Peculiar

Acrylic-bob · 15-10-2004, 13:51

Here's an interesting architectural oddity, seen from two slightly different angles. Any Ideas about what, where and why?

simon · 15-10-2004, 13:57

Church kirk...?

Acrylic-bob · 15-10-2004, 15:13

Ok I'll give you that one Simon, have a coconut. but what about the rest of it? Why is only this corner of the building treated in this way. It looks a bit like the thing on the warehouse next to the Commercial.

WillowTheWhisp · 15-10-2004, 18:51

Could it be that something needs to get close to the wall?

Doug · 16-10-2004, 12:39

It's undercut to take a memorial plaque.

Darby · 16-10-2004, 13:36

Or a spot where a sculpture of (say) an angel could be placed? or a Gargoyle? (not you A-Bob). Nice piccys though!

WillowTheWhisp · 16-10-2004, 15:22

I'd have expected a proper niche for an angel, and a gargoyle would be higher up.

It needs a bit of serious thinking does this one.

Darby · 18-10-2004, 08:43

The only other thing I could think of was that it is to prevent erosion at the bottom of the wall, by overhanging the lower level?

Yes ..........Gargoyles are normally on the edge of the roof or parapet. But I've seen some walking down town!!

WillowTheWhisp · 18-10-2004, 08:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darby

Yes ..........Gargoyles are normally on the edge of the roof or parapet. But I've seen some walking down town!!

...............................

Acrylic-bob · 18-10-2004, 08:56

It certainly is a puzzler, since it only occurs on one corner of the entire building. It is on a part of the building that forms the late 18th century extension. To my mind there are two possibilities here and both involve avoiding something; (a) it is to avoid an existing grave. (b) it is to avoid something else already in situ.

The grave theory is a bit suspect since it would have been entirely reasonable to move the grave to make way for the foundations.

The second theory allows only one other possibility; the site of the Holy Well.

WillowTheWhisp · 18-10-2004, 09:01

Don't you know either A-b? O was expecting you to come back and put us all out of our misery.

I thought the Holy Well was supposed to be over by the wall. I must admit that I wouldn't have even wondered about the reason for this corner. I'd have just put it down to an architectural whim. I wonder if there are any records detailing the 'design' (for want of a better word)

Acrylic-bob · 18-10-2004, 09:43

Ah there you see Willow. Everything is done for a reason.

I too was of the impression that the well was by the Eastern wall. However, looking at the graves in that portion of the churchyard they are all from the 1830's onward. The earliest map I have seen is the 1845 OS map. Which shows the outline we see today.

There are Three different styles of building visible on the exterior of the church: the medieval tower, the 18th century nave, and the 19th century chancel. The latter two extend the church successively in an Eastern direction. Is it possible, do you think, that the portion of the churchyard from the end of the nave to the current churchyard wall is an addition and that the churchyard originally ended where the current chancel begins. If so, this would place the architectural anomaly against the eastern wall.

Acrylic-bob · 18-10-2004, 14:56

Right, I'm intrigued now. So I popped along to the library and found just one source of information, all the rest is in the County Records office in Preston.

First, prior to the reconstruction of the nave in 1804, Church Kirk looked a lot like churches of Altham, Great Harwood and Whalley. (pic of Altham below). The new nave extended the church by 21feet to the east. At a later date, unspecified but after 1866, a chancel and a vestry were added. The chancel being to the east of the nave and the vestry being to the north of the nave (between the church and the canal). it is the Vestry which carries the anomaly.

As you will note from the photograph of the church taken in 1866, before the chancel was added, graves are up against the east end of the nave and would have had to be removed for the building of the chancel. So I think from this evidence that we can definately rule out avoiding existing graves as a reason for the anomaly.

In addition there is talk of a Roman Road, which exists some four feet below the present level of Dale Street and Lower Antley Street. It is assumed that it is by means of such roads that King Oswald travelled to Shropshire where he was killed in battle. His remains are said to have returned along the same route and probably rested in Church on the way.

The well, which is said to have been enclosed in the east wall of the church yard when the wall was built is named in documents drawn up as early as the thirteenth century (1200-1299 AD). There are two other wells dedicated to St. Oswald one in Winwick, Lancs, the other in Oswestry, Shropshire. These wells were held sacred and a stream of pilgrims constantly sought miraculous cures by drinking the water. This was the case at Winwick and Oswestry, presumably the same thing occurred at Church.

Tealeaf · 18-10-2004, 15:20

Quote:".... King Oswald travelled to Shropshire where he was killed in battle. His remains are said to have returned along the same route and probably rested in Church on the way. "
Cracking stuff, A-B.....especially the piccys's. The picture of Church in the 1860's is one I've never seen before, although I've seen a couple from the 1900's and later. I don't know about Oswald's remains being in Church on the way back from the battle of Maserfield in 642; He was of course, hacked to bits in the battle & I always thought the body bits ended up in Gloucester, with one arm surviving in perfect condition right up until the Reformation.

I still have'nt a clue about the wall design; I can't even work out if it's functional or ornamental.

Acrylic-bob · 18-10-2004, 16:27

The thing about Georgian architecture is it's symetry. The anomaly would be decorative if it were repeated on the opposite side of the building. But it exists in isolation, thus destroying the symetry of the elevation of which it is a part.

As to the eventual disposition of the remains of King Oswald the account I have read is wildly contradictory. He was either hacked to death and dismembered the parts being placed on stakes around the battlefield, or he was impaled on a tree, or he was nailed to a tree. Hence the name Oswestry, meaning 'Oswald's Tree'.
The body parts were recovered a year after the battle by his brother Oswy and transferred to Bamborough. The head was first buried at Lindisfarne and then went to Durham and was interred with the body of St.Cuthbert. In AD 696 the bones were transferred to Bardney in Lincolnshire, but the hand and arm blessed by St. Aidan were kept, uncorrupted, at Bamborough. Other body parts were recovered and buried at St Oswald's Priory in Gloucester. An Arm was at one time a treasured relic in Peterborough Cathedral.

Confusing huh?