BARLICK. EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN
Posted: 18 Feb 2026, 03:02
BARLICK. EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN
Written 6 September 2000
The great divide between the hunter-gatherer cultures and settled agriculture occurred some time about 2000/3000BCE in England. I’m not certain of this date but at this point it doesn’t matter. What matters is that until this culture shift occurred there was very little need for fixed settlement in a nomadic life. The advent of agriculture changed all this and introduced fundamental concepts like land ownership, boundaries and frequently used transport routes between settlements. It is from this point that we develop our habitation, field system and transport patterns.
What’s this got to do with Barlick? Well, the clue is in a very practical aspect of enclosing a piece of land. The shortest line to enclose the maximum amount of land is a perfect circle. It follows that a man wanting to enclose a field with little resource is going to use curved lines for the boundary. The Celtic settlers knew this and the shape and size of their enclosures is a very good clue. Another fact about boundaries that works well for us is that once set and hemmed in by later enclosures, these old boundaries survive right up to the present day.
Example: The bends in the road at Hollin Hall below Pasture Lane on the old route across to Barrowford can only be explained by the fact that the road was following the line of an existing boundary. It follows that if we look on the map for either small, irregular shaped field boundaries or winding roads we are looking at evidence of early settlement.
The road pattern from Upper Hill down to the modern centre of Barlick through Townhead and the winding start to Esp Lane are perfect examples of this. These roads are the original roads of the district and pre-date mediaeval times. They are evidence that boundaries existed before the roads and therefore are prime source evidence of very early settlement.
The surviving field pattern from Bancroft down into Barlick is composed of small irregular shaped fields. Looking at the map, as soon as you come to the change between these small fields and paddocks and the straight lines of the upper fields you know you have crossed the boundary into the later enclosures of the 16th and early 19th centuries. This can lead to the mistaken idea that none of the little side roads like Moor Lane or Folly (Old name Moor Gate Road) or Esp Lane are of great age because they were put in later to give access to the enclosures. This is wrong, the names of the roads give the game away. There had to be access from the settlement to the moor or waste, which was the common land. All these small side roads leading up the hill were for this purpose. Notice that the farms they pass have early boundary characteristics. Gillians and Lane Bottom are good examples of how the ‘Fold’ pattern of development started on these roads most likely because of the presence of a paved road, water and access to employment. I think the crucial factor was that being outside the main settlement access to land for building was cheaper, easier and didn't lose any of the ‘modern’ benefits.
Inside this pattern of old roads is a sub pattern of very localised development that denotes age, Townhead is a good example. Look at the jumble of buildings and by-ways around the junction of what is now Colne Road and Esp Lane, this isn’t planning, it's organic development. A similar example is the complex of buildings surrounding the old Baptist Chapel that is now a junk shop. You’ll find plenty more if you look carefully.
Within this sub-pattern is the evidence of the buildings themselves. Here we have what seems to be a problem, none of the buildings date from before the mid 17th century but we know the roads are far older. How can we explain this? Some of the explanation is undoubtedly infill of sites later than the development of the road pattern. A small farm or paddock could have been built on and I suspect that this explanation covers perhaps 80% of the existing build. However, what this means is that there is a good chance that some of the remaining buildings must be rebuilds. Paradoxically, these are more likely to be the latest buildings because they would be rebuilt at a time of prosperity, most likely mid 17th to mid 18th century. These must occupy the original pre-medieval footprint.
For an extreme example of this, look down Long Ing Lane at the site of the modern telephone exchange. This was built about twenty years ago and would hardly be a first choice for historical evidence of early settlement. Look at the field pattern and then go back to the earlier maps and the documented history, you'll find that the building that preceded the exchange was a barn. This is the barn that was used by the Baptists after the schism in the Barlick church following the building of Bethesda (Now David Crosley House). This is interesting enough but look at the name of the barn on the old map, it was called ‘New Laithe’. This strongly suggests it replaced something else. I’d lay good money that this was the site of an earlier farmstead that was subsumed into one of the other farms in the area and decayed. It would take either a lot of effort or some amazing luck to actually prove this but my point is that we should trust the evidence on the ground and feel confident enough to draw conclusions.
We are allowed to draw conclusions from the evidence of old road patterns and field boundaries. If this can give a case in respect of a twenty year old building, how much stronger is it when you look at something like patterns in Townhead and Walmsgate? Before the 17th century vernacular buildings were almost all timber. I know there is a timber mullion in one of the houses further down the hill from Townhead which has survived by accident. This is certain evidence of a far earlier build of a low status building in the area. The question we have to allow ourselves to explore is how much more of this was there? I would expect, from the pattern of the buildings, that there was earlier development at Townhead and on Esp Lane. Are these almost all rebuilds of timber houses? Just because something has gone doesn’t mean it was never there. It would be a far greater leap of faith to say that there were no earlier buildings than to accept that there is a possibility that there were some.
