CPAT Report No. 1554
Old Castle Farm, Montgomery
Archaeological Investigation
YMDDIRIEDOLAETH ARCHAEOLEGOL CLWYD-POWYS
CLWYD-POWYS ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRUST
Client name: Cadw CPAT Project No: 2268 Project Name: Old Castle Farm, Montgomery Grid Reference: SO 22116 96636 County/LPA: Powys Planning Application: N/A CPAT Report No: 1554 Event PRN: 140220 Report status: Final Confidential until: N/A
Prepared by: Checked by: Approved by:
Richard Hankinson Paul Belford Paul Belford Senior Archaeologist Director Director 25/01/2018 29/01/2018 29/01/2018
Bibliographic reference: Hankinson, R., 2018. Old Castle Farm, Montgomery: Archaeological Investigation, Unpublished CPAT Report No 1554.
YMDDIRIEDOLAETH ARCHAEOLEGOL CLWYD-POWYS CLWYD-POWYS ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRUST
41 Broad Street, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 7RR, United Kingdom +44 (0) 1938 553 670 [email protected] www.cpat.org.uk
©CPAT 2017
The Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust is a Registered Organisation with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists CPAT Report No 1554 Old Castle Farm, Montgomery Archaeological Investigation
CONTENTS
Contents SUMMARY ...... ii 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ...... 2 3 EXCAVATION ...... 5 4 CONCLUSIONS ...... 9 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 9 6 SOURCES ...... 9 7 ARCHIVE DEPOSITION STATEMENT ...... 10
i
CPAT Report No 1554 Old Castle Farm, Montgomery Archaeological Investigation
Summary The Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT) conducted an excavation in the farmyard of Old Castle Farm, Montgomery in January 2018, with financial support from Cadw. A hole had opened up in the farmyard over the Christmas period at the end of 2017 and examination of the void by CPAT staff and Cadw’s Regional Inspector suggested that this may have been related to subsidence of elements of the defences of Montgomery Castle, whose construction by Henry III commenced in 1223. After inspection, Cadw determined that an excavation was necessary to identify the reason for the appearance of the hole, although this lay just outside the scheduled area of the castle. This was conducted from 18-19 January 2018 and it revealed traces of a rock-cut well, at least 5m deep and about 1m in diameter, that was thought to have been the main cause for the subsidence; this could not be attributed to a particular period but seems likely to post-date the slighting of the castle by order of Parliament in 1649. Part of a ditch was also observed in the excavation and three distinct fills were identified, though no readily datable material was found that could place these into the chronology of the castle defences. It seemed clear, however, that the ditch formed part of the palisaded outworks of the castle, perhaps dating from the early years of its construction.
ii
CPAT Report No 1554 Old Castle Farm, Montgomery Archaeological Investigation
1 Introduction 1.1. The following report details an archaeological investigation that was undertaken at Old Castle Farm, Montgomery in January 2018, in response to the appearance of a hole which had opened up in the farmyard. The farm is owned by Powis Estates and tenanted.
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2018
Fig. 1: Location of the excavation
1.2. The hole had appeared over the Christmas period at the end of 2017, and the tenant promptly informed Cadw as he was aware that it lay in close proximity to the scheduled area of Montgomery Castle (SAM MG022). Cadw requested that the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT) visit the farm and attempt to determine the nature of the hole and the reasons for its formation. The site visit took place on 2 January 2018, when it was determined that the void below the farmyard was roughly bell-shaped, measuring 3.8m deep and approximately 2m in diameter. Bedrock was observed on the south-west side of the hole and it was suggested that the evidence pointed towards the presence of a rock-cut ditch, from which part of the fill had been removed by the action of water over a number of years. Cadw’s regional inspector visited the farm on 4 January and, although the hole lay just outside the scheduled area of the castle, concluded that the instability of the void and the uncertainty regarding its origin merited a further investigation under controlled conditions to allow its nature to be assessed prior to the implementation of remedial works.
