Tutbury: 'A Castle Firmly Built': Archaeological and historical investigations at Tutbury Castle, Staffordshire 9781407308555, 9781407322193

A report on the archaeological and historical investigations undertaken at Tutbury Castle, Staffordshire. The town of Tu

204 81 87MB

English Pages [311] Year 2011

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Tutbury: 'A Castle Firmly Built': Archaeological and historical investigations at Tutbury Castle, Staffordshire
 9781407308555, 9781407322193

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
CONTENTS
Figures
Plates
Tables
Acknowledgements
Summary
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: The Honor of Tutbury, the Earldom of Derby and the Duchy of Lancaster
Chapter 3: The Castle and its Setting
Chapter 4: The Park Pale
Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard
Chapter 6: History of the Castle
Chapter 7: The Earthworks
Chapter 8: The Architecture
Chapter 9: Geophysics
Chapter 10: Excavation
Chapter 11: The Pottery
Chapter 12: Clay Tobacco Pipes
Chapter 13: Other Artefacts
Chapter 14: The Animal Bones
Chapter 15: The Palaeo-Environmental Remains
Chapter 16: Review
Bibliography

Citation preview

BAR 546 2011

Birmingham Archaeology Monograph Series 11

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

HISLOP, KINCEY & WILLIAMS

Archaeological and historical investigations at Tutbury Castle, Staffordshire

Malcolm Hislop Mark Kincey Gareth Williams

TUTBURY: ‘A CASTLE FIRMLY BUILT’

B A R

BAR British Series 546 2011

Birmingham Archaeology Monograph Series 11

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ Archaeological and historical investigations at Tutbury Castle, Staffordshire

Malcolm Hislop Mark Kincey Gareth Williams with David Barker, Emma Collins, Matthew Edgeworth, Jon Goodwin, Emily Hamilton, Christopher Hewitson, David Higgins, Matilda Holmes, Richard Kelleher, Alex Lang, Rosalind McKenna, Philip Mann, Helen Martin-Bacon, Stephanie Rátkai and David Smith Illustrations by Nigel Dodds, Helen Moulden, and Bryony Ryder

BAR British Series 546 2011

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 546 Birmingham Archaeology Monograph Series 11 Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ © Birmingham Archaeology/The British Museum and the Publisher 2011 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407308555 paperback ISBN 9781407322193 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407308555 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2011. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 Historical Summary.................................................................................................................................. 1 The Tutbury Research Project................................................................................................................... 1 Previous Archaeological Investigation, 1913–2004................................................................................. 2 The 2004–7 Project................................................................................................................................... 8 Phasing .................................................................................................................................................... 9 Arrangement of the Publication................................................................................................................ 9 CHAPTER 2: THE HONOR OF TUTBURY, THE EARLDOM OF DERBY, AND THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER................................................................................................... 10 The Foundation of the Honor.................................................................................................................... 10 The Resources of the Honor..................................................................................................................... 12 The Earldom of Derby.............................................................................................................................. 13 The House of Lancaster............................................................................................................................ 17 The Duchy of Lancaster and the Crown................................................................................................... 21 CHAPTER 3: THE CASTLE AND ITS SETTING................................................................................. 26 Geology and Topography.......................................................................................................................... 26 The Archaeological Landscape................................................................................................................. 30 Recent Archaeological Work in the Town................................................................................................ 33 CHAPTER 4: THE PARK PALE.............................................................................................................. 38 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 38 Historical Background.............................................................................................................................. 38 Previous Archaeological Investigations.................................................................................................... 38 Methodology............................................................................................................................................. 39 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 41 Discussion and Interpretation................................................................................................................... 54 CHAPTER 5: THE TUTBURY HOARD................................................................................................. 62 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 62 Discovery.................................................................................................................................................. 62 Previous Research..................................................................................................................................... 65 Thomas of Lancaster and the Battle of Burton Bridge............................................................................. 67 Modern Collections with Tutbury Coins.................................................................................................. 69 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................ 78 Catalogue of Tutbury Coins in Modern Collections................................................................................. 78 CHAPTER 6: HISTORY OF THE CASTLE........................................................................................... 88 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 88 From the Norman Conquest to the Barons’ War....................................................................................... 88 From Edmund of Lancaster to John of Gaunt........................................................................................... 96 A Royal Castle under Lancaster and York................................................................................................ 103 From Henry VII to the Civil War.............................................................................................................. 106 Postscript: After the Civil War.................................................................................................................. 115

i

CHAPTER 7: THE EARTHWORKS....................................................................................................... 118 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 118 Methodology............................................................................................................................................. 118 Description................................................................................................................................................ 120 Discussion................................................................................................................................................. 130 CHAPTER 8: THE ARCHITECTURE.................................................................................................... 132 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 132 The Structures of the Motte...................................................................................................................... 132 The Inner Gatehouse Complex................................................................................................................. 134 The Curtain Wall....................................................................................................................................... 138 The South Tower....................................................................................................................................... 139 The North Tower (Also the High Tower; Queen Margaret’s Tower)........................................................ 146 The South Range....................................................................................................................................... 147 The House................................................................................................................................................. 152 The Ancillary Buildings............................................................................................................................ 153 The East Range (Mary’s Lodging)............................................................................................................ 153 The Receiver’s Lodging............................................................................................................................ 154 The Chapel................................................................................................................................................ 154 The Outer Gatehouse................................................................................................................................ 155 The Outer Bailey....................................................................................................................................... 155 CHAPTER 9: GEOPHYSICS.................................................................................................................. 156 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 156 Methodology............................................................................................................................................. 156 Inner Bailey: Results and Interpretation................................................................................................... 157 Middle Bailey: Results and Interpretation................................................................................................ 160 Outer Bailey: Results and Interpretation................................................................................................... 162 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................... 166 CHAPTER 10: EXCAVATION................................................................................................................ 168 The Motte.................................................................................................................................................. 168 The Inner Bailey....................................................................................................................................... 174 The Inner Bailey Ditch.............................................................................................................................. 192 The Hollow Way....................................................................................................................................... 193 The Outer Bailey....................................................................................................................................... 193 CHAPTER 11: THE POTTERY............................................................................................................... 200 The Roman Pottery................................................................................................................................... 200 The Medieval Pottery................................................................................................................................ 200 The Post-Medieval Pottery....................................................................................................................... 210 CHAPTER 12: CLAY TOBACCO PIPES............................................................................................... 228 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 228 Methodology............................................................................................................................................. 228 Material Recovered................................................................................................................................... 228 The Pipes Themselves............................................................................................................................... 234 Summary and Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 242 CHAPTER 13: OTHER ARTEFACTS..................................................................................................... 243 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 243 Iron Objects............................................................................................................................................... 243

ii

Lead Objects............................................................................................................................................. 245 Copper Alloy Objects................................................................................................................................ 247 Worked Bone Objects............................................................................................................................... 248 Worked Stone Objects............................................................................................................................... 248 Glass .................................................................................................................................................... 248 Worked Flint............................................................................................................................................. 248 CHAPTER 14: THE ANIMAL BONES................................................................................................... 251 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 251 Methodology............................................................................................................................................. 251 Phase 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 252 Phases 3 and 4........................................................................................................................................... 256 Phase 5 .................................................................................................................................................... 258 Discussion................................................................................................................................................. 260 CHAPTER 15: THE PALAEO-ENVIRONMENTAL REMAINS........................................................... 263 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 263 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 263 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 263 Discussion................................................................................................................................................. 269 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................... 270 CHAPTER 16: REVIEW.......................................................................................................................... 275 The Development of the Castle................................................................................................................. 275 Future Research........................................................................................................................................ 280 BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................................... 282 Primary Sources........................................................................................................................................ 282 Secondary Sources.................................................................................................................................... 283

iii

Figures CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3

The motte in 1913: detail from J F S Jack’s plan (DoL) Section drawing of the well, 1956 (DoL) Sketch plan by Somerville, showing location of shell keep in relation to the 18th-century folly (DoL)

CHAPTER 3: THE CASTLE AND ITS SETTING 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10

Solid geology for the Tutbury area Drift geology for the Tutbury area Map showing River Dove and recorded palaeochannels Topography of Tutbury area Local topography of Tutbury based on lidar elevation data Locations of archaeological interventions in Tutbury 1990–2009 39 Corn Mill Lane site plan 33 High Street site plan and section Castle Garage, Monk Street, site plan and section Castle Garage, Monk Street, medieval shoe soles

CHAPTER 4: THE PARK PALE 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16

Map of Tutbury showing extant sections of Park Pale earthworks and Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs). Location of Park Pale survey areas Digital elevation model (DEM) results of topographic survey of western (unscheduled) earthworks Results of resistance survey of western (unscheduled) earthworks Interpretation of resistance survey of western (unscheduled) earthworks Digital elevation model (DEM) results of topographic survey of SAM 238b earthworks Results of resistance survey of SAM 238b earthworks Interpretation of resistance survey of SAM 238b earthworks Digital elevation model (DEM) results of topographic survey of SAM 238a earthworks Results of resistance survey of school playing fields Interpretation of resistance survey of school playing fields st edition Ordnance Survey map of Tutbury showing continuous circuit of Park Pale earthworks 1948 RAF aerial photograph of Tutbury showing continuous circuit of Park Pale earthworks Map showing the original route of Park Pale earthworks Rectified 1808 Tutbury Park estate map Suggested reconstruction of the medieval landscape around Tutbury

CHAPTER 5: THE TUTBURY HOARD 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

Tutbury coins in the British Museum collection by class and source British Museum coins plotted by mint and source of acquisition Stoke coins plotted by mint Stoke coins plotted by class Derby parcel plotted by class Derby parcel plotted by mint Tracing the modern collections to nineteenth century material

CHAPTER 7: THE EARTHWORKS 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Digital elevation model (DEM) of castle earthworks Perspective view of DEM of castle earthworks (facing NW) Interpretative earthwork plan (showing features referred to in text) Location of earthwork profiles

iv

7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8

Earthwork profile across Castle Hill Earthwork profile across inner bailey defences Earthwork profile across middle and outer baileys Earthwork profile across motte and southern defences

CHAPTER 8: THE ARCHITECTURE 8.1 8.2

The inner bailey, phase plan The King’s Lodging, south elevation

CHAPTER 9: GEOPHYSICS 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.10 9.11

Location of geophysics survey areas Results of inner bailey resistance survey Interpretation of inner bailey resistance survey Results of middle bailey resistance survey Interpretation of middle bailey resistance survey Results of middle bailey GPR survey Interpretation of middle bailey GPR survey Results of outer bailey resistance survey Interpretation of outer bailey resistance survey Results of outer bailey GPR survey Interpretation of outer bailey GPR survey

CHAPTER 10: EXCAVATION 1.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 10.15 10.16 10.17 10.18 10.19 10.20 10.21 10.22 10.23 10.24

Trench location plan 1986–88 and 2004–7 The motte, Area 1 site plan and Section 1 The motte, Area 2, site plan and Section 2 The motte, Area 3, plan and sections 3–4 The inner bailey Area 4, 1988 site plan (TC88 Site B) The inner bailey, Area 4, 2004–6, composite site plan The inner bailey, Area 4, Sondages 1–4, sections 5–8 The inner bailey, Area 4, Section 9 (TC88 Site B) The inner bailey Area 5, 1988 site plan (TC88 Site A) The inner bailey, areas 5 and 6, 2004–6 composite plan The inner bailey, Area 5, sondages 1–3, sections 10–11 showing the lower levels of the truncated inner bailey bank The inner bailey, Area 5, 1988 Section 12 (TC88 Site A) The inner bailey, Area 6, Section 13 The inner bailey, Area 7, plan The inner bailey, Area 7a–7c, sections 14–18 The inner bailey ditch, Area 8 (TUMS 1986 Site 1) plan The inner bailey ditch, Area 8 (TUMS 1986 Site 1) sections 19–22 The hollow way, Area 9 (TIGS 1987 Site 2) plan The hollow way, Area 9 (TIGS 1987 Site 2) sections 24–27 The hollow way, Area 10 (TIGS 1987 Site 3) plan The hollow way, Area 10 (TIGS 1987 Site 3) sections 28–29 The outer bailey, Area 11, plan and sections 30–31 The outer bailey, Area 12, phase plan and sections 32–35 The outer bailey, Area 12, phase plan and sections 36–37

CHAPTER 11: THE POTTERY 11.1

Medieval pottery 1–22

CHAPTER 12: CLAY TOBACCO PIPES 12.1

Clay tobacco pipes 1–20

v

12.2

Clay tobacco pipes 21–41

CHAPTER 13: OTHER ARTEFACTS 13.1 13.2 13.3

Iron objects 1–3 Lead casting headers 1–3 Worked flints 1–3

CHAPTER 14: THE ANIMAL BONES 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4

Proportion of the major domesticates from the Norman period Mandible wear stages from the pig assemblage in the Norman phase Proportions of the main domestic species from Dudley, Stafford and Tutbury castles Proportions of the minor species from Dudley, Stafford and Tutbury castles

CHAPTER 15: THE PALAEO-ENVIRONMENTAL REMAINS 15.1 15.2

Proportion of the ecological groups of Coleoptera Proportions of the synanthropic groups

Plates CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1

Rubble causeway across the top of the chapel ruins, 1960 (DoL)

CHAPTER 3: THE CASTLE AND ITS SETTING 3.1 Sondage 1, Castle Garage site, Monk Street, from the east, showing the waterlogged character of the stratigraphy (BA) CHAPTER 4: THE PARK PALE 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

The western unscheduled earthworks (BA) SAM 238b earthworks (BA) SAM 238a earthworks (BA) The earthworks in the school playing fields (BA)

CHAPTER 5: THE TUTBURY HOARD 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9

View of the River Dove, showing the location of the hoard’s discovery, in relation to the former priory and the castle (from Mosley 1832) Notice dated June 15th 1831, prohibiting further investigation of the site except by the duchy’s authority (DoL) Notice dated June 16th 1831, including amnesty for coins already recovered (DoL) Drawing by Orlando Jewitt of matrix from the riverbed including coins (PMAG) Prospectus for William Edward’s intended publication of the hoard (BM) Tutbury coin tickets in the British Museum (BM) Example of wrap in the Wren-Bishopp group (BM) Annotated reader’s ticket recording notes about the hoard (relevant area highlighted) (BM) Thompson 9b London penny (BM)

CHAPTER 6: THE HISTORY 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Perspective view of the castle c 1562 (NA) Plan of the castle c 1585 (BL) Plan of the castle c 1585 (BL) ‘Tutbury Castle’ by Paul Sandby, 1793 (BM)

vi

6.1

Death of the Fox at Tutbury Castle, after Alexander Davis Cooper, 1839 (BM)

CHAPTER 7: THE EARTHWORKS 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12

The castle motte, facing south west (BA) The castle motte viewed from Park Pale, facing north (BA) The inner bailey viewed from the North Tower, facing south west (BA) The eastern rampart and curtain wall, facing north (BA) The external eastern ditch separating inner and outer baileys, facing south (BA) The earthwork mounds in external eastern ditch, facing south east (BA) The southern section of the inner bailey ditch, facing east (BA) Break in the inner bailey ditch counterscarp bank providing access to the floodplain, facing south south west (BA) The middle bailey viewed from North Tower, facing north east (BA) The cleft between the middle and outer baileys viewed from the North Tower, facing east north east (BA) Detail along the cleft between middle and outer baileys to floodplain of the River Dove, facing east north east (BA) The outer bailey from the North Tower, facing south east (BA)

CHAPTER 8: THE ARCHITECTURE 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 8.16 8.17 8.18 8.19 8.20

The folly from the south (BA) The inner gatehouse from the east (BA) The inner gatehouse, interior from the south (BA) The inner gatehouse, detail of south-east window (BA) The South Tower from the north (BA) The South Tower from the south east (BA) The South Tower, detail of monolithic window (BA) The South Tower, large basement from the south (BA) The South Tower, abortive vault from the north west (BA) The South Tower, small basement from the south (BA) The North Tower from the south west (BA) The North Tower, detail of cruciform loop (BA) The King’s Lodging, south elevation from the south east (BA) The King’s Lodging, south entrance (BA) The King’s Lodging, first-floor window (BA) The King’s Lodging, interior from the east (BA) The house and stable from the north east (BA) Re-set 17th-century fireplace in the house (BA) Re-set 17th-century doorway in the house (BA) The outer bailey, chimney (BA)

CHAPTER 10: THE EXCAVATION 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4

Area 1, the mantlet from the south west (BA) Area 1, the mantlet, re-used sculptured fragment from the north east (BA) Area 4, the gully from the south (BA) Area 4, relationship of buildings 1 and 2 (BA)

CHAPTER 11: POTTERY 11.1 11.2

Post-medieval pottery, 1–53 Post-medieval pottery, 54–67

CHAPTER 12: CLAY TOBACCO PIPES 12.1

Civil War period pipes from the same mould showing clear flaws on both sides of the heel (Higgins)

vii

12.1 12.2 12.3

Three Civil War period pipes from the same mould showing different rim angles caused by poor quality and heavy-handed finishing (Higgins) Interior of a pipe bowl from the poor quality mould showing evidence for a large conical projection in the centre of the bottering tool that was used to finish the rim (Higgins) Seventeenth-century pipe stem with one end wrapped in lead sheeting (Higgins)

Tables CHAPTER 5: THE TUTBURY HOARD 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

Summary of Tutbury hoard coins by issuer Coins compared by class as a percentage of the hoard Coins compared by mint as a percentage of the hoard Dates of the classes of English sterling pennies Coins from the Tutbury hoard in modern collections

CHAPTER 11: THE POTTERY 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5

Fabric quantification by phase by percentage sherd weight and percentage sherd count Area 5, Phase 2: pottery quantification by percentage sherd weight and sherd count Area 6, Phase 2: pottery quantification by percentage sherd weight and sherd count Area 4, Phase 4: pottery quantification by percentage sherd weight and sherd count Area 12: quantification by percentage sherd weight and sherd count by phase

CHAPTER 12: CLAY TOBACCO PIPES 12.1 12.2 12.3

Summary of pipe evidence from the various seasons of excavation, showing the numbers of bowl (B), stem (S), and mouthpiece (M) recovered, as well as a summary of the marked and decorated pieces present Stem bore measurements for the mid 17th-century pipe bowls, the majority of which are likely to date from the 1640s Numbers of burnished fragments shown by type and quality of burnishing. The percentages are all calculated as a fraction of the total sample (531 pieces)

CHAPTER 14: THE ANIMAL BONES 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9 14.10

Areas of the castle relating to excavation, date and number of bones identified Fragment representation Norman phase Species representation for the Norman assemblages Fusion data Norman phase showing % of bones fused for each age stage Fragment representation, medieval phase Species representation for the medieval assemblages Fusion data medieval phase showing % bones fused for each stage Fragment representation post medieval phase Species representation for the post medieval assemblages Fusion data medieval phase showing % bones fused for each age stage

CHAPTER 15: THE PALAEO-ENVIRONMENTAL REMAINS 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6

The insect remains The proportion of the ecological groups of Coleoptera The proportions of the synanthropic groups Archaeobotanical results Habitats of waterlogged plant microfossils Other components recovered from the archaeobotanical samples

viii

Acknowledgements The Tutbury Research Project was instigated in 2002, by Lesley Smith, Curator of Tutbury Castle, and developed under the overall direction of Gareth Williams of the British Museum, who has also led on the historical research. The project was run under the auspices of the Tutbury Castle Trust, and thanks are due to all of the Trustees, and to all members of staff at the Castle, for their help and support throughout the project. The project has enjoyed the encouragement and support throughout of the duchy of Lancaster, owner of Tutbury Castle. Thanks go to the duchy Council and to the staff of the duchy offices, and particularly to Paul Clarke, Roy Smith, Pam Tantony and Julie Townsend. The archaeological work at the castle was directed by Malcolm Hislop of Birmingham Archaeology, University of Birmingham, in collaboration with Gareth Williams, and included a mixture of excavation, building recording and geophysical and topographical surveys. The fieldwork was led on a day-to-day basis in 2004–5 by Helen Martin-Bacon, by Christopher Hewitson in 2006, and by Matthew Edgeworth in 2007, while the surveying was supervised by Glynn Barratt in 2004, Mark Kincey and Kate Bain in 2005, and Mark Kincey alone in 2006. Other Birmingham Archaeology staff that assisted in the supervision were Leonie Driver (2004), Emily Hamilton (2006), Philip Mann (2005–6), Elizabeth Bishop (2007), Helen Moulden (2007), Michael Lobb and Shane Kelleher (2007). Richard Kelleher of the British Museum also acted in this capacity (2004–6). The project provided a training opportunity for 93 undergraduate students, and work experience for four postgraduate students. In addition, a number of volunteers worked on the excavation including Richard Bacon (2005), John Arnold (2004–5), Bill Griffiths (2004), Ric Groves (2004), Olivia Bicknell (2007), Susanna Webb (2007) and numerous members of the SPICE organisation (2005). The student training programme was monitored by Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity staff: Chris Callow (2004), Sally Crawford and Mary Harlow (2005), and Malcolm Hislop (2006–7). The fieldwork was funded by the British Museum, the University of Birmingham, and the duchy of Lancaster, as well as personal donations, notably from Mrs Smith. Additional surveying work was funded by Advantage West Midland, and additional manpower was provided by the Derby-based agency Support Into Work. The post excavation work was sponsored by the British Museum, the duchy of Lancaster, the Marc Fitch Fund and the University of Birmingham. The study of the Tutbury hoard was undertaken by Gareth Williams and Richard Kelleher of the British Museum. Barrie Cook kindly shared his knowledge of fourteenth-century coinage. Deb Klemperer, Anja Rohde and Bridget Wright were helpful in providing access to and information concerning coins from the hoard in the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, Derby Museum and the Royal Collection respectively. Thanks are also due to all those who provided information about coins from the hoard in private collections, and particularly to Christopher Wren and Daren Bishopp, who kindly made available a previously unrecorded parcel from the hoard, together with associated documentation from the 1830s. The investigation of the castle well in 2004 was carried out by Jim Durr, Keith Edwards, Bill Griffiths and Brendan Marris. The project has taken place in consultation with English Heritage and Staffordshire County Council. Thanks are due to Paul Stamper, Bill Klemperer and Ian George of English Heritage, and to Ian Wykes and Stephen Dean of Staffordshire County Council. Jon Goodwin and David Barker of Stoke Archaeology and Deb Klemperer of the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, Stoke, provided valuable information about the 1980s excavations and access to the archive. Nigel Tringham of the Victoria County History kindly shared information from the VCH volume on Tutbury in advance of publication. Various seminars and day schools organised by Dr Tringham, both at the University of Keele and in Tutbury, also provided opportunities for the wider exchange of ideas on the project.

ix

The initial work on the Park Pale was carried out by Mark Kincey in 2004 for a University of Birmingham post-graduate dissertation. Further survey work, including geophysical survey was undertaken in 2007 as part of a Heritage Lottery Fund supported scheme on the Pale. A considerable debt of gratitude is owed to John Hicklin of the Tutbury Civic Society who initiated the Tutbury Park Pale Research Project, and who helped throughout the archaeological survey. Many thanks go to Jeanne and Robert Minchin, both for their tireless practical help with the on-site fieldwork as well as for their assistance with the documentary and cartographic research. Thanks also go to Paul Nicholas and Bob and Pauline Wood, also of the Civic Society, as well as Lesley Smith and Judith Collison from Tutbury Castle. Mark Kincey directed the fieldwork for this project, assisted by Chris Carey, Emily Hamilton, Jeanne and Robert Minchin and the children from Richard Wakefield Primary School. Brian Rich provided helpful information on the northern part of the honor at Duffield, and also on transport routes in medieval Staffordshire. The report was illustrated by three principal contributors: Nigel Dodds, who prepared most of the plans and sections as well as the elevation of the King’s Lodging, Helen Moulden, who was responsible for most of the finds drawings, and Mark Kincey, who created the illustrations to accompany those sections authored by him. The following images reproduced in this publication are copyright, and have been reproduced by kind permission of the relevant authorities. The illustration of the castle from Sir Ambrose Cave’s survey (Plate 6.1) National Archives. The plans of the castle from the papers of Sir Ralph Sadler (Plates 6.2–6.3) Trustees of the British Library. Drawing by Orlando Jewitt of matrix from the riverbed including coins (Plate 5.4) Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent. Illustrations from the 1913 plan (Fig. 1.1), the 1955–60 excavations (Fig. 1.3 and Plate 1.1) and the 1956 investigation of the well (Fig. 1.2); notices prohibiting further investigation of the Tutbury hoard (Plates 5.2–5.3) duchy of Lancaster. Prospectus for William Edwards’ intended publication of the hoard (Plate 5.5); Tutbury coin tickets in the British Museum (Plate 5.6); example of wrap in the Wren-Bishopp group (Plate 5.7); annotated reader’s ticket recording notes about the hoard (relevant area highlighted) (Plate 5.8); Thompson 9b London penny Plate 5.9); ‘Tutbury Castle’ by Paul Sandby, 1793 (Plate 6.4); ‘Death of the Fox at Tutbury Castle’, after Alexander Davis Cooper, 1839 (Plate 6.5) Trustees of the British Museum. Several figures (3.1–3.4, 3.6, 4.1–4.12, 4.14–4.16, 7.1, 7.3–7.4, 9.1–9.11, and 10.1) are based on Crown copyright material supplied by the Ordnance Survey/EDINA.

x

Summary The town of Tutbury is situated on the eastern border of Staffordshire in central England some 15km (9½ miles) south west of Derby and 6.5km (4 miles) north west of Burton upon Trent. Around 1068–69 the Normans founded a motte and bailey castle on a tactically advantageous bluff above the town with the strategic purpose of controlling important north–south and east–west routes of communication. Attacks on the castle in the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries may be cited as evidence of a continuing military significance down to 1322, when, as one of Thomas earl of Lancaster’s castles, it was sacked by the forces of Edward II. As part of the duchy of Lancaster estate it became a royal property from 1399 and was extensively rebuilt during the 15th century; it is this late medieval phase that plays the most significant part in defining the architectural character of the castle today. The Civil War revived interest in the strategic and tactical advantages of the site, and ultimately led to the castle’s destruction, although an afterlife ensued in the 18th century as a farm and romantic ruin. From 1831the archaeological significance of Tutbury was dominated by the Tutbury hoard, a treasure trove of 1,489 silver pennies recovered in that year from the River Dove, which is believed to have been deposited in 1322, around the time of the nearby Battle of Burton Bridge and Thomas of Lancaster’s ensuing flight to Yorkshire. There is no doubt that the coins recovered by the authorities represent only a fraction of the 1831 find, which on the lowest estimates of the time amounted to at least 100,000 coins, making it the largest coin hoard ever discovered in Britain. During the 20th century the archaeological focus was on the castle, where several investigations were carried out, notably excavations for the duchy of Lancaster by Robert Somerville in the 1950s, and for Staffordshire County Council by their roving team of archaeologists in the 1980s. However, none of this work has ever been published in detail, and the castle and its archaeology have, until recent years, remained comparatively little known. The present publication is the result of a collaborative project between the British Museum and the University of Birmingham based around a programme of survey, excavation, and research undertaken between 2004 and 2007, the fieldwork for which was largely undertaken as part of the University’s student training programme. Although attention is concentrated on the castle itself, the wider archaeological context has not been neglected; hence, there are individual chapters on the Tutbury hoard, the Park Pale (a substantial adjacent earthwork of ancient but indeterminate date and function), and the regional setting, including recent archaeological monitoring of developments in the adjacent town of Tutbury. In addition, summaries of the previous work at Tutbury have been included where this has proved viable. The result is the most comprehensive account of the archaeology of Tutbury Castle and its environs to date, and the publication provides a baseline and direction for future research into this important historic landmark.

xi

xii

Chapter 1: Introduction

HISTORICAL SUMMARY

During Mary Queen of Scots’ captivity at Tutbury in 1585 she was housed in what she described as an old hunting lodge (probably to be identified with the East Range mentioned above), and indeed hunting was an activity that attracted her son (James I) and grandson (Charles I) to Tutbury, and was, perhaps, the reason that led Charles I, in the 1630s, to remodel the 15th-century great hall range in a classical style, the character of which is partially preserved within the curtain wall. During the Civil War, when Tutbury was garrisoned for the king, the castle was besieged, captured and subsequently slighted. Archaeological evidence for the Civil War occupation is very evident in the artefactual assemblages, especially the pottery and clay pipes, and indications of the slighting were particularly well defined in the excavation on the motte.

Castle Hill, on which Tutbury Castle was built, had been a focus for human activity for centuries before the Norman Conquest and the establishment of the castle. Worked flints discovered within the inner bailey in 2004 testify to the site’s draw as an obvious vantage point from the Mesolithic period at the latest. Finds of Roman pottery have been reported from Tutbury in the past, and excavation in the outer bailey in 2007 resulted in the discovery of a Roman kiln, which has provided the most tangible confirmation to date of previously unsubstantiated suspicions of preNorman occupation. While there have also been speculations as to an AngloSaxon presence, these have not been confirmed by excavation, and the next phase to have been recognised in the archaeological sequence relates to the foundation of the 11th-century castle. This episode was accompanied by earth moving on a considerable scale, indications of which are to be found not only in the existing earthworks, but also in the excavation record of 2004–7. In addition to uncovering the lower layers of the inner bailey bank, the surface of the motte, and evidence for an inner ditch beneath the present inner bailey, these excavations have also shown that the area occupied by the outer bailey was landscaped at this time in order to increase its surface area and to enhance its defensive propensities.

Re-occupation was at a less exalted level, the ruins being given over to housing a working farm, and their Gothic qualities enhanced to act as a romantic eyecatcher. A castellated house was raised on the site of the 17th-century King’s Lodging around 1750, and a folly in the form of a ruined keep built on top of the motte between 1780 and 1792. These buildings were the last significant additions to the fabric although various phases of building and rebuilding in connection to the farm also took place from the late 18th century, the latest being no earlier than 1960. Tutbury Castle, then, was an early foundation, and continued to be occupied for the whole of the ensuing medieval period and beyond; even its slighting at the time of the Civil War failed to kill it off completely. Its foundation in this particular spot during the Western Rebellion and the turbulence of its subsequent history, which included three medieval assaults in addition to the Civil War siege, are indications of its military significance. The reasons for this can be readily appreciated, for the site was well situated to control communications in this part of the Midlands, its highly visible and tactically formidable position offering an obvious command centre, and a desirable possession for exerting a psychological advantage in the jostle for social position.

A major reorganisation appears to have occurred in the 12th century with the infilling of the inner ditch, possibly a corollary of the destruction of the castle in 1175 on the orders of Henry II. The rebuilding of the castle included the raising of a cylindrical keep in stone, and, sometime in the 13th century, a chancel was added to the chapel. Otherwise, indications of the character of the 13th-century castle have so far proved elusive. Much more in evidence is the 15th-century reconstruction under the Lancastrian kings, principally the upstanding remains, which represent a precision-engineered approach to high quality residential accommodation. This included an integrated combination of a new curtain wall, two large residential towers, and probably also a great hall. Further additions and alterations were made by the Yorkist kings, including a new hall and chamber and, perhaps, the East Range, of which the north end wall was uncovered by excavation in the 1980s and again in 2004. This late medieval investment concentrated not on maintaining the military significance of the early castle but in providing a comfortable residence and a retreat from which the hunting offered by the adjacent Needwood Forest could be enjoyed.

THE TUTBURY CASTLE RESEARCH PROJECT Gareth Williams The Tutbury Castle research project was instigated in 2002 by Lesley Smith, Curator of Tutbury Castle. Mrs Smith and her husband had taken over the lease of the castle from the duchy of Lancaster at the end of 1999, and Mrs Smith was conscious that the information available to visitors at the castle at that point was of variable quality. Gareth Williams of the British Museum was invited to develop a

1

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ research project on the castle, and the fact that there were links between the castle and objects in the British Museum collections, most notably with the Tutbury hoard of 1831, meant that the British Museum was able to support the project as part of its Partnership UK programme. The project also received throughout the encouragement and support of the duchy of Lancaster as landowner. The initial brief was to carry out a primarily historical project, but the archaeological potential of the site was clear, and research quickly revealed that there had previously been archaeological investigations at the castle on a number of occasions, although these had never been published. A preliminary geophysical survey was carried out in 2003 by staff from Derby University, and while this was extremely limited in scope, it established the viability of geophysical work on the site. It was therefore decided to incorporate a more substantial archaeological component into the project, including a survey of previous archaeological investigation, and a programme of additional fieldwork, to be carried out in partnership by the University of Birmingham and the British Museum, under the directorship of Malcolm Hislop of the University of Birmingham. This took the form of four three-week teaching excavations in 2004-7 for Birmingham archaeology students, including geophysical and topographical surveys and limited programmes of excavation and building recording. The results of the 20047 seasons provide the core of this publication, together with surveys of previous archaeological investigation, and chapters on the Tutbury hoard and on the history of both the castle and the honor of Tutbury. The original intention of the project, as publicised at the time, was to carry out a more extensive study of the history of Tutbury and the surrounding area, but the discovery at an early stage of the project that a volume of the Victoria County History covering Tutbury and Needwood Forest was already in preparation,1 combined with funding constraints, meant that a less ambitious approach was adopted with the focus very much on the castle itself, although seen in the context of the wider archaeological and historical landscape.

Figure 1.1 The motte in 1913: J F S Jack’s plan (DoL)

detail from

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION, 1913–2004 Gareth Williams Archaeological work has been carried out on the site on several occasions, although none of these has been fully published. 1. 1913 A detailed plan of the castle was produced by J F R Jack in 1913 (Fig. 1.1), and this includes a length of a fairly substantial wall on the motte, to the north-west of the folly, with a note that it was discovered in 1913. From the alignment of the wall, this appears to be a section of the curtain wall, together with a junction with another wall apparently forming a mantlet around the inner sides of the motte, as recorded in illustrations of the sixteenth century (Plates 6.1–6.3). This length of curtain wall has not been uncovered in subsequent excavations, but the adjacent section of the mantlet was uncovered both in Somerville’s excavation of 1960, and in the 2006 season of the recent project (see Chapter 10, this volume). The plan also plots a continuation of the curtain wall to the south of the motte, with a note that traces of this were uncovered in 1913. A large amount of restoration work took place at the castle in 1913, and the likeliest explanation for the inclusion of the wall on the plan is that it was uncovered and perhaps excavated in the course of the restoration work, and subsequently covered over again.

Prior to this report, the project has resulted in a new guidebook for the castle, and in one published interim report.2 The exhibition Ruin and rebellion: uncovering the past at Tutbury Castle was shown at the British Museum from July 9th 2009 to March 21st 2010, and the project has also resulted in the production of improved onsite interpretation at Tutbury Castle.

2. 1920 In 1920, Major T H Oakden apparently carried out a noninvasive survey of the inner bailey. Following Major Oakden’s death in 1923, his findings were passed by his son to a local antiquarian, who forwarded them to the duchy. Those findings have been marked onto a copy of Jack’s 1913 plan in pencil, but no other record of his work has been traced. As noted by Sir Robert Somerville (see below), these observations were carried out in ‘a dry season’, a fact confirmed in a letter from Oakden’s son,

 Tringham 2007.  Williams 2006; Hislop and Williams 2007.

1 2

2

Chapter 1: Introduction now housed in the Staffordshire County Archives as part of the papers of the short-lived Tutbury Archaeological Society.3 It seems likely that Oakden’s observations were based on parch-marks in the grass, although some sort of survey of the contours may also have taken place. Both parch-marks in hot weather and bumps are visible today in the areas recorded on the plan, and the tops of the walls of the chapel, which he records, but which had not yet been excavated, can only have been just below the surface. The structures recorded by Oakden include the chapel, structures to the west of the chapel, and another structure between the chapel and the current house. A clearer picture of the sub-surface structures across this area is now provided by the geophysical surveys discussed in Chapter 9, this volume.

days and occupying only certain of the Duchy Staff – the Clerk of the Council and Messrs. Cooper and Thomas for the first, with Hague and Massey and the assistance of a few estate workmen, the woods tractor and a trailer. Mr Purvis joined for the next two. The final burst in 1960, in addition to these participants, had the help of the Duchy Solicitor, the Chief Clerk and Mr. Hamersley, together with a mechanical digger and a dumper-lorry hired for the occasion with two operators, and it lasted Monday– Friday inclusive. The starting point for the excavations was provided by two late-sixteenth century plans of the castle in the British Museum and by certain observations made in a dry season (1929)[sic] by Major T.H. Oakden. Their purpose was to establish the architectural history of the Castle and open up anything of interest.

3. 1955–60 In 1955–57 and 1960, Robert Somerville, clerk to the council of the duchy of Lancaster, carried out a series of short excavations on the motte and in the inner bailey. The only publication of this per se was a brief note in the Bulletin of the British Archaeological Association 76/October 1955. Mistakenly entered under Derbyshire, rather than Staffordshire, this merely states that ‘Tentative excavations at Tutbury castle have revealed the site of the 13th century chapel and the foundations of the banqueting hall.’ The findings from 1955–57 were incorporated into a new guidebook for the castle, which was published in May 1960, in the same week as the final and most substantial season of excavations.4 However, the format of this publication prevented any detailed reference to the excavations themselves. Other information about the dig can be gained from contemporary articles in local newspapers. A full archive of the excavations was not preserved, but the duchy archive contains an album, including photographs of several of the standing structures, shots of the excavations in progress and a few more detailed images of features within individual trenches, but without scale, and with little or no indication of the precise location of the trenches. A number of handwritten notes also survive, including sketch-plans of the areas uncovered on the motte. Between them, the photographs and sketch-plans indicate that Somerville uncovered part of the mantlet and the adjacent features excavated in 2005– 6, and also a section of the wall of what appears to be a round keep of somewhat greater circumference than the current folly, below and to the east of the gap in the folly’s circumference. A small collection of unstratified objects was also preserved by the duchy from these excavations, and these have been added to the archive of the recent excavations as unstratified finds. The archive also includes a typed summary by Somerville of the excavations:

The primary object in the first season (13th–16th June 1955) was to establish the site of the medieval hall at the south end of the castle. Some foundations were found. A trial excavation was made in the lesser of the two chambers of the South Tower to find the original floor level; and some foundations were found and opened up at the west side of the castle yard. Levels were taken (not very successfully) and measurements made. The next “dig” (29th May–1st June 1956) consisted of trenching to find Queen Mary’s hunting lodge (this produced only a brick hearth and a large lump of fallen masonry), clearing out the chamber at the small entrance gate, and further measuring. At the very end prodding disclosed the building in the centre and a causeway across it, both of which were investigated in the third season (20th–24th May 1957), when the foundations of the hunting lodge were also partially opened up and excavations made on the motte or mound. In the 1960 visit the central building was completely excavated by the mechanical digger, more work was done on the hunting lodge foundations and others uncovered to the north of them, and on the foundations of the original keep. Unsuccessful trials were made to find the site of the outer gate. The central building was initially interpreted as a freestanding hall and chamber of the 12th century. This was the interpretation given in the 1960 guidebook, and was probably drawn in part from the discovery of a ‘fireplace’ within the inner chamber. Somerville did recognise that the steps at the east end might have been for an altar, and that this indicated the use of the site as a chapel, but he interpreted this as re-use of the building for that purpose in the 15th century. However, this was reinterpreted following a visit by the Royal Archaeological Institute on 16th July 1963 when, according to Somerville’s notes, ‘it

These were carried out in four seasons, 1955–57 and 1960. The first three were comparatively modest affairs, lasting from two to three and a half   Staffordshire Record Office, D3353/9/9.   Somerville 1960.

