Surrey Archaeological Collections

Surrey Archaeological Society, 2003 (updated 2016)

Data copyright © Surrey Archaeological Society unless otherwise stated

This work is licensed under the ADS Terms of Use and Access.
Creative Commons License


Surrey Archaeological Society logo

Primary contact

Audrey Graham
Honorary Editor
Surrey Archaeological Society
Castle Arch
Guildford
Surrey
GU1 3SX
UK

Send e-mail enquiry

Resource identifiers

Digital Object Identifiers

Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) are persistent identifiers which can be used to consistently and accurately reference digital objects and/or content. The DOIs provide a way for the ADS resources to be cited in a similar fashion to traditional scholarly materials. More information on DOIs at the ADS can be found on our help page.

Citing this DOI

The updated Crossref DOI Display guidelines recommend that DOIs should be displayed in the following format:

https://doi.org/10.5284/1000221
Sample Citation for this DOI

Surrey Archaeological Society (2016) Surrey Archaeological Collections [data-set]. York: Archaeology Data Service [distributor] https://doi.org/10.5284/1000221

Cradlers, Leatherhead: a 14th century timber-framed house

JOHN BLAIR

The house known in the late Middle Ages as Cradlers stands on the north side of Leatherhead High Street (nos 33-35), on one of a series of burgage-like crofts which bear the marks of medieval planning.' Its descent as a copyhold of Thorncroft manor call be traced from 1527, and it was presumably one of the unidentifiable villein tenements in the town which appear in Thorncroft court rolls from the 1270s onwards. In 1975 a historical and architectural account appeared in the Proceedings of the Leatherhead and District Local History Society. Stripping of the frame during refurbishment in 1985-6 has, however, revealed several new features, notably passing-braces in the walls and a trait-de Jupiter scarf-joint which together suggest a date in the 13th or 14th century. The unusual plan-form of the building can also be better understood. In view of its importance, full re-publication seems justified. This account is, however, confined to the original timber-frame, as the 17th and 18th century work (mostly now destroyed) is fully described in the 1975 paper.

<< back