Mediæval Military Architecture in England, Volume 1 (of 2)Clark, George Thomas
History
Mediæval Military Architecture in England, Volume 1 (of 2)
Clark, George Thomas
Architecture -- England; Architecture, Medieval; Military architecture
The mound and base court, though the principal parts, were not always
the whole work. Often there was on the outside of the court and applied
to it, as at Brinklow and Rockingham, a second enclosure, also with
its bank and ditch, frequently of larger area than the main court,
though not so strongly defended. It was intended to shelter the
flocks and herds of the tenants in case of an attack. At Norham, the
castle ditch was used for this purpose as late as the reign of Henry
VIII. There are several cases in which the mound is placed within a
rectangular enclosure, which has given rise to a notion that the whole
was Roman. Tamworth is such a case, and there, fortunately, the mound
is known historically to have been the work of Æthelflaed, as is that
of Leicester, similarly placed. From this and from the evidence of
the earthworks themselves a like conclusion may be drawn as to the
superadded mounds at Wareham, Wallingford, and Cardiff. At Helmsley, as
at Castle Acre, Brougham, and Brough, the earthworks stand upon part of
a Roman camp, and at Kilpeck and Moat Lane, near Llanidloes, part of
the area may possibly be British.
East Anglia contains some fine examples of these moated mounds,
combined with rectangular encampments. Castle Acre is an excellent
example, as are, in a less degree, Mileham and Buckenham.
When the English lord took up his abode within a Roman camp or station,
he often turned the Roman works, whether of earth or masonry, to
account, and threw up his bank in one corner, altering the contiguous
banks and ditches to suit his new arrangements. Thus at Pevensey,
Leicester, Cambridge, Lincoln, Southampton, Winchester, Chichester,
Caerleon, Chester, English mounds and base courts are placed within
Roman enclosures which either are or were walled. At Auldchester, near
Bicester, the Roman Alauna, is a mound of later date than the camp.
At Plessy, Tamworth, Wallingford, Wareham, Cardiff, are found mounds
decidedly of later date than the enclosing works. There are also cases
where the mound is placed within an earthwork with something of a
tendency to the rectangular, though scarcely to be pronounced either
Roman or Romano-British. Such are Clare, Hereford, Eaton-Socon, where
the mound is very small indeed; and Lilbourne. Tempsford is very
peculiar: it is a small rectangular enclosure close to the Ouse, and in
one corner, upon the bank, is a small mound.
The group of works, of which the mound was the principal feature,
constituted a Burh. The burh was always fortified, and each inhabitant
of the surrounding township was bound to aid in the repair of the
works, almost always of timber, a material which the Saxons, like other
German nations, appear usually to have preferred for building purposes
to stone, though some of their towns were walled, as Colchester and
Exeter, and Domesday records the custom of repairing the walls of
Oxford, Cambridge, and Chester.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account