3 4

3

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Plate 1.1 Rubble causeway across the top of the chapel ruins, 1960 (DoL)

was agreed that the building in the centre of the court is a chapel.’ He adds:

whether this runs right up to the wall, or how far from the wall it extended. This area has not been excavated in 2004–7, but has been surveyed with both resistivity and GPR. Documentary evidence suggests that there were at least two successive medieval timber-framed ranges in this area, built in the late 13th and 15th centuries respectively, and subsequently a stone or brick building of the 1630s, while a photograph of the late nineteenth century indicates a wooden structure like a cricket pavilion in this area. It is probable that the wall represents foundations for one of these structures. From the position in the photographs, it seems most likely to represent the foundations of the end wall of the house of the 1630s, joining the curtain wall between the postern gate and the final set of windows, but this structure may itself have made use of earlier foundations. Further investigation in this area could reveal more.

Mr C. Raleigh Radford was very interested in it & pointed out that the chancel is a later, enlarged, addition. The nave, he said, was about 1200. The join of the chancel can be seen from its side. He suggested this was done after the Priory was destroyed in 1260 & that the monks used the chancel in the Castle chapel which was enlarged for the purpose. It could have had stalls for 6 a side. Somerville accepted this reattribution as a chapel and later editions of the guidebook have reflected this, although dating it slightly earlier, to the 1170s or 1180s. The chapel walls and altar steps remain exposed, but all of the other areas investigated were covered over. No finds have yet been traced from these excavations, but references so far suggest that those finds which were recorded were predominantly, if not exclusively, post-medieval.



Analysis of the archives relating to Somerville’s excavations raises a number of points of interest for the current project, and in some cases for the interpretation of the 2004–7 excavations: •

The excavations uncovered traces of a fairly substantial stone wall or foundations running at right angles to the south wall of the castle close to the postern gate, although it is not clear

4

The chancel of the chapel apparently contained ‘a fireplace, six inches below the sandstone floor level… still heavily blackened by charcoal’. This is unlikely to coincide with the period of use of the chapel, but it is unclear whether this represents an earlier phase below the chapel, or a later phase cutting through the chapel floor. At present, the sandstone floor is not visible. Again, further investigation might yield more information.

Chapter 1: Introduction •





Somerville also records a substantial rubble or cobbled causeway which crossed the chapel, although this has subsequently been removed, at least in those areas left uncovered, and probably along most or all of its length, as it did not show up on the recent geophysical surveys, although these indicate considerable disturbance of the soil in the area all around the chapel. A plan in the 1968 and 1973 editions of the guidebook showing the location of the causeway suggests that this passed under the chapel walls, but it seems clear from photographs of the excavations that it passed over (Plate 1.1). The chapel was deconsecrated in 1548 (see below), but there is no surviving record of when it was reduced to its current level. Given that levelling across the inner bailey seems to have taken place after the slighting of the castle in 1647–48, it seems clear that the causeway relates to this post-destruction phase of the castle’s use, but there is no evidence to indicate when within that period it was used, although in the guidebook Somerville suggested a possible eighteenthcentury date.5 It has not been identified on any early illustrations or photographs of the site. The plan in the 1968 guidebook shows that the causeway was aligned with the postern gate, and it appears that it formed a route connecting the two entrances to the inner bailey. Somerville uncovered the corner of a structure, the foundations of which were re-excavated in 2005–7, together with the stone-lined gully immediately to the north (see below, Chapter 10) although he does not appear to have gone any deeper. That indicates very clearly that material found above these structures must have been re-deposited, and that finds from those layers should be regarded as unstratified. However, it appears that comparatively little attention was paid to finds, as opposed to structural remains, and from photographs of the site, it is likely that the trenches would have been backfilled with the material which came out of them, with little mixing between trenches. Somerville also apparently found other traces of the foundations to the south, in the area uncovered in 2006 and possibly beyond, suggesting that further investigation would yield more of the structure.



A square structure was uncovered to the west of the chapel, interpreted by Somerville as reused medieval material used as a foundation. It would be interesting to excavate this to establish whether it can be dated. This structure is located on the 1960 plan, but is discernable today as a visible bump on the surface, as well as through geophysics. Excavations in this general area in 2006 did not uncover this structure, but may have partially overlapped with Somerville’s excavations, which would explain the relative paucity of finds from this area.



Fairly extensive excavation took place on the motte, uncovering a number of structures. Somerville’s descriptions refer to a round shellkeep, as recorded in the 16th century, somewhat larger than the modern folly, with foundations exposed to the east of the folly (Fig. 1.3). These have not yet been re-investigated. Somerville’s notes also refer to a drain, and both photographs and Somervilles’s plans indicate a section of straight wall to the north of the folly. This was re-excavated in 2006, and proved to be part of the same structure as the wall uncovered in 1913 (see Chapter 10 below). One of Somerville’s trenches went down four feet and only struck marl, which is consistent with one of the 2005 trenches on the motte, where structural levels were only reached at a depth of 1.48m.

4. Investigation of the castle well, 22nd–23rd September 1956 On the weekend of September 22nd–23rd, a group of cavers made descents of the well, with the permission of the duchy, and one of their members, D A Nash, left a detailed account of their findings, a copy of which is preserved in the duchy archive.7 The expedition had a threefold objective: to test a local legend regarding the existence of a tunnel between the well and the priory; to examine the structure and nature of the walls in case these might supply a geological section of the castle mound; and to discover whether any artefacts could be uncovered from the debris and silt at the bottom of the well. It was quickly established that there was no trace of there ever having been a tunnel branching off from the well, and attempts to remove the water from the bottom of the well succeeded only in stirring up the silt to the extent that the attempt to search for objects at the bottom was abandoned. However, the investigators succeeded in recording the internal structure of the well in some detail:

The floor level in the basements of the South Tower was established as being lower than at present, but the nature of the floor surface is not recorded, nor the exact depth, although Somerville noted a total of eight steps in each bay.6

The uppermost section of the well was 8ft x 8ft square, constructed of blocks of freestone 18in x 10in, the section extending downwards for 10ft. Holes recessed in the corners at the foot of this section suggested that planks may have been inserted at some point to support a platform. Below

  Somerville 1960, 19.   Somerville 1960, 15.

5

  Nash 1956.

7

6

5

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ 5. Discovery of pottery in 1985 Although the exact details of discovery are not recorded, Roman and Iron Age pottery was discovered on the western slope of the castle in 1985. Details were recorded by Maurice Brassington, and incorporated into a larger survey of Roman finds from Britain, as follows: Late Iron Age sherds (FIG. 15, Nos. 1-6) associated with an early Neronian samian form 29 (No. 8), a form 27 stamped almost certainly by Florus ii, C. A.D. 35– 60 (No. 7), a sherd of Ritterling 2B, an amphora-handle stamped PNNR 135 together with other 1st-century sherds, were recovered from the roots of an overturned tree on the western slope below the castle. Earlier finds from the area include BBI ware, but no late Roman pottery.9 6. 1986–88 In 1986–88, the Community Programme Agency of Staffordshire County Council undertook excavations in successive seasons in four separate locations within the castle (site codes TUMS 86, TIGS 87 and TC88), as well as recording sections of the walls. These locations included the areas in front of the South Tower (TC88, Site A) and North Tower (TC88, Site B), two trenches across the hollow way between the lower and middle baileys (TIGS87) and an area in the moat just above the top of the hollow way, where the contours suggest spillage into the moat from the outer edge (TUMS 1986). A sizeable assemblage of ceramics, window-glass, metalwork and animal bone was recovered from the excavations. Following the untimely death of the site director, Mark Neale, the site archive was placed in storage until the late 1990s, when Staffordshire County Council appointed The Potteries Museum and Art Gallery to carry out post-excavation analysis, and the archive remains at the Potteries Museum. Part of the archive seems to have disappeared during the previous period in storage, and the original recording was of variable quality, and the difficulties of dealing with the archive have meant that it was not possible for the work to be completed within the original budget. Specialist reports were completed for the animal bone and clay pipes, and draft reports for the postmedieval pottery and small finds, but the medieval pottery and window glass have not been analysed and the postexcavation work remains incomplete and, without further funding seems likely to remain so, although a summary report by Jon Goodwin was included in the interim report for the current project.10 However, the excavation archive is preserved at the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery in Stoke on Trent, and the authors of the current report are grateful to Deb Klemperer of the Potteries Museum, and to David Barker and Jon Goodwin for providing access to the archive and the reports, and for sharing their knowledge of the material. In the absence of a separate published report on the 1986–88 excavations, where possible, the work

Figure 1.2 Section drawing of the well, 1956 (DoL)

this was a walled circular section 30ft deep, with a diameter of 9ft. Mr Nash judged this to be contemporary with the square section above. Below this, the walling ceased, and for the next 37ft the well extended through the bedrock of red/brown Keuper marl, crumbled in some places but largely in solid condition, with a diameter of around 9ft. Below this, a circular stone wall resumed, with a diameter of around 6ft, extending downward for approximately 12ft, to another circular wall with the narrower diameter of a little over 5ft, which continued to the bottom of the well, to a total depth of around 120ft, below the level of the River Dove. This lower section of wall had ‘a much older appearance’ than the section above, and was punctuated around every 10ft in depth by projecting rims of stone with slots 6in wide, by 1in deep, and recessed 2–3in, which were clearly designed to support timber scaffolding during the construction and/or repairs of the well (Fig 1.2).8

  Frere et al 1986, 390–91.   Hislop and Williams 2007.

9

  Nash 1956, 2–3.

10

8

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

Figure 1.3 Sketch plan by Somerville, showing location of shell keep in relation to the 18th-century folly (DoL) previously carried out on finds and on the site narrative has been integrated into both the planning and the publication of the 2004–7 project (see below, especially chapters 10 and 12).

out limited conductivity and resistivity surveys within the Inner Bailey. This was carried out as an opportunity for students to familiarise themselves with this type of equipment, and also to establish whether it appeared likely that a more systematic survey would yield useful results. While the results of the surveys were not sufficiently detailed to be worth reproducing here, as they were entirely superseded by the more extensive surveys of 2004–6 (see Chapter 9), they revealed sufficient variation

7. 2003 On October 10th–11th 2003, members of the Division of Earth Systems Science at the University of Derby carried 7

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ to indicate that more detailed geophysical surveys would be worthwhile, and thus contributed to the planning of the 2004–7 project.11

the aesthetic qualities of the site, especially the more prominent backdrops, during the course of excavations. Thirdly, because the project was based around the University of Birmingham’s undergraduate training programme requirements, this being one of the principal sources of finance and expertise, fieldwork was limited to a three-week season in each of the four years of the project.

8. 2004 On July 11th, 2004 an informal investigation of the castle well was carried out by members of the Dudley Caving Club, and Bill Griffiths of the West Midlands Cave Exploration Group, together with Gareth Williams of the British Museum. Although the short duration of this investigation meant that detailed recording was not possible, it provided an opportunity to confirm the description of the well made during the descent in 1956, and to establish whether further archaeological investigation of the well would be viable. This was confirmed down to a depth of around 90ft (27.5m), but the well had been filled to that point with a combination of rubbish and gravel dropped down the well by visitors. The fact that the well was entirely dry at this point supports the view that the well has been partially filled in since 1956, since this depth was well above the water level recorded in 1956. Thus, while it was not possible to confirm fully the details observed in 1956, what could be observed in 2004 was fully consistent with the earlier account. The fact that the well had filled up so rapidly as a result of visitor activity (reflecting a significant increase in visitor numbers since 2000) meant that it would not be possible to reach any layers of possible archaeological interest at the bottom of the well without the prior removal of several tonnes of gravel and modern rubbish, and this was deemed not to be viable within the scope of the 2004–7 project. However, to prevent the well being filled up even further, the top of the well was sealed with a decorative fountain, which could be removed if further investigation is considered in future.

Fourthly, during pre SMC application discussions with English Heritage, it was agreed that the unpublished archaeological work carried out under the auspices of Staffordshire County Council during the 1980s needed to be considered, and, if possible, included in the final publication. It was these factors that determined the nature of the project, so that in respect of the excavation, there was an emphasis on elucidating some of the previous work. To this end, a number of areas that were investigated during the course of the 20th century, but which nevertheless remained unpublished, were reopened, and small forays made into virgin territory with a view to extending the scope of our perspective on the castle. While it had originally been considered that it might be possible to include the results of the 1980s work within the final report, unfortunately, funding was not forthcoming. Where elements of the work had already been written up as an archive report (animal bones and clay pipes) it has been possible to incorporate the findings, but other aspects have had to be excluded. Prior to the instigation of the present project, some work had been done on the 1980s site narrative and some on the post-medieval pottery, and the understanding of the material that was gained in the process has, where possible, been used to enhance this publication.

THE 2004–7 RESEARCH PROJECT Malcolm Hislop

In addition to excavation, a considerable amount of detailed building recording was carried out in the 1980s, and consideration was given to the feasibility of including some of this work in the final report. However, independent rapid assessments of the drawings by Malcolm Hislop of Birmingham Archaeology, and by Stephen Dean of Staffordshire County Council, both concluded that the quality of the drawings was mixed, and that although some of the recording was detailed and accurate, other material was of lesser quality, and that, generally, the archive was not reliable enough to use as the basis of a definitive archaeological record, nor particularly useful in what it could tell us about the historic fabric. Therefore, the only drawings from the 1980s to be adapted for inclusion in this report are those of the south elevation of the King’s Lodging, one of the most significant and least exposed pieces of architecture within the castle.

In formulating the research strategy for 2004 to 2007 a number of constraining factors had to be taken into account. Firstly, the physical environment, including buildings and infrastructure, meant that parts of the site were not available for investigation. This was a particular consideration in the inner ward where there were both permanent and temporary buildings, areas of hardstanding, large numbers of planters, and underground services. It is for these reasons that the non-invasive investigations within the inner ward were only partial. Secondly, at the time of the project, the castle was being administered as a commercial concern, so that the archaeological fieldwork had to be co-ordinated to take account of associated activities. Not least was the popularity of the castle as a photogenic venue for weddings and other social events, which created the need to maintain

For more detailed analysis of the 1980s work it will be necessary to consult the archive, which is retained by the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, Stoke on Trent.

 Adetunji et al 2004.

11

8

Chapter 1: Introduction PHASING Six broad principal phases were established during the excavations, which may be applied equally to the standing buildings. These are: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Pre-Castle Activities The Early Earthwork Castle 11th and 12th centuries The Stone Castle 12th to 14th centuries Reconstruction: the 15th century The Early Post-Medieval Period c 1500–c 1650 Reoccupation: the Later Post-Medieval Period c 1750 onwards

ARRANGEMENT OF THE PUBLICATION The publication is divided into four parts. Part 1 introduces the site, and describes the background to the recent archaeological programme, its scope, and how it was undertaken, as well as summarizing previous archaeological investigations. Part 2 considers the wider context of the castle, including the history of the honor, the archaeological landscape, recent archaeological work in the town, as well as a new appraisal of the Tutbury hoard. Part 3 relates to the castle itself and contains sections devoted to the history, the earthwork survey, architecture, geophysical survey, excavation, finds and environmental evidence. Part 4 discusses the results of the entire programme and highlights future research priorities.

9

Chapter 2: The Honor of Tutbury, the Earldom of Derby and the Duchy of Lancaster Gareth Williams

THE FOUNDATION OF THE HONOR

the area, including neighbouring Rolleston, were held in 942 by the landowner Wulfsige the Black, some of which, again including Rolleston, passed to his kinsman Wulfric Spot, founder of Burton abbey. Rolleston then passed to Burton abbey in 1008, but may have been appropriated soon thereafter by Eadric Streona, ealdorman of Mercia. Certainly with the establishment of the earldom of Mercia during the reign of Cnut, the house of Leofwine (which held the earldom) came to dominate landholding both in the immediate area and more widely in the region.3 Staffordshire was one of a number of shires, mostly in the Midlands, where the house of Leofwine held more land under Edward the Confessor than either the king or the house of Godwine,4 but matters are confused by the fact that the Domesday survey in this area sometimes records lands held under Edward in the name of the representatives of the dynasty in 1066, Eadwine of Mercia and his younger brother Morcar of Northumbria, but sometimes in the names of their father Ælfgar (d. 1062) or grandfather Leofric (d.1057) or, as at Tutbury, no previous owner was specified. Rolleston at this time was held by Morcar, and Tringham suggests that Tutbury’s favourable assessment for taxation in 1086 may indicate that this was also held by the earl.5 Eadwine, as the last earl of Mercia is surprisingly only mentioned once in Staffordshire, and this may indicate that following his rebellion (see below) he was effectively written out of history as far as William I was concerned, just as the Domesday assessment TRE ignores the reign of Harold II.6 The confused information for this area might also be because the Domesday commissioners relied on faulty oral tradition, or on charters from early in the reign, or because lands held by one member of the family reverted to the king, or were held by widows rather than passing to sons.7 However, one may note (perhaps with undue cynicism) that Henry de Ferrers, as a Domesday assessor, and also the landholder at Tutbury in 1086, was well placed to suppress an earlier assessment less favourable to his own interests in 1086. Tutbury might also have benefited from a generous assessment when the first castle was built (possibly slightly in advance of the creation of the honor as seen in Domesday), at which point it was held by William I’s kinsman Hugh d’Avranches.8

The importance of Tutbury Castle lies not only in the castle itself, or even in the castle’s dominant position in the immediate landscape, but also in its role as the caput of one of the most important honors, or lordships, in the Midlands. From 1071, the honor of Tutbury was the main lordship, and the largest concentration of lands, held by the de Ferrers family, although they also held lands in other parts of England. The honor retained its identity, and Tutbury its role as the de Ferrers’ ‘chief castle’ after Robert I de Ferrers was elevated to the status of earl of Derby in 1138. It further retained its importance as one of the main Midland estates held by the earldom (later the duchy) of Lancaster after the de Ferrers estates were forfeited by Robert III de Ferrers in 1265 and subsequently granted to Henry III’s younger son Edmund Crouchback, initially on a temporary basis but from 1269 more permanently. The duchy lands remained distinct from other Crown lands when Henry Bolingbroke, 3rd duke of Lancaster, seized the throne in 1399, and acquired a new importance in an area in which comparatively little land was held directly by the Crown. The duchy has been held directly by the crown ever since, and apart from brief alienations in the 15th and 17th centuries, the honor has remained firmly under the control of the duchy. Even though duchy landholdings across the country are now significantly reduced, and much of the land formerly held within the honor has been sold, the Needwood Survey (including Tutbury) remains a major concentration of duchy property, as a modern legacy of the medieval honor of Tutbury. The honor appears to have represented a new grouping of estates, in the period 1069–71. Ownership of Tutbury itself pre-Conquest is not recorded, and the same is true of some other estates in the area. Looking slightly further back, the exact border between areas under Viking and Anglo-Saxon control in the early 10th century is uncertain, but sculpture, place-names and (more debatably) numismatic evidence suggest that the border was likely to have been very much in this area, with the Trent, the Dove and the Churnet forming natural boundaries, although Rolleston to the south of the Dove incorporates a Scandinavian personal name.1 Tringham suggests that once this area came under royal control in the mid-10th century there may have been a deliberate attempt on the part of the new West-Saxon dynasty to break up the estates of the former Mercian royal monastery of St Werburh at Hanbury.2 Several estates in

Every major lordship required estates to support the lord’s position, but Tutbury is relatively unusual in that the bulk  Tringham 2007, 4–5.   Baxter 2007, 150. 5  Tringham 2007, 5. 6   Slade 1985, 6. 7   Baxter 2007, 126, 135–38. 8   Chibnall 1969, 264–65. 3 4

  Horovitz 2005, 546–47; Williams forthcoming b.  Tringham 2007, 4.

1 2

10

Chapter 2: The Honor of Tutbury, the Earldom Of Derby, and the Duchy of Lancaster of the honor was formed of a single concentrated group of estates, and, even more so, in that this concentration spreads across the shire boundary. A more typical pattern was for post-Conquest lordships to be more dispersed, preventing their lords from acquiring too much concentrated power in one area, as this might then be a threat to the authority of the Crown within those areas. Henry de Ferrers also possessed dispersed estates, with manors in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Gloucestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire, but the majority of the honor took the form of a single block of land on either side of the Staffordshire/Derbyshire border, together with other detached estates close by in these two shires and also over the border into Leicestershire.9 Tutbury has sometimes been cited as an example of a territorial unit known as a ‘castelry’ or ‘castellary’ in the secondary literature. These have been seen as heavily feudal territories deliberately created to be self-sustaining in supporting the military function of specific castles, and particularly providing garrisons for the relevant castles as centres of military territories.10 However, more recent scholarship has pointed to a wider contemporary meaning for the term castellaria, and has questioned both the strictly military character of the castellaria and some of the assumptions about feudalism which underpinned it.11

to William, it seems unlikely that so large an honor would have been created in the heart of his earldom before the rebellion, but the exact sequence of events is impossible to reconstruct. Hugh d’Avranches may thus have controlled a much smaller lordship at Tutbury, or he may have held the whole honor, but in any case the honor as described in Domesday is likely to have been formed no later than Henry de Ferrers’ succession to the honor in 1071, in the aftermath of the rebellion. This unusually concentrated honor controlled an important strategic area. The Trent was one of the major inland waterways of early medieval England, and was navigable up to and beyond the borders of the honor. A north–south road crossed the Trent at Burton and passed through Tutbury before crossing the Dove and continuing north to Ashbourne and the mineral resources of north Derbyshire. Slightly to the north, a Roman road extended westward from Derby across the honor, parallel to the Dove, to Rocester and beyond, while another Roman road seems to have passed across the northern part of the honor west to Buxton. With its twin castles of Tutbury and Duffield, the honor of Tutbury completely controlled this key area of newly subdued territory, and with the Peak District blocking easy movement to the north, and Needwood Forest to the south, the honor commanded the only convenient routes for an army across the north Midlands. Tutbury was also one of a line of early castles spread across this route by 1071 from Lincoln in the east down to Stafford and Shrewsbury in the west.14

Nevertheless, the creation of the honor of Tutbury probably did have in part a military function, controlling a central part of the north Midlands. Whoever held Tutbury pre-Conquest, the honor of Tutbury seems to represent a conscious creation in the wake of the forfeiture of land by both Eadwine and Morcar and their Mercian followers in the period 1069–71. The brothers had submitted to William’s rule in the aftermath of Hastings, and had been permitted to keep much of their lands in 1066, but had subsequently rebelled. Where ownership can be traced in the time of Edward, the new concentration of lands in south Derbyshire and east Staffordshire brought together lands which in both shires had been held by multiple landowners.12 This included some outlying estates, but also a small concentration of land south of the Dove, in Tutbury, Rolleston, Marchington, Draycott in the Clay, Fauld, Moreton (in Hanbury) and a small estate in Burton, together with a much larger adjoining block of land in Derbyshire, including almost all of ‘Walecros’ (Applecross) wapentake. This included Duffield, which came to form a secondary centre for the honor (and a second de Ferrers castle), which had been held by a Mercian thegn named Siward Barn. Siward’s lands across several shires passed as a group into the honor of Tutbury, and it is likely that this wholesale confiscation occurred following his involvement in the Mercian rebellion, c 1070, although it is possible that confiscations between 1066 and 1070 may have been a factor in provoking rebellion in the area.13 Since, prior to the rebellions, earl Eadwine had submitted

Tutbury itself may or may not have been a new settlement, as the paucity of evidence for the area pre-Conquest makes this unclear. The place-name is Old English, and while the first element is probably tot (‘look-out hill’) rather than a personal name, the second element burh is ambiguous. This element signifies some sort of defended or enclosed place, and while it typically refers to some sort of fortification, there are parallels for the use of this element to refer to non-military enclosures as well as to both Anglo-Saxon burhs and Iron-age hillforts,15 and while both of the latter have been postulated, in the absence of firm evidence, either archaeological or historical, the early status of Tutbury remains conjectural. It is true that Tutbury’s commanding position would have made it an ideal defensive spot in any period, and its location would fit well into the expansion of West Saxon authority into the Midlands through the building of burhs in the early 10th century. Burhs had both military and civil roles in the expansion of royal authority in the 10th century, and while it is true that burhs were more widely spaced in the Midlands than further south, and that there need not have been any burh in east Staffordshire at this time, the possibility can certainly not be excluded.16 Certainly by 1086 Tutbury was one of only three boroughs in Staffordshire (the medieval borough being a development

  Holt 1987, 58; Golob 1984, 45–51.   Stenton 1961, 192–96; Brown 1969, 215; Golob 1984, 48–50. 11   Coulson 2003, 56–59. 12   Golob 1985, 48; Tringham 2007, 9. 13   Golob 1984, 47, 60; Wiltshire et al 2005, 8–10. 9

10

  Brown 1987; Harfield 1991.   Draper 2008. 16  Williams forthcoming a and b. 14 15

11

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ of the civil aspect of the Anglo-Saxon burh), having 42 men in the borough who lived by trade alone.17 However, this could simply indicate the commercial success of a borough newly established at the caput of a major honor. Henry de Ferrers also established a Benedictine priory immediately below the castle (see Chapter 6), as a daughter house to St Pierre-sur-Dives, close to his family home of Ferrières-Saint-Hilaire in Normandy. A borough would thus have completed the classic trio of castle, church and borough established within many Norman lordships, and it is almost certain that de Ferrers would have established a borough at Tutbury if one did not already exist.

industrial processes.22 Control of the valuable timber resources was prized, and the owners of the honor often took a personal interest. For example, John of Gaunt wrote to the seneschal, receiver and chief forester of the honor in February 1373 noting that trees had fallen in a recent great storm, and that people were helping themselves to the fallen timber. The officers were ordered to prevent this, unless people were willing to pay a reasonable price, as the timber could otherwise be used to carry out repairs at Tutbury Castle. The following year, Gaunt personally ordered the sale of 40 oak trees from Needwood, Agardley and Yoxall.23

THE RESOURCES OF THE HONOR

Forests also supported the breeding of game, both for sport and sustenance. Hunting was a popular entertainment for the nobility, but game was an important source for providing the large amounts of meat required for aristocratic households. The evidence of animal bones from the excavations at Tutbury Castle points to the consumption of both game animals and game birds, as well as more domesticated animals (see Chapter 14). Given its importance, game was a carefully managed resource, which could be used directly for the benefit of the owner, or as gifts to enhance the owner’s position or to strengthen social ties. For example, in 1313–14, the master forester of Needwood began the year with 17 deer in the larder and caught 90 more. Forty-nine were consumed in the earl of Lancaster’s various households, including ten at Tutbury Castle at Christmas, while a further 27 are recorded as gifts, with as many as six deer going to one individual.24 In addition, forests were used to pasture a variety of domestic animals, including pigs, sheep, cattle and horses. The latter three were best pastured in dedicated parks, while pigs could forage in the forest itself. The grazing could be used directly by the lord’s own livestock, but he could also charge others for grazing rights as another significant source of revenue.25

Rather less speculative is the range of natural resources available within the honor. The central part of the honor, around and to the north of the River Dove contained good arable land, while the Derbyshire hills in the north provided ideal pasture for sheep. This part of the honor was augmented by the grant in fee to Henry’s son Robert de Ferrers of a further block of estates around Wirksworth and Ashbourne in the early 12th century,18 and this ‘Low Peak’ estate, especially the manor of Hartington, was capable of supporting large numbers of sheep, with 4,982 fleeces shorn in 1313–14, and apparently an even greater yield the previous year.19 Cattle were also grazed on the Low Peak estates, as well as at Duffield Frith and in Needwood Forest, providing working oxen, meat, milk and leather, but cattle-farming seems to have been less profitable in this area than sheep-farming.20 The gain of the Low Peak estates also gave the de Ferrers lords of Tutbury control of the valuable lead resources in the Wirksworth area, and the northern part of the honor also contained coal, iron and a gritstone suitable for the manufacture of millstones and other grinding stones.21 The honor also contained two substantial tracts of forest, Needwood Forest in the south and Duffield Frith in the north. These provided valuable timber resources, both for the maintenance of the castle and for commercial exploitation. Timber was essential for building work, both as a construction material and for use in scaffolding, lifting gear, etc, and the use of local timber is recorded on a number of occasions for building work at Tutbury Castle (see Chapter 6). Timber was also a valuable commodity for the same reason, and it also had a commercial value for its use in a wide variety of wooden goods, including wagons and carts, ships, furniture, shafts for weapons, and a variety of tools, decorative items and other craft goods, while bark could be used to make rope, and was also used as an agent for tanning leather. Finally, wood was the main source of fuel, both in the form of logs and kindling, and as the raw material for charcoal, essential for various

In particular, Tutbury and the surrounding area seems to have been particularly favoured for the pasturing and breeding of horses at the latest from the early 14th century, with a number of individual parks around Tutbury and Needwood Forest used for the purpose. Thomas of Lancaster had 120 horses at Tutbury in 1313, when he built a new stable at Tutbury, measuring 120ft by 22ft, but in the same year existing stables were repaired both in Tutbury and Yoxall, so the idea of stabling horses in the area was certainly not entirely new.26 It may have begun under Thomas, who inherited the honor from his father Edmund in 1296 (see below), but the paucity of records of the honor from Edmund’s time means the absence of earlier records of horses at Tutbury need not be significant. The pasturing of the horses was spread out across the southern part of the honor, although it is recorded that a stallion was kept at Tutbury for breeding purposes in 1322. This association

  DB, Staffordshire, 10.1; Mosley 1832, 6; Slade 1985, 22–24.   Golob 1984, 62–67. 19   Birrell 1962, 148–60, especially 149. 20   Birrell 1962, 160–70. 21   Birrell 1962, 128–35; Wiltshire et al 2007, 113–23.

  Birrell 1980, 81–83.   JGR I, 1162, 1468–69. 24   DL 29/1/3; Birrell 1980, 84–85. 25   Birrell 1962, 114-34; Birrell 1980, 80–81. 26   Birrell 1962, 169.

17

22

18

23

12

Chapter 2: The Honor of Tutbury, the Earldom Of Derby, and the Duchy of Lancaster of pasturing and breeding horses at Tutbury continued and developed under Thomas’ successors. In 1327–28, 20 three-year old mares and 18 fillies were sold from Tutbury, but a total of 168 horses were still recorded there in 1328.27 Henry of Grosmont was able to provide for a substantial mounted force for the French campaigns from his own resources, while in September 1380 John of Gaunt gave orders that provision should be made for the pasturing of his great horses at Tutbury while he was serving in the Scottish borders.28 The stud continued to develop in the later Middle Ages, and was formally established as one of the main royal studs under Henry VIII, together with Malmesbury and Hampton Court, and the ‘Tutbury Race’ remained pre-eminent until it was broken up at the end of the Civil War in 1650 (see Chapter 6).

earlier records, and the examples cited above leave no doubt that the alabaster was already being exploited by the lords of Tutbury themselves from the 12th century onwards. Gypsum floors were used in various buildings in the castle (see Chapter 8), and a number of blocks of alabaster are visible within the standing structures today. It is unclear whether these have been carved later from a convenient local resource, or whether they represent later re-use of existing dressed alabaster from within the castle. Although a local tradition of a ‘white tower’ made entirely of alabaster cannot be substantiated, and seems unlikely given that alabaster is too soft a stone to be wellsuited for major structures, more limited use of alabaster for decorative facings within such a high status residence seems rather more plausible.

The southern part of the honor also possessed another important resource, although this was not exploited until the 12th century and later. The ridge on which Tutbury sits contains a major vein of gypsum, still mined at Fauld today, and while this was used in part for plaster, this vein of gypsum also yielded alabaster of the highest quality, especially at Castlehay to the south west of the castle. The Tutbury area was one of the major sources of alabaster in England, and although the presence of a welldocumented centre of production of alabaster sculpture at Nottingham (which also had a local source) has led to the generic description of most medieval English alabasters as ‘Nottingham alabaster’, various items described as such may have been sourced and even crafted in or around Tutbury, and nearby Burton was certainly a centre for carving.29 The earliest recorded architectural use of alabaster in medieval England is a single course of masonry around the top of the west door of the former priory church in Tutbury, dating from the mid 12th century. While more modern corrosion means that this is now barely visible, when new this would have stood out dramatically from the darker surround. One of the earliest examples of the sculptural use of alabaster is also close by, in the tomb of Sir Henry de Hanbury in Hanbury church, dating from c1340. John of Gaunt famously had alabaster shipped from Tutbury for the construction of tombs in the old St Paul’s Cathedral in London for his first wife Blanche and himself in 1374.30 This was particularly appropriate, since the colour of the stone reflected Blanche’s name, while it was through his marriage to Blanche that John had acquired the honor of Tutbury from which the stone came, as well as a large proportion of his lands and wealth (see below). Local alabaster was also sold commercially, providing an additional source of revenue for whoever held the honor, as in the sale of ‘plaster-stones’ from Castlehay in 1444–45 for use in the manufacture of ‘images’.31 Sales from the quarry are only recorded from the 15th century onwards,32 but this may reflect the lack of survival of

THE EARLDOM OF DERBY Henry’s son Robert succeeded in extending his father’s concentration of estates in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. In the former case he extended the honor northwards, holding the five royal manors of Wirksworth, Ashbourne, Parwich, Matlock and Derby in fee farm from the king by 1129, and apparently also holding the lordship of Wirksworth wapentake.33 At the southern end of the honor, he consolidated the family’s control of Needwood forest when he successfully established a claim to Callingwood near Tatenhill in the 1120s, despite a competing claim from the abbot and monks of Burton.34 It was also Robert who succeeded in elevating the status of the de Ferrers family to earls of Derby, receiving that title in 1138 as a reward for his service to Stephen in the Battle of the Standard (see Chapter 6). The title does not seem to have come with lands attached, and although Derby was largely surrounded by the de Ferrers honor, the honor continued to be described as the honor of Tutbury, and Tutbury Castle remained the caput of the honor. Furthermore, Robert seems to have continued to be known as both Robert of Tutbury and Robert de Ferrers, and to have styled himself simply as Earl Robert, although he was also referred to as earl of Derby.35 Robert was one of a number of new earls created by Stephen in 1138, and this probably represented to some extent the regional devolution of royal authority,36 and the title came accompanied by the traditional earl’s third penny (ie, one-third share) in royal revenues in both the town and the county of Derby. Robert’s son, another Robert, was married to Margaret, daughter of William Peverel, castellan of Nottingham, and a major landholder in the Midlands, especially in Nottinghamshire and north Derbyshire. Probably as a result of this marriage connection, Robert chose to style himself earl of Nottingham rather than earl of Derby, although this was probably an empty title, as he apparently never gained control of Nottingham, or of his father-in-

  Birrell 1962, 167–68.   JGR II, 366. 29   Cheetham 2004, 8–9. 30   Cheetham 2004, 9, 17. 31   DL 29/6184. 32   Birrell1962, 136. 27 28

  Golob 1986, 62–64.  Tringham 2007, 222. 35   Jones 1980, 16–17; Tringham 2007, 10. 36   Crouch 2000, 84–89. 33 34

13

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ law’s Nottinghamshire estates.37 Robert largely succeeded in remaining aloof from the civil war, until Tutbury was attacked by the young Henry of Anjou in 1153, together with the earls of Chester and Leicester, both of whom were rivals to the de Ferrers family for lands and authority in the Midlands, and who probably particularly feared any expansion of Robert’s authority into Nottinghamshire (see Chapter 6). Henry came to the throne as Henry II in 1154, and since it was his general policy to reclaim for the Crown all rights granted during the reign of Stephen, he may have reclaimed the revenues pertaining to the earldom of Derby before the death of Robert II de Ferrers. Certainly these revenues were not inherited by Robert’s son William, who never seems to have used the style ‘earl of Derby’ but only ‘Earl William’.38 Nor did he gain any share in the Peverel inheritance to which he felt entitled through his mother (see Chapter 6) and the family also lost the fee farm of Wirksworth, which reverted to the Crown during the early years of Henry’s reign.39 William’s involvement in the rebellion of Henry the Young King in 1173–74 diminished any royal favour still further (see Chapter 6). Despite the potentially advantageous marriage to the Peverel heiress, both the extent of the honor and the status of the family generally declined under Robert II and William I de Ferrers.

