Summary. Basilica shape, short perch dimensions, and resemblance to the early Brixworth Church indicate an Early Medieval date for a foundation found in 1854. If constructed c. 770, it would link to King Offa.
Hamlet drawing with dimensions
Hamlet drawing superimposed on the layout of the current cathedral
The architectural historian Robert Willis examined some of
the remains in August 1859, took measurements and published his findings in
1861.[2]
Robert Willis
Willis’s 1861
drawing of the choir-apse foundation with dimensions. The foundation was
internally 15.9 m (52 ft 3 in.) wide and 21.4 m (70 ft 1.5 in.) long. Both the
north and south walls measured 1.7 m (5 ft 8.5 in.) wide which gave a total
span for the choir-apse of 19.4 m (63 ft 8 in.). Willis measured the foundation
height as c. 1.8 m (6 ft). The black parts of the pillars were dated to
be ‘Early English’ and the pillars for the foundation church were either timber
and now lost or stone and incorporated within the Early English pillars.
The outer edges of the lateral
walls aligned closely with the bench tables of the present side aisles, with an
estimated gap of c. 7 in.[3] The
apse was perfectly semicircular, matching the width of the straight choir
walls—a basilical form unparalleled among surviving British cathedral
foundations but consistent with 8th–9th‑century Early Medieval churches.[4] The
foundation was described as: buff‑cream, dense, concrete‑like mortar, that was extremely
hard[5]; consisting
of rubble and mortar poured into a trench;[6] with
upper levels faced with rough ashlar over a poured concrete core; and devoid of
any dressed, uniform stone typical of post‑10th‑century Norman work. Absence of
Norman masonry[7]
characteristics is striking.
Photograph
taken 1994 of the foundation in the north choir aisle.
This foundation is similar with the early 7th‑century apse
at Rochester,[8]
the 9th‑century crypt at Wing, built of “rudest rubble masonry,”[9] the
foundations at Deerhurst, containing 5 ft or more of coursed rubble, and the
rubble‑built walls of Brixworth.[10]
AI rendition
of how the second cathedral looked
The Short Perch Grid: A diagnostic Early Medieval Metric
Archaeological work since the
1970s, including at Catholme, 8.5 km
from Lichfield, has demonstrated that Early Medieval buildings, c. 600–1020,
frequently used a short perch of 15 ft (4.57 m) as a measuring module.[11]
Thus, Catholme’s, c. 680–700, buildings align to a 4.57 m grid; a 15‑ft grid
appears in major churches across Kent, Northumbria, Mercia, and East Anglia
between 600–800; the metric reappears 950–1020 in manorial and settlement
planning and it disappears entirely thereafter. By contrast, a long perch (18
ft / 5.48 m) does not appear until introduced by the Normans in the 12th
century.[12]
Catholme showing alignment to a short perch grid. Thanks to
J. Blair[13].
St Pancras, Canterbury, 7th-century showing its dimensions on
a short perch grid and the remains of the early church.[14]
At least five short‑perch measurements are identifiable
in the foundation.
1. Choir–apse
length. The 75ft 1.5in. distance from the apse exterior to the choir west wall
equals 5 short perches
2. Internal
choir width. The 52ft 3in. internal apse width is 3.5 short perches minus 3in.
3. Cross‑distance
between drum columns. Columns are 30ft wide or 2 short perches.
4. Cross‑distance
between abutments on the choir west wall. This is again 30ft.
5. Distance
from choir west wall to apse chord. This is 45ft or 3 short perches.
The choir fits a 12‑perch grid, the apse an 8‑perch grid. Crucially,
no long‑perch 18‑ft measurement appears anywhere in the foundation. This complies
with an Early Medieval layout.
Apse with short perch gridding. The grid is drawn with 15 feet squares.
Wall thickness and structural reconstruction
No walling was recorded in 1854–61, so its thickness must be
inferred.[15]
Early Medieval walls are typically 2 ft 6 in.–3 ft, but exceptional examples
reach 3 ft 9 in.–3 ft 11 in., including: Deerhurst apse (3 ft 9 in.), South
Elmham nave (3 ft 10 in.), Brixworth (3 ft 4 in.–3 ft 10 in.), Northampton
palace (3 ft 11 in.), and Wenlock Priory (nearly 4 ft). The best fit for
Lichfield is 3 ft 11 in., it matches the wall of the rectangular chamber
abutting the apse. This suggests: foundation width = 1/3 short perch and wall
width = 1/4 short perch.[16] This
proportionality is unlikely to be coincidental.
Best fit short perch dimensions
for a possible wall.
