We had found it quite difficult since Monday to find the cut of the ditches from the natural, despite the clarity of their profile from outside of the trenches. While we had the JCB back on site, we thought it would be worthwhile to cut a little deeper into the ditch cuts on both Trench 1 and Trench 2 to determine more about them and their relationship to each other. Certainly, in Trench 1, we seem to have been able to find the extent of the cut and were able to record its measurements and draw sketches which will help us better interpret the nature of the earthworks as a whole. From this, it would appear that the mound was predominantly natural but had been reworked with an accompanying ditch cut around its perimeter.
Again, with the aid of our JCB, we set to work backfilling the two trenches and making sure that the site was returned as much to the state it had been in prior to our arrival. After the welfare unit had been collected, we packed up the car with our equipment, and ensured that the finds would be safely transported back to the office ready for the next phase of our project. We also had a visit from the farmer who was able to point out some other features on the broader site that he had been aware, including a much smaller mound to the north in the adjacent field which had existed until it had been ploughed out some years before.
Now that the fieldwork has been completed, we hope to bring you more information in the coming weeks about what we have found. We are hoping that the picture will become clearer in the post-excavation phase, but Newhouse has undoubtedly proven to be a site even more intriguing than we had first thought it to have been.
Figure 1: Digging deeper into the ditch cut in Trench 1Figure 2: The ditch profile in Trench 1Figure 3: Trench 1 and Trench 2 were both backfilled before the end of the day
Dr Ryan Prescott updates us on what happened on day four of their dig
Today we have resumed our efforts in Trench 1.
The two features that garnered our attention in day three required more investigation, so we set to work to try and find the underlying cause of what was going on. We had managed to recover the pot from Trench 1 yesterday, and it remains safely packed for analysis but today we focused on the feature in the centre of the trench where the piece of leather had been found. At first, it seemed that the find had been sitting on a bed of charcoal. However, upon closer inspection (and much more digging!) it revealed to be a deposit of textile material which has remarkably survived and will provide a fantastic source of dating evidence, together with the pot. Small fragments of medieval pottery were also identified in both Trench 1 and Trench 2, as well as further pieces of flint and small animal bone.
Before the end of the day, we also had a visit from the Lincolnshire Historic Environment Record, as well as Peter Connelly from Humber Field Archaeology and showed our visitors what we had found so far. We have all been sharing our interpretations on what we believe may have happened at Newhouse and we have all agreed that the site is far more complex than anticipated. Previous research on the site had only acknowledged its medieval history, chiefly the construction of the abbey on the site of an ‘Anarchy’ period castle. However, it does seem that the mound may have had a much longer pedigree of human occupation which would have been an attractive prospect for Peter of Goxhill who was only too aware of the castles and monasteries which were being founded by nearby lords at Barrow and Barton upon Humber, and was keen to emulate their efforts. We are hoping that the picture will become clearer in the post-excavation phase, but Newhouse certainly has an important story to tell.
We have one more day to wrap up our work at Newhouse for this year, but we have much more work to do before we leave site, so it is shaping up to be a busy day.
Dr Ryan Prescott gives an update on what happened on days two and three.
Day Two
Day two of our investigations at Newhouse has seen us focus our efforts on Trench 2.
We spent the morning cleaning the trench and it became apparent that we were looking at two possible post holes nearer the eastern ditch of the earthwork. These were cleaned and carefully dug into before recording was then completed.
On our first day we had unearthed a masonry slab and today we excavated around it to see if there were any other adjoining slabs. Unfortunately, it proved to have been an isolated example. It has been worked with a distinct curve, suggesting it may have been part of a doorway, likely part of the later abbey structures. Though it does not seem to have been in its original context. Nonetheless, it is a nice example which will help us date the activity on the site and build up a chronology. This is especially important as nothing from the abbey remains on the surface of the entirety of the field where we are based. This was one of the key aims of the project.
Figure 1: Two possible post holes in Trench 2Figure 2: A masonry slab
Day Three
We are grateful to be finally benefiting from some much-needed sun. In good spirits, we returned on our third day to Trench 1 and were keen to see what the day would bring.