By the 13th century the de Ferrers family had also acquired Yoxall, on the southern edge of the Needwood Forest, which had previously belonged to the bishop of Lichfield. It is uncertain which of the de Ferrers earls acquired the manor, although following the general trend of the family fortunes William II is a probability. Whoever was responsible, this may be seen as a strategic purchase to ensure that the forest was entirely surrounded by manors under their ownership, ensuring that they had complete control of access to its resources.41 Greater rewards came when William was made sheriff of both Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire in 1194, following his support for Richard against John at Nottingham that year. This represented a partial recovery of the income from the earldom of Derby confiscated by Henry II in the late 1150s, together with a comparable income from Nottinghamshire, where William had hopes of finally gaining the Peverel inheritance. He was not formally recognised at this time with the title of earl either of Derby or of Nottingham, but as William of Tutbury he supported the king’s canopy with the earls of Norfolk, Arundel and Salisbury at Richard’s second coronation in 1194, and seems to have enjoyed the personal status (and occasionally the title) of an earl, even without a formal earldom.42 For formal recognition William had to wait for the Council of Northampton in April 1199, which saw an accommodation between John and the leading barons, in which they agreed to recognise John as king and to give him their fealty, while he in turn agreed to recognise and where necessary restore their hereditary rights. In the case of William, this meant his formal investiture as earl of Derby on June 7th, together with the restoration of the ‘third penny’ due to the earl, although he seems to have continued to use the title earl of Tutbury rather than earl of Derby.43

The family restored its fortunes, and extended their lands to their fullest extent, under William’s son, William II de Ferrers, who succeeded his father in 1190 and then survived until 1247. As discussed in Chapter 6, the fact that William I died on Crusade with Richard I probably helped to secure Richard’s favour for his son, and he received his inheritance without losing any further territory. William secured his position in the north Midlands through a dynastic marriage to Agnes, sister of Ranulf, earl of Chester, and further strengthened his position with Richard when he and Ranulf supported the king against his brother John on his return to England in 1194, but subsequently served John loyally throughout his troubled reign, and was one of the leading supporters of the young Henry III during the first years of his reign. Consistent and strong support for the Crown over such a long period did not go unrewarded. William’s marriage to Agnes brought him ten librates in the demesne manor of Donington-on-Bain in Lincolnshire, and also five knights’ fees in Oxfordshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire. Although these manors were separated from each other, all touched on existing de Ferrers estates, and allowed William to consolidate and develop large blocks of territory, including the honor of Tutbury, which was now extended to the east in Leicestershire, and also to build his relationship with a number of lesser baronial families holding lands within or on the fringes of the honor.40

William also reached what turned out to be a temporary accommodation regarding the Peverel inheritance, which had been held by John himself under Henry II and Richard. John granted him the demesne manor, park and hundred of Higham in Northamptonshire (subsequently known as Higham Ferrers) together with Newbottle and Blisworth. In return he agreed to give up his claim to the remainder of the Peverel inheritance, and to pay the sum of 2,000 marks. Although the size and strategic importance of Higham was rather less than either the Peverel lands in Nottinghamshire and the Peak, or the honor of Tutbury, it was a wealthy manor, and together with Newbottle and Blisworth the grant approximately doubled William’s income. This was a comparatively generous grant, all the more so because, despite the repeated claims by the de Ferrers family to the Peverel inheritance, there seems to have been no real dispute that the lands had been forfeited quite legally to the Crown by William Peverel for his refusal to face justice for a case of alleged murder (see Chapter 6).44 The Higham estate remained under the control of William’s family until

  Jones 1980, 9, 17-18; Tringham 2007, 10–11.   Golob 1986, 143–44, 168–70; Tringham 2007, 11. 39   Golob 1986, 165–67. 40   Golob 1986, 174–76.

  Golob 1986, 295; Tringham 2007, 5.   Golob 1986, 177–78. 43   Golob, 1986, 178–79. 44   DL10/49; Golob 1986, 179.

37

41

38

42

14

Chapter 2: The Honor of Tutbury, the Earldom Of Derby, and the Duchy of Lancaster the forfeiture of virtually all of the de Ferrers estates under William’s grandson Robert III de Ferrers (see below), and thereafter formed an important part of the estates of the earldom (and subsequently the duchy of Lancaster, and this part of Northamptonshire remains one of the main concentrations of property still held by the duchy today. In 1203 William also recovered the fee farm of Wirksworth, lost by his father or grandfather early in the reign of Henry II.45

Lancashire lands in 1242 led to temporary confiscations by the king, although in both cases the lands were recovered on payment of a fine.48 William II de Ferrers must thus be seen on balance as one of the most successful members of his family in securing and extending the family holdings, both those relating to the honor of Tutbury and elsewhere. At the same time, his excessive greed may have contributed to the permanent loss of Bolsover and the Peak, and put his continued tenure of other possessions at risk. His unruly behaviour also foreshadowed later holders of the honor of Tutbury who mistakenly believed that their lands and wealth gave them the power to defy the king, although William came out of things rather better than either his grandson Robert III de Ferrers, or later Thomas of Lancaster (see below and Chapter 6).

Despite the agreement with John in 1199 regarding the Peverel estates apart from Higham, William seems not to have abandoned his ambitions, and the breakdown of royal authority at the end of John’s reign provided an opportunity. William supported both John and the young Henry III, but the price of his support was control of the important Peverel castles of Bolsover and the Peak and the lands attached to both, together with Harestan Castle and the manor of Melbourne in Derbyshire. This was promised by John, but only granted under Henry III, although even then the grant was only made during the king’s pleasure, with an initial limit on the grant that the castles would revert to Henry when he reached his majority in 1222. William acted as though he was lord of those manors with all the rights attached, rather than bailiff of the Peak and castellan of what technically remained royal castles, and was charged with illegally enjoying the profits of various rights not granted to him by the king. It is uncertain whether his behaviour was a direct cause of Henry insisting on the reversion of the two castles to the Crown at the due date, or whether this had always been planned, and William was seeking to maximise his income in the limited time available. In either case, William returned the castles to royal authority without a struggle, and Henry in return wrote off the debt to the Crown which William was said to have accumulated through his misappropriation of the income from Henry’s own rights in Bolsover and the Peak during William’s custody.46 Thus while William was unable to secure the lands in the long term, he was able to enjoy without repercussions a rather larger income in the short term from his temporary possession of the two castles than either John or Henry III had originally intended.

William’s son, William III de Ferrers, did little to add to the family landholdings, since his main gains, at Salford in Lancashire and Chartley in Derbyshire, were at the expense of his younger brothers, and came out of the Chester inheritance of his mother Agnes. A similar case for possession of Repton in Derbyshire, one of the few manors close to Tutbury not to form part of the honor, and also formerly held by the earl of Chester, remained unresolved at the time of William’s death in 1253, although he had taken control of the manor by force the previous year following the death of the dowager countess of Chester.49 Other lands acquired through his marriage to Sybil, daughter of William Marshal, were largely lost again through his need to provide dowers for their seven daughters, although the Marshal inheritance and other factors meant that these dowers made surprisingly little impact on the core estates.50 Although he did little to add to the estates, William was active at court, and seems to have been well regarded by Henry III, since he was able to secure the marriage of his son Robert to Henry’s niece Mary, a marriage which brought with it an annual income of £100 (see below). He also received a grant from Henry of free warren in his estates in 1251, a grant which brought some financial benefits.51 William’s greatest economic success, however, was in the development of towns, both in the honor of Tutbury and elsewhere. Tutbury itself had seen a steady development under William’s predecessors from the burh of 42 tradesmen recorded in Domesday Book. However, there is little evidence that the de Ferrers family took much interest in any other towns, although their holdings also included Ashbourne in Derbyshire and, from 1232, Liverpool and Salford.52 By contrast, William III de Ferrers founded a number of boroughs. These included Bolton and Chorley in Lancashire (the latter built on newly-acquired land), and development of the borough of Higham Ferrers at the heart of Peverel estate of Higham in Northamptonshire. Closer to home, he also established a

Furthermore, the death of William’s brother in law Ranulph of Chester in 1232 meant that William inherited through his wife a portion of the Chester lands, including the three wapentakes of West Derby, Salford and Leyland in Lancashire, giving him control of the lands ‘between the Ribble and the Mersey.’47 These lands were later in the century to form a key component in establishing a new earldom of Lancaster, held together with the honor of Tutbury by Edmund of Lancaster (see below). Just as he had exceeded his rights in Bolsover and the Peak between 1216 and 1222, William seems to have been excessively grasping with regard to his other properties, and his over-exploitation of his Derbyshire lands in 1241 and his

  Golob 1986, 208.   Golob 1986, 265–67. 50   Golob 1986, 257–60. 51   CCR 1251, 373; Golob 1986, 64, 260. 52   Golob 1986, 268–73. 48 49

  Golob 1986, 207–8.   Golob 1986, 184–203. 47   Golob 1986, 204, 208. 45 46

15

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ borough at Uttoxeter, a few miles to the west of Tutbury. All of these proved to be successful and provided a regular source of income for William and his successors. William’s son, Robert III de Ferrers, also established a borough in 1263, the imaginatively-named Newborough near Agardsley in Needwood Forest, on land recently recovered from Tutbury Priory.53 Its lack of success probably owes something to the fact that Newborough lay within the forest, and not far from both Tutbury and Uttoxeter, and the area may have been simply too small to support three boroughs so close together. Newborough has subsequently reverted to a moderate-sized village. However, the surrounding Needwood Forest, together with Duffield Frith, saw a considerable opening up and improved financial exploitation of the forest resources in the 13th century, begun under William II de Ferrers, and continued under William III and Robert III.54

while other resources were exploited by the king, setting a precedent for what was to follow.59 However, he had already been released by November 12th 1265, when he was given a safe conduct to visit the king, and on December 5th received pardon for his trespasses against the king, his castles and the Lord Edward. His lands were returned on payment of a fine of 1,500 marks, and a golden cup. This comparatively lenient treatment may have resulted from his relationship by marriage to the king. The gold cup was duly handed over, and the following years saw payment of at least part of the fine.60 Robert was fully restored to his property, but in early 1266 devastated a wide area of the Midlands. He was captured at Chesterfield on May 15th 1266, and again imprisoned, and by May 22nd his lands had once more been confiscated.61 Robert’s lands were granted to Edmund Crouchback, younger son of the king, first in fee on June 28th, and subsequently at the king’s pleasure on August 5th. Changing the terms again, the lands of several of the king’s enemies and felons, including Robert, were transferred to Edmund in fee on August 15th, pending the final settlement of terms for all the rebels, according to the Dictum of Kenilworth of October 31st. This allowed for the redemption of lands either by installments over a fixed period, or by the rebels’ lands on a long lease, or by the grantee holding the confiscated lands until the accrued revenue matched the total fine. Fines were typically set at five times the annual value of the property, but Robert was singled out for a heavier fine of seven times the annual value as a punishment for rebelling again after receiving the king’s forgiveness for his previous rebellion.62 Robert remained in prison until May 1st 1269, when he was released after making pledges to the king. However, he was released directly into the hands of Edmund, and was obliged under duress to agree to a total fee for redemption of his fines of £50,000, with a deadline of July 9th the same year.63 Payment of such a large sum in such a short space of time was impossible, as Edmund must surely have intended, and even the official history of the duchy of Lancaster acknowledged that ‘it is quite evident that Ferrers was constrained into forswearing his inheritance’.64

Forfeiture of the Earldom The downfall of the de Ferrers family came as a result of the actions of Earl Robert III, whose involvement in the Barons’ War of the 1260s ultimately led to the permanent loss of the honor of Tutbury, and of almost all of the other de Ferrers lands. As Robert was still a minor when he inherited in 1254, his lands were held in ward until his majority in 1260. The wardship was granted to the Lord Edward (older son of Henry III) in 1254, and this may lie at the root of some of the later contention between the two, although the fact that Edward also held the Peverel lordship claimed by successive generations of the de Ferrers family is also likely to have been an issue.55 Edward sold the wardship in 1257 to Queen Eleanor and Peter of Savoy.56 At the age of ten, Robert had been married to Mary, the seven-year old daughter of Hugh XI de Lusignan, count of La Marche and Angoulême.57 As Mary was the niece of Henry III, this meant that Robert was closely tied to the king by marriage, and therefore well placed to maintain or even strengthen the de Ferrers holdings had he remained loyal to the king, while had he acted in concert with Simon de Montfort, the power of Henry III and the Lord Edward might have been more effectively countered by the barons. However, Robert seems to have been determined to act solely in what he perceived to be his own interests, with disastrous results.

Under law, the principle of duress should have applied, but Edmund had the support of his father the king, and subsequently of his brother Edward I, and despite a prolonged legal dispute, punctuated by occasional violence, Robert and his successors were unable to regain the bulk of his lands, although Robert did manage to secure the return of the manor (though not the castle) of Chartley in 1274, and Holbrook in Derbyshire in 1275. Subsequent attempts by his widow and heirs to recover

Robert had already demonstrated his capacity for violence by an attack on Tutbury priory in 1260,58 but his involvement in the civil war in 1263–64 (see Chapter 6 below) led to his imprisonment in the Tower of London in December 1264, and to his lands being taken into the king’s hands on February 23rd 1265 Various of these lands were once again committed to the Lord Edward,

  CPR 1258–66, 409; Dobrowolski 7, 10–11.   CPR 1258–66, 503, 517–18, 522; 1267–72, 32; Powicke 1947, ii, 523; Dobrowolski 1993, 12–13. 61   Met. Chron., 770–71; CPR 1258–66, 597; Dobrowolski 1993, 14–15. 62   CPR 1258–66, 612, 622, 672; DBM 325–27; Dobrowolski 1993, 16– 19. 63   CPR 1266–72, 124-25, 336; Dobrowolski 1993, 19–21. 64   Somerville 1953, 5. 59

  Mosley 1832, 384-5; Golob 1986, 274–78, 289–90, Tringham 2007, 12. 54   Golob 1986, 278–301. 55  Tringham 2007, 12–13. 56   Dobrowolski 1993, 1–2. 57   Dobrowolski 1993, 1. 58   Dobrowolski 1993, 2–4; Tringham 2007, 12.

60

53

16

Chapter 2: The Honor of Tutbury, the Earldom Of Derby, and the Duchy of Lancaster the forfeited lands were also unsuccessful, and the honor of Tutbury passed permanently into the hand of Edmund and his heirs.65

South Wales and the Welsh borders. Within this greater whole, however, the honor of Tutbury seems to have functioned very much as a going concern, and it is clear that the general pattern of landholding within the honor left in place under Edmund the main tenant families who had held land under Robert III de Ferrers, and in many cases under his predecessors.68 Edmund further consolidated his holdings around the honor of Tutbury with the grant in 1279 of the manors of Wirksworth and Ashbourne, both of which had intermittently been held by the de Ferrers family, which he exchanged for the lordships of Cardigan and Carmarthen. He also secured confirmation in 1285, along with all the grants made by Henry III, of a manor in London granted to him by his mother Eleanor, but formerly owned by Eleanor’s uncle Peter of Savoy, which was later to become the site of the main palace of the dukes of Lancaster, and which has retained its association with the Lancaster estates ever since.69

THE HOUSE OF LANCASTER Edmund had also received the title of earl of Lancaster in 1267. On June 30th, he was granted the honor, county, town and castle of Lancaster together with all of the royal demesnes in the county, and a number of other lordships, including Newcastle-under-Lyme in Staffordshire, Pickering in Yorkshire, and Godmanchester in Huntingdonshire. Although there is no record of a formal grant of the earldom, Edmund probably began to use the title at the same time. On the same day, Edmund also received a grant of the so-called ‘Three Castles’ of Grosmont, Skenfrith and Whitecastle in the Welsh borders, together with the castle, honor and manor of Monmouth, all previously held by his brother Edward, and adding to an earlier grant by Edward of the castles and counties of Carmarthen and Cardigan, and a further grant in December 1266 of Builth, thereby making Edmund a major landowner in south Wales and in the borders. 66

Of his many possible titles, earl of Lancaster was the preferred title of both Edmund and his heirs, although he also called himself earl of Leicester. By contrast, perhaps because of the theoretical possibility that the de Ferrers family might at some point be able to reclaim their lands, neither Edmund nor his two sons seem ever to have used the title earl of Derby.70

Although Pickering was at this time an isolated estate, the remaining grants neatly complemented the de Ferrers holdings. The lands in south Lancashire acquired by William II and William III de Ferrers fit very naturally into the new earldom of Lancaster, while Newcastle-underLyme effective extended the honor of Tutbury, while Godmanchester was close to the important estate and emerging borough of Higham Ferrers, making Edmund a significant landholder in the south Midlands. The fact that this grant so neatly complemented the de Ferrers lands as early as June 1267 suggests that despite the nominal decision in 1269 to allow Robert de Ferrers to redeem his lands, the decision had already been taken to ensure that they stayed in the hands of Edmund.

The Lancaster estate was further enriched by the marriage of Edmund’s older son Thomas to Alice, daughter and heiress of Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln and Salisbury. Under the terms of the marriage agreement, Henry de Lacy was to have the use and income of the lands for his own lifetime, and they were then to pass to Alice and Thomas (with a further portion reserved for the lifetime of Alice’s stepmother Joan), and then to their heirs, irrespective of any further union which Alice might subsequently contract. This meant that on the death of Henry de Lacy in 1311, Thomas controlled the bulk of the income from five earldoms, making him far and away the wealthiest man in England with the exception of his cousin the king. He also benefited from the relatively sophisticated financial administration system introduced by Henry de Lacy, and maintained this system himself after de Lacy’s death, enabling him to maximise his revenue from the estates.71 The de Lacy inheritance also gave Thomas almost complete control of the north of England, since de Lacy had extensive landholdings in Yorkshire, including Pontefract (which became the principal Lancaster stronghold in the north, as well as the honors of Bolingbroke in Lincolnshire, Clitheroe in Lancashire, and Halton, which straddled the border of Cheshire and Lancashire, in addition to smaller parcels of land elsewhere, including minor de Lacy estates in Derbyshire, Dorset, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Suffolk, Wiltshire, and Wales.72 Together with the existing Yorkshire estates

The grant in tail on July 12th 1266 of the forfeited lands and titles of Simon de Montfort also made Edmund earl of Leicester, and he was using the title by January 1267, although he received definitive confirmation of all of de Montfort’s lands and titles only on April 22nd 1269. This gave him control of the honor, town, castle and county of Leicester, as well as the honor and castle of Kenilworth in Warwickshire, and a block of lands in Northumberland, including amongst other lordships the manor of Dunstanburgh, later site of a major castle built by Edmund’s son Thomas.67 Again, while the estates in the north east were isolated from his other holdings, the combination of Leicester and Kenilworth with Tutbury gave Edmund a solid block of consolidated territory controlling the central part of the Midlands. The honor of Tutbury now formed part of a much larger estate, with consolidated blocks of lands in the Midlands, the north west, the north east and

  Dobrowolski 1993, 47–119.   Somerville 1953, 13–14. 70   Somerville 1953, 9–10. 71   Baldwin 1927; Somerville 1953, 19; Maddicott 1970, 3, 114–15. 72   Somerville 1953, 22–23. 68 69

  Somerville 1953, 3–8; Dobrowolski 1993, 27–46.   Somerville 1953, 8–9. 67   Somerville 1953, 1–3. 65 66

17

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ attached to the earldom of Lancaster, this gave Thomas control of a massive and largely concentrated block of land in Lancashire, Yorkshire and the north Midlands

John of Eltham on July 9th, 1322.77 Thomas had been the eldest of three brothers, although the youngest, John, had already died by March 1318, when the middle brother Henry went to France to do homage for the lordships of Beaufort and Nogent-sur-Marne, previously held by John. Henry had inherited the Three Castles and Monmouth from Edmund, together with all Edmund’s lands beyond the Severn, and the manors of Rodley and Minsterworth in Gloucestershire. Through his marriage in 1291 to Maud Chaworth, Henry had also acquired substantial lands in South Wales, including the castles and lordships of Ogmore and Kidwelly, as well as estates in Hampshire and Wiltshire.78 Henry was thus a significant landowner in his own right, and also saw himself as heir to his father and older brother. Furthermore, as he had been in France on the king’s service at the time of his brother’s rebellion, he was not directly tainted by association, and was even in a position to contrast his loyal service with his brother’s disloyalty.79

As discussed in more detail in chapters 5 and 6, Thomas had the wealth and power, as well as the personal arrogance, to defy his cousin Edward II on a number of occasions, and to assume the leadership of a baronial faction opposed to Edward and his favourites. In the event, his power was not as great as it might seem, and a detailed study of his surviving accounts shows that he was living well beyond his means, with a large proportion of his lands granted to his retainers, in order to maintain a large and impressive retinue, while also appearing munificent. While such grants might have been expected to earn the loyalty of these retainers, placing the source of the wealth directly in their hands denied him control, and meant that they had nothing to lose by abandoning his cause when he came into direct conflict with the king.73 However, Thomas seems to have been unaware of the flimsiness of his support, and his defiance eventually tipped over into open rebellion and treason in 1322. His siege of Tickhill in January–February was probably enough to convince Edward that he was a traitor who had to be crushed, and the capture of treasonous correspondence with the Scots confirmed it. Thomas was easily defeated at Burton Bridge on March 11th and at Tutbury Castle on March 12th Edward formally declared Thomas a rebel and ordered his arrest. His lands and property in London had already been confiscated as early as February 16th, and the honor of Tutbury with its associated castles and estates had also been formally confiscated before his trial on March 22nd. 74 As a condemned traitor, he was executed, and all of his properties were naturally forfeit to the Crown, and a lengthy process began in July to establish the exact extent of his holdings. As part of this process, William Davy, formerly a clerk in the service of Thomas (see Chapter 5) was appointed receiver of Tutbury, Donington and Melbourne on July 4th, while the royal clerk Robert Hoton arrived later in the month to examine the Lancaster archive at Tutbury, which contained over 500 documents, including both the surviving de Ferrers and de Montfort archives as well as more recent documents of Edmund and Thomas.75

As a condemned traitor, Thomas technically had no legal heir, and Henry was careful to distance himself from his brother’s actions, although he did erect a cross in his brother’s honour near Leicester. However, he was able to claim that since Edward II had not formally declared war on Thomas, his summary trial without the right to defend himself, had been in breach of Magna Carta, and that the trial itself had therefore been illegal. On that basis, Henry was able to put forward a claim to his brother’s lands. Calling himself Henry of Lancaster, he petitioned for the county of Lancaster as early as June 1322, although without success, and the following year he petitioned the king and council for the earldoms of Lancaster and Leicester, and for his brother’s estates. No mention was made of the earldom of Derby, or of the honor of Tutbury, presumably because he recognised that Edward would be reluctant to return an honor with which he had already endowed his own son. Once again, Henry was unsuccessful with regard to the earldom of Lancaster and the associated estates, with the exception of Godmanchester, which he was granted in livery. However, he did secure the county and honor of Leicester and the associated de Montfort lands (with the exception of Kenilworth Castle) in early 1324, and by May 10th (possibly as early as March 29th) in the same year he was granted the title of earl of Leicester.80

The de Lacy lands technically remained the property of Alice de Lacy and her mother, and were thus separated again from the Lancaster estates, but they suffered severe depredations on their lands from Edward’s favourites the Despensers, and their properties were only gradually restored over a period of several years, even after the fall of the Despensers.76 Meanwhile, the bulk of the Lancaster estates remained in the hands of the Crown, although the honor of Tutbury was granted to the king’s younger son

This was not enough to satisfy Henry, and he was one of the leading actors in the rebellion against Edward II in the autumn of 1326. He had already assumed the title of earl of Lancaster as well as earl of Leicester by October 26th, when he attended a council to elect Edward’s young son king in his father’s place. In December he was able to secure the restoration at the king’s pleasure of the honor and castle of Tutbury together with formal recognition of his earldom of Lancaster and, in addition to the other lands

  Baldwin 1927, 191–95; Maddicott 1970, 40–48; Maddicott 1971.   CCR 1318–23, 522; CPR 1321–24, 81; Somerville 1970, 27–28; Dobrowolski 1993, 221–23, 245–47. 75   DL 41/1/35; CFR 1319–27, 139–40; CPR 1321–24, 191; Somerville 1970, 29; Dobrowolski 1993, 247. 76   Dobrowolski 1993, 254–92. 73

  CCR 1323–27, 448; Dobrowolski 1993, 250.   Somerville 1953, 17–18. 79   Fowler 1969, 24. 80  Somerville 1953, 31–32; Fowler 1969, 24; Dobrowolski 1993, 240–43, 294–95.

74

77 78

18

Chapter 2: The Honor of Tutbury, the Earldom Of Derby, and the Duchy of Lancaster of the earldom of Leicester, of his de facto possession of Kenilworth Castle, where Edward II was now a prisoner. The following year he secured the reversal of his brother’s attainder, and the restoration of all but a few minor estates and titles held by Thomas at the time of his death. The de Lacy lands remained in the hands of Alice de Lacy for her lifetime, but under the terms of her marriage agreement with Thomas, the bulk of these were also to revert to Henry or his heirs on her death, although in the event this was to be under Henry’s son, Henry of Grosmont, in 1349 rather than under Henry himself. Henry remained a leading supporter of the young Edward III, and although a clash with the Mortimers at the beginning of 1329 led to a brief sequestration of his lands and castles, these were swiftly restored and the Mortimers removed from power, and Henry was thereafter able to enjoy his inheritance without further threat (see Chapter 6). Like his father and brother, Henry seems never to have used the title earl of Derby, and this title was awarded in 1337 to his son Henry of Grosmont, together with an annuity of 1,000 marks during his father’s lifetime. Henry of Grosmont had already received lands and rights in south Wales and Yorkshire from his father in 1333, with a further settlement of some of the Chaworth manors in 1334. However, the honor of Tutbury remained the property of the older Henry, although Henry of Grosmont seems to have exercised some authority there on his father’s behalf during his lifetime. With the exception of dowers for his sisters the younger Henry inherited the whole of his father’s estate and titles in 1345.81

by the time that he inherited the title of earl of Lincoln in1349, Henry of Grosmont held direct title to four English earldoms, plus substantial estates in both France and Wales, and his total holdings were probably considerably greater than of the previous earls of Lancaster, in addition to the huge amounts of portable wealth gained during his French campaigns. The Duchy of Lancaster Henry of Grosmont’s accumulation of lands and titles reflects both his father’s success in restoring and enhancing the family fortunes, and the reward for Henry’s own success and for his steadfast loyalty to Edward III. In the later years of Henry’s life, he was supplanted to some extent by Edward’s oldest son, Edward the Black Prince, but during the 1330s and 1340s he acted on numerous occasions as Edward’s personal representative, not just as a military commander, but also as a diplomat and even on one occasion as guarantor of the king’s debts to foreign creditors. Altogether he served in no fewer than 15 military campaigns, including six as supreme commander, as well as heading six diplomatic missions and representing Edward at twelve separate truce conferences, and on seven separate occasions held the rare office of ‘king’s lieutenant’, indicating his personal status and vice-regal power as the king’s cousin and representative. Henry’s elevation to earl of Derby in 1337 during his father’s lifetime was doubtless intended in part as a reward for his service, and also to give him a suitable rank that went with his senior role in royal missions overseas.

The one significant loss during this period was the de Lacy earldom of Salisbury. Unlike the earldom of Lincoln, this did not revert to the house of Lancaster on the death of Alice de Lacy in 1348, with the exception of some associated lands in Norfolk. However, this was balanced by the older Henry’s inheritance from his father being reunited with the main Lancaster estates, plus the Savoy estate in London, and the Chaworth lands in South Wales, while the French lands held by the older Henry were augmented by the grant to Henry of Grosmont of the lordship of Bergerac in 1347, after he himself had captured the city in 1345 in pursuit of Edward III’s claims to the French throne, and shortly afterwards inflicted a massive defeat on the French at Auberoche. The capture of Bergerac also brought him significant wealth in the form of loot, and he is said to have spent 50,000 marks from this on the development of his Savoy estates in London, including the Savoy palace, while his victory at Auberoche brought him even greater wealth in the form of ransoms.82 He also received further grants from the king, including the custody during her son’s minority of the lands of Isabella of Hastings (including Abergavenny) in 1334; the custody of the castle, town and county of Carmarthen in 1342; the lordship of Cantref Mawr for ten years, also in 1342; and the castle and honor of Pontefract, Horston and Clitheroe in 1347.83 Thus

However, on March 6th 1351 he was elevated still further, with the creation of a new title of duke of Lancaster. Edward’s son, Edward the Black Prince, had been made duke of Cornwall in 1337, at the same time that Henry had received the earldom of Derby, and although later in the century a number of other duchies were to be created, the elevation of Lancaster to a duchy emphasised Henry’s preeminence at court after the king and his heir, while adding to his personal status as the king’s representative, and rewarding his loyalty and, to a great extent, his success. The new title did not bring additional lands, presumably because Henry already held considerably more lands than anybody else in England apart from the king, and Edward felt no need to part with more. However, the county of Lancashire was given palatine status, meaning that various rights and revenues normally reserved to the king were now transferred to the duchy instead. Similar grants had earlier been made to the earls of Chester (at this point held by the Black Prince, which again emphasises the similarity in Henry’s new status) and the bishops of Durham, but these had been to a great extent grants of vice-regal power to ensure that the senior nobles in sensitive border areas had the authority that they need to protect the borders and to bring areas on the fringes of the kingdom more firmly under royal control.84 This can hardly have been a factor in Lancashire in 1351, and the grant of palatine status, like

  Somerville 1953, 10, 38; Fowler 1969, 28, 72.   Somerville 1953, 39–40; Fowler 1969, 56–61, 172. 83   Somerville 1953, 38; Fowler 1969, 28, 172. 81 82

  Somerville 1953, 40; Fowler 1969, 173–74.

84

19

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ the title of duke, must be seen as recognition of Henry’s own vice-regal authority. However, the palatine status was attached to the county of Lancashire rather than as a personal grant to Henry (although it lapsed in practice for a few years on his death), and elements of this remain attached to the duchy of Lancaster today, including rights to the foreshore in Lancashire (including the area of former Lancashire transferred to Cumbria in the 1970s) and to Treasure Trove, both of which are normally royal prerogatives elsewhere.

to the executors, but both of these were also assigned to Blanche, giving her the bulk of the lands in the Midlands and in the north, with the exception of Leicester. An annual payment of £7 from Blanche to Maud was agreed, in order to cover the fact that the estimated value of the division was felt to favour Blanche by this amount. Maud’s husband, William, took the title of earl of Leicester, while Gaunt became initially earl, rather than duke, of Lancaster. In the event, the division was extremely short-lived, since Maud died childless on April 10th 1362, and her inheritance accordingly passed to her sister, while the title of earl of Leicester passed to Gaunt, in addition to the earldoms of Lancaster, Derby and Lincoln, which he had acquired on the death of Henry.87

That the grant of palatine status had little or nothing to do with military factors is shown by one last and somewhat surprising title received by Henry. At the end of 1357, David II of Scotland returned to his own kingdom after eleven years in English captivity, and on April 5th 1359 granted the earldom of Moray to Henry and his heirs, with a lifetime interest for Henry’s daughters Maud and Blanche, although Henry appears not to have used the title. The reason for this grant is unclear, although it may have had something to do with the terms of David’s release, and perhaps with plans to position John of Gaunt, younger son of Edward III and shortly to become Henry’s son-in-law, as a potential claimant to the Scottish throne.85 In any case, Henry did not enjoy the title long, as he died of plague on March 23rd 1361, leaving the bulk of his substantial estate to his two daughters, although there were other bequests, most notably to Newarke College in Leicester, which he had founded. As was common at the time with major estates, Henry enfeoffed a portion of his lands, including the honor of Tutbury, to ensure that his executors had the wherewithal to manage his bequests, but these lands were quickly resumed back into the estate.86

With the whole of Henry of Lancaster’s inheritance reunited, Gaunt was also elevated to duke of Lancaster on November 13th 1362, although it was not until 1377 that he received confirmation of the palatinate powers previously enjoyed on the death of Henry of Lancaster, and not until 1390 that the palatinate powers were made hereditary. These had lapsed on the death of Henry, and it is unclear whether Gaunt did not receive them earlier because he was unable to secure the grant, or simply because he was too distracted by other matters, including service in France, the death of his wife Blanche at Tutbury on September 13th 1369, and his remarriage two years later to Constance of Castile.88 The grant may also relate to his pre-eminence at this point as the oldest surviving son of Edward III. Although Gaunt was never formally regent either for his ailing father or his young nephew Richard II, he was prominent at court under both and, despite popular fears of his own ambition (of which he was certainly conscious), did much to smooth his nephew’s succession.89

In the absence of a male heir, Henry’s estates were divided between his two daughters, Maud and Blanche. The older daughter, Maud, was married to William of Hainault, duke of Holland and Zeeland, while Blanche was married to John of Gaunt, earl of Richmond, the third son of Edward III, but the provisions of the inheritance were that if either daughter died childless, then the inheritance would revert to her surviving sister. This appears a relatively equitable arrangement, especially since both women were comparatively young, but Maud had been married for several years and was now on her second marriage, and had not yet produced an heir, so the provision that the lands might revert to her younger sister (who had already produced her first daughter) was a serious one. Gaunt was also entrusted with the custody of Henry’s lands until the division was complete. Maud received the honor of Leicester, and the lordship of Newcastle-under Lyme, together with the lands in the southern counties of Hampshire, Berkshire, Wiltshire and Dorset, together with those in Wales and France, while Blanche received the honor of Kenilworth and the lands in Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cheshire and Northumberland, while the important honors of Tutbury and Bolingbroke initially remained enfeoffed

The Lancastrian inheritance remained with John and his children with Blanche, and in addition he already held the earldom of Richmond, together with a number of other estates elsewhere,90 so that his combined estates and income were now so large that he rivalled his father the king for wealth, and certainly outstripped his older brothers by a considerable margin. In addition, his second marriage to Constance gave him a claim to the kingdom of Castile and Leon, and he used this title from 1372 (although he lacked any real authority in Spain) until 1387, when he renounced his claim in return for a cash payment of 600,000 francs and a further annual payment of 40,000 francs, securing the agreement by marrying off his daughter Catherine, to Enrique, son of the rival claimant Juan.91 In 1372 Gaunt also made an exchange of lands, surrendering the earldom of Richmond, which had historically belonged to the family of John de Montfort, duke of Brittany, and which Edward III now wished to restore to de Montfort in order   Somerville 1953, 47–50, 338–39; Fowler 1969, 218; Goodman 1992, 43. 88   Somerville 1953, 48, 51, 56; Goodman 1992, 62, 146, 315. 89   Goodman 1992, 56–65, 70–72. 90   Somerville 1953, 53–54; Goodman 1992, 30, 32–33, 36. 91   Somerville 1953, 56, 64; Goodman 1992, 50, 128–30; Tringham 2007, 17. 87

  Fowler 1969, 175.   Somerville 1953, 47–48; Fowler 1969, 217–18.

85 86

20

Chapter 2: The Honor of Tutbury, the Earldom Of Derby, and the Duchy of Lancaster to secure de Montfort’s alliance against France, although ultimately this proved unsuccessful. In return for obliging his father, Gaunt received in return the castles and honors of Tickhill, Knaresborough and High Peak (formerly briefly held by William II de Ferrers) as well as Pevensey Castle and various lesser manors and hundreds, including some in East Anglia.92

Lancaster) and in the attribution to him of a variety of local customs in addition to the Minstrels’ Court.96 THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER AND THE CROWN The House of Lancaster

John of Gaunt was thus a major landholder both nationally and internationally, and Tutbury formed part of an even larger total estate than under Henry of Grosmont. Gaunt’s activities at court meant that he spent much of his time in or near London, first at the Savoy Palace and, following the destruction of the Savoy in1381, at Hertford Castle. He also spent long periods abroad, pursuing both the king’s interests and his own in both France and Castile. However, it is clear that he took an interest in both the honor and the castle of Tutbury. As discussed in Chapter 6, he was a frequent visitor, spending time there with both his first and second wives, carrying out repairs, and initiating the grand building plan which resulted over four generations in the construction of a large proportion of the structures still visible today (see chapters 6 and 8).

