043) appears to be the feature identified by 
Haslam (1984) — feature (1047) being his backfilled 
trench — and there is no reason to dispute his 
interpretation that it represents one side of a 
rectangular building with orientation correspon- 
ding to the Tithe Barn that predates construction of 
the West Barn. Similarly, his interpretation of wall 
(1018) as a remnant of an earlier building is also 
supported by the stratigraphic data recovered here, 
but there is no direct stratigraphic link between the 
two and, indeed, they differ significantly in the 
form of foundation. They are both earlier than the 
West Barn, but in all other respects cannot be 
related. The ashlar quoining (0005) at the west end 
of (1018) may be a later dressing of an exposure, as 
the work differs from all other fabric on the site. 
Culvert (1058) coincides exactly with the 
position and orientation of the north wall of 
Haslam’s ‘porch’, and is a substantial sub-surface 
structure that also coincides exactly with the 
functionally ambiguous breaks in the fabric of the 
west elevation of the West Barn. Unfortunately, 
floor reductions within the West Barn subsequent 
to Haslam’s excavations have removed all trace of 
the eastward continuations of (1058); and the 
French drains excavated for the present work were 
not deep enough to encounter its continuation 
beyond that, so it is not possible to test Haslam’s 
interpretation. However, the culvert and _ its 
associated feature (1030) to the east are strati- 
graphically level with the lower limestone pavement 
(1008 etc.), an extensive deposit that is strati- 
graphically later than walls (1018) and (1043). If 
(1058) is the western extension of the feature Haslam 
described as a wall foundation, it is a drain, and it 
cannot be associated with walls (1043) or (1018). 
The lower limestone pavement (1008 etc.) is an 
unambiguous structure, and appears to be one 
component of an extensive network of paths and 
surfaces extending away from the West barn in all 
directions. It remains undated here, and, as a 
utilitarian structure executed in vernacular 
material, is inherently undatable. It is, however, 
identical in form to the limestone pavements 
adjacent to the Tithe Barn and so might be broadly 
contemporaneous. If this is the case, Haslam is 
correct in ascribing a pre-Tithe Barn date to walls 
(1043) and (1018) 
We conclude that the West Barn was built in a 
single principal episode in 1769, utilising wall 
(1018) which had by that time been dressed with 
ashlars (0005) at its west end. The matching pier 
(0003) to the north of it suggests the possibility of 
an earlier structure related to (1018), but no trace 
exists within or beneath the West Barn. 
Furthermore, the poor closing of the rubble 
masonry against its north edge suggests that (0003) 
was added to an existing wall. The east, north, west 
and most of the southern walls were constructed in 
shallow footings excavated through the limestone 
pavement (1008 etc) and the shallow soils (1012 and 
1013) that had developed over it. The building in 
its original form had a very broad opening in its 
south side, to link with the pre-existing open-sided 
cattle shed/ cart shed that had been built against 
wall (1018), but the west gable was fully closed. The 
rubble masonry forming the west gable was stitched 
into the pre-existent ashlar quoins (0005) of (1018) 
above first-floor level. The ashlar work may have 
been a modification of (1018), perhaps a later 
dressing of exposed core material at a break. The 
visually matching pier of ashlars (0003) on the 
north side of the gable, which is founded on culvert 
(1058), is also a veneer — the vertical joints evident 
in the west face are not present in the internal east 
face — suggesting a repair or perhaps a cosmetic 
treatment, in the absence of a more plausible 
explanation. The gambrel-roofed shed existed until 
1923, at least, though the date of blocking (1027) 
that probably followed its demolition cannot be 
more accurately estimated. 
The upper pavement — (1017) etc. — extended 
across the entire site and utilised carboniferous 
limestone. Not local to this site, this type of stone 
would have been prohibitively expensive to 
transport prior to the canal or railway eras. Layers 
immediately beneath it contained metamorphic 
roofing slate and brick fragments which suggest a 
post-18th-century date. It is likely, therefore, that 