Trench 1 was cleaned up and like in Trench 2, leaving it exposed over the past couple of days had really helped bring some features to light. After clearing a modern rubbish dump of bricks in the southern corner of the trench within the topsoil, we began working on a couple of areas of interest. Day one had revealed some pottery shards, and it became clear that there was more beneath the surface. After trowelling where the shards had been uncovered on Monday, we found the remains of a larger pot. Excitingly, the pot seems to be largely intact but appears to be older than the known history of the site. We also explored a potential feature in the centre of the trench where the soil appeared darker. After much digging, we discovered what appears to have been a small piece of leather, an incredible find. We recorded these two finds and importantly, safely transported them back to the site entrance before they are taken to Humberfield Archaeology for further analysis when the fieldwork has been completed.
Stay tuned to see us progress our work in Trench 1 on day 4 of our excavations at Newhouse.
Figure 3: The remains of a potFigure 4: A small piece of leather recovered from Trench 1
Ryan Prescott gives an update on what happened on the first day of digging at Newhouse
The first day of our excavations at Newhouse has provided some promising results already. This week we are excavating two trenches across the earthwork identified last year from geophysical survey (please look at our aims for this year on the CST Blog).
Trench 1 was swiftly opened with the aid of our JCB. It was hoped that this trench would help corroborate twelfth-century sources that a castle had existed prior to Newsham Abbey, founded here during ‘the Anarchy’. This trench was excavated diagonally from the west to the south-east of the earthwork in order to cut across two of its sides. However, we decided to extend our work in this trench with a perpendicular channel to the southern boundary. At a length of over 40m and 2m wide, the trench has yielded large quantities of flint, some of which appears to have been worked. We have also recovered evidence of burning and pottery finds which we will investigate further as the week progresses.
Figure 1: Trench 1 looking south.
To provide more comprehensive insight into the nature of this three-sided earthwork, Trench 2 was dug across the eastern side of the raised platform and extends from its middle into the ditch on this side at a length of around 25m, slightly longer than initially planned. At first, this trench appeared to show little of interest. Undeterred, we decided to dig deeper into the ditch, and much like in Trench 1, it is clear from this that the earthwork would have been higher than the remains which are left behind. We plan to dig deeper into this later in the week. We cleaned the rest of this trench and discovered a masonry slab, hoping to have a better view of any potential finds and features on our second day when we return to focus on this trench.
Figure 2: Trench 2 looking west with a view of the masonry slab found there.Figure 3: The ditch being opened up in Trench 2 looking east
We are excited to see what the second day of the excavations reveals and will be posting updates as soon as we can.
Dr Ryan Prescott, project lead looks at what they hope to find at the excavations at Newhouse.
The reign of King Stephen, 1135 – 1154, commonly referred to as ‘the Anarchy,’ was marked by purported political turmoil and discord. Against this backdrop for the struggle for the throne, medieval chroniclers wrote of a surge in castle-building, seemingly in defiance of royal authority. While recent scholarship has since begun to reassess many aspects of Stephen’s reign, the archaeological dimension of these castles remains largely unexplored.
With the support of the Castle Studies Group Small Projects Fund, a geophysical survey was carried out in the Spring of 2023 to investigate Newhouse Castle, known to have been built in North Lincolnshire amidst the conflict between King Stephen and the Empress Matilda. However, soon after its initial construction, contemporary sources indicate that the site of Peter of Goxhill’s castle was repurposed to establish a monastery, becoming England’s first Premonstratensian House, continuing to prosper until finally suppressed in 1536.
Figure 1: The results of geophysical survey conducted at Newhouse in 2023, funded by the Castle Studies Group.
On face value, the transient nature of the castle at Newhouse is typical of what we have come to recognise for ‘the Anarchy’ period, leaving much unknown about its characteristics, completion, or intended purpose. Through planned excavations made possible by a grant from the Castle Studies Trust, Dr Ryan Prescott and Humberfield Archaeology seek to achieve several key objectives in the summer of 2024:
Unearthing the Past: This phase of the project involves excavating the earthwork identified through geophysical survey. By examining the physical remnants of Newhouse, we hope to be able to provide evidence for its construction, size, and layout. This is a crucial step when profiling the site and attempting to determine the reasons why it was first built.
Dating Evidence: While historical documents offer some insights into Newhouse’s timeline, the lack of firm dating evidence leaves much to speculation. With two trial trenches planned across the monument, we aim to establish a more accurate chronology of the site, bridging the gap between written records and the physical evidence. This remains a key issue with all sites contemporary to ‘the Anarchy’ and where possible, we hope to be able to address this through the archaeological remains.