Like Henry of Grosmont before him, Gaunt’s son Henry Bolingbroke received the title of earl of Derby during his father’s lifetime. The exact circumstances under which this took place are uncertain, and matters are confused by the fact that Gaunt also continued to use the title at a later date.97 However, Henry does seem to have had a role within the honor of Tutbury at this point, since he is recorded at Tutbury on a number of occasions in the 1390s, including supervising the distribution of alms on Maundy Thursday 1397, probably in his capacity as lord of the honor, or possibly as earl of Derby.98 Like several of his predecessors, Henry also added to his anticipated inheritance by marrying well. His marriage with Mary Bohun brought him a substantial share of her family inheritance, including the earldoms of Hereford and Northampton. Henry’s status was further increased when he was elevated to duke of Hereford in 1397, probably in reward for Gaunt’s support for Richard II against his own brother Thomas of Woodstock, who was accused of treason against the king but who died mysteriously before he could be brought to trial.99 Henry’s dukedom was rather less significant than the elevation of either Henry of Grosmont or John of Gaunt to the rank of duke of Lancaster, as by this time a number of other dukedoms had been created, so that the rank was now considerably less exclusive. Although Mary herself died in 1394, the terms of the marriage gave Henry the continued possession of her lands for his own lifetime, so this offered the prospect of temporarily increasing the holdings of the duchy of Lancaster still further, although adding nothing to the Lancaster estate beyond Henry’s own death.100

He was also keenly aware of the resources offered by the honor, taking a personal interest in the use and commercial exploitation of timber from Needwood and Duffield and in the pasturing of horses at Tutbury (see above). Although it does not seem to have been part of a formal marriage jointure, the honor was also responsible for the provision of 500 marks annually towards the cost of Constance’s chamber and wardrobe (in addition to 1,000 marks towards Gaunt’s own wardrobe, until 1381, when Tutbury ceased to be responsible for the costs due to Constance, but the money due to Gaunt’s wardrobe was increased to £1,000 per annum.95 The status of the honor, and perhaps also Gaunt’s personal status, are reflected in the development of the minstrels’ court (see Chapter 6), and his personal association with the castle is recalled by his association with John ‘O Gaunt’s Gate (actually built by Thomas of

However, Henry was to acquire a rather larger prize on the death of his father in 1399. Henry himself had been banished in 1398, as a result of a complicated series of accusations and counter-accusations of treason between Henry and Thomas Mowbray, duke of Norfolk. This was to have been resolved by a judicial duel, but Richard II abandoned the duel and banished both parties. Mowbray was banished for life, and Bolingbroke for ten years, although this was remitted to six years, supposedly out of consideration for John of Gaunt. Recognising Gaunt’s age and ill health, Richard also specifically agreed that Henry had the right to inherit if his father died while he was in exile, with attorneys controlling his interests in his absence. However, when Gaunt did indeed die on February 3rd 1399, Richard promptly extended the exile to a life banishment, and used a legal pretext to deny Henry his

Gaunt had initially retained the French lands previously held by Henry of Lancaster (with the exception of Bergerac), but these were granted to one of Gaunt’s supporters, and were subsequently lost altogether as a consequence of the French wars. However, although the lordship of Bergerac had reverted to the Crown on Henry’s death, Gaunt was granted the lordship of Bergerac, along with the position of lieutenant in Aquitaine, after the siege of Limoges in 1370. His position as lieutenant in Aquitaine was shortlived, but he retained the lordship of Bergerac, and this was confirmed by Edward III in 1376 and by Richard II in 1377.93 He was also made duke of Aquitaine for his own lifetime on February 16th 1390, without any requirement for financial dues from the duchy to the Crown.94

  Goodman 1992, 24–27.   Somerville 1953, 67. 98  Tringham 2007, 17. 99   Somerville 1953, 67; Goodman 1992, 160–61. 100   Somerville 1953, 67–68; Gooodman 1992, 155. 96

  Somerville 1953, 52. 93   Somerville 1953, 55–56. Goodman 1992, 48. 94   Somerville 1953, 64; Goodman 1992, 146. 95   Shaw 1798, 42; Goodman 1992, 348. 92

97

21

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ inheritance, although he was unable to remove at the same time the land and titles that Henry had already acquired through his late wife.101 This disinheriting of Henry is often attributed to Richard’s greed, given the massive size of John of Gaunt’s estate, and the fact that Richard had reduced the royal estate by injudicious grants to his favourites. However, the Lancaster estates were promptly broken up and distributed among a number of Richard’s friends and relations, with the honor of Tutbury granted to Richard’s nephew, the duke of Surrey.102 There had been a number of plots against Richard in the course of the 1390s, and this granting out of Henry of Bolingbroke’s inheritance seems to have been motivated less by greed than by the aim of denying Henry himself the financial resources to mount any sort of challenge to Richard, while providing several leading members of the nobility with both an added incentive to support the king, and added resources to do so. This suggests that Richard already feared a challenge from Henry, but whether or not Henry already had designs on the throne (and neither he nor Gaunt had challenged his banishment in 1397), he was now forced into a position where he was forced into rebellion if he wished to preserve his rightful inheritance. Furthermore, the dubious legality of the confiscation provided a dangerous precedent, and the rest of the nobility not surprisingly failed to support Richard against his cousin. The situation was exacerbated by Richard’s decision to go to Ireland with some of the beneficiaries of Bolingbroke’s disinheritance, and the holders of the Lancastrian castles of Dunstanburgh and Kenilworth had already declared their support for Henry before he returned to England. Henry then processed through a series of Lancastrian estates in Yorkshire and the Midlands before moving west to capture Richard at Flint. Richard was forced to abdicate, and was then murdered in prison, having thus achieved the direct opposite of what must be assumed to have been his intent.103

duchy lands were, however, kept entirely separate from the Crown lands under their own administration, a situation which has remained the case ever since, despite several changes of dynasty, although the exact legal distinction between Crown rights and duchy rights has been the subject of much debate across the intervening centuries. As a result, with the exception of a few brief periods of alienation (see below) the honor of Tutbury has since 1399 consistently remained the property of the monarch, but in right of the duchy of Lancaster, never of the Crown itself.105 Henry’s reasoning in establishing this pattern is uncertain. Although it has been suggested in the past that since Henry might himself have lost his throne, he kept the duchy lands separate as a precaution against this, but Somerville is surely right to note that Henry would have been well aware of the precedents of Edward II and Richard II for the likely fate of any king who lost his throne,106 while the fate of the duchy when both Edward IV and Henry VII seized the throne (see below) rather proves the point. It seems more likely that he wished to keep the duchy as essentially a private source of income, which could be used or indeed alienated without impacting on the land or revenues of the Crown itself. It is in this sense of a private resource that we see the duchy being used repeatedly under the Lancastrian kings, who on a number of occasions enfeoffed duchy properties to ensure that their wills were fulfilled. Henry IV specified that his wife was to be endowed out of duchy property, while Henry V granted a number of duchy properties (not including Tutbury) as the marriage jointure of his wife Catherine de Valois, and in his first will (later superseded) left duchy properties to both his brothers. Henry VI also intended to endow his foundations at Eton and Cambridge out of duchy property.107 The duchy of Lancaster, this time specifically including the honor of Tutbury, was again used to provide a royal dower under Henry VI. Following his marriage to Margaret of Anjou in 1344, her marriage jointure provided a total annual income from the duchy of 10,000 marks per annum, together with a grant of lands worth £2,000 concentrated on the honors of Tutbury, Leicester and Kenilworth, with additional duchy properties in the south of England. Although Margaret established her own household, the fact that her lands were established duchy properties and that a significant proportion of her income came from the annuity paid from properties which remained in the hands of the duchy, meant that there was continued overlap between duchy officers and Margaret’s own household, up to and including William Cotton, her receiver-general.108

Henry of Bolingbroke had thus acquired the throne, in addition to recovering his hereditary estates. His predecessors had incorporated their increasing landholdings into a single administrative system in which each honor had its own officers, minor lordships were generally grouped under the receiver and steward of one of the larger honors, and a chief steward presided over the whole Lancastrian estate, although this was eventually divided by John of Gaunt into a ‘north part’ and a ‘south part’ as the Lancastrian possessions became ever greater.104 Following the same pattern, Henry IV (as he now was) might have merged the Lancastrian estates with those of the Crown. Instead, he was careful to keep them separate. Henry becoming king made no difference to the fact that the Bohun lands were held for his lifetime only, so the duchy of Hereford remained distinct from his other lands, although for practical purposes it was administered together with the duchy of Lancaster during Henry’s lifetime. The

The three honors gave Margaret a concentration of power in the Midlands, providing to some extent a balance to that of the earl of Warwick immediately to the south, and   Somerville 1953, 140–51; Tringham 2007, 17–18.   Somerville 1953, 139–40. 107   Somerville 1953, 151, 206–7. 108   DL 28/5/8; Somerville 1953, 208–9, 340, 399; Griffiths 1998, 259, 272–73; Maurer 2003, 18, 23; Castor 2010, 324, 327. 105

  Somerville 1953, 69, Goodman 1992, 162–66, 168 102   CFR 1391–99, 293–7; Somerville 1953, 134–35. 103   Somerville 1953, 133–38 104   Somerville 1953, 73–115.

106

101

22

Chapter 2: The Honor of Tutbury, the Earldom Of Derby, and the Duchy of Lancaster her Midland holdings were effectively augmented in 1454 when her son Edward, who always remained firmly under his mother’s control, received the earldom of Chester. When, in 1456, Margaret decided to take a more active role in politics, she moved first to Tutbury, and then to Chester and Coventry, where she was joined by Henry, effectively relocating the royal court to Margaret’s Midland estates for several years (see Chapter 6). However, this only served to isolate her from southern support when growing tensions turned to open warfare, and following the crushing Lancastrian defeat at Towton in 1461, Margaret was forced into exile, and in her absence she was attainted, and her lands confiscated and re-united with the duchy of Lancaster under the new Yorkist king Edward IV.109

returned to the control of the Crown in December1473 as part of a process of increasing Edward’s revenues, and Edward later assigned the revenue from Tutbury and other duchy estates towards his own household expenses.113 The forfeiture in 1473, when Clarence was at least nominally reconciled with his brother, is striking given that Edward’s Resumption Act had numerous provisos appended which exempted members of Edward’s court circle from the resumption of lands, and presumably he could have included Tutbury had he been so inclined. However, Clarence had recently attempted to use force to secure his position in a dispute with his younger brother Richard of Gloucester over the inheritance of the earldom of Warwick, both brothers having married daughters of the recently deceased earl.114 What is less clear is whether Edward’s resumption of Tutbury was a punishment for this, or a belated punishment for Clarence’s disloyalty, or whether Edward rightly suspected Clarence’s continued loyalty thereafter, and preferred to see Tutbury in the hands of a more reliable ally.

The House of York Under the House of York, the existing relationship between the duchy of Lancaster and the Crown continued without fundamental change.110 Both the duchy in general and the honor of Tutbury in particular were seen as useful resources with which to maintain Yorkist support in the Lancastrian heartland of the Midlands. Key duchy offices were granted in 1461 to Edward IV’s ally the earl of Warwick, including the stewardship of Tutbury and various other offices in both Derbyshire and Staffordshire, while the honor of Tutbury itself was alienated to Edward’s younger brother George, duke of Clarence in 1464.111 Although he was still a minor, as the oldest surviving brother of Edward IV, Clarence was at this point heir to the throne, and the grant of both Tutbury and the county palatine of Chester in 1464 was clearly intended to keep the north Midlands in what Edward assumed to be loyal hands, while at the same time providing Clarence with a generous endowment. The fact that the honor of Tutbury had by this time been associated with assorted royal relatives for almost two centuries served to underline his royal status, which was further reinforced by the grant of Chester, which had recently been held by Prince Edward, son of Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou. Clarence stayed at Tutbury in November 1466, and supposedly ordered building works there,112 although no specific works can be dated to that time, and there seems little scope for major rebuilding to have been undertaken, given that all of the major structures are otherwise accounted for. Clarence also made plans in 1468 for establishing a court and household on a massive scale, but it is uncertain that these were ever followed through.

One of the beneficiaries of the shifting politics of the early 1470s was William, Lord Hastings, who had been one of Edward’s leading supporters when he seized the throne. Hastings was made great steward of the north parts of the duchy in 1470, in place of Warwick, although he was supplanted in that role by Richard, duke of Gloucester, in 1471. However, Hastings was appointed as steward of the honor of Tutbury in 1472 by Clarence, presumably in an attempt to win his support from Edward. This does not seem to have damaged him in Edward’s eyes, and he was confirmed in the position for life on March 30, 1474 after the honor had reverted to the Crown. Hastings was also made surveyor of the honor of Tutbury, master forester of Needwood and steward of Newcastle-under-Lyme.115 All of these were lucrative positions, and with Edward entirely an absentee landowner, Hastings’ offices left him in effective control of north Staffordshire, and he used this position to draw a number of leading landowners from within the honor into his own affinity. Since he already held nearby Ashby-de-la-Zouche in his own right, this additional control of the honor of Tutbury strengthened his position in the heart of the Midlands, ensuring that a figure personally loyal to Edward was in a position to balance the power of other important Midlands families such as the Talbots, the Staffords and the Woodvilles.116 However, his loyalty to Edward’s line specifically rather than to the house of York more generally cost Hastings his life under Richard III, and he was replaced as steward of Tutbury and other offices by Humphrey Stafford, earl of Buckingham, who supported Richard’s usurpation and also replaced him as chief steward of the north parts of the duchy before turning against him, whereupon he too was executed.117

Clarence and his father-in-law Warwick turned against Edward in 1470, although Clarence renewed his support for his brother the following year in time to contribute to the lasting defeat of the Lancastrians at Barnet and Tewkesbury in 1471. Tutbury was not immediately confiscated from Clarence, but was one of a number of alienated estates

  Somerville 1953, 233–34.   Hicks 2004. 115   Somerville 1953, 422, 540, 550; Rowney 1984, 36. 116   Rowney 1984, 36–44. 117   Somerville 1953, 258, 540, 550. 113

  Griffiths1998, 778; Maurer 2003, 201–2. 110   Somerville 1953, 230. 111   Somerville 1953, 233. 112   Hicks 2004. 109

114

23

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ The duchy revenue also provided an important source of income for household expenses and as a supplement to other revenues for miscellaneous government expenditure. Edward IV used duchy revenues to cover a variety of essentially personal expenditure, as well as for the settlement of loans incurred when he did not have access to taxation through parliament, and for various items of military expenditure such as repairs to castles, and the cost of gunpowder, when grants through Parliament were insufficient or too slow to meet his needs.118

years no payment at all was forthcoming) and Mary’s unwillingness to contribute financially to the cost of her own captivity.122 Offloading the cost onto Talbot was convenient for Elizabeth, but Mary’s return to Tutbury in 1585 in the custody of first Sadler then Paulet meant that the cost reverted to the Crown and the duchy. Paulet’s accounts reveal expenditure of £3,000 per year on food alone for his own and Mary’s households, and a total expenditure of £10,300 in just over two years, including £2,000 from the attainted property of Lord Paget, an important landowner in the area.123

The Tudors

The Stuarts and later

Under the Tudors, the honor seems to have received rather less direct interest from the Crown. Although the duchy of Lancaster, including the honor of Tutbury, continued to be held by the Crown, the earldom of Derby passed to Thomas, Lord Stanley, whose support for Henry Tudor at Bosworth had helped him win the Crown. Stanley was also made chief steward of the northern parts, as well as holding various other officers within the duchy, although not in the honor of Tutbury.119 There were occasional royal visits, and such new building and repairs as were carried out at Tutbury Castle were generally justified by its continued importance as the administrative centre of ‘a great seignory’ (see Chapter 6). Tutbury and the surrounding estates continued to be important for breeding horses, and the role of Tutbury as one of the leading royal studs was established under Henry VIII, and continued until the Commonwealth, while Needwood Forest retained its value both as a source of timber and for hunting, and although there were few royal visits under the Tudors, it became a more popular destination for the court under James I and Charles I (see Chapter 6).

In addition to the value of the honor as a source of revenue for extraordinary expenses in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, the proximity of the castle to the parks and chases reflects the continued value of the Needwood Forest for hunting, and although shortage of money meant that the duchy was obliged to dispose of some estates at this time, including some within Needwood forest, James’ interest in hunting made him reluctant to dispose of forests and chases, and in some cases stocks of deer were actively increased.124 Hunting in Needwood Forest may also have been the reason for Charles I building a new residence within the castle, although he also maintained an interest in the Minstrels’ Court (see chapters 6 and 8). Within Needwood Forest, the disparked former parks of Castlehay and Hanbury remained reserved for the use of the Tutbury stud, as they had been since 1549, and the stud continued to develop under the enthusiastic oversight of George Villiers, duke of Buckingham and Master of the Horse under both James I and Charles I.125 Following the Civil War, the resources of both the Crown and the duchy of Lancaster were used to raise revenue for Parliament, and the expenses incurred during the war, especially the need to cover the arrears of pay due to the parliamentary army, meant that it was necessary to raise capital quickly, rather than simply making use of existing revenue streams. The situation was worsened by the combination of active damage and passive neglect that had taken place across the country during the war.

The duchy also remained an important source of essentially private income for the Crown. It was probably in part with the intention that the duchy should bear some of the costs of supporting the captivity of Mary Queen of Scots that Tutbury Castle was considered as a suitable prison, in the custody of senior duchy officials. Mary’s first custodian, George Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, was steward of the honor of Tutbury and constable of Tutbury Castle, while Sir Ralph Sadler, who briefly relieved Shrewsbury as Mary’s custodian in 1572, and who reluctantly replaced him in the role in 1584–85, was chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster.120 At least one French subsidy towards the cost of Mary’s upkeep under Sir Amyas Paulet in 1585 was arranged through the duchy offices, with Paulet able to draw on the agreed sum from the receiver of Tutbury.121 The overall cost of maintaining Mary in custody was considerable, and Talbot, as Mary’s guardian for much of her captivity, was caught between Elizabeth’s reluctance to pay the agreed costs (initially allowed at £2,700 per year, but subsequently at £1,560 per year, although in some

Needwood was one of a number of forests reserved for disafforestation and sale, although in the case of Needwood this was only partly carried out. It was also decided in March 1648 that the rents and fee farms of many Crown and duchy estates should be sold – Needwood had a gross value of £7,525, with a further £3,000 worth of timber available for sale, while the farm of the honor of Tutbury was valued at £3,245.126 However, although some lands and rights to income were sold, and had to be recovered in so far as this was possible with the restoration of 1660,   Collinson 1987, 19; Guy 2004, 441.   Collinson 1987, 18. 124   Somerville1970, 21–22; Tringham 2007, 18. 125   Prior 1935, 48–51; Somerville 1970, 22; Loch 1986,186–87, 246–47; Tringham 2007, 44. 126   Somerville 1970, 50–52. 122 123

  Somerville 1953, 234–36.   Somerville 1953, 422. 120   Somerville 1953, 395, 541–42. 121   Morris 1874, 102. 118 119

24

Chapter 2: The Honor of Tutbury, the Earldom Of Derby, and the Duchy of Lancaster disagreement over conflicting rights in Needwood meant that the division of the forest remained incomplete by the time that Charles II regained the throne and reclaimed the estates in 1660.127

Boheme in return for £7,000 and the site of Sheerness Fort. The grant included the rights in the honor held by the duchy of Lancaster, and a number of senior offices both within the honor of Tutbury and in neighbouring honors, each of which generated income. The grant included Needwood Forest, although Brown and Boheme were obliged to maintain 1,000 fallow deer in the forest for the use of the king. Most of the land was already leased, much of it to Colonel Vernon, and Browne and Boheme were effectively his nominees. However, it was decided that the grant was improper, and the Court of Chancery decreed in February 1685 that the grant should be annulled, although this was not actually done until 1696, with one portion of the payment returned with interest. At that point the honor was formally vested in the Crown by right of the duchy of Lancaster by Act of Parliament with the proviso that it could not be alienated in the future without parliamentary consent.132 During the intervening period, the timber was over-exploited, the deer destroyed and two of the parks disparked.133 Nevertheless, the honor remained part of the duchy, and the duchy continued to exercise honorial rights, including that of Treasure Trove.

The Tutbury Race had survived the war, and was respected by parliamentary forces. During the siege of Tutbury Castle in April 1646, Sir William Brereton even granted a safe conduct pass for two men to bring stallions from Oxford to serve the Tutbury mares and to return again.128 Parliament also chose initially not to sell off the horses at the end of the war when other royal assets were being realised since, even though horse-racing was banned under the Commonwealth, it was recognised that there was a shortage of good horses as a consequence of the war, and Tutbury horses were considered ‘eminently the best’, and Parliament were concerned ‘to take care for the preservation of the race and the breed’. However, the stud was eventually broken up, mostly through sale although Oliver Cromwell and Colonel Michael Jones, Commanderin-Chief in Leinster, each received six horses from Tutbury in recognition of their services to Parliament.129 Charles II, a famous lover of horses and horse-racing, had attempted to secure some of the horses on their dispersal through an intermediary, and, following the restoration in 1660, Charles attempted to restore the Tutbury Race. However, although James d’Arcy, his Master of the Royal Stud, had some success in tracing the dispersed horses, including those which had gone to Cromwell, d’Arcy argued that the former parks used for the stud had been too badly damaged in the interim, preferring to establish a new stud on his own land in Yorkshire.130

Over the three centuries since then, the role of the honor has been significantly reduced. The majority of feudal rights and customs have fallen into abeyance (although the duchy maintained its franchise on Treasure when the law concerning Treasure Trove was reformed in 1996), and much of the land formerly belonging to the honor, especially in Derbyshire, has gradually been disposed of through sale or lease, while Needwood was formally disafforested in the 19th century.134 Nevertheless, the Needwood Survey remains a major block of duchy property, and still includes a concentration of land in and around Tutbury (including of course the castle itself) as well as further south within the historical Needwood Forest. Together with other duchy estates (mostly in the north of England and the Midlands), the Needwood Survey still provides a significant income for the Crown through the duchy of Lancaster, as well as preserving the memory of the medieval honor of Tutbury and the duchy of Lancaster.

Although Charles II had sought to reconstruct both Crown and duchy estates in 1660, his need to reward his supporters, combined with his own taste for lavish expenditure, meant that Charles rapidly became more flexible in his attitudes towards individual estates. As early as 1663 it was decided that Needwood should be granted to General Monck, now created duke of Albemarle, whose support for Charles in 1660 had brought the army over to Charles and ensured his restoration. However, for some reason the grant never took place, probably being replaced by other rewards.131 A few years later, Charles did break the established links between the honor of Tutbury and the Crown. The duke of Ormonde, who unlike Monck had supported Charles loyally during his exile under the Commonwealth, was granted a number of senior offices within the honor in 1673, and took a lease of the castle in 1678 for 99 years, although the lease was held in trust for Colonel Edward Vernon of Agardsley Park. Charles followed this on November 21st 1683 with a grant of the honor of Tutbury to Rupert Browne and Samuel   Mosley 1832, 287–91; Somerville 1970, 66.   SWBLB, 140–41; Tringham 2007, 44. 129  Prior 1935, 53–61; Loch 1986, 188–89; Kelsey 1997, 36, 38, 157, 162; Tringham 2007, 44. 130   Prior 1935, 62, 88–93; Loch 1986, 192; Tringham 2007, 44. 131   Mosley 1832, 293–94. 127 128

 Mosley 183, 295–302; Somerville 1970, 87–89; Tringham 2007, 18.   DL 41/22; DL42/146, 25, 55, 65; DL28/69; Somerville 1970, 109. 134  Tringham 2007, 48–51. 132 133

25

Chapter 3: The Castle and its Setting

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY Mark Kincey

along the main valley floor of the River Trent,7 and are also clearly evidenced within the geomorphological and palaeoenvironmental record of the Dove valley around Tutbury.8 Such climatic driven change during the last 1000 years is frequently noted in other river systems across Britain as well as Europe.9 However, the human adaptation of the Dove floodplain that is amply recorded through historic cartographic and documentary sources is likely to have also impacted upon the drainage characteristics of the river, although the extent of this impact is difficult to quantify.10

Geology and Geomorphology Tutbury lies within east-central Staffordshire, an area dominated geologically by an extensive spread of Triassic mudstones and sandstones. Tutbury itself is situated on Mercia Mudstone Group deposits (previously known in the British Geology Survey (BGS) nomenclature as Keuper Marl), comprising predominately soft red mudstone interspersed with sandstone and gypsum beds, the latter being found especially to the north west of the parish around Fauld and Hanbury (Fig. 3.1).1

During historic periods at least, the area of floodplain around Tutbury has been one of the most geomorphologically active reaches of the River Dove,11 with a documented lateral shift of over 1km (⅔ mile) between c 1616 and 1807.12 However, despite the energetic nature of the river in this area, Tutbury also contains an extensive record of floodplain development, with the numerous recorded palaeochannels being interspersed between four distinct terrace landforms.13 To the north of the river around Hatton is Terrace 1, the highest and oldest terrace, and equivalent to the Holme Pierrepoint Sand and Gravel mapped by the BGS, which was deposited towards the end of the last glaciation. The sands and gravels of this terrace are overlain by a thin layer of silt and clay alluvium, which has been exposed through erosion by the modern river channel. Terrace 2 is the most extensive deposit present in this part of the river and extends across the valley floor, especially to the south of the river. Equivalent to the Hemington Terrace mapped by the BGS and of early to late Holocene date, these sands and gravels are again overlain by a thin layer of silt and clay alluvium. Terrace 3 deposits can be mapped close to the modern channel (usually within 50m) with the exception of a large meander loop to the south of the river below Tutbury Castle. This terrace comprises fine-grained silt and clay alluvium, with limited evidence of relict mid channel bars suggesting former channel braiding. Terrace 4 is the modern floodplain and consists of fine grained silt and clay concentrated within the inside of meander bends.14

The overlying drift deposits of the Tutbury area range in date from Devensian glaciofluvial sands and gravels deposited as outwash towards the end of the last glaciation from ice occupying the upper parts of the Dove valley and surrounding uplands, through to more recent Holocene (post-glacial) river deposits (Fig. 3.2).2 The River Dove itself rises at Axe Edge in the White Peak District of Derbyshire, flowing south to Uttoxeter and then south east until it drains into the Trent approximately 5km (3 miles) downstream from Burton upon Trent.3 The character of the Dove changes from a narrow confined river valley as it flows through the higher ground of the northern uplands before broadening out into a wide floodplain beyond Marchington, with the river forming the county boundary between Derbyshire and Staffordshire for much of its length.4 Although the Dove is a single thread river between Rocester and the Trent confluence, there is abundant evidence for earlier palaeochannel courses across the valley floor,5 the presence of which clearly demonstrates the dynamic character of the river within this stretch of floodplain (Fig. 3.3). The high lateral channel mobility in this area is likely to be a result of a combination of changing hydrology associated with both fluctuating climate as well as landuse practices. The peak occurrences of increased mobility for the River Dove have been correlated with periods of climatic instability that resulted in changes to the flood frequency and magnitude, the most frequently quoted examples being the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.6 Importantly, these climatic variations have been shown to have considerably influenced channel change

The River Dove around Tutbury has been the focus of anthropogenic adaptation and management since at least medieval times and probably considerably earlier.15 The   Brown et al 2001.   Challis et al 2006. 9   Rumsby and Macklin 1996. 10   Dalton and Fox 1988. 11   Challis et al 2006, 73. 12   Dalton and Fox 1988, 42. 13   Hudson-Edwards et al 2002, 38. 14   Challis et al 2006, 73ff; Hudson-Edwards et al 2002, 38–45. 15   Challis et al 2006, 73. 7 8

  Stevenson and Mitchell 1955, 1–4.   Challis et al 2006, 61. 3   Knight and Howard 2004. 4   Stevenson and Mitchell 1955, 3. 5   Eg, Baker 2002; Challis et al 2006; Dalton and Fox 1988; HudsonEdwards et al 2002. 6   Challis et al 2006, 77. 1 2

26

Chapter 3: The Castle and its Setting

Figure 3.1 Solid geology for the Tutbury area

Figure 3.2 Drift geology for the Tutbury area 27

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 3.3 Map showing River Dove and recorded palaeochannels Topography

‘Mill Fleam’ or ‘Little Dove’ leaves the main channel of the Dove at a weir located on a large meander to the north west of the town. This man-made channel extends to the north of the Castle before eventually rejoining the Dove to the south east of Tutbury near Rolleston. The fleam was probably constructed prior to 1086 to power the corn mill recorded within Tutbury parish in Domesday, although it is unclear from how far back into the Anglo-Saxon period the feature dates.16 It is also worth noting that the river almost certainly fulfilled several other socio-economic roles for the Tutbury settlement. Fishing rights for the river were held by Henry de Ferrers in the late 11th century and continued with the lord of Tutbury manor until at least the 1620s. It is also evident that Tutbury Priory maintained some fishing rights in the Dove certainly through until the 13th century, with the river providing an important source of fish and income for the population of Tutbury even in the late 18th century.17 Other aspects of river use, such as transport or trade to other nearby contemporary settlements, are less archaeologically tangible but would potentially have been of great importance to the prosperity of the town.

Although traditionally classified as lying within the central lowland region of Staffordshire,18 the town of Tutbury is actually situated on the northern edge of a prominent escarpment that extends along the south side of the Dove valley between Uttoxeter to the north west and Rolleston on Dove to the south east (Fig. 3.4). Tutbury Castle is positioned on a steep sided hill that marks the northernmost outlier of distinctive relief known as the Needwood plateau, jutting out into the valley and reaching a maximum elevation of 102m AOD. Although clearly subject to extensive anthropogenic alteration, the defensive advantages offered by the natural topography of Castle Hill are unparalleled in this stretch of the Dove valley, providing extensive views north west towards Uttoxeter and south east towards the confluence with the Trent. The hill rises sharply to the west and north, with the top of the artificial motte standing over 48m above the level of the floodplain. To the east, the land rises up more gently from the floodplain to reach a natural terrace, standing at approximately 73m AOD, on which Tutbury Priory is situated, before rising more sharply again to reach the level of the castle’s outer bailey (Fig. 3.5).

 Tringham 2007, 92.  Tringham 2007, 92.

16

  Palliser 1976, 32.

17

18

28

Chapter 3: The Castle and its Setting

Figure 3.4 Topography of Tutbury area

Figure 3.5 Local topography of Tutbury based on lidar elevation data

29

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ The modern settlement at Tutbury lies to the south of the castle, occupying land that extends into the high ground of the Needwood plateau, gently rising to a height of over 91m AOD at the southern limit of the town. The topography of the town is actually remarkably varied, consisting of a series of undulating narrow ridges and valleys that project north from the main plateau. The western side of the town is bounded by a prominent south-west to north-east ridge that reaches as far as the base of Castle Hill, and on which stands the westernmost extant stretch of the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks (described in chapter 4 below). A narrow valley along the modern route of Wakefield Avenue then separates this western ridge from another area of high ground in the centre of the town that extends as far north as Duke Street. A second valley along the route of Ludgate Street then stands between the central ridge and a broader plateau of high ground to the east of the town that slopes away south east towards Rolleston on Dove.

mammalian remains have been recorded from within these sediments.21 Other investigations have tended to focus on the nationally important Palaeolithic sand and gravel sediments to the east of Tutbury around Hilton and Etwall.22 High level terrace deposits within this area contained numerous Palaeolithic artefacts that are considered further within another EH-funded project focusing on the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic occupation of the middle and lower Trent catchment.23 The interpretation of eleven worked flint artefacts retrieved from deposits near to the North Tower of Tutbury Castle during the 2004 excavations (see Chapter 10, below) as Mesolithic in date provides strong evidence for the use of the hilltop site during this period.24 Elsewhere in the vicinity, cultural Mesolithic remains are restricted to a possible burial platform near the Trent at Branston,25 and two flint cores from the Orton’s Pasture site further upstream at Rocester.26 However, an archaeological watching brief at Dove Villa during the construction of the Doveridge Bypass recorded organic peat deposits dated to the early Mesolithic c 9370±60 14C years BP, representing the earliest securely dated deposits within the Dove catchment.27 The insect remains within these deposits indicate the presence of clear, fast flowing waters surrounded by mixed deciduous woodland of elm and alder across the valley floor.

At the northern end of Ludgate Street lies the probable early heart of the town itself, formed by the parallel alignment of High Street, Monk Street and Church Street, the latter being located on higher ground to the north west and partway up the terrace on which the priory stands. In this area the land slopes gently from a height of approximately 63m AOD at the junction of Ludgate Street and High Street down to a height of 54m AOD where Bridge Street crosses the Mill Fleam to the north east of the town. From here Bridge Street extends north across the floodplain towards Hatton, reaching a minimum elevation of around 50m AOD.

Excavations at Willington, close to the Dove-Trent confluence, have revealed an extensive multi-period site dating from the Late Neolithic through to the AngloSaxon period.28 The excavated remains revealed both Neolithic and Bronze Age domestic and ritual activity including settlements, barrows, burnt mounds, and ring cairns. Further to the south of Tutbury, close to Bartonunder-Needwood, a significant Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age ritual landscape has been identified during archaeological investigations in advance of sand and gravel quarrying. Situated close to the confluence of the rivers Trent, Tame and Mease, this landscape incorporates a timber circle, ring ditches and a possible cursus, all potentially to be associated with additional nearby sites such as the two causewayed enclosures at Alrewas and Mavesyn Ridware.29

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE Mark Kincey The Prehistoric Period Although there have been extensive archaeological investigations into the Palaeolithic of the Trent Valley,19 specific consideration of this period for the River Dove has been more limited, largely due to the relative lack of sand and gravel extraction sites in this catchment when compared with the Trent. However, this spatial bias for the early prehistoric period has recently been in the process of being redressed, with the Dove having been one of the catchment tributaries considered within an English Heritage (EH) funded project aimed at assessing the geoarchaeological development of the tributaries of the River Trent and their impact on the Holocene evolution of the main trunk system.20 Importantly, this study focused on the stretch of river around Tutbury itself, providing an invaluable environmental context within which to understand the cultural archaeological record. The sand and gravel deposits along the valley floor of the Dove were deposited during the last glaciation, probably between 25– 14 ka BP, although no artefacts or palaeoenvironmental

Excavation of a shallow palaeochannel along an old course of the River Trent at Yoxall Bridge revealed a number of Late Bronze Age worked timbers in the base of the channel, dated to 1049 to 810 cal BC.30   Challis et al 2006, 63.   Challis et al 2006, 60–64; Howard et al 2007. 23   Bridgland et al 2006. 24   Barratt and Hislop 2004. 25  Tringham 2007, 1. 26   Ferris et al 2000. 27   Challis et al 2006, 64. 28   Challis et al 2006, 64. 29   Buteux and Chapman 2009; Chapman et al 2010. 30   Smith et al 2001. 21 22

  Howard et al 2007.   Challis et al 2006.

19 20

30

Chapter 3: The Castle and its Setting Palaeoenvironmental analyses of the channel sediments suggest that the landscape around Yoxall Bridge at this time was a combination of wetland habitats and alder woodland, with more mixed woodland of oak, hazel, lime, beech and ash along the valley sides. When taken in the broader context of the region it appears that local forest clearance and limited agriculture took place during the Early Neolithic to Bronze Age onwards, but with large scale anthropogenic alteration of the landscape not taking place until the significant forest clearances of the Iron Age.31

site at Rocester, excavation of which revealed remains of three successive forts dating from between c AD 100 and c AD 200, a later Roman civilian settlement and a probable religious site at Orton’s Pasture.42 Other Roman evidence in the wider landscape has included a 2nd-century coin near Barton Turn, other coins found in the Wychnor area, a 2nd-century villa south west of Barton, and a possible Romano-British building west of Barton church.43 The Early Medieval Period

Several authors have suggested that an Iron Age hillfort existed at Tutbury itself, either on the site of the later castle,32 or reflected in the earthworks of the ‘Park Pale’.33 However, despite the topography of Tutbury being suited to that of a late prehistoric defensive enclosure, there is actually no direct evidence to substantiate either of these interpretations (see Chapter 4 for a detailed argument). The closest confirmed hillfort site to Tutbury is that at Forest Bank, approximately 8km (5 miles) further west along the Dove valley.34 Additional Iron Age activity around Tutbury is restricted to the probable seasonal occupation of the Willington site,35 the Iron Age settlement at Fisherwick,36 the latter phases of the multi-period site to the south of Catholme Farm, and isolated finds such as the two Iron Age lynch-pins recovered at Yoxall,37 or the preConquest Roman pottery and two ‘Celtic type’ statuettes recovered close to the castle.38

It has been suggested by numerous authors that Tutbury itself was originally an Anglo-Saxon defensive site.44 The main supporting evidence put forward for this interpretation of Tutbury is the burh element of the place-name itself, although the presence of continued ambiguity over the interpretation of this Old English name, as well as the distinct absence of stratified Anglo-Saxon archaeological material at Tutbury, casts significant doubt over these arguments (see chapters 2, 4 and 6, this volume). The settlement of Hanbury, approximately 4km (2½ miles) south west of Tutbury, does appear to have been an important centre of Mercian control from the 7th century onwards. An enclosure still visible in the landscape around Hanbury is supposedly the site of an early monastery and royal site where the Mercian princess St Werburh was buried in the late 7th century.45 It is likely that the church at Hanbury was the central minister of a large parochia extending across much of the Needwood area and with its own dependent chapels at sites such as Marchington.46

The Romano-British Period A possible Roman multi-flued oven uncovered in the middle of the outer bailey of Tutbury Castle during the 2007 excavations (see Chapter 10 below), along with earlier finds of Roman pottery during excavations of the inner bailey in the 1980s, suggests that the castle site was at least occupied periodically during the RomanoBritish period.39 Other Roman finds from within the parish of Tutbury include two incomplete copper alloy Roman brooches (c AD 50–100 and AD 75–175), a silver denarius of Septimius Severus (AD 193–211), minted in Rome in AD 20, and a copper alloy radiate of the late 3rd century, uncertain ruler and mint, c AD 275 and 296.40 In the broader landscape around Tutbury there are also a number of sites of regional importance for this period. Two Romano-British farmsteads were excavated at Willington, including ditched enclosures and evidence of cereal processing dating through until the 3rd or 4th century AD.41 Further upstream along the Dove is the important Roman

A Benedictine double monastery is recorded as having been founded at Repton, Derbyshire in about the year 600.47 The monastery was under the rule of an abbess, Alfthritha, in 697, but beyond a restricted number of additional documentary references recording the burial of patrons or the granting of land charters, little else is known about the religious house. The Saxon monastery was sacked by a major Viking army which over-wintered there in 873–74. The monastery was incorporated into the temporary fortifications, and appears to have subsequently fallen into disuse. The crypt of the Saxon monastery was incorporated into the later parish church, with a later unconnected Augustinian priory developing out of a grant by the parish church of Repton in c 1153.48 Some 13km (8 miles) to the south of Tutbury, an extensive Anglo-Saxon settlement was excavated at Catholme between 1973–80, including 65 buildings set in a network of trackways and enclosures. The settlement dates from

  Smith et al 2001, 11.  Tringham 2007, 2. 33  Waller 1986, 14; Wardle 2002, 4. 34  Wardle 2002, 4; Welch 1992, 4. 35   Challis et al 2006, 65. 36   Smith 1979. 37  Tringham 2007, 1–2. 38   Neal 1988, 1. 39   Edgeworth 2007. 40   PAS: DENO-8166d2; WAW-A9F056; DENO-994581; WAW-9B8633. 41   Challis et al 2006, 65. 31 32

  Esmonde Cleary and Ferris 1996; Ferris et al 2000.  Tringham 2007, 3. 44   Eg, Jones and Bond 1987, 92; Palliser 1976, 146; Tringham 2007, 3. 45  Tringham 2007, 3. 46  Tringham 2007, 3. 47   Page 1907, 58. 48   Page 1907, 58–63; Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 2001. 42 43

31

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ The Post-Medieval and Modern Periods

c 600 AD until at least the late 9th century and exhibits an unusual stylistic form suggesting significant mixing of both Germanic and native (Romano-British) cultural influences.49

The extensive survival of earthwork remains of characteristically medieval ridge and furrow ploughing throughout the Dove valley is itself archaeologically informative for the post-medieval land-use of the area, strongly suggesting an early shift from arable to pastoral farming that essentially fossilised the earthworks in the landscape. Although arable farming was practised in the lowland areas of the River Dove during the medieval period, it is likely that there was a comprehensive shift to pastoral agriculture before the end of this period.55 The probable reason for this is that the land and climate around Tutbury, and indeed the county in general, is far better suited to this form of farming, with numerous references to the frequent flooding of the River Dove providing rich alluvial deposits and creating excellent conditions for pasture.56 Cattle probably dominated the post-medieval pastoral economy of the area, indicated by the well-documented growth of the Uttoxeter and Lower Dovedale dairy farming industry from at least the 16th century onwards.57

The Medieval Period The immediate medieval landscape setting of the castle included the Benedictine priory situated on the terrace to the south east of the outer bailey, the borough settlement to the south and the castle park located to the west, a spatial arrangement discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. The medieval settlement was almost certainly enclosed by the earthworks now entitled the ‘Park Pale’, the southern stretch of which appears to have formed the northern boundary of Middle Field, one of the large open fields into which the Tutbury arable landscape was divided.50 Other recorded open fields include Mill Field to the east, so named after the corn mill located in that direction, and Castle Hayes Field to the west. The medieval settlement at Tutbury appears to have had access routes leading north west to Uttoxeter and south east to Burton upon Trent, as well as the important river crossing northwards towards the estates owned by the honor in Derbyshire. Access across the river was via a bridge approximately in the location of the present 19th-century bridge leading to Hatton, as well as across a second bridge further upstream that provided access to the park below the castle.51

Further archaeological evidence for post-medieval agricultural developments in the landscape around Tutbury is provided by the survival of the remains of a number of water meadows throughout the Dove valley, including the land immediately upstream of the castle.58 The often intricate networks of drainage channels and associated sluice gates that comprise such water meadow systems allowed the farmer to carefully regulate the flow of water across the low-lying land, preventing the freezing of the sward during winter and artificially increasing the fertility of the soils.59 The additional hay crops created by this process meant that water meadow technology became in widespread use from the 17th century onwards.