1.3. CPAT were commissioned by Cadw to carry out the investigation and the work on site was carried out on 18-19 January. This report was written immediately thereafter. 1
CPAT Report No 1554 Old Castle Farm, Montgomery Archaeological Investigation
Fig. 2: The hole in the farmyard as it first appeared, from the west. Photo CPAT 4440-0001
2 Archaeological Background 2.1. Montgomery Castle occupies a rocky promontory rising steeply above lower ground on its north and east sides. On the west, the ground rises from north to south, meeting the level on which the castle was built by the time its southern end is reached. The land continues to rise towards the summit of Town Hill to the south-south-west of the castle. The castle interior is relatively level and divided into a series of wards separated by ditches.
2.2. The castle was built under the auspices of Henry III from 1223, and it has been suggested that it was originally constructed in timber but rebuilt immediately in stone; this may owe its currency to a reference to the use of carpenters in forming the defences of Montgomery Castle in 1223, though as Barker and Higham (1982, 20) suggest, this could equally relate to the refortification of the earlier motte and bailey castle of Hen Domen, nearby. It is perhaps significant that Lloyd (1912, 662n) makes no mention of a timber phase despite it being clear that he had examined the original building records, and at most it would seem that temporary wooden sections were installed awaiting replacement in stone. Construction of the new stone castle was completed in 1234, though only the inner ward was protected by a curtain wall and gatehouse, with the middle ward being walled in c.1253.
2
CPAT Report No 1554 Old Castle Farm, Montgomery Archaeological Investigation
Fig 3: Montgomery Castle layout, modified from the Cadw guidebook, by permission
2.3. Around 1280 there was further strengthening of the town and castle defences following the uprising of Llewelyn ap Gruffydd and in the 1280s buildings such as the kitchen and brewhouse were erected in the Inner Ward. The centre tower of the east curtain wall of the Middle Ward was repaired, probably in the later 14th century, at which time the Well Tower was almost completely rebuilt. Further lodgings were added in the 1530s, in the south-west angle of the Inner Ward and against the west wall of the Middle Ward, when Rowland Lee, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, held the Presidency of the Council of the Marches (1534-43). A mansion of brick and timber was built in 1622-25 in the Middle Ward for Sir Edward Herbert, but both the castle and the 17th-century buildings were slighted by order of Parliament in 1649, and the ruins thereafter pillaged for stone.
2.4. Old Castle farmhouse was built within a rock-cut ditch at the south end of the castle wards, probably in the 18th century to judge from its appearance, though it does not appear on an engraving of 1742 which, albeit idealised, seems to show a small tower on top of the rock outcrop immediately to the north. Buildings are depicted in the approximate area of the farm on the Ordnance Surveyors drawing of 1816, and the subsequent 1 inch to 1 mile map of 1836, but it is only with the Tithe map of 1839 that we get an accurate depiction of the farmstead as a whole. This clearly shows the 3
CPAT Report No 1554 Old Castle Farm, Montgomery Archaeological Investigation
farmhouse and some outbuildings, but the map predates the current range of outbuildings to the west of the house. By the time of the 1:2500 Ordnance Survey maps of 1886 and 1902 the arrangement of buildings is broadly that seen today, though the current range to the west may have projected an additional 2m further to the north than is currently evident.
Fig. 4: The 1839 Tithe map
2.5. Extensive archaeological excavations were carried out at the castle in 1972-3, which concentrated on the inner gatehouse, inner and middle ward and their associated ditches (Knight, 1992, 97-180).
2.6. Of particular significance in the light of the present investigation is the clear depiction on the Tithe map (Fig. 3) of what appears to be an earthwork scarp encircling the stone-built castle; this is readily apparent on a 1932 aerial photograph, which shows there was a corresponding ditch on the west side. It has already been mentioned that the house at Old Castle Farm sits in a rock-cut ditch at the south end of the castle wards; this can be directly linked to the southern end of the scarp and these presumably formed an outer line of defence for the castle. The course of the scarp is palisaded on a reconstruction drawing in the castle guidebook produced by Cadw, though this depiction does not extend it to the north end of the castle, unlike the Tithe map.