From Castle to Abbey: One of the most intriguing aspects of Newhouse is its rapid transition from a castle to an abbey. Through an examination of the archaeological evidence and various buried deposits present at the site, we hope to learn more about the structural changes which accompanied this transformation. Understanding how and why Newhouse evolved into Newsham Abbey is essential when interpreting the socio-political landscape of North Lincolnshire.
Contextual Analysis: Newhouse does not exist in isolation; it is part of a broader network of castles and religious foundations in North Lincolnshire and the Humber. By comparing Newhouse with nearby sites including the castles at Barrow upon Humber and Barton upon Humber, we aim to gain insights into the regional dynamics of lordly power during ‘the Anarchy’. How did these sites interact, compete, or cooperate in the midst of political instability? These are just some of the questions we hope to answer.
Figure 2: View of the earthwork at Newhouse looking south.
As we now enter the excavation phase at Newhouse, we will continue share our progress through blog posts, video updates, and our excavation findings when the work has been completed. We hope that our research at Newhouse will contribute to a deeper understanding of ‘the Anarchy’, and provide a much-needed local perspective into how lesser magnates, like Peter of Goxhill, expressed their wealth, power, and status through castle-building and religious patronage.
In Week Fourth and final week of the Lowther Medieval Castle and Village Project 2024, the team moved into the UCLan labs. This crucial phase allows us to draw together the evidence we’ve collected last year and this, from the recording of trenches to the analysis of soil samples.
A major part of this process is the transfer of trench plans onto a Geographic Information System (GIS). During excavations, the dig team thoroughly recorded the contents of trenches in situ. This included the painstaking task of drawing the cobbled surfaces found inside the ringwork castle at 1:20 scale. Now, these hand drawings are transferred to the GIS and the outline of every cobblestone is traced digitally so that the archaeological contexts within the trenches be plotted with pinpoint accuracy.
Figure 1 Both last year and this, student archaeologists painstakingly recorded by hand the contents of all trenchesFigure 2 With hand drawings of trenches transferred to the project GIS, each component of the drawing needs to be traced digitally
Meanwhile, the team is also plotting onto the GIS hundreds of data points from around the ringwork castle taken using a Global Positioning System (GPS). This allows us to create a three-dimensional digital model of the ringwork castle, in order to investigate its form and plot the positioning and contents of trenches from this year and last, building up our picture of the castle, its features and finds.
Figure 3 Taking hundreds of data points via the GPS enables the team to construct a 3D digital model of the ringwork castleFigure 4 Trenches from both phases of excavation can be plotted onto the 3D model of the ringwork castle using the GIS
While one cohort of student archaeologists has been busy in the computer labs, another has been hard at work processing soil samples. Throughout the excavation, the team has been collecting bulk soil samples of 40 litres from all trenches. These samples have now been processed using water flotation, in order to recover charred plant remains, as well as small bones and artefacts. This has so far yielded environmental evidence such as tiny snail shells, which can be analysed to reconstruct the surrounding environment at the time the ringwork castle was built.
Figure 5 Dozens of soil samples have been processed using water flotationFigure 6 Soil sample processing yields environmental evidence, such as tiny snail shells
Now that Phase Two investigations are drawing to a close, the team has also been able to take stock of the small finds garnered this year. As discussed in our last Dig Diary, this year’s finds have included cockle shells and gritty ware pottery, both of which will help us to date the castle and trace activity at Lowther in the Middle Ages. This builds on intriguing earlier finds this year of animal bones, including an articulated fetlock (discussed in our first Dig Diary this year). We can now add to this a bone bead, small but delicately carved, which looks to be dateable to the Middle Ages.
Figure 7 A small carved bone bead found during this year’s excavation
Work on analysing these finds – and the broader phase of analysis – is ongoing, and will be compiled into the project’s second interim report in due course.
Berkeley Castle Project Excavation Director Dr Stuart Prior takes a look at one of the many interesting discoveries made during the dig which is part of a new book looking at 15 years of excavation.
Between 2005 and 2019 the Berkeley Castle Project (BCP), conducted by University of Bristol, carried out excavations and survey work at Berkeley Castle, which have led to the publication of a new book. Excavations in 2015, of Trench 19, were able to gain insight into the early origins of the castle and the donjon that was constructed when the castle was built in stone by Robert FitzHarding in 1153–1154.