The pasture landscapes of the Dove valley were another important source of income for medieval Tutbury, with the six demesne manors under the castle’s control producing a fifth of the honor’s overall income. However, the economic and commercial power of the market at Tutbury was from the later Middle Ages always rivalled by the larger centres at Burton upon Trent, Uttoxeter and Derby, with Tutbury declining still further from the 15th century onwards when the dukes of Lancaster ascended the English throne and their attention shifted from the region.52

The forest land around Tutbury was also to change dramatically during the post-medieval and modern periods. Attempts by Charles II to inclose and sell land within Needwood during the 1680s all failed, but by the end of the 17th century all of the parks associated with the forest had become independent farms. An Act of 1801 ordered the final disafforestation and inclosure of Needwood Forest, with the land being subdivided into numerous smaller farm landholdings.60 Examination of a modern map indicates that the Needwood landscape now displays the chequer-board pattern of straight field boundaries that is so typical of planned parliamentary enclosure, a centrally imposed practice that rarely took account of pre-existing local landscape practices.

One of the other most important features of the broader medieval landscape was Needwood Forest, situated to the south and west of Tutbury. Needwood was initially designated a ‘chase’, being assigned to Henry de Ferrers rather than directly under royal ownership. The duchy of Lancaster ceded the lands to the Crown in 1399, leading to its designation as a ‘forest’, with more strictly enforced forest law and a reorganised administration arranged under five separate wards.53 Although the forest originally extended as far south and east as the River Trent, its size was reduced from the 13th century onwards through the dual processes of assarting and park creation.54

The town of Tutbury, although experiencing a period of relative decline during the 17th and early 18th centuries following the slighting of the castle, saw considerable

  Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002.   Stuart 1989. 51  Tringham 2007, 78. 52  Tringham 2007, 5. 53   Nicholls 1972. 54  Tringham 2007, 5.

  Gray 1915, 87; Palliser 1976, 77.   Greenslade and Johnson 1979, 69; Litherland 1991, 6. 57   Litherland 1991, 8. 58   Breeze et al, 2008, 73. 59   Cook and Williamson 2007. 60   Nicholls 1972.

49

55

50

56

32

Chapter 3: The Castle and its Setting

Figure 3.6 Locations of archaeological interventions in Tutbury 1990–2009

39 Cornmill Lane

growth following the establishment of the Tutbury cotton mill in the early 1780s.61 The cotton mill, and the plaster works that replaced it in 1891, were the main forms of employment for the town, along with the glassworking industry, which grew from the mid 19th century onwards. The most extensive period of population growth, however, occurred during the post-WWII period of the 20th century with considerable urban developments, industrial expansion and an improved infrastructure.62 Nevertheless, despite this modern growth Tutbury was to remain a relatively minor settlement in comparison to nearby Burton upon Trent with its prosperous brewing industry.

A desk-based assessment of a north-east to south-west orientated plot of land adjacent to No. 39 Cornmill Lane, carried out in advance of a small residential development, suggested the possibility that the study area occupied parts of some of the High Street medieval property back plots (Hislop, 2003). Confirmation of low level medieval activity came from a watching brief (Macey-Bracken 2004) carried out during redevelopment of the site (Fig. 3.7). A spread of silty clay material (1006) between 0.08 and 0.25m deep, which followed the slope of the site from north east to south west, was found to contain medieval pottery, as did two small pits to the south-west of this layer, which were cut into the natural subsoil. One of the pits (F101) was shallow, steep-sided and circular, 1.3m in diameter and 0.35m deep. It was filled with mid brown silty clay (1004), similar in appearance to 1006, containing occasional large sub-angular pebbles. The other pit (F102), which was situated approximately 2m to the north east, was a very regular rectangular feature (F102) with steep, near vertical sides. It was 0.5m wide and 0.32m deep and filled with grey/mid brown silty clay (1005) with occasional small rounded and sub-rounded pebbles.

RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK IN THE TOWN Malcolm Hislop A limited amount of archaeological work has been carried out in the town in recent years largely as a result of conditions attached to development-related planning permissions (Fig. 3.6). While the scale of the archaeological responses to these developments has been limited, some evidence for the medieval character of the settlement has been recovered.

33 High Street A watching brief to the rear of No. 33 High Street (Martin 2004), on a plot west of, and adjacent to, the Cornmill

 Tringham 2007, 84.  Tringham 2007, 84–87.

61 62

33

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 3.8 33 High Street site plan and section Figure 3.7 39 Corn Mill Lane site plan

To the south east, in Sondage 1, the natural clay subsoil was cut by a very substantial feature (1017), a 4m length of the north-east to south-west aligned south-eastern edge being defined at the south-east end of the sondage. Although the exact shape and dimensions of this feature could not be ascertained owing to water inundation and to the limited nature of the salvage excavation, it is clear that it extended across the full length of the sondage towards the north west, thereby indicating a minimum width of over 20m. In Sondage 2 the north-west edge of a feature of comparable scale was also recorded, which, like its counterpart in Sondage 1, was also aligned north east to south west, the edge starting to curve towards the east. It is probable that these two edges represent the north-west and south-east extents of a single entity c 40m in width.

Lane site, located the orange/brown clay natural subsoil at depths of between 0.4m to 0.6m beneath the modern ground surface (Fig. 3.8). Cut into the subsoil, at the north-west corner of the site, a north-west to south-east aligned linear feature (F100), apparently a ditch with a U-shaped profile, was partially exposed in section and found to measure up to 2.5m wide by 1.0m deep. The dark brown/green clayey silt fill (1000) contained charcoal and produced two sherds of 14th-century glazed pottery. This ditch did not appear to extend into the southern part of the site and it is possible that it terminated in the northern half. The orientation of F100 appeared to have been diagonally opposed to the alignment of the properties fronting the High Street, and it is therefore difficult to interpret in relation to the supposed orientation of the burgage plots.

Further investigation of the feature was carried out in Sondage 1, where, owing to the presence of a high water table only the upper 1.8m could be excavated (Fig. 3.9). The lower deposits were tested by augur, an exercise that located the natural subsoil at a depth of 3m. The stepped south-eastern edge of the feature contained a U-shaped pit (1006) measuring approximately 1.25m wide by 0.35m deep, the fill of which (1018) was rich in degraded wood and charred oat remains, the latter probably having been accidentally damaged during the malting process.63

Castle Garage, Monk Street While these two sites indicate minor aspects of the medieval town’s layout, the most interesting archaeological results come from a watching brief undertaken in 2005 at the former Castle Garage, on the south-east side of Monk Street, in advance of residential redevelopment (Martin-Bacon 2005). Here, following the exposure of archaeological material during clearance of the overburden, two sondages were excavated by machine at the north-west and southeast ends of the site (Fig. 3.9).

  Smith and Smith 2005, 14–15.

63

34

Chapter 3: The Castle and its Setting

Figure 3.9 Castle Garage, Monk Street, site plan and section

This pit was sealed by loose red/brown clay-silt (1009) containing 13th- to 14th-century pottery, which was in turn overlain by dark organic silt (1010/1015) containing wood, twigs and animal bone and the remains of cattle dung. Analysis indicated that the dung was deposited directly into the water, thereby suggesting that cattle were grazing within close proximity of the feature.64 The most significant group of artefacts to be recovered from this layer comprised a ‘single deposit of leather waste relating to shoe making and/or repair’ that was dumped in the

late 14th century or very early 15th century, and which included three complete soles (Fig. 3.10).65 This silt layer (1010/1015) was sealed by a layer of pale grey/green silty clay (1007) containing animal bone and 13th-century pottery, which was itself overlain by brown/grey clay-silt (1005) containing abundant charcoal flecking and later 13th- to 14th-century pottery. The upper surface of this layer also contained a lens of charcoal-rich brown clay-silt (1003). Sealing layer 1005 was a layer of loose charcoal-flecked orange/brown clay silt (1002),

  Smith and Smith 2005, 15.

 Williams 2005, 7.

64

65

35

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ formation layer of the new development. However, the fills were all of similar character, being dark brown silt with charcoal flecks and animal bone throughout. Pottery dating from the 15th to 16th centuries was retrieved from the upper fill (1013) of one of the pits (1012). These elements were sealed by a layer of loose dark brown silt (1011), approximately 0.4m deep, containing fragments of brick, tile and 18th-century pottery. While there is no doubt that the principal feature revealed at the Castle Garage site was of substantial proportions, the limited nature of the archaeological response, and the confines of the development site itself, mean that its full extent could not be determined. However, a degree of informed conjecture may be fuelled by reference to current and early maps. To the north east of the Castle Garage site an early 19th-century house called ‘The Hawthorns’ is set within a large plot. The south-east boundary of this property, which divides it from the High Street backplots, appears to follow the same line as the south-east edge of the excavated feature, and may, therefore, represent its continuation towards the north east. If so, then other boundaries between the Monk Street and High Street properties may also provide clues to the continuation of the feature to the south west. In this way it is possible to trace a rather sinuous line across the Monk Street/High Street block terminating at the western corner and the junction with Castle Street. If this line does indeed correspond to the former extent of a water feature, then it must have been a pond or large watercourse, and the assumption must be that it was fed by the Mill Fleam. Indeed, the 1810 map shows the Mill Fleam curving in the direction of the Monk Street site, so, in concert with the archaeological evidence, there is good reason to suppose that the water management system extended through the Monk Street/High Street block. The function of the Monk Street feature may be hinted at in the street name Fishpond Lane, a road that forms part of a staggered crossroads with Monk Street, Castle Street and Duke Street. It seems to be no coincidence that it leads directly towards the eastern corner of the Monk Street/High Street block. Fishponds are commonly found in association with seigneurial and monastic sites, and it is therefore no surprise to discover that one probably existed within close proximity to the castle and priory. In addition to its practical function of providing a ready source of food, it would also have provided a physical and psychological barrier between the priory and the town, so helping to maintain an atmosphere of seclusion proper to a monastic house.

Figure 3.10 Castle Garage, Monk Street, medieval shoe soles

from which mid to late 13th-century pottery and fragments of animal bone were recovered, and above this was a thin band of redeposited natural clay (1004). The latter was overlain by mid to dark brown loose charcoal-flecked clay-silt (1001/1014), which yielded 14th- to 15th-century pottery and animal bone. Foundation trenches excavated to the south and east of Sondage 2 were also found to contain ditch fills (2003). This material produced pottery dating from between the 13th and 14th centuries, together with some later sherds of 15th- to 16th-century date, which may represent later activity post-dating the primary use of the feature.66 A negative feature (2000) was recorded on the northwest edge of feature 1017, cutting the natural clay (not illustrated), but was not fully excavated, being recorded to a depth of c 1m only. It was filled with deposits of black clay-silt (2001), containing 12th- to 14th-century pottery, and sealed by a layer of dark brown silt with brick fragments (2002), overlain by modern concrete.

The Monk Street project, then, has advanced our ideas about the immediate environs of the castle, highlighted the possible impact of man-made water features on the medieval landscape, and suggested that the town was clearly demarcated from the castle and priory on Castle Hill. The artefactual material suggests that the pond had become a dumping ground by the 14th century. The 15thto 16th-century pits cutting the south-eastern edge of

The south-eastern edge of 1017 was cut by several pits, although these were not excavated as they were below the   Rátkai 2005a.

66

36

Chapter 3: The Castle and its Setting the ditch/pond may indicate that by this time it had been infilled and that the area was now occupied, possibly by properties fronting onto Monk Street with backplots stretching back into the development site.

37

Chapter 4: The Park Pale Mark Kincey

INTRODUCTION

either ‘Little Park’, ‘Tutbury Park’ or ‘Castle Park’ at different stages of its existence that was known to have been located close to the castle itself.1 Various dates have been put forward for the original establishment of the park, with Tringham suggesting by 1313,2 Kettle stating 1329,3 and Mosley arguing for a later date of 1374.4 There are also indications in the documentary sources as to the approximate location of the park. A survey carried out in the reign of Elizabeth I states that the castle stood within the grounds of the park,5 and Mosley describes the park as having been ‘…formed under the castle walls’,6 again suggesting that the castle at least stood adjacent to the park grounds.

The ‘Park Pale’ earthworks at Tutbury survive as an interrupted series of banks and ditches forming an incomplete circuit, stretching from the foot of Castle Hill at its north-western end, nearly to the line of Burton Street on the east. The extant earthworks are located on the ridges of the high ground at the north of the Needwood Plateau (Fig. 4.1). The traditional interpretation of the earthworks is as the remains of a boundary for a medieval deer park and it is on this basis that much of the monument has been both designated a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM nos. 22, 238a, and 238b), and listed by the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record office (PRN no. 00219) and the National Monuments Record office (NMR no. 649581).

The later history of the park appears to indicate a general decline in use followed by a change in function by the 17th century. A survey of the area by William Humberston in 1559 records Tutbury Park as being 67 acres (27 ha.) in size, with no covert and containing only 30 deer.7 By 1650, the park was no longer used as a deer enclosure, having been incorporated into the Tutbury horse stud.8

The most substantial extant section is the length of unscheduled earthworks situated to the west of the town. At this location the earthworks consist of an internal bank with an average width of c16m, rising around 2.5m above the base of an outer ditch which itself measures over 8m in width. The earthworks extend south from Castle Hill for a distance of approximately 300m before turning towards the east.

The ‘Park Pale’ earthworks are of a suitable size and circumference to have been employed as a boundary for a deer park, forming a roughly oval enclosure that is characteristic of medieval park enclosures.9 They are also in the right location to correspond with the documentary sources mentioned above, being directly under the site of the castle. Furthermore, the presence of numerous examples of ‘park’ related road- or farm-names in the vicinity of the earthworks on both the historic and modern mapping appears to add further superficial credence to the interpretation. However, there are several important reasons to believe that the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks do not actually relate to the medieval deer park boundary. These include the arrangement of the earthworks, their location in relation to the town, and evidence for an alternative park location further to the west.

The next surviving stretch of the monument is located between Ferrers Avenue and Ludgate Street and is under scheduled protection (SAM no. 238b). This east–west aligned portion again exhibits the same internal bank/ external ditch arrangement but is considerably smaller in scale than the western section. The internal bank measures c 10m in width and stands approximately 2.25m above the base of the external ditch. The earthworks then continue north east with the internal bank forming the eastern edge of a modern alleyway and the external ditch located across a boundary fence and within gardens belonging to private properties. Along with another stretch of bank located across Chatsworth Drive, this portion of the monument is also under scheduled protection (SAM no. 238a). A number of low earthwork mounds located in the playing fields of the Richard Wakefield Primary School appear to represent the northernmost surviving remains of the monument, with no further evidence for the earthworks beyond Burton Street.

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS The ‘Park Pale’ earthworks themselves have only been the subject of limited previous archaeological investigations. A series of excavations was carried out in 1974–76 preceding

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

 Tringham 2007, 39–40; Kettle 1967, 350.  Tringham 2007, 39. 3   Kettle 1967, 350. 4   Mosley 1832, 75. 5   Greenslade and Baugh 1976, 61; Jackson 1796, 25. 6   Mosley 1832, 75. 7  Tringham 2007, 43. 8  Tringham 2007, 45. 9  Taigel and Williamson 1993, 33. 1 2

The earthworks have traditionally been interpreted as the remains of a medieval deer park boundary, as their name implies, and this suggestion is not without some historical basis. Out of the five medieval parks recorded as being situated within Tutbury parish there was one termed 38

Chapter 4: The Park Pale

Figure 4.1 Map of Tutbury showing extant sections of Park Pale earthworks and Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs). a housing development close to the earthworks. The work involved the excavation of a machine trench through the earthworks, which revealed two phases of construction: an original ‘Early Iron Age’ defensive ditch and rampart with large stone revetments, followed by a ‘Middle Iron Age’ repair and secondary construction phase.10 This was followed by an open area excavation within the interior of the enclosure which unearthed numerous prehistoric struck flints and ‘Iron Age’ potsherds. The results of these excavations were never published and the site archive has since been lost. Therefore the interpretation of the monument as an Iron Age enclosure, as the excavations seem to suggest, has to remain inconclusive at present.

involving documentary and archival research, map regression and aerial photographic analysis (Fig. 4.2).

The next phase of work to focus on the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks was in 2005–6 as part of a postgraduate thesis carried out by the author.11 This work used non-invasive techniques to carry out a comprehensive topographic survey of the westernmost stretch of earthwork and a basic survey record of the other surviving remnants throughout the town. The project also involved a detailed desk-based assessment and contextualisation of the monument,

METHODOLOGY

This most recent phase of work was commissioned by the Tutbury Civic Society from a Heritage Lottery Grant obtained in 2007. The archaeological survey in this instance formed part of a larger project, ‘The Tutbury Park Pale Recovery Project’, aimed at clearing the monument of vegetation and providing a continuous heritage walk around the ‘Park Pale’.12 This latest survey of the ‘Park Pale’ aimed at generating a full topographic record of the entire extant monument, as well as targeted geophysics to investigate the subsurface environment.

Topographical Survey The topographical surveys were carried out through a combination of Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) and Total Station survey techniques. The GPS surveys employed the Leica System 500 DGPS with the rover unit set to record in kinematic mode, automatically

  Burton Daily Mail 1976.   Kincey 2005; published as Kincey 2008a.

10

  Kincey 2008b.

11

12

39

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 4.2 Location of Park Pale survey areas Geophysical Survey

logging readings as the earthworks were traversed in c 2m wide transects. The gridded survey was supplemented by a non-gridded detail survey where appropriate, recording the location of specific micro-topographic changes which may have been overlooked during the initial survey transects.

The 2007 geophysical investigations of the ‘Park Pale’ took the form of earth resistance surveys across the western (unscheduled) section of the earthworks, as well as SAMs 238a and 238b. This method was selected due to both its proven track record in archaeological prospection and more importantly for its ease of use, allowing volunteers from Tutbury to participate in the data collection, an important part of the HLF-funded project.

Despite the recent clearance of overgrown vegetation covering sections of the monument, there were still areas in which the presence of trees or buildings led to a loss of satellite lock and the resulting abandonment of the GPS survey. In these areas an optical survey was conducted using a Nikon NPL-352 Total Station, utilising a survey control network established with the GPS. The Total Station survey again involved the collection of 2m transects of spot height data, coupled with other detail points where necessary.

The earth resistance survey was conducted using a Geoscan RM15 resistance meter connected in the twin probe configuration and with a mobile electrode separation of 0.5m. In this configuration the technique is likely to respond to features buried up to a maximum of 0.75m below the ground surface.13 Data were collected at sample intervals of 1m along traverses spaced 1m apart, providing 400 data points per 20x20m grid. Grid intersections were recorded using the Differential GPS, providing an accuracy of ± 0.02m and therefore well within the accuracy specified by English Heritage for geophysical surveys.14 The data were downloaded into the Geoplot software, with processing following standard procedures and including functions

The results of the topographic surveys were imported into the project geographical information system (GIS) for display and further processing. The kriging interpolation function was employed to generate a digital elevation model (DEM) of the topographic survey data. Further GIS analysis was subsequently carried out to create a range of different representations of the topographic surface, including hillshade models and contour plots.

  Gaffney and Gater 2004, 32.   Jones 2008.

13 14

40

Chapter 4: The Park Pale RESULTS

such as clipping, despiking, edge matching between grids and filtering. The processed greyscale images were exported into the Surfer 8 software, before being added to the project GIS and georeferenced to the corrected grid points recorded using the GPS unit.

The results of the ‘Park Pale’ survey will each be presented individually, except for SAM 238a and the school playing fields, which have been combined due to their proximity to each other. A broader discussion of the entire monument will then follow in the subsequent section.

Desk-Based Methodology

Western (unscheduled) Earthworks

As well as allowing the presentation and analysis of the fieldwork data, the geographical information system (GIS) also provided a spatially accurate environment in which to integrate other forms of pre-existing data. The final GIS therefore included a variety of data types including the following: • • • • • • • • •

Topographic Survey (Fig. 4.3, Plate 4.1) The western portion of the ‘Park Pale’ monument extends south west from the base of Castle Hill for approximately 300m before turning south east and heading in towards the town. The earthworks consist of an internal bank with an average width of approximately 16m, rising over 2m above the base of an outer ditch which itself measures over 8m in width. The northernmost section of this area forms the western boundary of a small paddock immediately to the south of the castle and is included within the scheduled protection details for the castle (SAM 22). However, despite being the most massive section of the monument still in existence, the rest of the western area further to the south is still not under any statutory protection. The paddock to the north is private property, being owned and leased out by the duchy of Lancaster, with the rest of the western area being public access pasture land.

Topographical survey data Geophysical survey data Digital ground photography Modern Ordnance Survey mapping Historic mapping Geological mapping Aerial photography Historic Environment Record (HER) data (Staffordshire County Council). National Monuments Record (NMR) information (English Heritage).

By combining this diverse range of data sets the results of the ‘Park Pale’ survey could be fully contextualised and any interpretations better informed.

Plate 4.1 The western unscheduled earthworks (BA)

41

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 4.3 Digital elevation model (DEM) results of topographic survey of western (unscheduled) earthworks

42

Chapter 4: The Park Pale To the south of the area is a substantial bank and outer ditch extending between SK2074628716 in the south east and SK2070128802 in the north west, an overall distance of 113m. There is a significant curvature to this section of the monument, with the northern portion of the bank and ditch extending in a roughly south-west to north-east orientation before taking a considerable turn at their southern extent to carry on in a north-west to south-east direction. This portion of the earthworks is probably the best preserved and is marked on the modern Ordnance Survey map of the area, although it is not designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM). The field in which the bank and ditch are located slopes steeply down to the west and it is directly on the upper break of slope for this gradient that the earthworks are situated. The bank has an average width of approximately 16m and rises 2.12m above the base of the outer, south-western ditch, which itself measures over 8m in width. To the interior, eastern side of the bank, the ground shelves down slightly before levelling off to form a relatively flat plateau.

the aforementioned field, is designated as SAM No. 22, the same number allocated to Tutbury Castle itself. This part of the monument appears to turn to the east at its southern extent and is separated from those further to the south by a modern footpath and a field boundary running east–west between SK2083128900 and SK2060428951. Geophysical Survey (Figs 4.4 and 4.5) The earth resistance survey of the western section of the monument covered twenty-six 20x20m grids focused on the south-eastern turn of the earthworks and a section of the interior of the monument to the west of Park Lane. The aim of this survey was to establish whether any buried archaeological features could be revealed, in the hope that they may shed more light on the original date and function of the earthworks. The processed results of the earth resistance survey clearly show the location of the earthwork bank as a curving high resistance linear and that of the external ditch as a corresponding low resistance linear (features 1 and 2 respectively). The high resistance Feature 3 appears to mark the continuation of the earthwork bank as it continues north. A low resistance response curving around the interior of the bank possibly also reflects the presence of a slight internal ditch at this location (Feature 4), although it seems to have far less clarity of form than the main earthwork features. At the northern extent of the curve in the earthworks a 13m long high resistance linear has been recorded (Feature 5), cutting obliquely across the line of the earthworks in a south-west to north-east orientation. The relative stratigraphy indicated by the junction between these features suggests that Feature 5 is later than the earthworks, an interpretation supported further by the presence of post-medieval/modern bricks on the ground surface at this location. Feature 5 possibly corresponds to a south-west to north-east aligned linear feature visible on a 1971 aerial photograph of the area. This feature extends from the western edge of the ‘Park Pale’ towards Little Park Farm.

The topographic survey of this area indicated a shallow linear ditch running in a broadly west–east direction and extending from the western extent of the field as far as the bend in the main bank and ditch (SK2055528766– SK2070528729). This feature could plausibly relate to the ‘Pale’ earthworks but, importantly, the feature extends from a field corner to the west and runs parallel to the field boundary to the north. These characteristics suggest that the linear is most likely to be the remains of a previous field boundary that has since been removed, an interpretation apparently confirmed by the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map (1886–91) of the area which shows the presence of a field boundary in this location. To the north of this curving stretch of bank and ditch, the earthworks are still perceptible but are noticeably less distinct. The earthwork was traced as far north as the field boundary and modern path located at SK2073928923, with an interesting linear depression noted running perpendicular to the main direction of the ‘Pale’, between SK2070328883 and SK2073428867. This depression extended in a north-west to south-east direction for approximately 31m across the line of the main bank and ditch, and had a maximum depth of over 1.5m. The main bank of the ‘Park Pale’ appeared to diminish in size on either side of this perpendicularly aligned ditch, as if respecting the presence of the feature. This characteristic could be tentatively taken to suggest that the linear depression may be a possible original access route into the earthworks, although this requires further verification.

The interior of the earthworks contains a number of anomalies of possible archaeological interest. To the south of the interior is a series of alternating linear high and low responses, oriented approximately east–west (Feature 6) and almost certainly reflecting the slight earthwork remains of ridge and furrow ploughing. At the northern extent of the ridge and furrow is a larger high resistance linear measuring over 40m in length and 5m in width (Feature 7). This feature runs parallel to the plough lines and possibly represents either a headland or boundary line associated with the use of the area for arable farming. The relative stratigraphy of the ridge and furrow and the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks is not completely clear from the results of the resistance survey. However, examination of aerial photography from the 1940s suggests that the plough lines cut across the top of the ‘Park Pale’ and therefore post-date the monument, although this requires further investigation to provide a definitive answer. Both the ridge and furrow

To the north east of the area the earthworks continue almost as far north as the southern moat of the castle itself, although with a modern footpath providing access between the two. The main bank and ditch are still orientated south west to north east, and here form the western boundary of an enclosed field running between SK2080529039 and SK2074828929. This stretch of the earthworks, and a considerable portion of the interior of 43

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 4.4 Results of resistance survey of western (unscheduled) earthworks

44

Chapter 4: The Park Pale

Figure 4.5 Interpretation of resistance survey of western (unscheduled) earthworks

45

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ and the larger linear bank are still visible as topographic features on ground photographs of the area. Immediately to the south of the ridge and furrow and still within the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks is a rectilinear high resistance anomaly measuring c 12x11m (Feature 8). There is no topographic change visible to account for the resistance response; neither is there evidence for anything at this location on the historic maps of the area. The origin of this feature is therefore unclear, but its form on the geophysics is perhaps suggestive of a compacted surface or structural remains.

beyond this point suggesting that it may have originally continued even further north. Again, examination of historic maps and aerial photography reveals this linear to be the response from a now abandoned field boundary that ceased to be used at some point between 1961 and 1982. To the east of the area is a large, broadly rectilinear series of high resistance responses that extends either side of the abandoned boundary Feature 12 (features 14 and 15). Importantly, these anomalies are clearly cut by the field boundary and so appear to predate its use. Their form is perhaps suggestive of structural remains with a number of smaller internal features of both high and low resistance. This set of anomalies requires further investigations in order to fully clarify their nature and origin.

Further to the north is perhaps one of the most archaeologically interesting anomalies recorded during the resistance survey. Feature 9 is a large area of high resistance responses located within a noticeable cleft in the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks. The feature appears to extend downwards from the southern slope of this cleft, immediately within the interior of the earthwork bank. Although the form of the feature is not completely regular, its appearance does suggest that it is anthropogenic in origin. The association of the feature with a topographic ‘break’ in the earthworks is perhaps suggestive of a structure next to an entrance leading into the enclosure. At the north-eastern corner of the resistance survey was another area of anomalies (Feature 10), comprising a number of high resistance rectilinear features bounded to the west by an irregular spread of low resistance readings. The regularity of some of the high resistance features is suggestive of building outlines, possibly associated with abandoned outbuildings of Little Park Farm which is located immediately to the east on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map.

SAM 238b Topographic Survey (Fig. 4.6, Plate 4.2) The earthworks designated as scheduled monument number 238b extend east for a distance of c 151m from the junction of Ferrers Avenue and Hillcrest, until they reach the road entitled ‘The Park Pale’. Beyond this road the earthworks can still be traced for a further 46m following the northern side of a footpath leading east to Ironwalls Lane, although they are considerably smaller in size by this point. The main stretch of earthwork at SAM 238b consists of a large northern (internal) bank measuring over 10m in width and with a parallel southern (external) ditch measuring approximately 13m in width. The internal bank stands up to 1.16m above the modern ground level, with the adjacent ditch approaching 1.9m in depth, creating an overall elevation change between the top of the bank and base of the ditch in the region of 3.06m. The outer (southern) slope of the ditch is noticeably steeper than the inner (northern) slope, although this could of course relate to the erosion and slippage of bank material into the ditch since the monument fell into disuse.

The resistance survey was also extended to the south west in order to cover an area outside the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks. This survey area highlighted another series of features which appear to relate to the recent land use around the monument, as well as some possible earlier archaeological features. A series of alternate high and low resistance linear features oriented approximately east–west (Feature 11) appear to again indicate the ridges and furrows of former arable agriculture. The ridge and furrow is bisected by a similarly aligned feature (Feature 12) formed by a high resistance central linear anomaly bounded on both sides by parallel low resistance linear features. This feature is still visible on the ground as a noticeable change in vegetation. Examination of historic maps and aerial photography of the area show that this linear is caused by a former field boundary that was removed some time between 1971 and 1982. However, although the boundary was only abandoned a few decades ago, it probably fossilised a boundary that had been in existence since the medieval period. It will be argued below that this feature marks the boundary of the original medieval deer park in an alternate location to that enclosed by the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks.

At the western end of the SAM 238b earthworks the monument has been sharply truncated by the creation of Ferrers Avenue, with the bank still standing as a pronounced earthwork. However, at the eastern end, approximately 19m before it reaches the route of The Park Pale, the earthwork ditch has been largely infilled. Instead, the ground here slopes fairly uniformly down to the road with only minor topographic irregularities hinting at the original continuity of the bank and ditch. The land to the north of the monument is currently in use as a children’s play area and has clearly been at least partially affected by modern landscaping. The ditch was until recently full of dense vegetation and hawthorn trees which were largely cleared on behalf of the Tutbury Civic Society in November/December 2007. The clearance of this vegetation has helped to both limit the amount of soil erosion that is being caused by the tree roots, as well as to open up this stretch of the monument to the public. A tarmac footpath runs along the top of the southern edge of

To the south of Feature 12, and almost perpendicular to it, is a south-west to north-east aligned high resistance linear (Feature 13). This linear feature extends north from the edge of the survey area until it appears to be cut by Feature 12, with another faint high resistance linear trace 46

Chapter 4: The Park Pale

Figure 4.6 Digital elevation model (DEM) results of topographic survey of SAM 238b earthworks

Plate 4.2 SAM 238b earthworks (BA)

47

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ the ditch, providing access between Ferrers Avenue and The Park Pale.

highlighted at 1, 2 and 3 are probably the result of changes in the subsurface environment due to the dense vegetation and trees that were removed recently. This interpretation receives more support from the presence of tree stumps and surface disturbance revealed following the clearance.

Geophysical Survey (Figs 4.7 and 4.8) The earth resistance survey of SAM 238b focused on two 20x20m grids positioned to partially cover the earthwork bank and an area of the interior of the monument further to the north. The aim was to see if any subsurface archaeological remains could be identified that might provide evidence to support an interpretation of the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks. However, time constraints meant that only a relatively small area of SAM 238b could be covered, making any conclusions drawn from the survey fairly limited.

To the north of this is a broad linear area of low resistance extending throughout the centre of the grids (Feature 4). Although within this there are areas of more discrete resistance responses (for example at features 5 and 6), this spread of low resistance is probably again reflecting the topography of the area. The low resistance extends as far north as the base of the northern slope of the bank. Beyond this is another linear spread of high resistance, extending between 7 and 8 on the interpretation plot. The origin of this high resistance linear is less clear, with no topographic expression visible to explain the response. Within the linear is a number of discrete higher resistance responses, for example at features 9 and 10. Although irregular in shape, these features are possibly of archaeological interest, with the linear perhaps marking the line of another internal defence or enclosure feature associated with the earthworks. Features 11 and 12 are very faint linear high resistance responses identified running perpendicular to the earthworks and across the low resistance linear recorded as Feature 4. The identification of these features remains tentative but it is possible that they are associated with the

The processed results of the resistance survey of SAM 238b clearly show the topography associated with the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks. The southern edge of the bank is marked by a linear series of high resistance anomalies (features 1, 2 and 3). These discrete features are visible against a background of relatively high resistance values extending in a line all the way across the southern edge of the grids. This high resistance response is almost certainly the result of the topography itself, with the increased drainage at this location causing reduced moisture content and a resulting rise in resistance. The aforementioned discrete features

Figure 4.7 Results of resistance survey of SAM 238b earthworks 48

Chapter 4: The Park Pale

Figure 4.8 Interpretation of resistance survey of SAM 238b earthworks

high resistance linear anomaly between 7 and 8, especially since Feature 11 appears to extend as far north as Feature 9. Due to the small area covered by the resistance survey of SAM 238b, the results and interpretations are provisional, with further investigations being required before they can be confirmed.

CE Primary School. This second stretch of earthworks displays the full profile of the earthwork bank, although with the external eastern ditch now in filled and marked by the line of the footpath leading into the school. Both the southern and northern stretches of the scheduled area were, until recently, covered in dense vegetation and tree cover. This vegetation was removed as part of the Civic Society’s recent research project and now the monument is much more visible to the public, as well as being less prone to erosion from root action.

SAM 238a and the Richard Wakefield School Playing Fields Topographic Survey (Fig. 4.9, Plates 4.3 and 4.4)

To the north east of the scheduled area, a series of earthworks is visible in the playing fields of the primary school. The character of the earthworks at this point is noticeably different, however, with the earthwork bank of SAM 238a stopping sharply just before the school fence. A broad earthwork mound is then visible further to the north east but offset from the original line of the ‘Park Pale’ by around 7m to the north west. The orientation of this mound is still the same as the scheduled stretch but it appears to have been deliberately moved further north west, most probably as part of the landscaping that must have taken place when the school was built. A low mound identified further to the north east and on the original alignment of the monument appears to represent the northernmost surviving remains of the ‘Park Pale’, with no conclusive

The results of the topographic survey of SAM 238a and the earthworks in the primary school playing fields have been combined due to their proximity to each other. The earthworks designated as SAM 238a first appear to the south west at a dogleg partway along an alley linking Ludgate Street with Chatsworth drive. At this point the earthwork bank can be traced along the eastern edge of the south-west to north-east aligned alley, with the corresponding external ditch located across property boundaries to the east. The earthworks continue in this form for approximately 89m until they are bisected by the route of Chatsworth Drive. The scheduled earthworks then continue for a further 38m beyond Chatsworth Drive until they meet the southern boundary of the Richard Wakefield

49

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 4.9 Digital elevation model (DEM) results of topographic survey of SAM 238a earthworks

50

Chapter 4: The Park Pale

Plate 4.3 SAM 238a earthworks (BA)

Plate 4.4 The earthworks in the school playing fields (BA)

51

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 4.10 Results of resistance survey of school playing fields

52

Chapter 4: The Park Pale

Figure 4.11 Interpretation of resistance survey of school playing fields

53

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ evidence for the earthworks beyond Burton Street. The earthworks in the school playing fields are covered in short grass and are not under any direct threat from erosion.

lines although further investigations would be required either to prove or refute this tentative interpretation. DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION

Geophysical Survey (Figs. 4.10 and 4.11)

Since the field survey was focused on the surviving sections of the monument it was only capable of providing a plan that, superficially at least, makes the ‘Park Pale’ appear as a series of unconnected banks and ditches. However, the desk-based documentary, cartographic and aerial photographic research has provided enough evidence to indicate that, at some stage in their history, the earthworks formed a continuous monument stretching from Castle Hill in the north west at least as far as Burton Street to the east. The 1st edition Ordnance Survey maps (Fig. 4.12) and the 1940s RAF aerial photographs (Fig. 4.13) are amongst the most valuable sources for understanding the original circuit of the monument.

The geophysical survey for this area focused on an area of three 20x20m grids within the school playing fields. The aims of this survey were to clarify the original route of the earthworks, as well as to provide opportunity for the local school children to participate in an archaeological survey. The most obvious features in the resistance data are due to the topographic changes across the survey area. The high resistance features 1–4 all correspond to the earthwork mounds mentioned above as having been formed by the landscaping of the ‘Park Pale’ monuments during the construction of the school. Importantly, these anomalies all lie to the north west of the suggested original route of the earthwork bank. Features 5, 6 and 7 are high resistance anomalies located to the south east of the survey area and these most probably do relate to the original line of the earthwork bank. However, it should be noted that a number of small trees was located in the vicinity of these features and it is possible that the resistance anomaly is due to the root systems affecting the local soil moisture content.

