| Abstract: |
The work was carried out according to the Written Scheme of Investigation, which required: • Initial laser scanning and photogrammetry, which were undertaken by SUMO Services & Aerial-Cam respectively, followed by a second series of surveys undertaken by Downland Survey • Detailed inspection and an additional photographic survey undertaken from a cherry picker • A written record was made of each site visit • The recording was based on photogrammetrical images • In addition, a photographic record will be maintained as part of the Watching Brief during future repair works Despite the amount of repair work, research and recording undertaken of the Leighton Buzzard Market Cross over the centuries, the structure still remains enigmatic. Although it is thought to have been funded by Chaucer’s grand-daughter, the widow of the 1st Duke of Suffolk, in the later 15th century, no corroborating historical evidence has yet been discovered. Yet her extreme wealth would certainly make her a prime candidate as the benefactor. Stylistically the Market Cross is typical of the 15th century, although, if Rimmer is correct, a third storey was originally planned but never completed, and the pinnacle surmounting the structure fails to conform to the usual high standard of medieval architectural geometry. The ground plan is also out of kilter, as the sides are uneven. Nonetheless, the Cross would have fulfilled its purpose and provided a focal point for numerous civic and religious activities in the town. It’s place in the community was clearly secure as it was even able to survive the iconoclastic instincts of the Parliamentarians in the 17th century. Of particular interest for this study was the origin(s) of the building stone used at different times and for different features of the structure. This and the nature of some of the later repairs has been clarified to a limited extent by the petrological analysis of the stone and close inspection of the structure from a cherry picker. However, not all of the queries have been resolved at this stage, due to the budgetary constraints impacting the surveying and analysis and the lack of detailed works accounts. What has been resolved is that the main body of the Market Cross is built of Wheatley and Headington Stone from Oxfordshire, and the statues were carved out of a local sandstone commonly known as Carstone. The stone used for the back of the niches appears to be of Totternhoe Stone, a light-coloured limestone that is found c.8kmsoutheast of Leighton Buzzard, which provided a fine colour contrast to the rich orangey brown of the statues. Blisworth Stone was used in the upper levels including the central pinnacle, and Weldon Stone of the Lincolnshire Limestone Group was used to build the parapet in 1900. More recent repairs have been carried out in Bath stone, although the rationale behind this choice is unclear as it fails to blend in with the other stone. The choice of the stone types used in the medieval period is of considerable interest, as this can indicate social, political and economic connections and inter-relationships at the time of construction. The use of local stone types is perfectly logical given the transport costs in the pre-industrial age. Salzman calculated that transporting stone more than 12 miles (19km) caused the transport costs to be higher than that of the stone (Salzman1997:119). Conversely, Jope showed that good quality stone could travel up to 50 miles in the medieval period (in Parsons 1990: 9). The mode of transport was of great importance, as river travel made carrying loads over a longer distance more economical than road transport; road transport was ten times more expensive (Jones 2000: 61). Various studies have been undertaken of the medieval road and river systems (e.g. |