It was originally believed that the first stone castle erected at Berkeley comprised a circular shell keep, but the BCP was able to shed new light on this aspect of the site’s past and its architectural evolution. In a Castle Studies Group Bulletin (CSG Bulletin 18, 2014), Neil Guy suggested that the castle may have had a square or rectangular donjon or keep that may have been modified as the basis for the Thorpe Tower by Thomas [III] Berkeley (1292–1361). Trench 19 was designed to look for evidence of the north-west corner and west wall of this postulated donjon. The argument here was that Thorpe Tower was not wholly created ‘as new’ in the 14th century but was instead a part-relic structure arising from a 1340s re-modelling of the 12th century castle. Namely, two corners and one side of a square donjon which abutted the north side of the ‘motte’, and for which the shell-keep encasing the motte was an inner (and elevated or upper) bailey.
Figure 1: Plan view of Trench 19 showing heavily robbed-out building foundations copyright Berkeley Castle Project
The archaeological remains observed in Trench 19 (Fig. 1) appear to demonstrate the presence of a heavily robbed-out building with structures of two later phases overlying it (Fig. 2). The orientation of the first structural phase (contexts 1912 and 1916) and the robber trench (context 1908) associated with it is in alignment with the south-facing elevation of Thorpe Tower. This orientation suggests that this first phase was associated with, and presumably connected to, Thorpe Tower. It is probable, therefore, that context 1912 represents a heavily robbed wall which is comparable, and most likely contemporary with, wall J3, identified by the 8th Earl, who was an amateur archaeologist, which extended from the northern elevation of Thorpe Tower (TBGAS, 1927, vol.49, 183-93 & 1938, vol.60, 308-39).
Figure 2 – Location of proposed donjon overlying plan of 8th Earl’s excavations. Copyright Berkeley Castle Project
It appears then that the shell-keep and Thorpe Tower are of a single phase, most likely dating to the mid-12th century. While there is no evidence currently that contexts 1912, 1916 and wall J3 are contemporary with this primary construction phase, it must be noted that the wall (1911) overlaid context 1912 and re-used some of its stone. Further to the evidence from Trench 19, the rear wall of this fortification can still be seen, incorporated into the castle’s later form (Figs. 3 & 4).
Figure 3 – 17th century painting by Dankerts showing original height of donjon along with remnant of projecting wall (heading north towards church).Figure 4 – Aerial view of Berkeley showing reduced height of donjon; and with addition of 18th century laundry attached to north. Copyright Berkeley Castle Project
Accompanying the donjon, there are several medieval documents that record the cutting of moats around Berkeley Castle. In The Cartulary of St Augustine’s Abbey, Bristol, an entry made between 1171 and 1190 records a grant made by Maurice de Berkeley [I] to St Augustine’s of a rent of 5s from his mill below the castle, some tithes of pannage, and common pasture for a plough team ‘pro emendatione culpe mee de fossato quod feci de cimiterio de Berchel circa castellum meum’ (charter no. 78; Walker, 1998, 46–7), which roughly translated means ‘in recompense for my offence committed upon the cemetery of Berkeley in cutting a ditch around my castle’. This suggests that Maurice cut a moat around his castle, which encroached upon part of the cemetery, and he was subsequently fined for his actions. The grant is again confirmed sometime between 1190 and 1220 by Maurice’s son, Robert [II] (charter no. 119; ibid., 69–70).
During this period then, the castle comprised an ovoid shell-keep with adjacent forebuilding, the curtain wall of the inner ward and the Norman Great Hall, all wrapped around the skeleton of the earlier motte and bailey. Excavations carried out by the 8th Earl between 1917 and 1937 (TBGAS 1938, 321) demonstrated that the shell-keep was already adequately defended by a moat that ran around its base on the southwest, north-west and north-east sides – which may have encircled the earlier motte and bailey – and records show that Maurice [I] dug a deep moat around the south-east side of the castle, presumably to complete the defensive circuit, and diverted the Newport brook and others towards the castle to fill it.
Project lead, Dr Richard Tipping, looks back at the first of the two weeks of fieldwork he and Dr Eileen Tisdall are undertaking to try establish whether climate change did impact the re-positioning of Caerlaverock Castle.
Well, somewhat later than planned or advertised, the first week of fieldwork at the old castle at Caerlaverock began on 3rd July. It has been dated by oak tree rings from the drawbridge across the moat to c. AD1229. The new castle, a couple of hundred metres away and upslope, began construction only 50 years later. Why the rebuild? This is the mystery.