On both sources the earthworks to the west of the town appear much as they are in their current form (Fig. 4.14). The internal bank and external ditch are connected to the site of Castle Hill to the north, extending south west as far as the large curve of the monument investigated during the 2007 geophysics survey. Across modern Park Lane the earthworks can be seen continuing in a south-east direction along the line of the modern alleyway connecting Park Lane with Wakefield Avenue. It is approximately at the point where this alley meets Wakefield Avenue that the earthworks originally took a pronounced change of direction, continuing eastwards into a cleft before curving out to the south south east. The earthworks originally then passed a fishpond before turning east along the line of the SAM 238b earthworks described above.

Feature 8 is an irregular elongated high resistance anomaly set within a background broader spread of high resistance values. The feature measures 18.4m in length and 6.2m in width at its widest point. Importantly, it is orientated roughly east–west and is therefore on a very different alignment from the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks. It is followed by a more discrete parallel high resistance linear further to the south (Feature 9) measuring 9.2m in length and 1.4m in width. These features are separated by a spread of appreciably lower resistance values that extend across much of the central portion of the survey area (features 10 and 11). At the eastern end of Feature 8 is another irregular set of high resistance anomalies (Feature 12). These appear to be on the same alignment as Feature 8 and may therefore be related. To the far north west is a roughly rectilinear high resistance anomaly (Feature 13) that has only been partially picked up by the survey area. Without extending the survey further north no further statements can be made about this feature.

The SAM 238b earthworks can be traced in the modern landscape extending across The Park Pale as far as the route of Ludgate Street, before being lost until the next extant stretch at SAM 238a. The map and aerial photographic evidence again indicates a continuous monument that curves in a north-easterly direction away from Ironwalls Lane until it meets SAM 238a. From this point onwards the earthworks continue along the alignment suggested by the results of the survey of the school playing fields outlined above. On both the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map and the 1940s photographs there is no definite evidence for the earthworks continuing beyond the line of Burton Street. However, examination of the historic maps does reveal a property boundary continuing north east beyond Burton Street that is directly aligned with the earthworks. This boundary, then, turned north west along the modern Close Bank Walk until it reached Lower High Street. At this point the natural topography drops away quite markedly to the east, providing an ideal route for the continuation of the earthwork towards the north east. Although it is not certain from the evidence available, it appears likely from the cartographic sources that the ‘Park Pale’ originally crossed Burton Street and followed the line of Close Bank Walk to incorporate the High Street.

The form of this set of features is not clear enough to make an interpretation as to their origin. If the features are archaeological then it is perhaps of some importance that they are on a different alignment to the ‘Park Pale’, possibly suggesting a different phase of activity or function. One feature that does have a greater clarity of form is Feature 14, located to the north east of the survey area. Although faint, there are high resistance linear features forming an inverted ‘Z’ shape. The full length of these linear features is almost 17m (although it appears to continue beyond both the western and north-eastern edges of the survey area), with each measuring about 1.2m in width. The dimensions and form of the features are suggestive of wall

54

Chapter 4: The Park Pale

Figure 4.12 1st edition Ordnance Survey map of Tutbury showing continuous circuit of Park Pale earthworks

Figure 4.13 1948 RAF aerial photograph of Tutbury showing continuous circuit of Park Pale earthworks 55

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 4.14 Map showing the original route of Park Pale earthworks When viewed in relation to the topography of the Tutbury landscape it can be seen that the surviving stretches of the monument are located on the high ground of the ridges extending from the Needwood Plateau. However, the full circuit of the monument, as suggested by the historic mapping and aerial photographs, indicates that the earthworks would have also have crossed the valleys occupying the land in between the ridges. It is likely that any original entrances into the enclosure from the south would have been located where the earthworks crossed the lowest ground, probably at the approximate location of modern Ludgate Street and Wakefield Avenue.

from the pronounced change in direction around Wakefield Avenue mentioned above. There is no obvious topographic variation present on the ground to account for such a shift in alignment, and one plausible explanation may therefore be that this represents the location where two earthworks of differing phases joined together. However, it is also possible that the cleft formed by the change in direction at this location was a deliberate single-phase design feature aimed at creating a defended entrance to an enclosure. In addition to understanding the original route of the earthworks it is crucially important to ascertain the date and function of the monument. As outlined above, there are a number of well-established reasons for believing the ‘Park Pale’ does actually reflect the location of a medieval deer park boundary. A little park was known to have been located immediately adjacent to the castle, and the earthworks are of a suitable size and circumference to have formed this enclosure. Similarly, the local place- and roadname evidence appears to support this interpretation, with numerous examples of ‘park’ related names in the vicinity of the earthworks on both the historic and modern mapping of the area. However, there are several important problems associated with the interpretation of the earthworks as a medieval park pale.

The archaeological surveys carried out in 2005/6 and 2007 have indicated that although the basic morphology of the earthworks is consistent throughout the ‘Park Pale’ (ie, an internal bank and external ditch), there is a difference between the western section and the rest of the monument. The western section is considerably more massive than those still surviving elsewhere in the town. This discrepancy could simply relate to the more pronounced natural topography to the west of the town or the differential preservation of the earthworks in a location outside of the main development area. Alternatively, if this reflects a true difference in original form then it could be indicative of a multi-phase monument, with the western, more massive, enclosure later being adapted and incorporated into the wider ‘Park Pale’ circuit. This suggestion receives support

The typical arrangement of the earthworks used to form a park boundary was with an internal ditch and an

56

Chapter 4: The Park Pale

Figure 4.15 Rectified 1808 Tutbury Park estate map Street, the route of Ludgate Street would still bisect the enclosed area. Equally, if the earthworks continued north east across Burton Street, as the property boundaries imply, they would enclose High Street and Monk Street, the very heart of the medieval settlement. To have a spatial arrangement whereby part of the settlement was within the bounds of the park would have been extremely impractical for the purposes of both the town population and the parkers themselves.

external bank, aimed at preventing deer from escaping the enclosure.15 The topographic survey of each area has shown that the earthworks at Tutbury display the opposite arrangement, with an external ditch and internal bank, and therefore appear more designed to obstruct entry into the enclosure rather than to prevent escape from within. Examples of park boundaries with an external ditch do exist, for example at King’s Somborne in Hampshire,16 but this arrangement was not common and it appears far more likely that the ‘Park Pale’ actually represents a defensive earthwork.

If the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks do not represent the remains of the medieval park boundary then two questions are immediately raised. Firstly, where was the little park that is mentioned in the documentary sources? Secondly, to what date and function do the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks actually relate? The answer to the alternate location of the Tutbury Little Park appears to be provided by the early cartographic evidence for the area, most notably the 1808 Tutbury Park estate map (Fig. 4.15). This map is entitled ‘Plan of Hanbury Park, Tutbury Park and Tutbury Castle belonging to the duchy of Lancaster’ and has a key listing the fields belonging to Tutbury Park, which included the names ‘Great Park’ and ‘Little Park’ amongst numerous others. Importantly, these fields, along with all the other land belonging to Tutbury Park, are located to the north west of the town and outside the circuit of the earthworks. The map was drawn up centuries after the creation and use of the park but it does strongly suggest that the original

A further challenge to the park pale interpretation is the location of the earthworks in relation to the medieval settlement. The post-Conquest settlement was focused to the north east of the present town, comprising High Street, Lower High Street and Monk Street.17 By the early 14th century there are also references to Gutter Street (modern Ludgate Street) and Newbigging Street (modern Burton Street). If the park at Tutbury was laid out in the early 14th century as the documentary sources suggest, then it would have been contemporary with all of these roads. This settlement pattern would mean that even if the earthworks turned north west along the western side of Burton Street, rather than the more likely route north east across Burton   Cantor 1982, 73.   Hoskins 1970, 94. 17  Tringham 2007, 81–82. 15 16

57

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ location of the park was to the west of the town rather than within it.

of the ridge surrounding the modern town, a typical position for hillfort defences in order to maximise the defensive qualities of the natural topography.26 However, the only further evidence to suggest that the origins of the monument lie in the Iron Age are the series of poorlydocumented, and therefore unreliable, excavations carried out in 1974–76 preceding a housing development and on behalf of Staffordshire County Council. The exact location of the earthworks remains unknown but analysis of the differences between the 1971 and 1982 aerial photographs shows that the main area of development in this period was north and south of SAM 238b as well as in an area further to the west.

The alternative location of the park is marked to the south and west by a large curving field boundary visible on the historic maps and aerial photographic evidence. Such extensive curvilinear boundaries are one of the principal features of medieval park enclosures that often survive in the modern landscape.18 This field boundary extends eastwards as far as the south-west corner of the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks and corresponds with an anomaly on the 2007 geophysics survey. In order to test the hypothesis further the boundaries of the fields marked as belonging to Tutbury Park were examined as part of the 2005/6 fieldwork. This work revealed the presence of a small extant earthwork bank following the route of the modern curving hedgerow, possibly indicating the location of a pale defining the extent of the deer park. To the north, the park would have extended as far as the diversion channel of the River Dove called the ‘Little Dove’. Watercourses are known to have been incorporated into medieval park enclosures since they could provide as effective a boundary to the deer as a substantial bank and ditch.19 Since the ‘Little Dove’ had already been created by the time of Domesday,20 this boundary probably reflects the original northern limit of the park. The eastern boundary of the park would have therefore been formed by the western stretch of the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks.

The results of the excavations were never published and the site archive has since been lost, leaving a number of contemporary newspaper articles as the main surviving evidence. The articles suggest that a machine trench was dug through the ‘Park Pale’ earthwork revealing two phases of construction; an original Early Iron defensive ditch and rampart with large stone revetments, followed by a subsequent Middle Iron Age repair and secondary construction phase.27 The trench was then followed by an open area excavation within the interior of the monument, which unearthed numerous prehistoric struck flints and sherds of Iron Age pottery. The only other relevant references are from the National Monument Record (NMR) activity report for the excavations (NMR ID 649581), which itself refers back to the newspaper articles, and the Staffordshire HER record for Tutbury Castle (No.40), which suggests that the site may have originally been an Iron Age hillfort, but states that the source of the information is unknown. Although the NMR report for the monument says that the director of the excavations believed the earthworks to be the outer defences of a large, Iron Age settlement, it also includes some rather contradictory field investigator’s comments from 1975, which state that ‘He [the director] suspected only an earlier work; not necessarily IA’ (NMR ID 922078). The interpretation of the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks as an Iron Age hillfort therefore has to remain a tantalizing possibility but one without any conclusive proof.

With the alternative location of the medieval deer park seemingly established, the next question is from when do the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks originally date, and for what purpose were they constructed? Several authors have suggested that the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks may have initially been the defences of an Iron Age hillfort, prior to being utilised as a medieval park boundary.21 The re-use of pre-existing Iron Age defences in the Saxon and even medieval periods is not unknown elsewhere in Britain,22 and although the west midlands contain relatively few hillforts when compared with southern counties, those that are known are clustered along the fertile river valleys of the region, such as the Dove.23 One of the ten other possible hillforts in the county of Staffordshire is even located only 8km (5 miles) west of Tutbury along the Dove valley at Forest Bank.24

An alternative explanation for the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks is that they relate to the possible Anglo-Saxon occupation of Tutbury. Tamworth and Stafford are the only two Staffordshire boroughs recorded prior to 1086, but Palliser suggests that at Tutbury, ‘the bank and ditch which protect the town centre on the south may well have formed the defences of a third burh, unrecorded by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’.28 Palliser goes on to argue that for there to have already been 42 traders in the Tutbury market place by 1086, as Domesday records, there must have been some form of pre-existing community at the site before the Conquest. Jones and Bond have also argued that Tutbury was Anglo-Saxon in origin and had a pre-Conquest earthen

The topographical situation of the site is also characteristic of an Iron Age hillfort location, being a relatively isolated point of high ground, close to a major river and with naturally steep and easily defensible slopes.25 Equally, the earthworks themselves are of a suitable size, form and area to be the remains of a hillfort and follow the upper contour  Aston 1985, 112.   Cantor 1982, 75. 20  Tringham 2007, 91–92. 21  Waller 1986, 14; Wardle 2002, 4. 22   Muir 2000, 233. 23   Cunliffe 1991. 24  Wardle 2002, 4; Welch 1992, 4. 25  Waller 1986, 2. 18 19

  Cunliffe 1991, 340; 1995, 34.   Burton Daily Mail 1976; Waller 1986, 16. 28   Palliser 1976, 146. 26 27

58

Chapter 4: The Park Pale defensive circuit that had fallen out of use by the postConquest period, although they acknowledge that there are no further historical references or published archaeological reports to confirm this.29 Further circumstantial evidence for the possibility of an Anglo-Saxon burh is discussed in Chapter 6, this volume.

century.34 However, a reference from 1559 to the ‘great town ditch’ (magnum burgi fossatum) probably relates to the same earthwork mentioned by Mosley and would therefore suggest that the boundary was still in use until at least the 16th century.35 The medieval settlement at Tutbury appears to have been a planned town originating with the Norman Conquest and it is therefore entirely possible that the boundary earthwork was actually constructed in the late 11th century, along with Tutbury Castle itself.36 Creighton has argued that castle boroughs, including Tutbury, would frequently have an embanked area laid out in anticipation of the full extent of the nascent settlement.37 These ‘burgus’ settlements would often be semi-circular in plan and surrounded by a boundary earthwork which was physically connected to the seigneurial site. The on-site survey of the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks indicates that this monument is of a suitable form and size to have been a medieval town boundary. The earthworks are clearly appended to the seigneurial site of Tutbury Castle at their north-western extent and therefore display one of the common characteristics of medieval town boundaries. The location of the bank and ditch along the upper contour level of the high ground surrounding the settlement would also be the ideal position for maximising the defensive qualities of the natural topography.

Again, in terms of their size, morphology and location the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks could conceivably relate to the defences of an Anglo-Saxon burh but this in itself is inconclusive. Traditionally, the other main supporting evidence for Saxon occupation at Tutbury has come from the place-name itself. The terminal element of the name is derived from the Old English burh, usually meaning ‘fortified place’ or ‘manor house’, with the first element probably relating to an Old English personal name, either ‘Tutta’ or ‘Stut’.30 This reading of the place-name therefore implies ‘the fortified place or manor house belonging to Tutta/Stut’. However, using place-name evidence as a direct indicator of settlement within a specific period is notoriously problematic and Tutbury is no exception. Horovitz (2005, 548) argues that the name could equally derive from the Old English ‘Stut’ meaning ‘a hill, a stumpy hillock’, or ‘tot’ meaning ‘a look-out’, both of which suit the topography of Tutbury very well. The interpretation of the name is complicated even further, because on sites named earlier than AD 750 the terminal element burh can also refer to ecclesiastical settlements rather than defended forts or manor houses.31 Furthermore, the burh element can also be taken to mean an Old English reference to a prehistoric defensive earthwork, or to indicate a more general sense of enclosure, with no necessary military connotation.32 With no stratified Anglo-Saxon archaeological evidence and so much ambiguity over the interpretation of the place-name, it cannot be stated with any certainty whether a defended Saxon settlement ever even existed at Tutbury.

The location of the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks in relation to other aspects of the medieval landscape also appears to corroborate the idea that it may have acted as a town boundary. The earthworks are intersected by the route of Ludgate Street, a road known to date back to at least the early 14th century.38 The name ‘Ludgate’ is a reference to a postern gate of a settlement and therefore strongly suggests that a gate existed somewhere along this street in order to control access into Tutbury from the south.39 The earthworks also make sense as a settlement boundary when contextualised within the broader landscape around Tutbury (Fig. 4.16). The ‘Park Pale’ earthworks appear to have formed the northern boundary of Middle Field, one of the large open fields into which the Tutbury arable landscape was formerly divided.40 Mill Field lay to the east, and extended as far as the corn mill after which it got its name, with Castle Hayes Field being located to the west. Castle Hayes Field extended as far north as the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks and the southern boundary of the proposed alternative location of the Tutbury deer park outlined above. The western section of the ‘Park Pale’ formed the eastern boundary of the deer park, that itself stretched north to the Little Dove and the base of Castle Hill. Entrance into this park would probably have been via a gate located at the junction of modern Castle Street and Park Lane. It is at this location on the historic mapping

Even if the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks do not reflect a medieval park boundary, they may still relate to the medieval occupation of Tutbury, with the evidence for a medieval town boundary earthwork at Tutbury being fairly compelling. Mosley argued that the settlement at Tutbury was enclosed with an earthen rampart when, in reference to civil unrest in the area during the reign of Henry IV (1399–1413), he states that ‘There is reason to believe that Tutbury had been fortified previous to this reign; for frequent mention is made in the records of those times of the bars and barriers, and of the gates of the town, and traces are still visible of a vallum and foss, extending from the little park below the castle, completely round the town, to the Fleam or Old Dove, which washes the base of the castle hill on the opposite side’.33 Drage agrees that Tutbury was enclosed with an earthen rampart but believes that this defensive boundary related to the earlier postConquest period, being of little importance by the 13th

  Drage 1987, 129.  Tringham 2007, 81 note. 36  Welch 1992, 4; Darby and Terrett 1954, 207. 37   Creighton 2005, 159. 38  Tringham 2007, 82. 39   Harrington 1984, 82. 40   Stuart 1989. 34 35

  Jones and Bond 1987, 92.   Horovitz 2005, 548. 31   Blair 2005, 250. 32   Gelling 1988, 143–46, and see Chapter 2, this volume. 33   Mosley 1832, 125–26. 29 30

59

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 4.16 Suggested reconstruction of the medieval landscape around Tutbury

At Tutbury, the castle was essentially bracketed by the town (‘Park Pale’ earthworks) to one side and the deer park to the other, creating a manufactured landscape whereby the lord kept his private environment separate from the general population, whilst still maintaining control over both. The park would have supplied the venison for the lord’s table, as well as a pleasant view away to the west and across the floodplain of the Dove. This arrangement of the castle being bracketed by the park to one side and the town to the other has numerous parallels elsewhere in the country, for example at Castle Rising in Norfolk,43 Devizes Castle in Wiltshire,44 and Windsor Little Park in Berkshire.45

that a building named ‘Park Gate’ stands, suggesting the possible presence of a parkers’ cottage to control access into the parkland to the west. One of the key debates currently concerning scholars researching medieval deer parks is the original function of so called ‘little parks’, sometimes also called ‘inner parks’. This type of park appears to be distinct from the conventional hunting park, which would have contained large herds of deer and space in which to actually hunt. Instead, little parks appear to have had far more of an aesthetic and non-utilitarian function. Numerous authors are now beginning to consider these parks as visual status symbols forming part of extensive designed landscapes around important seigneurial sites.41 This is not to deny that such parks also functioned as live larders, providing a ready supply of venison whenever required for feasting or gift-giving, merely that they also had an important psychological dimension attached to their ownership and appearance. Such parks were an extravagant outward display of wealth, status and lifestyle, and provided an aesthetic vista, either from the castle to the park or vice versa.42

Although it appears most likely from the evidence available that the ‘Park Pale’ in its full form represents the remains of a medieval settlement boundary, a final important detail to add is that the monument may not simply relate to one phase or function, but may well instead represent a more complex, multiphase history of use and adaptation. The more massive section to the west of the town may mark the location of suggested Iron Age defences, which were   Creighton 2005, 193.   Liddiard 2005. 45   Richardson 2007. 43

  For example, Creighton 2005, 188; Mileson 2007; Richardson 2007. 42   Liddiard 2007, 2; Pluskowski 2007, 73. 41

44

60

Chapter 4: The Park Pale later adapted and incorporated into the line of the medieval town boundary. However, further investigations are of course necessary in order to test this hypothesis. In terms of recommendations for further work there are a number of outstanding aspects that are certainly worthy of attention. The first would be to conduct a more detailed map and aerial photographic analysis, in the hope that this may help to ascertain the route and extent of the earthworks beyond Burton Street. Equally a comprehensive examination of the extensive documentary records held by the duchy of Lancaster may uncover additional references to the town and castle, and, it is to be hoped, elucidate the nature of the monument further. Ultimately, however, a full understanding of the earthworks will no doubt require excavations to take place. These excavations should be targeted on specific elements of the ‘Park Pale’, and the most useful outcome would be to provide securely stratified artefactual material with which to confirm the date of the monument. Given the possible multi-phase nature of the earthworks there would be a need to focus on separate trenches in both the western and central/eastern areas. Ideally the excavations would also be positioned to investigate some of the numerous anomalies that have been highlighted by the geophysical survey results.

61

Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard Richard Kelleher and Gareth Williams

INTRODUCTION

newspaper accounts, as is the inflation of prices as fewer coins remained available for sale.1 Mosley also notes that the frontispiece of his book (Plate 5.1), which shows the river in the foreground with the castle and church behind ‘… is rendered still more interesting by presenting in the same view that part of the river in which the old coins were found: the figures in the foreground are intended to mark the spot where the gravel-getters met with the first specimens, and the more distant figures indicate the place where the greatest quantity of silver coin was subsequently found.’2 This is all the more interesting, although Mosley was unaware of this, given the documented relationship of the missing hoard of 1322 with both castle and priory (see below).

In June 1831, a hoard of silver coins was recovered by workmen digging in the River Dove, close to the bridge which links Tutbury with Hatton, within sight of both the castle and the former priory. The vast majority of the hoard was quickly dispersed, making a full account of its contents impossible. However, a number of contemporary or near-contemporary publications describe groups of coins from the hoard, and a number of coins from the hoard can be identified today. These appear to represent a random cross-section of the hoard rather than a deliberate selection, and allow a reasonably precise dating of the deposition of the hoard. Both accounts of the remarkable size of the discovery (almost certainly the largest coin hoard ever to be found in Britain by a considerable margin) and the dating offered by the coins leave little doubt that the hoard can be directly identified with coins which were removed from the Castle in 1322, in the wake of the defeat of Thomas of Lancaster at the Battle of Burton Bridge, and which subsequently vanished without trace.

Mr Webb, owner of the cotton mill, was away at the time of the discovery, and on his return chose not to interfere personally with the searching for coins, but rather to inform the duchy of Lancaster as the relevant authority. On June 13th a Royal Commission was issued by William IV under the duchy seal, empowering Frederick Dawes Danvers, clerk to the duchy council, the Rev. Hugh Bailey of Hanbury, and Robert John Harper, Axebearer of the ‘recently disafforested Forest of Needwood’ to investigate the discovery, and to collect as Treasure Trove in the right of the duchy all the coin previously discovered, as well as any which might be discovered thereafter. A notice (Plate 5.2) was accordingly posted in Tutbury on June 15th prohibiting further unauthorised search of the riverbed or interference with the duchy’s officials, and this was reinforced by the stationing of cavalry in the town.3

DISCOVERY The first coins were discovered on June 1st, 1831 by workmen digging out gravel from the river bed, close to where the mill-stream joins the main river, with the intention of improving the flow of water to power the cotton mill. Following the initial discovery of a small number of coins about sixty yards below the bridge between Tutbury and Hatton, dispersed as if washed downstream from a higher source, a more systematic search took place from June 7th, during which several thousands more were uncovered, before the discovery of the main hoard the following day, around thirty yards below the bridge and between four and five feet below the surface of the gravel, in an area around three yards square, near the Derbyshire bank of the river. ‘The coins were here so abundant, that one hundred and fifty were turned up in a single shovel-full of gravel, and nearly five-thousand of them were collected by two of the individuals thus employed on that day; they were sold to the bystanders at six, seven, eight or eight shillings and sixpence per hundred, but the next day a less quantity was procured, and the prices of them advanced accordingly... Upwards of three hundred individuals might have been seen engaged in this search at one time, and the idle and inquisitive were attracted from all quarters to the spot.’ This account appears in the history of Tutbury written the following year by Sir Oswald Mosley, a local landowner and antiquarian, in response to the interest in local history generated by the hoard’s discovery, but the account of large numbers of people congregating both to dig and to speculate in purchasing is also recorded in contemporary

A copy of this notice is preserved in Tutbury church today, and this has undoubtedly contributed to a local reluctance to admit to any knowledge of the current whereabouts of coins from the hoard. Appeals for information via the local media met with a very limited response both during this research project and in a former attempt to trace coins from the hoard, the former even resulting in an anonymous poison pen letter attempting to warn off the researcher, and specifically citing the notice in the church in support.4 A number of local individuals informed the current authors that it was widely believed that many coins from the hoard remain in the hands of local families, but that the owners themselves are reluctant to admit this through fear of confiscation and/or punishment. These fears are in fact needless since an amended notice was posted on June 16th, 1831, stating explicitly that ‘His Majesty has been   Mosley 1832, 325–27; DCR June 3rd, 1831, 213.   Mosley 1832, 325. 3   Jewitt 1880–81, 22. 4   Rowley 2000, 125–26, 182. 1 2

62

Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard

Plate 5.1 View of the River Dove, showing the location of the hoard’s discovery, in relation to the former priory and the castle (from Mosley 1832)

Plate 5.2 Notice dated June 15th 1831,

Plate 5.3 Notice dated June 16th 1831, including amnesty for coins already recovered (DoL)

prohibiting further investigation of the site except by the duchy’s authority

(DoL)

63

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ graciously pleased to direct that no proceedings will be taken with regard to any Money found in the River Dove up to this date’ (Plate 5.3).5 This amnesty was certainly known at the time, as the notice indicating it was still visible to the antiquarian F W Fairholt FSA when he visited Tutbury in 1835.6 A second authorised search took place from June 28th to July 1st, after which the river bed was levelled. In his report to the chancellor and council of the duchy, Danvers noted the recovery of 1500 coins ‘or thereabouts’, which were passed to the duchy, and subsequently to the British Museum for examination. This corresponds with an entry for July 15th in the diary of Lord Holland, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, which reads ‘At breakfast Rogers and Mr Ellis [Henry Ellis, Principal Librarian of the British Museum] of Museum.  The latter come to examine coins found in River Dove near Tutbury and a treasure trove to the King in right of his Duchy.  The number according to some amounted to no less than 200,000 but allowing for exaggeration was certainly most extraordinary, though only 1500 were rescued by the Commission of the Duchy.’7 Fairholt believed the number to be ‘upwards of 1,500’,8 but a total of 1,489 coins, together with a gold ring inscribed ‘SPRETA VIVUNT’ were recorded by Edward Hawkins of the British Museum in his ‘Remarks upon the coins lately discovered in the bed of the River Dove, near Tutbury, Staffordshire’, published the following year, which formed the official record of the hoard.9 This group was apparently not preserved intact, and was probably largely dispersed to ‘deserving’ recipients by the duchy like the Cuerdale hoard, discovered in 1840, and also dealt with by Danvers on behalf of the duchy and by Hawkins on behalf of the British Museum. The dispersal of the Cuerdale coins is documented in detail in the duchy archive,10 and if the same pattern was followed with the Tutbury coins, then Hawkins will have made a representative selection for the British Museum, while others will have been passed to other museums and private collections, and a number retained by the duchy. Unfortunately no detailed records of the Tutbury hoard beyond the cessation of the official search appear to survive in the duchy archive, and it seems likely that a second archive file on the hoard has gone astray at some point in the past.

whom they were committed to the crucible.’11 Mosley gave a figure of ‘upon the most modest computation, one hundred thousand’ in his main discussion of the hoard, but elsewhere in the same volume gave the figure of ‘upward of three hundred thousand’.12 Fairholt also gives the figure of at least 100,000,13 but this is not an independent figure, since the phrasing shows that he is directly following Mosley, albeit possibly through the medium of an anonymous article published in the Penny Magazine in 1834.14 With most of the coins lost and/or destroyed, there is no way of verifying these figures, which have been doubted by many later numismatists (see below). However, the account in Mosley and contemporary newspapers of prices at so many shillings per hundred coins, with the price rising as there were fewer groups of one hundred left to sell, implies a find of several thousand coins at least, as does the figure of two finders (out of three hundred or so) recovering 5,000 coins between them. Fairholt also notes that ‘Some were greatly enriched by it, and others who had been but poor labourers, managed with what they got to set up as small farmers, and keep a horse and market cart.’15 As noted by J J North in 1995, any estimate of just how many people fell into this category and just how much they earned from their endeavours can only be conjectural, but the (then) accepted figure of 20,000 coins, yielding a total reward to the finders of around £80, seems inadequate to meet this description.16 The possibility that the figures of 100–300,000 indicated by the contemporary accounts of the discovery may be accurate cannot be safely discounted, although this would be considerably larger than any other known hoard of the period. However, such figures are not out of place when one relates this to the size of the treasure known to have gone missing in 1322, which will be discussed further below. What does seem clear from these early accounts is that other unassociated material was found at the same time, and wrongly associated with the hoard. The Penny Magazine alludes to one larger coin, apparently a later groat or half-groat, perhaps to be identified with a halfgroat of Henry VII discussed below with a few other later intrusive coins in the collection of the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery. Other apparently intrusive coins were identified by North in his study of the hoard (see below).17 The inscribed ring mentioned by Hawkins (now lost) can almost certainly be identified as a later serjeant’s ring, and another serjeant’s ring, probably dating from 1521, was also recovered from the river-bed at the time, together with coins from the hoard, and subsequently donated to the British Museum by R Burch, esq. of Derby in 1879. Burch notes that the ring ‘was purchased from an old gentleman recently deceased at the age of 86 - who bought it from the workmen who were excavating in the bed of the river, and

It is clear that the vast majority of the hoard had already been dispersed before the duchy officials took charge on June 15th. Hawkins noted that the hoard amounted ‘according to the estimation of some intelligent persons in the neighbourhood, to not less than 200,000 pieces, the greater part of which were speedily dispersed amongst the numerous collectors who were created by the interest excited in consequence of the discovery near their own residences; or disposed of to various dealers in silver, by   DoL Archive.   Jewitt 1880–81, 22. 7   BM Add. Mss. 51867. The authors are grateful to Christopher Wren for drawing this to their attention. 8   Jewitt 1880–81, 22. 9   Hawkins 1832. 10   Graham-Campbell forthcoming. 28–30.

  Hawkins 1832, 148.   Mosley 1832, 53, 328. 13   Jewitt 1880–81, 22. 14   Penny Magazine (anonymous), Nov. 1, 1834, 430–32. 15   Jewitt 1880–81, 22. 16   North 1995, 335. 17   North 1995, 299, 335 n. 14.

5

11

6

12

64

Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard

Plate 5.4 Drawing by Orlando Jewitt of matrix from the riverbed including coins (PMAG) PREVIOUS RESEARCH

who had a barrow-load of the gravel on the bridge, from which they were selling the coins etc to all comers, and it has never been out of his possession until purchased by me.’18 Since serjeants’ rings are not especially common as finds, it seems more likely that the two were lost together than that they represent two independent stray losses. A lead pilgrim-badge of St Thomas of Canterbury was also acquired by the British Museum at some point before 1955, the year in which it was transferred to the Department of British and Medieval Antiquities from the Department of Coins and Medals. This was said to have been found sewn on a card together with several pennies of Edward I (c 1270–80), with a note that this material came from the hoard, although the coins had been dispersed and the card lost by the time of the transfer.19 While Hugh Tait, in his publication of the pilgrim badge, argued that the dating of the badge was compatible with loss of the hoard, it seems more likely that this represents another stray loss. Assorted pieces of iron, including horseshoes, which were found as part of the matrix of coins and stones from the riverbed, formerly in the collection of Llewellyn Jewitt and now in the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery (see below), probably also represent stray losses rather than necessarily being associated with the hoard, although it has been suggested that some of the fragments may be the remains of iron bindings for boxes or barrels associated with the coins.20 These other finds, together with the location of the main body of the hoard, suggest that the hoard was either lost or deliberately deposited at or close to the main ford across the Dove between Tutbury and Hatton, as no bridge is recorded here as early as 1322.

Descriptions of the hoard were first published in three key sources around the time of the 1831 discovery. The first was penned by Edward Hawkins, Keeper of Antiquities and Medals in the British Museum, who studied a parcel of 1,489 coins, which he published in Archaeologia.21 The second was the material briefly summarised by Mosley in the same year, discussed in slightly more detail in the Penny Magazine (1834) and referred to without details in Fairholt’s diary (1835), published by his friend Llewellyn Jewitt (1881–82).22 The article in the Penny Magazine may have been penned by the young Jewitt himself, or by another member of his family, with whom Fairholt stayed in 1835. The article is illustrated by an engraving of a matrix of stones from the riverbed, with coins embedded in it, and signed by O Jewitt (Plate 5.4). The original of this is preserved in the collection of the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent, along with the matrix itself, and a collection of coins from the hoard which can be provenanced to Llewellyn Jewitt himself, including a group of 100 coins, presumably one of the lots being sold off by the finders. A handwritten note indicates that the engraving was the work of ‘the famous Orlando Jewitt’, who was the older brother of Llewellyn and who was, indeed, an engraver of some distinction. However, given that the article borrows heavily from Mosley, and also that the Jewitt family and Mosley, as local gentry with antiquarian interests, probably moved in the same circles, it is possible that the Jewitts were also acquainted with William Edwards, a solicitor of Burton-on-Trent, who Mosley cites as the source of his information on the coins, noting that Mr Edwards had ‘some intention of publishing a detailed account of the same’.23 No publication in the

 Unpublished letter in the Department of Prehistory and Europe, British Museum. The authors are grateful to Marjorie Caygill and Judy Rudoe for drawing this to their attention. 19  Tait 1955, 39–40. 20   Rowley 2000, 105–7. 18

  Hawkins 1832.   Mosley 1832, 328; Penny Magazine, 432; Jewitt 1881–82. 23   Mosley 1832, 327–28. 21 22

65

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ that Hawkins and the Descriptive Catalogue were describing overlapping groups of material, without any real attempt to explore the circumstances of the antique loss or the finding and dispersal of the hoard in 1831. Most modern numismatists investigating the circumstances of the two events have dismissed Hawkins 200,000 estimate as at fault. W J Andrew assumed the 200,000 in the following passage was a misprint for 20,000: ‘according to the estimation of some intelligent persons in the neighbourhood that no fewer than 200,000 coins had been recovered and dispersed in the days following the find’.25 The first attempt at establishing the specific content of the hoard was made by J D A Thompson, who followed Andrew’s 20,000 estimate, and identified 1,643 coins from a combination of the lists of Hawkins, Jewitt and the Descriptive Catalogue.26 Thompson mistakenly assumed that the three sources described the same material, rather than separate elements of the same find, and thus his estimate is some way off the mark. J J North revisited the subject in a series of short articles and attempted to impose the current classification system on the lists provided in earlier publications. This proved a key development as he recognised that Hawkins and the Descriptive Catalogue were two separate groups, and was able to construct a rudimentary modern summary of the Hawkins material. The Catalogue on the other hand gave no indication of how many of each type described were present, and included descriptions of the coins that were largely unusable and in some cases rather peculiar, such as ‘the head broad and face precisely like Sir Thomas More’ and ‘...general characteristics of the face Jewish’.27 North also identified a number of earlier Short Cross coins which were unlikely (although not impossible) to be part of the hoard, as well as a later Scottish penny of Robert II and a 17th-century coin of Cologne which are certainly later losses from the riverside.28 From notes in Jewitt’s publication of Fairholt’s diary of 1835 (Jewitt 1881–82), North surmised that the scale of the find might be higher than the 20,000 previously estimated and posits a conservative revised figure of 50,000 coins for the hoard (North 1995: 335); this figure is followed by Martin Allen.29 Allen also indicates elsewhere that Hawkins’ figure of 200,000 coins might be possible.30 In the following section we attempt to reconcile existing coins in modern collections into a single catalogue.

Plate 5.5 Prospectus for William Edward’s intended publication of the hoard (BM) name of Edwards ever seems to have appeared, but in 2009 an otherwise unknown prospectus was discovered, seeking subscriptions for a publication by William Edwards, FGS, entitled Engravings from the Series of English, Irish, Scotch and Foreign Coins Found in the Bed of the River Dove at Tutbury, in Staffordshire, in June, 1831 (Plate 5.5).24 The sample engravings illustrated in this also appear in Mosley’s book, although they are there attributed to a different engraver. This prospectus was found together with a parcel of coins from the hoard, in a group of material which can be traced back to Lord Holland, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster at the time that the hoard was discovered (see above). A third early source was the anonymous and undated Descriptive Catalogue of The Series of Coins found at Tutbury in the County of Stafford in the Bed of the River Dove, in June, 1831, printed by W Rowbottom of Iron Gate, Derby. This was not illustrated, but described 553 varieties of coins, although it omitted to include quantities of each variety recorded. The similarity in title to Edwards’ prospectus may indicate that this was the text from his planned publication, but without the engravings, or it may simply reflect the similarity of subject.