6 September 2000
Written 6 September 2000
The great divide between the hunter-gatherer cultures and settled agriculture occurred some time about 2000/3000BCE in England. I’m not certain of this date but at this point it doesn’t matter. What matters is that until this culture shift occurred there was very little need for fixed settlement in a nomadic life. The advent of agriculture changed all this and introduced fundamental concepts like land ownership, boundaries and frequently used transport routes between settlements. It is from this point that we develop our habitation, field system and transport patterns.
What’s this got to do with Barlick? Well, the clue is in a very practical aspect of enclosing a piece of land. The shortest line to enclose the maximum amount of land is a perfect circle. It follows that a man wanting to enclose a field with little resource is going to use curved lines for the boundary. The Celtic settlers knew this and the shape and size of their enclosures is a very good clue. Another fact about boundaries that works well for us is that once set and hemmed in by later enclosures, these old boundaries survive right up to the present day.
Example: The bends in the road at Hollin Hall below Pasture Lane on the old route across to Barrowford can only be explained by the fact that the road was following the line of an existing boundary. It follows that if we look on the map for either small, irregular shaped field boundaries or winding roads we are looking at evidence of early settlement.
The road pattern from Upper Hill down to the modern centre of Barlick through Townhead and the winding start to Esp Lane are perfect examples of this. These roads are the original roads of the district and pre-date mediaeval times. They are evidence that boundaries existed before the roads and therefore are prime source evidence of very early settlement.
The surviving field pattern from Bancroft down into Barlick is composed of small irregular shaped fields. Looking at the map, as soon as you come to the change between these small fields and paddocks and the straight lines of the upper fields you know you have crossed the boundary into the later enclosures of the 16th and early 19th centuries. This can lead to the mistaken idea that none of the little side roads like Moor Lane or Folly (Old name Moor Gate Road) or Esp Lane are of great age because they were put in later to give access to the enclosures. This is wrong, the names of the roads give the game away. There had to be access from the settlement to the moor or waste, which was the common land. All these small side roads leading up the hill were for this purpose. Notice that the farms they pass have early boundary characteristics. Gillians and Lane Bottom are good examples of how the ‘Fold’ pattern of development started on these roads most likely because of the presence of a paved road, water and access to employment. I think the crucial factor was that being outside the main settlement access to land for building was cheaper, easier and didn't lose any of the ‘modern’ benefits.
Inside this pattern of old roads is a sub pattern of very localised development that denotes age, Townhead is a good example. Look at the jumble of buildings and by-ways around the junction of what is now Colne Road and Esp Lane, this isn’t planning, it's organic development. A similar example is the complex of buildings surrounding the old Baptist Chapel that is now a junk shop. You’ll find plenty more if you look carefully.
Within this sub-pattern is the evidence of the buildings themselves. Here we have what seems to be a problem, none of the buildings date from before the mid 17th century but we know the roads are far older. How can we explain this? Some of the explanation is undoubtedly infill of sites later than the development of the road pattern. A small farm or paddock could have been built on and I suspect that this explanation covers perhaps 80% of the existing build. However, what this means is that there is a good chance that some of the remaining buildings must be rebuilds. Paradoxically, these are more likely to be the latest buildings because they would be rebuilt at a time of prosperity, most likely mid 17th to mid 18th century. These must occupy the original pre-medieval footprint.
For an extreme example of this, look down Long Ing Lane at the site of the modern telephone exchange. This was built about twenty years ago and would hardly be a first choice for historical evidence of early settlement. Look at the field pattern and then go back to the earlier maps and the documented history, you'll find that the building that preceded the exchange was a barn. This is the barn that was used by the Baptists after the schism in the Barlick church following the building of Bethesda (Now David Crosley House). This is interesting enough but look at the name of the barn on the old map, it was called ‘New Laithe’. This strongly suggests it replaced something else. I’d lay good money that this was the site of an earlier farmstead that was subsumed into one of the other farms in the area and decayed. It would take either a lot of effort or some amazing luck to actually prove this but my point is that we should trust the evidence on the ground and feel confident enough to draw conclusions.
We are allowed to draw conclusions from the evidence of old road patterns and field boundaries. If this can give a case in respect of a twenty year old building, how much stronger is it when you look at something like patterns in Townhead and Walmsgate? Before the 17th century vernacular buildings were almost all timber. I know there is a timber mullion in one of the houses further down the hill from Townhead which has survived by accident. This is certain evidence of a far earlier build of a low status building in the area. The question we have to allow ourselves to explore is how much more of this was there? I would expect, from the pattern of the buildings, that there was earlier development at Townhead and on Esp Lane. Are these almost all rebuilds of timber houses? Just because something has gone doesn’t mean it was never there. It would be a far greater leap of faith to say that there were no earlier buildings than to accept that there is a possibility that there were some.
6 September 2000