2.7. The scarp could have found its first use as a basic protection while the stone castle was being constructed, and Knight (1992, 111) lists an original record referring to the repair of the ‘barricade and wooden towers around the castle’ in 1248. The evidence is somewhat uncertain though, as Knight (1992, 113) also has a reference to the wooden palisades around the town being replaced in stone and taken to the castle to make a new bailey in 1278-80. He recounts another reference which states ‘The
4
CPAT Report No 1554 Old Castle Farm, Montgomery Archaeological Investigation
palisade surrounding the park of the castle is utterly decayed…..’ in 1310 (Knight 1992, 115), but it seems unlikely that this provides a terminus ante quem for the defensive circuit.
3 Excavation 3.1. The location of the excavation is shown in relation to surface structures in Fig 5. The work was carried out entirely by machine, with the aim of producing an enlarged hole which was relatively stable that could then be examined for evidence relating to the formation of the original void and any other sub-surface features that might be present. In the event, concerns regarding the integrity of the material forming the sides of the excavation and its depth meant that it was impossible to safely clean and record the sides of the excavation by hand. Recording was carried out remotely using an EDM for these reasons.
Fig. 5: The location of the excavation in relation to the farm buildings and the scheduled area of Montgomery Castle (Section A-B is reproduced below)
3.2. The overhanging edges of the hole were first removed and the sides taken back to improve its stability, before the base of the hole was further excavated to remove loose soils, thereby producing a completed excavation that measured 4.5m north/south by 3.6m east/west and 5m deep. This provided a section (A-B on Figs 5 and 6) on the north-west side of the hole, showing what were considered to be a series of ditch fills, sloping down from south-west to north-east and overlying the local bedrock. Conjecturally, the ditch appeared to be in the order of 7m wide. 5
CPAT Report No 1554 Old Castle Farm, Montgomery Archaeological Investigation
3.3. The bedrock (5 on Fig. 6), was present on all sides at the base of the hole and around 1.5m above its base; this comprised three distinct rock types, a very loose friable shale, a more compact bluish-grey shale, and a very hard massive rock, described as a metamorphosed limestone in the Cadw guidebook to the castle, and forming the crest of the spur on which the castle sits.
3.4. The base of the ditch was represented by the top of the bedrock and this was overlain by a stony yellow clay silt (4), up to 0.7m thick but thinning to the south-west, which indicated that the edge of the ditch was being approached. Overlying this was a grey- brown silt (3), up to 0.55m thick, covered by a brown silt (2), up to 0.50m thick. Layers 2-4 all sloped down to the north-east, which can be taken to be indicative of them being ditch fills. The overlying rubble and silt layer (1) included brick fragments and was clearly a relatively modern (20th century) fill that had been placed to level off the area between the farm buildings and house. No datable material was recovered from layers 2-4 but it can be reasonably assumed that they represent three distinct phases of infill post-dating the construction of the castle. The slope of the top of layer 2 implies that the ditch would have been visible as an earthwork into more recent times, bearing out its appearance on a 1932 aerial photograph (see para 2.6).
Fig. 6: Section A-B of the excavation, showing the ditch fills (2-4)
6
CPAT Report No 1554 Old Castle Farm, Montgomery Archaeological Investigation
Fig. 7: An intermediate photograph of the excavation, showing the top of the bedrock and the ditch fills, from the east-north-east. The section to the right is the one that was recorded. Photo CPAT 4447-0007
Fig. 8: The hole as it originally appeared, showing the three ditch fills and collapsed material moving down the slope to the left where the well was identified, from the east. Photo CPAT 4440-0004
7
CPAT Report No 1554 Old Castle Farm, Montgomery Archaeological Investigation
3.5. In the south-west corner of the excavation there was a persistent deposit of brownish clay silt (7), in which a fragment of oyster shell was noted; the composition of the material was confirmed by auger. While it could not be examined directly and it was therefore difficult to characterise the feature in which the deposit lay, its persistence and seeming continuation below the base of the excavation suggested that the clay silt might represent the fill of a former well (see Figs. 5 and 9), approximately 1m in diameter. Material had clearly migrated to that location from the void, which appeared to confirm the hypothesis that this was a rock-cut well whose fill had been subject to settlement over an extended period. One explanation for the siting of the well in the edge of one of the defensive ditches of the castle is that it post-dates the slighting of the castle in the 17th century, when the castle well was filled in. It seems to have been placed at the junction of two rock types, which would have been likely to result in a spring appearing at certain times.