Jennifer Rowley, in her 2000 MPhil thesis, largely followed North’s attempts to differentiate between the earlier accounts. However, she also incorporated the Tutbury material in Stoke, which had not previously been noted in numismatic discussions of the hoard, and also considered the composition of the recorded coins from

In the 20th century several authors revisited the hoard in an attempt to establish some idea of the numismatic detail. These listings have been largely based on the assumption

 Andrew 1904, 47.   Thompson 1956, 138, no. 363; repeated by Dolley 1968, no. 66; Mayhew 1983, 174–75, no. 113; North 1989, 99, no. 78. 27   North 1995, 299. 28   North 1995, 299, 335 n. 14. 29   North 1995, 335; Allen 2001: 120, no. 49; 2003: 159, no. 299/E. 30  Allen 2002, 61, no. 146. 25 26

  The authors are grateful to Christopher Wren and Daren Bishopp for drawing their attention to this, and for making it available for study. 24

66

Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard the hoard in comparison with other recorded hoards of the 14th century.31 However, her discussion is confused by the misapprehension (again following North) that all of the coins recorded by Hawkins were acquired by the British Museum (see below), and that Thompson’s listing was also based on the British Museum collection, when neither was in fact the case. Rather more valuable was her discussion of the hoard in the context of the loss of Thomas of Lancaster’s treasure in 1322. Previous commentaries on the coins had noted the possible association with Thomas, and even in some cases the existence of local traditions that his hoard had been mislaid in the aftermath of Burton Bridge.32 However, Rowley was the first to combine detailed analysis of the hoard with detailed discussion of the wider historical context, and particularly the surviving account into an inquest of 1323 investigating various incidents of robbery and looting around the time of the battle of Burton Bridge. This included three barrels containing a total of £1,500 (360,000 coins), which were removed from the castle in the immediate aftermath of the battle, and then vanished without trace. This had been published as early as 1888, and had been noted by Charles Underhill in his History of Tutbury and Rolleston, but had escaped the notice of the numismatic establishment.33

of Hereford and the Mortimers, in opposition to Edward and the Despensers, although Thomas failed to bring other northern lords into his coalition.35 In 1321, the Marcher barons attacked the Despensers’ lands and castles, but Edward moved quickly to suppress the rebellion. Thomas himself was not initially directly involved, although his support for the Marchers was clear, but by January 8th he had entered the conflict directly by besieging the royal castle of Tickhill in Yorkshire, and he was also apparently in treasonous correspondence with the Scots. Edward gave orders for an army to be mustered at Coventry by February 28th, reaching Coventry himself on February 27th.36 Since Thomas had control of the north, he sought to gather an army at Tutbury to prevent Edward’s forces from crossing the Trent. However, Edward’s success against the Marcher barons denied Thomas any practical support from that quarter, and now that he was in open rebellion against the king (although still claiming to be acting only against the Despensers), Thomas found it difficult to find much support even from his own lands and retainers. Many followers simply refused to serve against the king, while others returned home on the pretext that Thomas himself was not at Tutbury in person when they arrived. Other potential supporters were apparently alienated by the lawless behaviour of those that did follow Thomas, while Edward had been actively building support in the area. Perhaps most damaging was the treachery of Robert Holland, previously one of Thomas’s most loyal and favoured retainers, who gathered a force of 500 men but, either by prior arrangement with Edward or through cautiously sitting on the fence, used his force to pillage in Derbyshire, but failed to join either side until Thomas had been defeated, when he joined the king. Holland’s desertion was seen as a decisive factor in the outcome of the campaign, and as an act of personal treachery, but he may have acted under compulsion, since Edward had taken his daughter hostage shortly before, and he certainly did not benefit personally from changing sides, since he was imprisoned and his lands confiscated after he joined Edward. Meanwhile, still expecting Holland’s support, Thomas took those forces he had to Burton, believing that with the Trent flooded, the bridge at Burton provided the only crossing in the area. However, Edward was able to ford the Trent a few miles upstream at Walton on March 10th, leaving a smaller force at Burton to distract attention. Thomas and his supporters were taken by surprise, and were unable to effectively oppose Edward’s larger army in open battle. Thomas fled first to Tutbury Castle, but realising that he couldn’t hold it, fled north towards his chief castle at Pontefract. However, he was captured at Boroughbridge on March 16th, and taken to his own castle at Pontefract, where he was given a summary trial and executed on March 22nd, a process of dubious legality which recalled his own trial and execution of Gaveston at Kenilworth ten years earlier.37

THOMAS OF LANCASTER AND THE BATTLE OF BURTON BRIDGE Thomas of Lancaster was the grandson of Henry III, and thus the first cousin of Edward II. On the death of his father Edmund of Lancaster in 1296, Thomas inherited the earldoms of Lancaster, Derby and Leicester while his marriage to Alice de Lacy brought him the earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury, as well as additional lands in Yorkshire and Lancashire on the death of his father-in-law, Henry de Lacy, in 1311 (see Chapter 2). The combination of his rank and his huge estates made him by far the most powerful individual in the kingdom after the king himself, while his combined holdings gave almost complete control of Lancashire, south Yorkshire and the north Midlands. His position, as well as his own inclinations, made him a natural leader of baronial opposition to the perceived abuses of Edward’s favouritism towards, first Piers Gaveston, and subsequently the Despensers, and also enabled him to defy his cousin by failing to support his campaigns in Scotland. Thomas took a leading part, first in opposition to Gaveston, and eventually in his judicial murder in 1312, and this brought him into conflict with the king, although he managed to avoid outright warfare with Edward at that point.34 However, although there was a partial reconciliation thereafter, tensions remained considerable, and by the end of 1320 Edward’s support for the territorial expansion of the Despensers in Wales led to an alliance between Thomas and a group of Marcher barons led by the earl   Rowley 2000.   Hawkins 1832, 162–64; Mosley 1832, 53; Jewitt 1881–82, 22; Andrew 1904, 50; North 1995, 335. 33   SHC ix, pt. 1, 96; Underhill 1950, 50–54; Rowley 2000, 88–90, 148. 34   Maddicott 1970, 105–59. 31

  Maddicott 1970, 259–303.   Maddicott 1970, 303–8; Rowley 2000, 39–49. 37   Maddicott 1970, 308–12; Maddicott 1971, 467–68; Gross 1991; Dobrowolski 1993, 221–36; Rowley 2000, 49-71; Tringham 2007, 15.

32

35 36

67

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ The swiftness of the defeat at Burton Bridge, combined with the major civil disturbance, meant that there was chaos in the area around Burton and Tutbury, and looting was rife, with both the abbot of Burton and the prior of Tutbury amongst those directly accused of looting. Prior Robert de Longdon (1313–29) was accused of taking goods and jewels belonging to the rebels and worth a total of £40, along with a barrel of sturgeon worth 60s, which he claimed had been gifted to him by the king. He was found guilty over the goods, but left to make his own peace with the king over the sturgeon.38 It was in this situation that the hoard was deposited. The likely association with the battle was quickly recognised when the hoard was discovered in 1831, and opinion was divided on whether the hoard had been deliberately buried in a field, with the course of the river later shifting over the hoard, or whether it had been lost in the flooded river by Henry de Leicester, treasurer of Thomas of Lancaster, as he sought to flee north with the earl’s treasure.39 This last has been repeated in secondary literature as if it were fact, but must be at least partly mistaken, since Henry de Leicester, although he had earlier served in various financial offices under Thomas, including wardrober, had been in royal service for some time by the battle of Burton Bridge, acting as one of the auditors of the confiscated estates after Lancaster’s defeat.40

willing to prove that he had none of the money. A jury then found that there were no other three barrels apart from the three in question, that Davy and de Kynardesey had caused them to be carried to the priory for safety, for the use of the king or earl, whichever of them might take possession of them. It was accepted that neither of them had appropriated the money, and that Nicholas de Shepeye had not been involved. There seems little reason to doubt this account. £1,500 was a considerable sum, but by no means impossible for a man as wealthy as Thomas of Lancaster, whether or not he was in receipt of subsidies from the Scots, as he was accused. Tutbury Castle was the caput of a major honor, and while £1,500 amounted to rather more than the total annual revenue from the honor of Tutbury, it represented only a fraction of Thomas’ total annual income (see Chapter 2). Furthermore, during Edward’s advance to the Trent it is likely that Thomas’s officers would have removed portable wealth such as coins from his other castles at Leicester and Kenilworth, while Thomas had also anticipated gathering a larger army at Tutbury than had proved possible, and would presumably have brought the funds to pay them. Nor is there any reason to disbelieve the accounts of the three men. All three were senior financial officers under Thomas. Shepeye was receiver of Tutbury, Kynardesey was or had been Wardrober, and although Davy’s exact status in 1322 is uncertain when the treasure was lost, he had risen to receiver of Tutbury, Donington and Melbourne by the time of the inquisition, and remained receiver of Tutbury when the Lancaster estates were restored to Henry of Lancaster, younger brother of Thomas in 1326.42 As such, he would have been in a position to recover the treasure had he known of its location, and his continued service under both the earls of Lancaster and Edward suggests that he was more a career civil servant than a diehard Lancastrian loyalist. Kynardesey does seem to have been more directly tied to Thomas, but the fact that he was in custody gives him a plausible alibi. However, we have no way of being certain, and personal greed on the part of one or more of these men, or of the servants involved in carrying the treasure, or of the prior or monks, could possibly have been a factor in the disappearance of the coins from the priory.

However, there is one important piece of evidence noted by historians but largely ignored in previous numismatic studies of the hoard. The looting and pillaging mentioned above led to a series of inquisitions between 1322 and 1326 as part of the process of restoring order, and establishing what recompense was due and to whom. One of these, held at Tutbury on December 12th 1323, is particularly important, as it discusses the removal from Tutbury Castle of a large quantity of silver coin, which subsequently vanished without trace.41 Three men, John de Kynardesey, William Davy and Nicholas de Shepeye were reported to have taken £1,500 in three barrels bound with iron from the castle to the priory in the interval between the departure of Thomas and the arrival of the king. Nicholas de Shepeye denied all knowledge of this, but William Davy agreed that he and John de Kynardesey had taken the three barrels to the priory, believing that they would be safer there than in the castle, since the looting of the castle by the king’s men and by the people of Tutbury had already begun. However, he denied any knowledge of the exact amount of money in the barrels, and claimed that he believed that Edward had received the barrels when he arrived at the castle. John de Kynardesey confirmed his involvement in the removal of the barrels, and that he knew that they contained £1,500. However, he pointed out that immediately after the arrival of the king, he had been arrested by the king’s marshal and placed in custody, so that he was ignorant of what had happened to the barrels after that point, although he was

Moving three barrels of coin would, in any case, have been no easy task. £1,500 in pennies would amount to a little under 500kg in weight, not including the weight of the three iron-bound barrels in which they were contained, and thus each barrel would have been somewhere in the order of twice the weight of a grown man. It therefore seems likely that a team of men was involved in moving the barrels both to and from the priory, although barrels can of course be rolled, and it is a relatively short distance from the priory to the river, and downhill all the way. Who was responsible for relocating the barrels from the priory to the Dove is still unresolved, and is likely to remain so, as well

  Rowley 2000, 79–81, 84–96.   Mosley 1832, 52–53; Penny Magazine, 431; Rowley 2000, 64. 40   Baldwin 1927, 196. 41  SHC IX (I), 1888, 95–96; Underhill1950, 50–54; Rowley 2000, 88–90; Tringham 2007, 15–16. 38 39

  Somerville 1953, 352–53; Maddicott 1970, 340; Dobrowolski 1993, 247. 42

68

Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard

Plate 5.6 Tutbury coin tickets in the British Museum (BM) as the exact reasons for both the deposition and the nonrecovery of the hoard. An accident while crossing the river seems the likeliest explanation, but it is also conceivable that at a time of turmoil, with extensive looting already under way before the treasure left the castle, that someone may have found it quicker and more expedient to attempt to hide the treasure in the flooded river than to dig a hole large enough to bury three such substantial containers.

date of acquisition for the non-Evans coins is unknown as the 18th- and early 19th-century collection was not subject to later documentary standards. It is likely that either the ‘Tutbury 1831’ or ‘Tutbury Find 1831’ group represents a selection made for the BM by Hawkins from the group of 1,489 coins recovered by the duchy and published by Hawkins, but in the absence of clear documentation, this cannot be certain. Contrary to the assumptions of several later commentators, the 1,489 coins were not acquired as a group by the BM. As discussed above, the duchy archive does not record exactly what happened to these coins, but it is likely that the BM made a representative selection, with the remainder being largely distributed to both institutional and private collectors, with the duchy retaining only a residue of the more common types, as occurred with the more fully documented Cuerdale hoard discovered in 1840.

Whatever the reason, the disappearance of such a large sum in 1322 within half a mile of the River Dove provides an obvious context for the discovery of what was undoubtedly a very substantial hoard in 1831. However, this apparent connection must be tested by consideration of the surviving coins, and whether these are consistent with a deposition date of 1322. MODERN COINS

COLLECTIONS

WITH

TUTBURY

One hundred and ninety-seven Tutbury coins were included in the acquisition of c 3,373 Morgan [Evans] coins purchased in 1915 for the sum of £7,500.43 The material was originally collected by Sir John Evans KCB, antiquarian and numismatist, and a Trustee of the British Museum. Upon his death in May 1908 it was inherited by his son Sir Arthur Evans. The collection was later sold to John Pierpont Morgan.44 On his death it was inherited by his son, John Pierpont Morgan Junior, who made arrangements for it to be offered for sale in its entirety to the BM. Upon the BM’s acquisition duplicates within the Evans group were sold on to R C Lockett for a sum of

Material with a Tutbury or River Dove provenance was found in several public and private collections – the British Museum, the Royal Collection, the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery in Stoke, Derby Museum, the Natural History Museum, Tutbury Museum and several privately-held collections generously made available for study. 1) The British Museum The British Museum (BM) collection holds 318 Tutbury coins, on several types of ticket, indicating the sources from which they entered the museum’s cabinets. Four types are identified (Plate 5.6): Morgan [Evans]; Tutbury 1831; Tutbury Find 1831 and ‘Found in River Dove 1831’. The

  British Museum Reports 1915–16, 51–53. Stewartby 2008, 189.

43 44

69

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 5.1 Tutbury coins in the British Museum collection by class and source

£1,825, and the six cabinets, in which the collection was housed, to L A Lawrence for £10.45

unlabelled coins dispersed throughout the relevant types in the collection.

The breakdown of the BM coins by source (Fig. 5.1) shows the distinctive character of the Morgan [Evans] coins with almost the full range of types present. Of interest is the appearance of the otherwise less common types such as 5, 6, 7 and 8 and the under-representation of the very common Class 10 coins. When the Tutbury coins became available Evans was clearly able to cherry-pick the hoard in order to fill the gaps in his already existing collection. Also evident from the graph is Evans’ ability to draw on more than just the Hawkins parcel. Hawkins recorded just seven continental imitations, but Evans accumulated 28 with a Tutbury provenance, the most obvious potential source being the material in the anonymous publication, which must have been dispersed. However, Evans could easily also have acquired one or more of the original groups of 100 coins sold off by the finders, while the cherry-picking approach mentioned above may also indicate individual acquisitions from other collectors.

Looking at the British Museum coins by mint (Fig. 5.2) reveals further evidence supporting the selective nature of their accumulation. London and particularly Canterbury being underrepresented, and the inclusion of coins from most of the temporary provincial mints plus a good proportion of Irish, Scottish and continental pieces points to its variance from normal hoards. The Tutbury and River Dove parcels are more in keeping with what one might expect to see with the dominance of London and Canterbury. 2) Royal Collection A residue of the group of 1,489 coins acquired by the duchy of Lancaster in 1831 under the terms of the amnesty was retained by the duchy until transferred to the Royal Collection in 1948, together with coins from two other hoards from Cuerdale and Eccles. It appears that coins from all three hoards were subsequently disposed of from the Royal Collection, who provided a list by type of their relevant holdings for the purpose of this study, constituting just 15 coins from the hoard.

A further parcel of coins was apparently acquired by the BM together with the pilgrim token of St Thomas of Canterbury discussed above, at some point before 1955, but these coins were said in 1955 to be ‘dispersed’.46 It is unclear when these coins were acquired, and equally uncertain whether these represent one of the groups of tickets mentioned above, or whether they are further

3) Potteries Museum, Stoke The Potteries Museum in Stoke holds a group of 120 coins referred to as from the hoard which can be summarised as: English Long Cross pennies: 2; Edward I–II pennies: 107; Irish pennies: 2; Scottish pennies: 2; Continental sterlings:

  Department of Coins and Medals Minutes Book 1916–20.  Tait 1955, 39.

45 46

70

Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard

Figure 5.2 British Museum coins plotted by mint and source of acquisition

Figure 5.3 Stoke coins plotted by mint

71

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 5.4 Stoke coins plotted by class 3; intrusive later 14th-century material: 2; intrusive Henry VII halfgroat: 1. The intrusive material was 1) an Edward I Bristol penny with far too much circumferential loss by clipping to have been part of the hoard. Clipping was a phenomenon which occurred in response to the weight changes for newly struck coin instigated in 1351, 1412 and 1464; 2) a broken half of a penny postdating the secretion of the hoard, and 3) a Henry VII halfgroat (struck 1486– 1504). These finds, along with other objects discussed above, are almost certainly stray losses or deliberate discards in the area of the bridge at other times. The Stoke material is much more consistent with Jewitt’s notes which describe the group as one of the lots of 100 coins sold by finders at the time of the discovery, despite the fact that 117 coins are in the group.

contain specimens of these or any other under-represented types. The non-English contingent is modest but in keeping with the levels seen elsewhere (Fig. 5.4). The mint profile for the Stoke parcel is again very much in keeping with hoard averages of the period (Fig. 5.4). One might question the slight under representation of Canterbury coins against the inflated numbers from Durham, Hull, Lincoln, Chester, Bristol and York. This fact raises the question as to whether some of the parcels sold from the river bed were either assembled with a selection of mints therein, or indeed, whether the buyers had the opportunity to select a sample. It would follow that the Stoke material could come into this category. Also in the Stoke collection is the piece of riverbed illustrated in the Penny Magazine (Plate 5.4), and although fragmented since the illustration was made, contains five whole or partial coins amongst the gravel and iron panning. These are all pennies, although two are fragmentary. Only one has any diagnostic feature visible, allowing a partial identification of the coin as an Edward I coin of classes 1–9.

Figure 5.3, displays the Stoke material by its class. The proportion of types is much more in keeping with what one might find in a hoard of the early 1320s, with the clear dominance of Class 10, and large numbers of 3, 4 and 9. The absence of 1 and 6–8 is normal for this type of find, although one might expect to find some 12 and 13 in a random sample. This said, the uncertain coins might

72

Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard

Figure 5.5 Derby parcel plotted by class

4) Derby Museum

5) Natural History Museum

At Derby Museum is a group of exactly 100 coins from the Tutbury hoard. This group is most likely another one of the ‘lots’ of coins sold from the riverbed at the time of discovery in 1831. The coins were identified in Derby and a paper list provided for the purposes of this chapter, and these are a group unknown to previous writers.

In the Natural History Museum is a second section of riverbed with four coins embedded in it. At the time of writing this was on display in the pseudo-fossils case in the museum and was not handled although it was possible to identify that the coins were sterlings of the same period as the other recorded coins from the hoard.

The Derby parcel (Fig. 5.5) is strong in the types we might expect, such as 3, 4 and 9, and contains a specimen of each class barring 12. The curiously low total for Class 10 is abnormal when compared against percentages within complete hoards, but here we are dealing with a group extracted in far from ideal conditions and which was potentially (as with the Stoke group) not a completely random sample. It is also possible that if we are talking of a hoard of the scale of 200,000 coins there may well have been some internal stratification rather than the entirety being a well-mixed homogenous whole. Three Derby coins were identified in the list provided as being Class 15c. North didn’t identify any coin as late as this in the sources he consulted and it is likely that, in these three cases, the Derby identifications are mistaken.

6) Tutbury Museum Three coins were handed in anonymously at Tutbury Museum, following publicity in the local media about the research project. The appearance of two of these suggest a possible Tutbury provenance. The other one, however, is far too worn to have been in the hoard and is much more likely to have been a mid 14th-century loss, mistakenly supposed to have come from the hoard. 7) Private collections Several provenanced Tutbury hoard coins are known from private collections and have been made available for study. A parcel was purchased in 2009 by Chris Wren and Darren Bishopp at a sale in Canterbury and consisted of 26 pennies said to have derived from the Tutbury hoard, together with the Edwards’ prospectus discussed above. Of key importance for this group was the inclusion as part of the parcel of both paper wraps for individual coins (Plate 5.7) and a library reader’s request ticket annotated

In terms of the mint distribution (Fig. 5.6), London and Canterbury are most dominant but not to the average levels seen in most contemporary hoards, normally London accounts for 45–55% of the total and Canterbury about 25–30%.

73

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 5.6 Derby parcel plotted by mint

Plate 5.7 Example of wrap in the Wren-Bishopp group (BM) with information regarding the historical circumstances surrounding the deposit of the Tutbury hoard (Plate 5.8). Each coin in the group was furnished – singly or in pairs – with a paper wrap denoting information about the coin it was made to contain. In most cases this consists of a number and the obverse and reverse inscriptions, in some cases extra information on aspects of the coins, such as the number of spurs on the Scottish reverses and other minor diagnostic features are included.

The text on the reader’s ticket relevant to us here reads: Archaeologia vol. 24. Coins found in the River Dove in 1831, near Tutbury Castle Staffordshire. Probable belonged to Thomas Earl of Lancaster// Coins of minted 1300. Tho was surprised and taken in rebellion agst Edward the 2nd. Lost before 133029. The notes have been made from Hawkins’ article and provide compelling evidence for the pedigree of the associated coins. Below the text are two further blocks of notes relating to other matters. The combined evidence of the patina of the coins,

74

Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard the wraps they came in, and the associated note leave no doubt as to the provenance of the coins as from Tutbury and provide an important, if small, addition to the known content of the find. The coins, together with other objects, can be traced back to William Doggett, whose handwriting appears on the reader’s ticket. Doggett was employed first as page and then, from around 1835, librarian in the household of Lord Holland, and it seems likely that the coins, together with other personal memorabilia, including a lock of Napoleon’s hair, were given to Doggett by his employer.47 As noted above, all of the coins recovered by the duchy were at least briefly at Holland House before being passed to the British Museum for examination, but while the possibility that Lord Holland used his position to remove some of the coins as a memento of the hoard cannot be ruled out, it is more likely that he received them as part of the official distribution discussed above. As a leading officer of the duchy, he is just the sort of person who, by analogy with the Cuerdale hoard, could have expected to be the recipient of part of the hoard. Shortly before this publication went to press, these coins were purchased by the duchy of Lancaster. Two further individual Tutbury coins are known. The first was published in Mayhew’s volume on continental imitations of Edwardian coins and is a unique John of Avesnes sterling from the collection of Peter Woodhead.48 The second, a Class 9b London penny purchased in 1978, was recently reported to the writers (Plate 5.9).

Plate 5.8 Annotated reader’s ticket recording notes about the hoard (relevant area highlighted) (BM)

  Information from Christopher Wren. Mayhew 1983: 39, no. 26a .

47 48

Plate 5.9 Thompson 9b London penny (BM)

75

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

1,489 coins published by Hawkins Group mentioned by Jewitt and the Penny Magazine

?

?

Coins in the Descriptive Catalogue

BM ‘Tutbury’ Royal Collection Wren/Bishopp group? BM Morgan [Evans] Potteries Museum, Stoke Derby Museum BM ‘River Dove’ None traced with any certainty

Figure 5.7 Tracing the modern collections to nineteenth century material Concordance

Dating the hoard

The path that the coins have taken to reach modern collections is difficult to plot with certainty due to the time that has passed and the unprotected status of many hoards discovered in the 19th century. That said, an attempt to isolate groups of coins to source is made in Fig. 5.7, based on evidence mentioned above regarding the disposition of finds. Five 19th-century publications describe groups of coins, of these three are useful to us here and are linked to modern material identified in the catalogue.

Dating any hoard from only a sample is always fraught with uncertainty. In the case of Tutbury, North identified the latest dated coin as of Class 15b – suggesting the early 1320s.49 The latest coins identified in the present catalogue are the three Derby coins of 15c which must be discounted as wrongly attributed 15b coins. The compelling documentary evidence cited earlier for the hoard being the whole or a portion of the treasure of Thomas of Lancaster gives us the strongest case for identifying the exact deposition date of 1322.

Condition

Composition and discussion

The overwhelming majority of the hoard coins available for study are well preserved, the most likely result of the fact that surviving coins are mostly in museum cabinets acquired in the 19th and early 20th century from private collections formed by collectors with an eye for a good specimen, or, as is the case with some of the British Museum’s coins, selected by Hawkins himself from the published group. A further contributory factor to the condition of the coins is the date of deposition in the 1320s meaning that, with a few exceptions, most of the coins were deposited within 50 years of striking.

The Tutbury hoard coins are set against a selection of contemporary Edwardian period hoards closing in Class 15. These are shown in Table 5.2 comparing by class, and Table 5.3, comparing the mint distribution. Table 5.2 lays out the statistical breakdown of Tutbury coins by class. The percentage of classes 1, 5–7, 8 and 9 are well above the levels of any comparative hoards, with 2, 3, 4, and 11–12 on the higher side of the average. Class 15 is average, but the very common Class 10 makes only represents 25.9% against an average of over 40% in the other hoards. Direct correlations between what is effectively a selective parcel of coins, rather than a random sample from the original find, are difficult. What the figures show is a group put together from various sources and with different criteria in mind. The Evans material is responsible for the biggest discrepancy as it consists of a large proportion of the rarer types. The Stoke and Derby parcels seem to have been selected in order to give a range of mints, and this in effect has biased the class structure as the provincial mints only struck in particular classes (ie, 3, 4 and 9).

Summary England Henry III

Long Cross

3

Edward I–II

Class 1–15

431

Scotland Alexander III John Baliol

27 First coinage

2

Second coinage

2

Robert the Bruce

1

Edward I

15

Ireland Continental sterlings

36

Imitations, forgeries

9

TOTAL

543

Table 5.3 lays out the coins by mint and reveals a set of percentages, which, like the previous distribution by class, require some explanation. During the medieval period the London mint was responsible for the lion’s share of the English output. This is confirmed by the surviving examples, and particularly by the hoard evidence in which London minted coins make up around half of the total body of material with only Amble, Derby and Stanwix below

Table 5.1 Summary of Tutbury hoard coins by issuer

  North 1995, 335.

49

76

Total

Unc.

11–15

15

13–14

11–12

10

9

8

5–7

4

3

2

1

Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard

TUTBURY

2.1

1.9

13.5

10.7

3.1

2.4

20.2

25.9

8.6

3.1

4.8

0.7

3.1

421

Aberdeen I

1.2

2.9

10.5

10.3

1.0

1.0

10.7

41.5

9.9

6.0

4.8

20.6

0.3

4046

Aberdeen II

1.5

2.9

11.0

9.8

0.9

1.1

11.5

40.3

9.9

6.2

4.5

20.6

0.4

2239

Boyton

1.5

2.0

8.2

8.2

0.4

0.5

10.8

41.8

12.4

8.2

6.0

26.6

0.2

3858

Durham

1.2

3.1

22.1

2.5

0.6

0.6

8.6

41.1

10.4

6.1

2.5

19.0

1.2

163

Derby

1.6

1.6

13.7

4.7

1.2

0.4

9.8

43.5

11.0

2.7

5.3

19.0

4.5

490

Loch Doon

1.1

2.6

8.6

8.5

0.9

1.7

11.4

40.4

11.4

6.2

4.9

22.4

-

1722

Scotton

0.7

1.7

10.7

3.4

0.3

1.0

13.8

41.7

10.7

6.2

9.7

26.5

-

290

Upper Cullmore 1.4

2.3

14.3

12.4

1.2

0.1

15.5

38.8

5.4

7.5

0.7

13.7

0.5

960

Upperkirkgate

1.9

7.4

10.0

0.7

1.1

10.0

45.5

11.8

5.8

4.8

22.3

0.1

9458

0.9

Newcastle

York

Uncertain

Berwick

Ireland

Scotland

Continental

Imitation

5.9

0.6

10.9

1.1

1.5 1.8 3.9

3.9

0.2

3.7

2.8

5.9

6.6

1.6

Aberdeen I

51.3

27.1

2.5

4.2

0.3

9.8

0.2

0.3 0.8 0.9

2.5

0.1

1.8

1.5

2.8

1.7

1.7

Aberdeen II

52.4

26.6

2.4

4.6

0.1

8.9

0.1

1.2 1.0 1.3

2.4

-

2.1

1.5

2.6

3.2

2.1

Amble

49.1

23.1

2.9

4.1

-

8.1

-

0.1 1.0 1.2

2.5

-

1.5

1.8

2.9

1.6

0.2

Boyton

50.8

29.7

2.2

4.9

0.2

8.5

0.1

0.2 0.4 1.2

1.9

0.1

1.6

1.3

2.3

1.4

-

Durham

51.5

25.8

4.3

3.7

-

11.0

-

-

0.6

3.0

-

1.7

-

1.7

4.6

-

Derby

45.7

27.3

3.1

3.7

-

9.2

0.2

1.0 1.4 1.0

2.9

4.5

2.0

0.9

1.8

5.0

-

Loch Doon

51.5

27.6

2.3

3.6

0.1

10.3

0.2

0.3 0.7 1.3

1.9

0.2

2.3

1.8

2.6

1.6

0.6

Scotton

54.5

25.2

1.4

6.6

-

7.2

-

-

0.7 2.4

2.1

4.4

0.9

0.9

1.9

0.6

0.3

Stanwix

48.5

25.1

2.6

4.1

0.1

6.6

0.3

0.2 0.8 0.9

2.0

0.1

1.9

1.5

1.7

3.2

0.4

Upper Cullmore

58.8

20.5

3.1

2.1

0.5

8.0

0.1

0.3 1.3 1.2

3.6

0.5

2.5

2.1

0.5

0.4

1.5

Upperkirkgate

55.9

29.2

1.2

2.6

0.0

8.9

0.0

0.0 0.3 0.5

1.3

-

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.5

1.5

Hull

Lincoln

2.6

Exeter

Chester

15.7

Durham

Bury

31.5

Canterbury

TUTBURY

London

Bristol

Table 5.2 Coins compared by class as a percentage of the hoard

-

Table 5.3 Coins compared by mint as a percentage of the hoard the 50% mark. The London coins from Tutbury make up just 31.5% - around 20% less than any comparable hoards, and strongly suggest that what we have surviving in collections has been assembled with particular criteria in mind. The Canterbury coins also number well below the sample at 15.7%, when somewhere between 25–26% is the average proportion. Where the usually dominant London and Canterbury coins are underrepresented the smaller, provincial mints show more strongly. Bristol and Durham are at the top end of the norm, with Bury St Edmunds, Chester, Exeter, Kingston-upon-Hull, Lincoln, Newcastle and York all in numbers well above average. Berwick is also particularly high, and dwarfs the hoards found in Scotland, which one might have expected to

contain more currency drawn at a local level. The Irish, Scottish and Continental figures are clearly significantly higher than the sample hoards, at a rate of over 50%. This breakdown by mint is useful in trying to understand how representative the traced Tutbury coins are of the original find. The abnormally low figures for London and Canterbury, combined with the higher proportions of coins from rarer and foreign mints, must point to certain factors affecting the material that has made its way into collections. The Morgan [Evans] coins in the British Museum certainly allude to a level of selectivity in what was retained, and indeed, what was originally collected by Evans. Evans certainly had an eye for noteworthy specimens, but it

77

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ Class 1

May to December 1279

Class 9

c 1299–1300/1

Class 2

January to May 1280

Class 10

1301–10

Class 3

1280–81

Class 11

c 1310–c 1314

Class 4

1282–89

Class 12

c 1314–c 1317

Class 5

c 1289–91

Class 13

c 1315–c 1317

Class 6 and 7

Between 1292 and 1296

Class 14

c 1317–1320

Class 8

Between 1294 and 1299

Class 15

1320–c 1333

Table 5.4 Dates of the classes of English sterling pennies

CATALOGUE OF TUTBURY COINS IN MODERN COLLECTIONS

would depend largely on when he was able to purchase Tutbury coins to complement his collection as to whether he required them or already had a certain type from another source. After acquiring the original Evans material the museum sold off duplicates to Lockett, and this would have had the effect of further removing the more common examples. Plotting the Evans coins against the British Museum specimens on tickets labelled ‘River Dove’ and ‘Tutbury’ helps show how unrepresentative of the original hoard these parcels are, particularly Evans, and in effect how the British Museum coins can only be used to identify facts about the quality, rarity and thus presumably the vast scale of the original Tutbury find.

The coins included in the catalogue (Table 5.5) come from the collections of the British Museum, Royal Collection, Potteries Museum Stoke, Derby Museums, Natural History Museum, Tutbury Museum and Private Collectors. Weights are provided to two decimal places, where no weight was available this is indicated by ‘nw’. The classification of the English pennies follow North50 with the date ranges for the English series set out in Table 5.4, this excludes the pre-1279 coins and those of Berwick whose date ranges appear in the catalogue. The sub-division of Class 9 is that proposed by Allen.51 Imitation sterlings are referenced by their Mayhew numbers,52 the Scottish classification for Alexander III coins is that proposed by Stewart and North,53 and the Irish classification is that of North.54

CONCLUSION Both the date of deposition suggested by the surviving coins, and the size of the hoard indicated by contemporary accounts of the discovery point very strongly to the identification of the hoard discovered in 1831 with the treasure of Thomas of Lancaster lost in 1322. Although numismatic scholarship has been sceptical of the contemporary accounts of the scale of the 1831 find, since it is so much larger than any other recorded hoard dating from the same period, the 1323 inquest shows that these accounts need not have been exaggerated, and that the sum involved is not particularly remarkable compared with the income that Thomas enjoyed. It is true that there is evidence of other moveable wealth being looted from the castle and surrounding area in 1322, but few people other than Thomas could have amassed such wealth at the time, and it is surely stretching coincidence too far that such a large hoard should be discovered within a few hundred yards of where a similar (or even larger) amount of money is known to have gone missing. It is unlikely that we will ever know exactly how the coins travelled that short distance, and uncertainty over exactly how much was found means that we will never know for certain whether the hoard represents one, two or all three of the missing barrels of coin, nor whether the entire hoard was recovered. Nevertheless, there is no good reason to doubt that the hoard represents all or part of the missing treasure of Thomas of Lancaster. Equally, there is no reason to doubt the estimates of the size of the hoard given in contemporary accounts of the discovery, making the Tutbury hoard almost certainly the largest coin hoard ever to be recorded from British soil.

  North 1989, 28–37.  Allen 2005. 52   Mayhew 1983. 53   Stewart and North 1990. 54   North 1991. 50 51

78

Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard *The coins of Berwick-upon-Tweed do not correspond to the usual classification for the series. They were struck with locally-made dies and although they maintain the correct weight and silver standard, the quality of workmanship in terms of die-cutting and striking is relatively poor.

No.

Description

Provenance

Weight (g)

Henry III ‘Long Cross’ coinage (1247–79) [3] 1

3c (1248–50), London, Henri

BM

1.46

2

5b2 (1251–72), Canterbury, Willem

Potteries

nw

3

5c (1251–72), Canterbury, Willem

Potteries

nw

Pennies of Edward I and II Berwick-upon-Tweed* [20] 4

1a (1296–97)

BM

1.26

5

1b

BM

1.23

6

1b

Derby

nw

7

2a (1297–98)

BM

1.38

8

2b

BM

1.37

9

2c

BM

1.33

10

3a (c 1298?)

BM

1.12

11

3?

Private (WB)

1.29

12

4a (c 1300–c 1310)

Potteries

nw

13

4b

BM

1.47

14

4b-c

Potteries

nw

15–17

4c

BM

1.57, 1.33, 1.24

18

4c

Potteries

nw

19

1–4

Royal Coll.

nw

20–21

5b (c 1312)

Private (WB)

1.30, 1.29

22–23

5

BM

1.33, 1.30

Bristol [14] 24–26

3c

BM

1.41, 1.39, 1.33

27

3d

Derby

nw

28

3g

Potteries

nw

29

9bA; crown 1; star

BM

1.38

30

9bC; crown 1; star

BM

1.39

31–33

9bC; crown 1

BM

1.40, 1.39, 1.36

34-–36

9b

Derby

nw, nw, nw

37

Uncertain type (2–3,9)

Royal Coll.

nw

Bury St Edmunds [32] 38

3d

Derby

nw

39

3g

BM

1.35

40

4a

Potteries

nw

41

4b

Derby

nw

42

4e

BM

1.38

43

8a

BM

1.40

44

9a2; star

BM

1.28

45

9a; star

BM

1.26

46

9b

Derby

nw

47

9bC; crown 1; star

BM

1.36

79

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ 48

9bC/9bA; crown 2; star

BM

1.40

49

10ab

BM

1.37

50

10ab

Derby

nw

51

10cf1

BM

1.40

52

10cf2

BM

1.44

53–54

10

Potteries

nw, nw

55

1–10

Royal Coll.

nw

56

11a

Private (WB)

1.37

57

11a

Derby

nw

58

11b

Private (WB)

1.27

59

11

BM

1.38

60

11

Derby

nw

61

14

Private (WB)

1.41

62–65

15a–b

BM

1.48, 1.44, 1.44, 1.40

66–67

15c

Derby

nw, nw

68

3–10

Derby

nw

69

11–15

Royal Coll.

nw

Canterbury [85] 70

2b

BM

1.08

71–73

3c

BM

1.44, 1.41, 1.32

74–75

3g

BM

1.39, 1.35

76

3g

Derby

nw

77

3?

Potteries

nw

78

4a

Derby

nw

79–80

4b

Derby

nw, nw

81

4c

Derby

nw

82–84

4d

BM

1.43, 1.41, 1.38

85

4d

Potteries

nw

86

4e/4d mule

BM

1.41

87–88

4e

BM

1.39

89

4e

Derby

nw

90

4e?

Potteries

nw

91–92

4

Potteries

nw

93

4–5?

Potteries

nw

94

5a

BM

1.27

95

9a2; star; barred N on obverse

BM

1.13

96

9a2; star; barred N on reverse

BM

1.37

97

9a2

BM

1.37

98

9a

BM

1.45

99

9b; crown 1

BM

1.40

100

9bB; crown 1; star

BM

1.41

101

9bC; crown 2; star

BM

1.40

102

9b; crown 2; star; CAS TOR on reverse

BM

1.31

103

9a

Derby

nw

104

9b

Derby

nw

105–7

10ab2

BM

1.48, 1.37, 1.37

108

10ab3a

BM

1.41

109–11

10ab4

BM

1.39, 1.26, 1.02

112

10ab5 (late)

BM

1.35

113

10ab

Potteries

nw

80

Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard 114–17

10ab

Derby

nw, nw, nw, nw

118–21

10cf1

BM

1.42, 1.40, 1.37, 1.30

123

10cf2a hYB:

BM

1.39

124

10cf2a

Potteries

nw

125

10cf2b CAN COR on reverse

BM

1.40

126

10cf2a

BM

1.39

127

10cf3 (a2)

BM

1.41

128–29

10cf3 (b1)

BM

1.38, 1.37

130

10cf5 (a1)

BM

1.40

131

10cf5 (b)

BM

1.47

132

10cf

Derby

nw

133–37

10

Potteries

nw, nw, nw, nw, nw

138

1-10

Royal Coll.

nw

139

11a1

BM

1.38

140

11a2

BM

1.45

141

11b2

BM

1.39

142

11c

BM

1.43

143–44

11

Potteries

nw, nw

145

11

Derby

nw

146

12a

Potteries

nw

147

13

BM

1.36

148–50

14

BM

1.47, 1.42, 1.40

151

14

Derby

nw

152

15a

Derby

nw

153

15b

BM

1.42

154–56

15

Potteries

nw, nw, nw

157

11-15

Royal Coll.