Comparison with Brixworth Church
Rodwell argued pre‑Conquest churches often shared master‑plans
across regions.[17]
Brixworth, one of the largest surviving Early Medieval churches, aligns closely
with the short‑perch module[18]
and shares numerous proportional similarities with Lichfield:
|
Feature |
Brixworth |
Lichfield Second Cathedral |
|
Overall width |
c. 63 ft |
c. 63 ft |
|
Nave/inner apse span |
30 ft (2 short perches) |
30 ft (2 short perches) |
|
Choir/presbytery bay |
30 ft square |
30 ft square |
|
Apse + choir length |
c. 69 ft |
75 ft |
|
Ambulatory width |
7 ft 6 in. |
6–7 ft |
|
Wall thickness |
c. 3 ft 9–10 in. |
c. 3 ft 11 in. |
|
Rubble construction |
Yes |
Yes |
The distance between the inside edge of the piers at
Brixworth is the same as the estimated distance of the assumed piers inside the
current nave columns at Lichfield.[19] It is thought at Brixworth there was a
transverse wall with triple openings (a larger central choir-arch and two
lateral door-size openings) separating the nave from the choir bay. This
arrangement might have occurred at Lichfield.[20] Distance
between the nave and choir columns at Lichfield is almost 75 ft or 5 short
perches. It is not very different from Brixworth’s 22.8 m (75 ft) length for
the choir-apse. Plaster was evident at Brixworth and Willis thought it could
have been added externally to the apse at Lichfield.[21] Brixworth’s
date, late 8th or early 9th century, was fixed by radiocarbon dating of
charcoal in mortar.[22] There
are more parallels and too numerous to be coincidental.
Brixworth and
its short perch grid. Thanks to J. Blair14.
Historical Implications: Offa and the Mercian Basilica
Tradition
If Brixworth, late 8th–early 9th century, and Lichfield
share a master‑plan, then Lichfield’s second cathedral likely belongs to the
same Mercian basilica tradition, which includes: Brixworth, Cirencester, Deerhurst,
and Wing,[23]
These churches have walls over 3 ft thick, often include apses c. 4 ft thick, exhibit
basilical layouts and date broadly to 730–867[24] This
aligns perfectly with the period of King Offa, 757–796. Offa established an
archbishopric at Lichfield in 787, elevating it above Canterbury.
The apse is perfectly semicircular, extremely wide, without
chapels or buttresses, basilical in form and is unmatched in English Norman
cathedrals. A comparison shows no equivalent.
Comparison with English Norman cathedrals
Rodwell suggested
parallels with Jumièges or Bernay, but these reconstructions are conjectural
and still do not match Lichfield’s proportions. A search of all Romanesque
churches, 800–1200, as described by Krautheimer[25]
and Conant[26]
has failed to find a close affinity with the apse at Lichfield with the early
build of Jumièges Abbey coming closest. There is a resemblance to St Denis
Abbey, located in a suburb of northern Paris[27].
Abbot Fulrad built a basilica church, dedicated c.775, with many
features modelled on St Peters in Rome. Partial excavation in 1938 by Crosby[28]
revealed a wooden roofed columnar basilica with a spacious adjunct extending a
little beyond the aisle walls, a lantern tower, a new kind of west end, and a
simple, short, apse extending from the east end.
Reconstructed Basilica of Saint-Denis, the earliest Carolingian Romanesque church. Nave and apse were 30 feet wide. The alignment of the crypt is unexplained and shape conjectured.
The suggestion is a monumental basilica‑style cathedral
would have been a fitting architectural expression of Mercian ecclesiastical dominance
and Offa’s ambitions,[29]
inspired by Carolingian models such as Fulrad’s Saint‑Denis (dedicated 775).[30]
AI rendition of statue of King Offa on the west front of the
cathedral.
Summary of why the Norman interpretation fails
Victorian scholars, bedazzled by the grandeur of Norman
cathedrals, assumed the massive foundation must be Norman; Early Medieval
builders were incapable of such monumental stonework. The metric is Early
Medieval, the construction is far more likely to be Early Medieval, the
proportions match Early Medieval basilicas, the absence of Norman masonry is
conspicuous and the layout is unlike any Norman cathedral in Britain. A second
cathedral by King Offa fits the tenuous history of the site, including the
context for the ‘Lichfield Angel’. More evidence is given in the post, ‘Lichfield,
Wells and Salisbury are post-Norman.’ Rodwell’s
proposed Norman date of 1085[31] given
in the 1980s and 90s does not account for the evidence and means a monumental
Norman cathedral lasted c. 125 years and was then totally demolished.
This
conclusion would be placed beyond doubt with a Radiocarbon Dating. The
foundation lies only 30 cm below the choir aisle floor. Two mortar samples
could be extracted easily and dated for approximately ~£2.5k.
[1] John Hamlet’s plan showed the position
of an old foundation is held in the Staffordshire Record Office LD 289/16. The
drawing has a few revisions with pen overlaying pencil. Willis’s notes are kept
in Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, MS 5042, with the title
‘Architectural drawings and notes of Lichfield Cathedral 1861 64’. Willis saw
only the south east part of the apse. The greatest amount of the foundation
wall was observed by Rawson and Hamlet in 1856 and 1860. Map reference for the
apse is SK1159 0978.
[2] R.