Fig. 9: The completed excavation, 5m scale resting on the material filling the probable well. Photo CPAT 4447-0014
3.6. On the east and south sides of the excavation, the material overlying natural bedrock was entirely stone rubble (6) with some brick fragments present. Discussions with
8
CPAT Report No 1554 Old Castle Farm, Montgomery Archaeological Investigation
the tenant farmer suggested that this was the fill of a hole that had opened up in the farmyard approximately 50 years ago and this was confirmed by its appearance.
4 Conclusions 4.1. The excavation has been successful in identifying a probable cause for the appearance of the hole in the farmyard, as it appeared to have been a result of the settlement of material filling an abandoned well. This had led to the formation of a void below the yard surface, which had migrated upwards over a period of time, eventually emerging at the surface.
4.2. While the location of the well, in the edge of a ditch belonging to Montgomery Castle, appears anomalous, it may have been placed to take advantage of a spring caused by the meeting of different rock types. A fault is recorded hereabouts on the British Geological Survey’s map of 1994. The well’s positioning suggested that it post-dated the slighting of the castle by order of Parliament in 1649 and it may have been dug to replace the castle well, which was filled in at the same time.
4.3. The ditch here was rock-cut, and can be seen at the surface where the farm house was built into it at the south end of the outworks forming part of the castle defences. The line of these outworks can be seen on the 1839 Tithe map as a scarp heading north from the house, and the ditch is visible on the west side of the scarp on an aerial photograph taken in 1932. A series of three distinct layers filling the ditch were identified in the excavation and these seemed to confirm that it was turning north and heading downslope, as might be expected; it seems to have subsequently been infilled and levelled where it crosses the farmyard.
5 Acknowledgements 5.1. The writer would like to thank Mr Will Davies, Cadw’s Regional Inspector for his help and input into the project. Thanks are also due to Glyn and Elizabeth Morgan of Old Castle Farm, for their interest and facilitating the work.
5.2. The writer would further like to thank his colleagues at CPAT, Will Logan and Nigel Jones, for their assistance with various aspects of the project.
6 Sources Written Barker, P., and Higham, R., 1982. Hen Domen Montgomery: A Timber Castle on the English-Welsh Border, Volume I, The Royal Archaeological Institute. Knight, J. K., 1992. ‘Excavations at Montgomery Castle, Part I’, Archaeologia Cambrensis, 141, 97-180. Lloyd, J E., 1912. A History of Wales, Volume II, Longmans, Green and Co: London.
Cartographic 1816 Ordnance Surveyors Drawing No 200
9
CPAT Report No 1554 Old Castle Farm, Montgomery Archaeological Investigation
1836 Old Series Ordnance Survey 1:63360 map, Sheet 60NE 1839 Montgomery Tithe map 1886 Ordnance Survey second edition 1:2500 map, Montgomeryshire 37.03 1902 Ordnance Survey second edition 1:2500 map, Montgomeryshire 37.03
Images 1742 The south view of Montgomery Castle, from an engraving by Samuel and Nathaniel Buck (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_south_view_ of_Montgomery_Castle.jpeg) 1932 Oblique aerial view of Montgomery Castle (https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/WPW040052)
7 Archive deposition Statement 7.1. The project archive has been prepared according to the CPAT Archive Policy and in line with the CIfA Standard and guidance for the creation, compilation, transfer and deposition of archaeological archives guidance (2014). The digital archive only will be deposited with the Historic Environment Record, Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust and the paper/drawn/digital archive with the National Monuments Record (RCAHMW). No artefacts were recovered. A summary of the archive is provided below.
Project Archive Event PRN: 140220 1 Trench recording form 7 digital photographs, CPAT Film No 4440 (site visit) 29 digital photographs, CPAT Film No 4447 (excavation) Photographic catalogue Digital survey data, using Penmap software
10