An image from a LiDAR survey, with the vegetation removed, showing the landscape and old coastline around the ‘old’ and ‘new’ castles at Caerlaverock
The natural environment played a role. Some archaeologists think the old castle started to fall apart because it was built on soft sediment, a deep clay-rich silt locally called ‘carse’. And sure enough, the new castle was built on the nearest outcrop of bedrock. But twenty years ago, a team of environmental archaeologists from the Universities of Stirling and Coventry found an additional reason for abandonment of the old castle. They found, in a wide ditch next to its moat, a thick layer of grey estuarine-marine mud penetrating the brown freshwater peat of the ditch. This suggested that very large storm surges impacted the environs of the old castle. Further work found very large gravel beach ridges, thrown up in these storms, stacked against the old shoreline.
That team included Dr Richard Tipping and Dr Eileen Tisdall from the University of Stirling. Now we are back to find more evidence and improve the dating of the sediments funded by the Castle Studies Trust, as Historic Environment Scotland, the custodians of both castles, seek to update what we know of Caerlaverock and improve the visitor experience.
Dr Tipping using the ‘simple’ corer to extract sediment cores
For a week, 3rd-10th July, Richard Tipping stuck tiny (2.5cm diameter) holes in sediments in the ditches and moat with a simple corer, a metre-long metal gutter with a handle on the end. Push it in, turn it around to cut out a sample and pull it out, together with a metre of sediment. Record the sediment and then repeat, usually in a straight line called a transect. He did this over 80 times in the week. Isn’t science exciting? It wasn’t too hard: the sediments in the ditches and moats are less than a metre thick before the ‘natural’, as archaeologists call it, the sterile silt of the ‘carse’. But because the sediments are so thin, and because we knew that they recorded a lot of environmental ‘events’ in a short period of time, logging the cores in detail took time. A challenge, too: there are only so many shades of grey or brown.
Dr Tipping logging the details of a sediment core
Coring started in the artificial ditch that runs parallel to the moat. This was where we first began, twenty years ago, to realise that something funny was going on; in fact, several funny things. Why, in the first place, dig a 60 m long, 3 m wide ditch alongside one side, and only one side, of the moat? Twenty years ago, radiocarbon dates on freshwater peat at the base of the ditch hinted that this ditch was actually earlier than the old castle, maybe 200 years earlier. We aim to clarify this. Coring found the same sediments we found last time, which is always reassuring. Peat at the base of the ditch was replaced by grey silt. This was sealed by more peat. There is more grey silt at the end of the ditch nearest the coast, although the upper layer penetrated the full 60 m length.
We could not understand, twenty years ago, the filling of the moat with sediment: too few boreholes, too far apart. This time, cores were spaced 1.5 to 3 m apart along a 40 m long line. Archaeologists generally excavate and record continuous sections. We can’t do this because the site is a Scheduled Monument, and besides, the sediment is under water (though this week mercifully dry underfoot), so we construct our section from transects of cores, ‘joining up the dots’ by correlation. For the first time we can show that the moat was probably affected by the same environmental impacts that hit the parallel ditch. This is only ‘probable’ because radiocarbon dating has yet to show the events are the same. But grey silt entered the moat from the coast, pushing up the moat, probably eroding earlier-formed peat but not penetrating the full length. At the end farthest from the coast, near the bridge, peat continued to form.
A line of flags showing the transect of boreholes in one arm of the moat, approaching the footbridge to the old Castle, itself precisely where the original drawbridge was.
Our cores also revealed two new aspects of moat construction. The first is that the constructors took a shortcut in making the moat. In two arms of the moat, they had incorporated natural stream channels in the moat, twice as deep as the rest of the moat. This was a way, of course, to ensure the moat was under water. But away from these channels, the ‘natural’ lay only 20-40 cm below the present sediment surface. If the water surface then was as it is now, the depth of water would have been barely above the knee. You might have waded to the castle rather than use the drawbridge.
Coring in parts of the moat also hit stone at shallow depths. The carse itself is stoneless, and so the stone was emplaced by people. Stabbing around with the corer revealed these stones to be large blocks. They are concentrated at one corner of the moat, nearest the coast. Maybe they were buttresses put in to strengthen the foundations of the castle, either as it started to subside, or maybe undermined by storm surges.
Now I’m thinking and planning the next part of the campaign, straightening my back, and hoping the insect bites subside: the joys of fieldwork. From 17th July we start again, for a week, away from the old castle and out onto the old beach ridges and the basins formed by them. In the early 2000s, tree-felling of Sitka spruce allowed us to see what we were doing. Now it’s a dense tangle of semi-natural oak woodland and not easy to move around in. Wish me luck!