Willis, ‘On foundations of early buildings recently discovered in Lichfield
Cathedral’ The Archaeol. J. (1861) 18, 1–24. Willis visited the
Cathedral in 1849 to examine window tracery. In 1854, he was invited to forward
a drawing for the restoration of the choir area. Before publication Willis gave
a lecture reported in The Gentleman’s Magazine, March 1861, vol 210, 296‑300.
[3] ‘Seemed to lie’ was Willis’s phrase.
The gap between the lateral wall and cathedral wall was estimated to be c. 180
mm (7 in.). Hamlet’s drawing showed the bottom of the foundation was wider than
the top.
[4] It has also been found in smaller
churches, but often for one dimension, length or width, only.
[5] During the 1856 installation of heating
ducts, men had to force a way through concrete of ‘unusual hardness’. J. G.
Lonsdale, Recollections of work done in and upon Lichfield Cathedral from
1856—1894 (Lichfield 1895), 6.
[6] W. Rodwell, ‘An interim report on
archaeological excavations in the south quire aisle of Lichfield Cathedral’,
(Unpub. report held in Lichfield Cathedral Library 1992b),
[7] H. M. Taylor and J. Taylor, Anglo-Saxon
architecture: vols I and II (Cambridge 1965), 7 and 1978, 756.
[8] G. M. Livett, ‘Foundations of the Saxon
Cathedral Church at Rochester’ Archaeologia Cantiana (1889) 18, 264.
[9] A.W. Clapham, English Romanesque
architecture (Oxford 1930), 156.
[10] H. M. Taylor, Anglo-Saxon
architecture: vol III (Cambridge 1978), 761 and 964.
[11] J. Blair, ‘Grid planning in Anglo-Saxon
settlements: the short perch and the four perch module’, in H. Hamerow ed., Anglo-Saxon studies in Archaeology and
History, 18 (Oxford 2013), 54 and J. Blair, Building Anglo-Saxon England (Princeton and Oxford 2018), 71,
149.
[12] H. Braun, An introduction to English Medieval architecture 2nd ed. (London
1968), 71.
[13] J. Blair (2018) 160. See note 11...
[14] J. Blair (2013), 24. See note 11.
[15] Pre-Conquest walls are seldom as much
as 3 ft in thickness and are more often nearer 2 ft 6 in.; whereas Norman walls
are seldom less than 3 ft thick. However, there are exceptional Anglo-Saxon
walls..
[16] This correlation applies to the apse
foundation, but not the foundation under the choir which varies in width. The
south foundation is wider than the north foundation and is probably because the
ground slopes southwards.
[17] W. Rodwell, ‘Anglo-Saxon church
building: aspects of design and construction’, in L. A. S. Butler and R. K.
Morris eds., The Anglo-Saxon Church.
Research Report 60, The Council for British Archaeology (1986), 157.
[18] See note 11, J. Blair, (2013), 26.
[19] The distance between the inner faces of
the Romanesque column foundations under the floor of the nave were slightly
narrower than the present columns.
[20] There are two pier bases on the choir
west wall drawn on Hamlet’s 1856 drawing
[21] H. M. Taylor, Anglo-Saxon architecture:
vol III (Cambridge 1978) 1063. Taylor had little doubt that most
Anglo-Saxon churches were plastered inside and outside.
[22]
D. Parsons and D. S. Sutherland, The
Anglo-Saxon Church of All Saints, Brixworth; Northamptonshire: Survey,
excavation and analysis, 1972—2010 (Oxford 20.
[23] E. Fernie, The architecture of the Anglo-Saxons (New York 1983), 64–5.
[24] E. Gilbert, ‘Brixworth and the English
Basilica’ in Art Bulletin, (1965)
vol 47, 1, 14. Gilbert concluded English basilicas were erected between 730 and
867.
[25] R. Krautheimer, R. Early Christian and Byzantine architecture. (Harmondsworth:
1965).
[26] K. J. Conant, Carolingian
and Romanesque architecture, 800–1200. (New Haven and London: 1978).
[27] The old church, c. 475,
resembled Wilfrid’s church at Hexham according to Clapham (Oxford: 1930).
[28] S. M. Crosby, The Royal Abbey of
Saint-Denis from its beginnings to the death of Suger, 475–1151. (New Haven
and London: 1987).
[29] S. Shaw, The history and antiquities of Staffordshire: vol I (London
1798), 234; J. Jackson, History of the
City and Cathedral of Lichfield (London 1805), 73–74 and T. Harwood, The history and antiquities of the church
and city of Lichfield (London 1806), 7.
[30] Gilbert 1965, 1, suggested Brixworth
church was contemporary with Fulrad’s Saint-Denis church.
[31] Rodwell fixed a start of build in 1085
and described it as Norman Romanesque in style. Fragments of moulded masonry
identified as Romanesque were found, Rodwell 1992a, 29; R. K. Morris, ‘The
lapidary collections of Lichfield Cathedral’, in J. Maddison ed., 13th
Medieval Archaeology and Architecture at Lichfield (Leeds: The British
Archaeological Association 1993), 101–108; Rodwell 1994, 29.