Sara Cockerill, author of the recently published biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine, looks at her role in English castle development.
One of the areas which has stayed slightly “off-camera” as I have written about Eleanor is the question of her relationships with the castles of her era. The headlining castles built under Henry’s aegis show no signs of Eleanor’s input. More intriguing however, is her relationship with those castles which pre-dated Henry’s reign and which found themselves in need of a bit of TLC – not necessarily from a military point of view, but in order to function as homes as well as defences. Where this sort of work is concerned there seems to be some ground for tracing a link between Eleanor’s regencies and the initiation of refurbishment programmes.
To start with the most obvious example – the Tower. On Eleanor’s first arrival in London the Tower was uninhabitable, and the royal couple had to stay instead at Bermondsey Abbey. While it is clear that Henry II put Thomas Becket in charge of refurbishing the equally run down Palace of Westminster, money does not commence to be spent on the Tower until 1166 – during Eleanor’s regency, suggesting that she had some hand in the decisions as to its refurbishment. Quite what these were is of course a matter of some debate, but they included as well as defensive works, quasi domestic features, such as work to the chapel and living accommodation.
Another castle which came under Eleanor’s review is Berkhamsted – initially given to, and refurbished by Becket, it was transferred to Eleanor, who held the barony as part of her dower assignment, during the course of Henry’s quarrel with Becket, with the royal family spending Christmas of 1163 there; an event which involved numerous items of plate being sent from Westminster to dress the rooms to best advantage. In the years which follow, again during Eleanor’s regency, there is regular work noted in the accounts, on the “Kings houses” there, at the granary, the bridges – and the lodgings. Her interest in the property is further evidenced by her travelling to stay there as soon as she gained a greater measure of freedom in 1184, with the advent of her daughter Matilda, then in exile from Saxony. Eleanor and Matilda’s family seem to have spent the whole summer there. And finally – work stops on the castle just at the period when Eleanor departs to her retirement in Poitou. However even in retirement her steward for the Berkhamsted estate would travel to visit her at Fontevraud….
Berkhamsted Castle bailey from the motte including remains of buildings built in Eleanor’s regency
Other places where Eleanor was particularly at home and where her interest can be traced are Old Sarum (Salisbury) and Winchester – her main locations during her captivity. But everything suggests that she was sent there not because she disliked them, but rather the reverse. Both are places she positively chose to visit on more than one occasion as regent in the 1150s and 1160s. Winchester, of course, was Henry I’s main residence, and had benefitted from a constant programme of renewals ever since. Interestingly however its domestic architecture was thoroughly overhauled from the year after Eleanor arrived in England. In 1155–6 £14 10s. 8d. was paid for making the king’s house and the next year another £14 10s. was spent for work on just one chamber in the castle. In 1170 £36 6s. was paid, and in 1173 £56 13s. 1d. was paid for work on the king’s houses at Winchester and £48 5s. for work on the castle and provisioning it. Large sums of money were, interestingly paid for the King’s chapel, in the years when Eleanor was a frequent resident there in confinement. To this period too can be traced the first indications of development of the gardens. Old Sarum for its part had a residential area which was modern, having been built as recently as 1130 under the aegis of the then bishop. During Eleanor’s residence at Salisbury in the 1170s and early 1180s, there was consistent expenditure including £47 on the houses in the year Eleanor came to live there. That Eleanor positively liked Salisbury is shown by the fact that after her release she chose to organise the wedding of André de Chauvigny to the heiress Denise of Déols there; and Winchester too was a voluntary stop for her more then once in her later years.
Old Sarum from the west in C12, (Model: John B. Thorp. Photo: Kurt Kastner)
In a similar category is Windsor castle. Though predominantly a project of Henry’s – the defensive remodelling smacks of his planning – Eleanor spent considerable periods of time here – bearing Matilda here when the castle must have been a building site, and visiting repeatedly both as regent when she may well have had a hand in the development of the domestic buildings, which were to form a family base for her descendant Henry III’s family. Again it is a castle she seems to have positively chosen to visit with Matilda on Matilda’s return, and again following her release.
Although of course Berkhamsted has fallen into disrepair, one can perhaps therefore trace Eleanor’s hand in creating a core of castles which could double as homes, which was to influence the lives of generations to come.
Featured image: Aerial photograph of Old Sarum site, on departure from Old Sarum airfield by Mark Edwards.