Nw

158

3g

BM

1.43

159

3g

Potteries

nw

160

9b

Potteries

nw

Chester [3]

Durham [59] 161

3d

BM

1.34

162

3e

Derby

nw

163–64

3g

BM

1.41, 1.23

165

3

Potteries

nw

166–67

4b

BM

1.39, 1.33

168

4b

Potteries

nw

169

4c

BM

1.34

170

6b

Derby

nw

171

6b?

Private (WB)

1.49

172

7a?

Private (WB)

1.38

173

9bA; crown 1; star

BM

1.26

174

9bA; crown 1;

BM

1.39

175

9bB/9bA; crown 1; cross moline

BM

1.30

176

9bB?/9bC; crown 1; first N barred, second unbarred

BM

1.42

177

9bC; crown 1; star

BM

1.49

178

9bC; crown 2

BM

1.39

179

9bC; crown 2

Potteries

nw

180

9b

Derby

nw

81

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ 181

9bC/9c; crown 1; double barred N

BM

1.41

182

9bC/9c; crown 1

BM

1.42

183–86

10ab2

BM

1.43, 1.41, 1.40, 1.37

187–88

10ab

Derby

Nw, nw

189

10cf1

Potteries

nw

190

10cf2(b)

BM

1.35

191

10cf3(b2)

BM

1.36

192

10cf5(a2)

BM

1.38

193

10cf

Potteries

nw

194–97

10

Potteries

nw, nw nw nw

198–99

11a2

BM

1.65, 1.28

200-201

11a3

BM

1.54, 1.45

202–3

11a

Private (WB)

1.40, 1.39

204

11a

Derby

nw

205

11b1

BM

1.39

206

11b1

Potteries

nw

207

11b2

BM

1.17

208

11b

Potteries

nw

209

11b round chin

Private (WB)

1.41

210

11

Derby

nw

211

13

BM

1.44

212

14

BM

1.37

213

15a

Derby

nw

214

15a?

Private (WB)

1.33

215

15b

BM

1.33

216

15b

Private (WB)

1.43

217–19

1–15

Royal Coll.

nw, nw, nw

Exeter [6] 220

9bC/9bA; crown 1; star

BM

1.30

221

9bC/9bA; crown 2; star

BM

1.43

222

9bC/9bA; crown 2; star?

Potteries

nw

223

9bC; crown 2; star

BM

1.42

224–25

9b

Derby

nw, nw

Kingston-upon-Hull [8] 226

9a

Derby

nw

227

9bB/9bA; crown 1

Potteries

nw

228

9bC; crown 1; star

Private (WB)

1.46

229–30

9bC; crown 2; star

BM

1.43, 1.34

231

9bC; crown 1; star

Potteries

nw

232

9bC; crown 1

Potteries

nw

233

9b

Derby

nw

234–35

3cd

BM

1.39, 1.38

236–38

3cd

Potteries

Nw, nw, nw

239

3e

BM

1.36

240

3g

BM

1.40

241

3g

Potteries

nw

242–43

3g

Derby

Nw, nw

244–45

1c; crown 1; И/И

Lincoln [10]

London [171] BM

82

1.42, 1.42

Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard 246

1c; crown 1; И/И; DNS.hYB

BM

1.42

247

1c; crown 1; II/И

BM

1.42

248

1c; crown 1; N, И/И

BM

1.41

249

1c; crown 1; N/N, И

BM

1.41

250

1d; N/1c; crown 1; И

BM

1.39

251

1d; face 1; N, И/И, N

BM

1.40

252

1d; face 2; N/И, N

BM

1.24

253–54

2a; И/И

BM

1.51, 1.43

255

2a; N, И/И, N

BM

1.32

256

2a; И/И

Potteries

nw

257

2b

BM

1.39

258

2b

Potteries

nw

259

3a

BM

1.34

260

3b

BM

1.27

261–66

3cd

BM

1.41, 1.38, 1.37, 1.36, 1.17, 1.10

267–70

3cd

Potteries

Nw, nw, nw, nw

271

3f

BM

1.40

272–73

3g

BM

1.41, 1.37

274

4a

Potteries

nw

275–78

4a

Derby

nw

279

4b

Potteries

nw

280–84

4a-c

BM

1.41, 1.40, 1.37, 1.34, 1.31

285

4d/4c mule

BM

1.41

286–88

4d

BM

1.41, 1.38, 1.36

289–90

4d

Potteries

nw, nw

291–92

4d

Derby

Nw, nw

293–94

4e/4c mule

BM

1.40, 1.38

295–96

4e/4d mule

BM

1.35, 1.33

297–98

4e

BM

1.44, 1.36

299

4e

Derby

nw

300–301

4

Potteries

Nw, nw

302

5/4c mule

BM

1.38

303

5

BM

1.37

304

5

Derby

nw

305

6

BM

1.40

306

6b

BM

1.43

307

6/7 mule

BM

1.35

308–9

7a

Derby

Nw, nw

310

7

BM

1.36

311–12

8a

Derby

Nw, nw

313–18

8

BM

1.46, 1.42, 1.40, 1.40, 1.35, 1.32

319

8

Derby

nw

320

9a1

Potteries

nw

321

9 star

BM

1.45

322

9 star

BM

1.44

323

9 star

BM

1.43

324

9 star

BM

1.41

325

9 star

BM

1.40

326

9 star

BM

1.40

327

9 star

BM

1.40

83

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ 328

9 star

BM

1.38

329

9 star

BM

1.38

330

9 star

BM

1.37

331

9 star

BM

1.37

332

9 star

BM

1.34

333

9 star

BM

1.31

334

9 star

BM

1.21

335

9 no star

BM

1.40

336

9 no star

BM

1.38

337–38

9a

Potteries

Nw, nw

339–40

9a

Derby

Nw, nw

341

9b; crown 1

Potteries

nw

342

9b

Potteries

nw

343–44

9b

Derby

Nw, nw

345

9bC; crown 2; star

Private (PT)

nw

346–48

9

Potteries

nw nw nw

349

9

Derby

nw

350

10ab1a

BM

1.20

351–52

10ab3

BM

1.40, 1.39

353–54

10ab3b

BM

1.40, 1.37

355–58

10ab5

BM

1.38, 1.34, 1.32, 1.23

359–62

10ab

Potteries

Nw, nw, nw, nw,

363–65

10ab

Derby

nw, nw, nw

366

10cf1

BM

1.35

367

10cf1 ANG DNS

BM

1.30

368

10cf1

Potteries

nw

369

10cf2

BM

1.41

370

10cf2 hYB:

BM

1.34

371

10cf2 hY:B:

BM

1.23

372

10cf2 broken crown

BM

1.39

373–74

10cf3 Mayfield lettering

BM

1.37, 1.25

375

10cf3 Mayfield later varieties

BM

1.40

376–78

10cf3 Mayfield late group

BM

1.40, 1.38, 1.27

379

10cf4

BM

1.43

380

10cf5

Potteries

nw

381

10cf

Potteries

nw

382–92

10

Potteries

Nw, nw, nw, nw, nw, nw, nw, nw, nw, nw, nw

393–95

10?

Potteries

nw, nw, nw

396

1-10

Royal Coll.

nw

397

11a

Derby

nw

389–90

11b

Potteries

Nw, nw, nw

391

11b

Derby

nw

392

11

BM

1.43

393

11

BM

1.41

394

11

BM

1.39

395

11

BM

1.14

396

11

Potteries

Nw

397

13

Derby

nw

398–400

14

BM

1.41, 1.31, 1.24

84

Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard 401–2

15a-c

BM

1.42, 1.33

403

15b

Derby

nw

404

15c

Derby

nw

405

15

Derby

nw

406

11–15

Royal Coll.

nw

407–8

3b

BM

1.47, 1.39

409

3e

Potteries

nw

410

9b1

BM

1.40

411

9b1

Private (WB)

1.35

412–13

9b2

BM

1.45, 1.36

414

9b2

Private (WB)

1.41

415

9b

BM

1.34

416

9b

Derby

nw

417–19

9/10 mule

BM

1.41, 1.41,1.36

420–24

10ab

BM

1.44, 1.40, 1.36, 1.29, 1.19

425–26

10ab

Derby

nw, nw

427

3,9,10

Royal Coll.

nw

Newcastle-upon-Tyne [21]

York [21] 428

2b

BM

1.42

429–30

3b

BM

1.38, 1.06

431

3b

Derby

nw

432–34

3c

Potteries

nw, nw, nw

435

3d

BM

1.36

436

3e

Derby

nw

437–42

9b

BM

1.45, 1.43, 1.42, 1.41, 1.38, 1.19

443–45

9b

Potteries

nw, nw, nw

446

9b

Derby

nw

447

2,3,9

Royal Coll.

nw

448

Uncertain class

Derby

nw

449

Uncertain class

450–51

‘Class 10’ EDW

BM

1.34, 1.18

452–53

‘Class 10’ EDWA

BM

1.34, 0.88

454

‘Class 10’ EDW RE

BM

0.92

455–58

Crude imitation

BM

1.36, 1.29, 1.19, 1.06

BM

1.25

Uncertain mint [1] Derby

nw

Imitations/forgeries [9]

IRELAND Second ‘EDW’ Coinage (1279-1302)

Dublin [9]

459

1b

460

1b

BM

1.36

461

1b

Private (WB)

1.37

462

1a-b

BM

1.39

463

4a

BM

1.35

464

Uncertain type

Royal Coll.

nw

465–67

Uncertain type

Derby

nw, nw, nw

BM

1.38

n for N on reverse

Cork [1] 468

III

85

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ Waterford [5] 469

1b WATERFOR’

BM

1.34

470

1b VATERFOR’

BM

1.39

471

1b VATERFOR’

Private (WB)

1.39

472

1b WATERFOR’

Potteries

nw, nw

SCOTLAND Alexander III (1249-1286) [27]

Second Coinage (c.1280-) 473–74

B

BM

1.41, 1.34

475

Mb1

BM

1.34

476

Mb2

BM

1.34

477

Mb3

BM

1.29

478

Mb

BM

1.41

479–80

Mc2

BM

1.39, 1.37

481–82

Mc

Private (WB)

1.36, 1.36

483

Mc

Potteries

nw

484

E?

Potteries

nw

485

E (two small pellets in VM+ quarter)

Private (WB)

1.35

486–88

D

BM

1.39, 1.29, 1.27

489

D

Private (WB)

0.99

490–92

E

BM

1.39, 1.25, 1.17

493

J

BM

1.41

494

Uncertain type

Royal Coll.

Nw

495–99

Uncertain type

Derby

Nw, nw, nw, nw, nw

John Baliol (1292-96) [4] First Coinage (rough style) 500

Four mullets of six points

BM

1.31

501

St Andrews mint signature

BM

1.38

Second Coinage (fine style) 502–3

Four mullets of five points

BM

1.46, 1.41

Robert Bruce (1306-29) [1] 504

BM

1.48

CONTINENTAL STERLING IMITATIONS [36] (Including ruler, territory and Mayhew catalogue reference) 505

John of Avesnes (1280–1304), Hainaut

M24

BM

1.38

506

M26a

Private (PW)

1.411

507

M36c

BM

1.21

508

Arnold V (1279–1323), Looz

M59

BM

1.23

509

William of Hainaut, Bishop of Cambrai (1285–96)

M88

BM

1.31

510

Gui of Collemède, Bishop of Cambrai (1296–1306)

M101a

BM

0.94

511

Renaud (1272–1326), Gelderland

M182

BM

1.08

512

Robert of Béthune (1305–22), Flanders

M211a

BM

1.29

513

M211

Potteries

nw

514

M215a

BM

1.40

515

M218a

BM

1.40

516

M218

BM

1.42

86

Chapter 5: The Tutbury Hoard 517

Valéran of Ligny (1304–53 & 1364–66), Serain

M220f

BM

1.14

518

M220u

BM

1.38

519

M223f

BM

1.38

520

M224d

BM

1.32

M225c

BM

1.32

M237c

BM

1.35

524

M237

BM

1.36

525

M239

BM

1.31

526

M244e

BM

1.22

527–29

M244

BM

1.34, 1.20

530–31

M244

Potteries

nw, nw

532

M245

BM

1.29

533

M246d

BM

1.20

534

M247

BM

1.15

M248i

BM

1.22

521 523

Gaucher of Chatillon (1313–22), Florennes, Yves

535



Neufchâteau

536

Henry VII (1308–12), King of the Romans

M254a

BM

1.34

537

John the Blind (1309–46), Luxemburg

M257a

BM

1.33

538

M258a

BM

1.37

539

M257-89

Derby

nw

540

Ferry IV (1312-28), Lorraine

M305b

BM

1.05

541

Ec Moneta Nostra types

M311c

BM

1.19

  Mayhew suggested that this privately owned coin could have come from the Tutbury hoard (Mayhew 1983: 39).

1

Table 5.5 Coins from the Tutbury hoard in modern collections

87

1.27,

Chapter 6: History of the Castle Gareth Williams

INTRODUCTION

FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST TO THE BARONS’ WAR

As discussed in Chapter 2, the first documentary evidence for Tutbury, either as a settlement or a castle, is the reference by Ordericus Vitalis to the transfer by William I of Tutbury Castle from Hugh d’Avranches to Henry de Ferrers,1 probably in 1071, while the archaeological evidence shows a gap between the Roman occupation of the site and the late eleventh century. Circumstantial evidence suggests that there was some sort of occupation at Tutbury prior to the Norman Conquest, but we can only speculate at its nature. Mosley suggests an association with various kings of Mercia, and while his assertions of links to specific Mercian rulers are entirely unproven, he is right to note Tutbury’s proximity both to the royal monastery at Repton and to the royal nunnery of St Werburh at Hanbury.2 Repton was sacked and occupied by a major Viking force in 873–74, and it was probably around the same time that the nunnery at Hanbury was abandoned and Werburh’s body transferred to Chester, along with some of the nunnery’s lands. Current thinking suggests that forces such as the one which over-wintered at Repton were far too large to have been based solely in the excavated enclosure there, and that, for logistical reasons, they would have occupied a much wider area around the central fortification.3 Given that the site of Tutbury Castle dominates the surrounding landscape in a way that Repton does not, it would be surprising if Tutbury was not occupied at this time. Similarly, Tutbury would have been an obvious location for a fortified settlement or burh (the second element in the place-name Tutbury) of the sort used to extend West Saxon authority into the Midlands in the second and third decades of the 10th century. Although unrecorded, Tutbury would have made a logical intermediate burh between Tamworth and Derby, and since it is clear from other evidence that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and other contemporary accounts do not provide a comprehensive record of all the burhs in use at this time,4 the fact that Tutbury is not mentioned is not necessarily conclusive. However, the burh element in place-names can have a variety of other meanings, so the name Tutbury does not necessarily indicate either burghal status or any other type of fortification.5

The early years The first castle was built by Hugh d’Avranches, presumably around 1068–69, although the precise date is unknown, and it is unclear whether the castles built across northern Mercia around this time were built as a response to rebellion by Earl Eadwine and others, or whether grants to Norman barons in previously submissive areas may have been a factor in provoking the rebellion. What does seem clear is that the original castle would have had only timber and earthwork defences. Stone building in this early phase was most unusual, and in the absence of either documentary or archaeological evidence for early construction in stone, a timber castle seems a safe assumption, both under Hugh d’Avranches and Henry de Ferrers. This may well have been a motte and bailey from the beginning, or a motte may have been added to a simple defended enclosure. In either case, much of the motte survives, and a potterydated section of the original rampart around the southern end of the inner bailey was discovered in 2004 (see chapters 8 and 10). It is unclear whether the outer baileys were fortified at this time, although it seems likely that they would at least have been enclosed, and they may well also have been defended with earthworks and palisades. Whether or not Tutbury existed as a borough before the creation of the castle, by the time of Domesday Book in 1086, there was a castle and a borough with forty two men ‘who live only by their trading’: this implies a planned town. At the time, Tutbury was one of only three boroughs in Staffordshire, together with the longestablished Mercian burh of Tamworth and the more recently developed shire centre of Stafford. Tutbury at this time was considerably larger than nearby Burton, which lacked burghal status, although Burton was an established centre before the Conquest and later overtook Tutbury as the main urban centre in east Staffordshire.6 Henry de Ferrers also established a priory at Tutbury. According to later medieval traditions, the priory was founded in 1080, but there is no firm contemporary evidence to support this, and the priory is not mentioned directly in Domesday Book, which suggests that it postdates 1086, while Henry’s endowment charter was made in the reign of William II (1187–1100). However, Domesday Book does indicate that some lands in the area were held by the French monastery of St Pierre-sur-Dives, the parent house of Tutbury Priory, so it is likely that the decision had already been taken to found the priory, but that the foundation itself was slightly

  Chibnall 1969, 264–65.   Mosley 1832, 2–3. 3   Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 2001; Tringham 2007, 124, 137; Williams 2008, 198. 4  Williams forthcoming a and b. 5   Draper 2008. 1 2

  DB, Staffordshire, 10.1.

6

88

Chapter 6: History of the Castle later, although it must have taken place before the death of Henry de Ferrers in 1093 or later.7 Henry was the lord of Ferrières-Saint-Hilaire and Chambrai in Normandy, and had probably been part of William’s army at Hastings in 1066. He had apparently been castellan of a royal castle at Stafford before his promotion to holding the substantial and strategically important honor of Tutbury (see Chapter 2).8 Following William’s death, he supported William Rufus for the kingship against William’s older brother Robert, and thereby secured continued possession of his English lands, although Henry’s son William apparently supported Robert – possibly a strategic choice to ensure that the family maintained its position on both sides of the Channel.9

James’s.’ It seems likely that building in stone began at the castle at this time, since a number of the other new earls began building in stone at the time reflecting their new status. However, there is no direct documentary reference to this, nor is there any surviving archaeological evidence from this period.11 Civil Wars, 1139–1266 Robert died the following year, having been predeceased by a son, William, who was killed in London during his father’s lifetime and who also, according to Mosley, briefly held the title earl of Tutbury.12 Robert was succeeded by his son, another Robert. Robert II seems not to have played a particularly active part in the civil war between Stephen and Matilda, and opinion is divided on exactly where his affiliations lay. He seems to have supported Stephen initially, and certainly he never seems to have been a supporter of Matilda. However, he was also for a time a close ally of the opportunistic Ranulf de Gernons, earl of Chester, who sought to use the civil war to strengthen his own position. This was true to varying degrees of many of the barons, and was probably also true of Robert II de Ferrers, who showed ‘little sign of his having exerted himself for either party in the years between 1148 and 1153’.13 Robert was apparently more concerned with consolidating his own position in the Midlands. At Tutbury itself he extended the borough shortly after he inherited the earldom. He also added to the family endowment of the Benedictine priory, and it was around this time that a second stone church was built to replace the original de Ferrers foundation, although this was not completed until the 1160s, after Robert’s death.14 Robert also had ambitions to expand his lordship eastwards, claiming the earldom of Nottingham in right of his wife Margaret, daughter of William Peverel. Although Robert’s marriage to Margaret was the most important dynastic development at this time, the position of the de Ferrers family was also consolidated through a number of other alliances under both Robert I and Robert II, developed either through marriage with, or enfeoffment of, lesser baronial families.15

Henry had retained his Norman estates as well as his new English lands, but on his death the English and Norman lands were divided between his two older sons, William and Engenulph. It is uncertain which of these was the oldest of Henry’s three sons, although it is normally assumed that William was the firstborn son, since he inherited the Norman patrimony, although given the greater size and significance of the honor of Tutbury, one could also argue for Engenulph to be the primary heir. William was a loyal follower of Robert of Normandy, and since he apparently inherited no estates in England from his father (although some of Henry’s estates were later held by William’s descendants), he had little impact in English affairs. Engenulph apparently inherited the honor of Tutbury, since he (but not William) was named in a charter of his younger brother Robert to Tutbury Priory along with Henry and Robert himself. He also attested a charter of Henry I in September 1100, but is otherwise largely unrecorded.10 Henry’s third son Robert succeeded c 1101, and witnessed a number of charters under Henry I. He formed an alliance with his neighbour William Peverel, who held lands in Nottinghamshire and the High Peak, and secured the alliance through the marriage of his son Robert to Peverel’s daughter Margaret. Both Robert I de Ferrers and William Peverel were strong supporters of King Stephen in the early part of his reign, and Robert was made earl of Derby at the end of 1138, although Tutbury remained his main seat of power, and he is also styled Robert of Tutbury by Ordericus Vitalis. Stephen created a large number of new earls at this time, and Robert’s earldom may in part have been reward for his early loyalty. However, he was also one of the English commanders at the Battle of the Standard, and it was he who brought news of the victory to Stephen. His elevation in these circumstances has been described as ‘comparable to that of a Napoleonic English general bringing welcome dispatches of victory to St

One aspect of increasing baronial independence in the 1140s was the breakdown of a single national coinage, with the production of a number of baronial issues in addition to royal issues in the names of both Stephen and Matilda. Some of the baronial issues carried the names of the barons who issued them, while others carried Stephen’s name, but were struck in distinctive local styles. The latter category included a clear ‘Midlands’ group, with minting at Northampton, Huntingdon and Cambridge controlled by Earl Simon de Senlis, and Leicester controlled by Robert, earl of Leicester. There were also issues at Nottingham

  Mosley 1832, 6–7; Greenslade 1970, 331; Alexander and King 1999, 14–15; Tringham 2007, 83, 107. Henry’s death is normally given as 1089, but he was addressed by name in a charter of William II in September 1193. Golob 1984, 104. 8  Tringham 2007, 10. 9   Golob 1984, 104. 10   Golob 1984, 105–7.

  Chibnall 1978, 520–21; Golob 1984, 108–15; Crouch 2000, 84–89; Williams 2006, 4. 12   Mosley 1832, 8. 13   White 1976; Jones 1980; Golob 1984, 116–19; Crouch 2000, 268; Tringham 2007, 10–11. 14  Alexander and King 1999; Tringham 2007, 11, 115. 15   Jones 1980, 9, 17–18; Golob 1984, 115–27; Tringham 2007, 11.

7

11

89

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ and Derby, and the die engraver who produced the Derby dies also produced dies with the mint signature STO or STV, which has been attributed to Tutbury (Stutesberia).16 Given the firm link to Derby, and the recent expansion of the borough at Tutbury, this attribution seems secure, although it is uncertain whether the Nottingham issues came under the authority of Robert de Ferrers or his fatherin-law William Peverel.

for a very long time those who had taken refuge in it, until at last an agreement was made, and he brought over to his side the earl himself with all his followers.18 The siege may well have lasted into July, and its duration, as well as the fact that Robert de Ferrers was apparently able to make an accommodation with Henry and the earls of Chester and Leicester, suggests that Robert was able to negotiate from a position of relative strength, despite the forces arrayed against him, and despite the lack of any support from Stephen or from any royalist barons. This agreement probably also provides the context for a documented but undated alliance involving all three earls, since Robert de Ferrers had previously provided a buffer between the earls of Chester and Leicester, and also between Chester and Peverel’s lands in Nottinghamshire. With de Ferrers neutralized, Henry and Ranulf were now free to move on to attack Peverel, which they did in September.19

Robert’s ambitions in the Midlands brought him into direct competition with his powerful neighbours, Ranulf of Chester and Robert of Leicester, both of whom were also seeking to expand their authority in the region, and who had by early 1153 both made accommodations with Henry of Anjou, son of Matilda. Henry had by this time assumed the active leadership of the Angevin party, although his mother was still alive. Henry landed in England in January 1153, by which time Robert of Leicester had already abandoned his loyalty to Stephen. In a charter signed at Devizes in the same month, Henry effectively bought the support of Ranulf of Chester, who was promised the Peverel holdings in Nottingham (castle, town and royal holdings), and the Peverel honor of the Peak, plus the town and county of Stafford (together with the earldom), with the exception of a number of individual holdings, including those of Robert de Ferrers. Although Robert de Ferrers did not lose immediately from this grant, the charter placed Ranulf in direct competition with Robert de Ferrers for the Peverel inheritance, as well as isolating the honor of Tutbury between blocks of land held by or promised to Ranulf in almost all directions, while the same charter made provision for Higham in Northamptonshire, another part of the Peverel inheritance, to go to Simon of Senlis or Engelram d’Albemarle if either of them came over to Henry’s side. The mixed terms of the charter probably indicate that Robert was not seen as firmly committed to either Stephen or Henry, since he was neither favoured, like Ranulf, nor directly penalized like some of Stephen’s supporters who lost land to Ranulf.17

There were no royal reprisals against Robert for changing sides, but this may simply reflect Stephen’s weakened position, and on November 6th Stephen and Henry also reached an accommodation, whereby Stephen retained the kingdom for his lifetime (in the event, just under a year), with Henry inheriting the kingdom thereafter, and Stephen’s own son inheriting only the lands which Stephen had held under Henry I. 20 The position of Robert de Ferrers was thus not significantly weakened, although he lost his claim to the Peverel inheritance. Furthermore, there is no suggestion of damage to the castle, or of subsequent rebuilding. However, if it is taken at face value, the description of the castle as ‘of wondrous art [and] impregnably fortified’ provides further circumstantial evidence for the idea that there was already a stone keep at Tutbury by this time. While there may be some hyperbole in the description, Robert held off the combined forces of Henry and two powerful earls, and in a period in which adulterine motte and baileys were comparatively common, and major castles were built in stone, the description seems to imply something more than timber and earthwork alone.

The grant to Ranulf demonstrated Henry’s capacity both to reward his friends and to punish his enemies, but Robert does not seem to have been persuaded, perhaps because there was nothing left close to his Midland heartland that Henry could have granted him without taking something away either from Ranulf or from Robert of Leicester. The latter also committed his support to Henry in the spring of 1153, and it seems to have been Robert of Leicester rather than Ranulf who was the main instigator of an attack on Tutbury in June of that year:

Ranulf of Chester died in December 1153, allegedly murdered by William de Peverel, and while his young son Hugh was permitted to inherit his father’s existing lands, he did not receive the additional lands promised by Henry. Robert de Ferrers died in 1159 and was also succeeded by a minor, his son William. William had inherited his mother’s claim to the Peverel estates, but this was not recognized by Henry as he regarded William de Peverel’s estates as forfeit to the Crown for his refusal to accept Henry’s justice in regard to the death of Ranulph, and even the Peverel estate of Higham which had briefly been held by Robert was in the hands of the king by 1164. William also failed to gain Henry’s recognition as earl of Derby, and this loss of status had probably already taken place

The duke, on the advice of his counsellors, and especially the earl of Leicester, a man of wisdom and judgement, collected a huge army from all his adherents, and going unexpectedly to Earl Ferrers’s town, called Tutbury, in which also a castle of wondrous art had been impregnably fortified, he very closely besieged

  Potter 1976, 234–35; Crouch 2000, 268.   Golob 1984, 129–137. 20   Carpenter 2004, 189–90. 18

  Blackburn 1994, 181–82. 17   Jones 1980, 10–11; Golob 1984, 127-31; Tringham 2007, 11. 16

19

90

Chapter 6: History of the Castle before Robert’s death, since the borough of Derby had been recovered for the Crown by 1156, along with the fee farm of Wirksworth by 1155. In any case, William seems only to have used the title Earl Ferrers, never earl of Derby or Nottingham. All of this formed part of a wider pattern in the early part of Henry’s reign of attempting to restore patterns of landholding, status and royal rights, as they had been during the reign of his grandfather Henry I. This had nominally been agreed as part of the accommodation between Stephen and Henry, but only developed after Stephen’s death.21 Henry had thus alienated a number of major barons by the early 1170s, and when in 1173 his own eldest son and heir, Henry the Young King rebelled against him, supported by two of his younger brothers, the rebellion also received widespread support from those who had lost lands and wealth under Henry II, as well as from those like King William I of Scotland who saw opportunities to negotiate a better position in England under Henry the Young King.

of note before he went on crusade with Richard I in 1189, and was killed the following year at the siege of Acre.25 William’s support for Richard’s crusade, and particularly his death on crusade, helped to dispel any lingering disgrace attached to his earlier rebellion, which Richard, himself one of the rebels in 1173–74, could in any case hardly have held against him. However, it was under his son, also called William, that the family fortunes were restored and even enhanced. William II de Ferrers inherited his father’s holdings, and secured his position in the north Midlands by marrying in 1192 Agnes, sister and co-heir of Ranulf de Blundeville, earl of Chester, who brought with her a small group of lands and lordships around the fringes of the honor of Tutbury, helping to consolidate his control in the area.26 The rebellion in 1193–94 of Richard’s younger brother John, count of Mortain, provided further opportunities for advancement. John had been the beneficiary of both the confiscated Peverel inheritance and of the perquisites of the earldom of Derby formerly held by William’s grandfather and great grandfather, so opposing John offered William the opportunity simultaneously to demonstrate his loyalty to Richard and to challenge the holder of what he probably saw as his own legitimate inheritance. Like his father, William found himself attacking Nottingham in the company of David, earl of Huntingdon, together with Ranulph of Chester, but this time the three earls were suppressing rebellion rather than participating in it. The siege began in February and was concluded on March 28th, shortly after Richard himself had joined the siege. Although William did not immediately recover his inheritance, he was quickly rewarded by being appointed as sheriff of both Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, and as ‘Earl Ferrers’ he supported the king’s canopy together with three other earls in Richard’s second coronation held later that year to mark his resumption of royal authority.27

William de Ferrers was one of those who joined the rebellion, and in 1173 he attacked and burned Nottingham with the support of William of Scotland’s younger brother David, who was pursuing his own claims to the earldom of Huntingdon. The choice of Nottingham was almost certainly dictated by a combination of the fact that it was the most important royal castle in the region, and that William de Ferrers saw Nottingham as part of his legitimate inheritance through his mother.22 However, Tutbury was attacked in turn by Henry’s ally and ‘right loving friend’ Rhys ap Gruffydd, prince of Deheubarth and Henry’s Justiciar in South Wales. Although a former opponent of Henry’s expansion into Wales, Rhys had accepted Henry’s overlordship in 1171 in return for recognition of his own position in South Wales, and his support for Henry in 11734 was a major factor in suppressing the rebellion. Although the castle does not appear to have fallen directly to Rhys, William submitted to Henry at Northampton on July 31st 1174, and William was obliged to surrender his castles of Tutbury and Duffield, and was taken as a prisoner to Normandy.23 William made peace with the king in 1174– 75, but Henry ordered both castles to be destroyed as part of a general policy whereby the rebels were released and permitted to retain their lands, but their castles were slighted.24 This slighting may in part explain the absence at Tutbury of any surviving structures above ground level, with the exception of the motte and the possible exception of the chapel, which predate the 1170s (see Chapter 8). William seems to have established a lasting peace with Henry, but never to have gained his favour or to have done anything to recover the family’s position. He achieved little

William’s support for Richard against John does not seem to have been held against him by the latter, and as ‘William, earl of Tutbury’ he was one of a number of nobles who swore fealty to John at the Council of Northampton in 1199 in return for a promise of restoration of their rights, and subsequently attended John’s coronation. On June 7th, John did indeed restore to William both the earldom of Derby and the third penny of the king’s rights traditionally due to the earl. The two also reached an agreement whereby William received the important Peverel manor of Higham in Northamptonshire, together with Newbottle and Blisworth, in return for a payment of 2,000 marks and acceptance of the king’s right to the remaining Peverel estates.28 This agreement remained in place until the end of John’s reign, and William remained loyal to John throughout the reign, serving him in Ireland and Poitou, acting as a guarantor of John’s good faith in John’s settlement with the Pope following his excommunication,

  White 1976, 557, 561–62; Golob 1986, 143–44, 165–69; Carpenter 2004, 189–91, 224. 22   Mosley 1832, 9; Golob 1984, 170–71; Carpenter 2004, 225. 23   CMRH i, 73; CMRH ii, 65; Diceto 385; Mosley 1832, 9; Somerville 1970, 6; Golob 1984, 171; Carpenter 2004, 213–16, 224–26; Tringham 2007, 11, 24. 24   Golob 1984, 171–73; Carpenter 2004, 226. 21

  Mosley 1832, 9; Golob 1984, 172–73; Tringham 2007, 11.   Golob 1984, 174–76. 27   CMRH iii, 237–40, 247–48; Golob 1984, 177–78. 28   CMRH iv, 90; DL10/49; Golob 1984, 178–80. 25 26

91

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ as well as supporting John against the rebellious barons in 1215–16. For this he was rewarded with grants of the castles of Peak and Bolsover, the two main castles of the Peverel honor in Derbyshire, thereby potentially reopening the whole question of the Peverel inheritance.29

House Farm, with lepers ‘outside Tutbury’ first recorded in 1246.31 William II de Ferrers died in 1247, and was succeeded by his son William III. His father’s long tenure of the lordship meant that William III was no longer young by the time that he inherited the earldom, and he may already have suffered from serious health problems. He already ‘laboured under infirmity’ in1245 and it was noted on his succession that like his father he suffered from gout.32 It is therefore unsurprising that his seven years as earl were comparatively uneventful. As a very young man he had briefly flirted with rebellion at the end of John’s reign, although he fairly quickly realigned his politics with those of his father and other loyalists.33 However, from the 1230s he regularly attended the royal court, perhaps representing the family interest as his father was no longer very actively involved in court affairs. His activities at court enabled him to secure a prestigious marriage for his son Robert to Mary, niece of Henry III.34 Henry himself visited Tutbury for several days in November 1251, on his way to York to celebrate the wedding of his daughter Margaret to the young Alexander II of Scotland, and this was followed by a further apparent mark of favour in the grant of free warren (normally a royal prerogative) in all the earl’s manors.35 How far someone as infirm as William could have taken advantage of this is debatable, although it had some financial benefits, but in any case William did not enjoy the privilege long, as a tragic litter accident crossing a bridge at St Neots led to his death on March 28th, 1254.36

On John’s death in 1216, William’s position was strengthened still further, as one of John’s executors and one of the leading supporters of the young Henry III during his minority. In return for his support for the regency against the rebellion which was under way when Henry succeeded to the throne, William was confirmed in the grants of Peak and Bolsover castles, although he was obliged to make good his claim to Bolsover by force, since this was held by the rebels. He also received the manor of Melbourne in Derbyshire, again consolidating territory on the borders of the honor of Tutbury.30 It was probably at some point during this prolonged period of expansion and consolidation that Tutbury Castle was rebuilt. Sources from the 14th century onwards refer to a ‘high tower’ at the castle, and from pictorial sources of the 16th century and later (Plates 6.1–6.3), we know that this was a cylindrical keep on top of the motte (somewhat larger than the later folly), a small section of which was uncovered in Somerville’s excavations of 1955–60 (see Chapter 6). On the limited evidence available, the comparators for this appear to be other cylindrical towers of the late 12th and early 13th centuries (see Chapter 8). In theory, rebuilding may have begun under William I de Ferrers, following the destruction of the castle in 1175. However, rebuilding a castle recently slighted by the king might have been considered provocative, and the greater wealth and status of William II, coupled with his better relationship with successive kings, together with the need for a secure fortification during the troubled later years of John’s reign, and with William’s clear determination to restore the position and rights inherited from his grandparents, all point to William II as more likely than his father to have been responsible for rebuilding the castle. However, the chapel and the foundations of the keep below the later folly are the only structures known to date from this broad period, and the castle was at least partially destroyed and rebuilt once more (see below) before the more substantial surviving structures were built in the 14th and 15th centuries.

If William’s time as earl (the manner of his death aside) was uneventful, the same was not true for his son Robert. As a minor on his inheritance, Robert III de Ferrers had little authority or influence until he reached his majority. His wardship was initially granted to the Lord Edward, elder son of Henry III, but Edward sold the wardship on to his mother Eleanor and her brother Peter of Savoy in 1257. Eleanor visited the castle in person for a meeting with Richard de Clare in the summer of that year, having moved there from Nottingham because she found the smoke from sea-coal there unbearable.37 Robert gained his majority and control of his inheritance in 1260, and marked the development with an attack on Tutbury Priory, for which he was obliged to make reparations the following year. This was not an isolated case of Robert’s lawless behaviour,38 and, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, Robert was responsible for the permanent forfeiture by the de Ferrers family of both Tutbury Castle and the honor of Tutbury, although this only happened as a result of Robert being forced to agree to impossible terms under duress by Edmund of Lancaster, and of a cynical

With the rebellion ended, William went on crusade with his brother-in-law Ranulf of Chester in 1218, probably returning in 1220, but the rest of his long lordship was uneventful compared with his early years, perhaps in part because of increasing problems with gout, although he continued to build on his landholdings (see Chapter 2). He may also have been responsible for the construction and endowment of a chapel and leper house outside Tutbury within sight of the castle at the site of the present Chapel

 Tringham 2007, 109.   Golob 1984, 265. 33   Golob 1984, 257. 34   Dobrowolski 1993, 4; Tringham 2007, 12. 35   CLR 1251–60, 8; CChR 1226–57, 370; CPR 1247–58, 119; Salt 1856, 10; Tringham 2007, 12. 36   Golob 1984, 267–68. 37   Luard 1863–69, III, 203; Somerville 1973, 6; Tringham 2007, 12. 38  Tringham 2007, 12; Dobrowolski 1993, 8–10. 31 32

  Golob 1984, 184–79.   Golob, 1984, 189–96.

29 30

92

Plate 6.1 Perspective view of the castle c 1562 (NA)

Chapter 6: History of the Castle

93

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Plate 6.2 Plan of the castle c 1585 (BL)

94

Chapter 6: History of the Castle

Plate 6.3 Plan of the castle c 1585 (BL)

95

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ disregard for legal process on the part of both Henry III and Edward I. However, the unusually harsh treatment meted out to Robert was at least in part a consequence of his own actions.

granted, and was then obliged by Edmund to agree a total redemption of fee of 50,000 marks in the space of just over three months, an impossible feat, and one on which he naturally defaulted. Edmund then claimed Robert’s lands by default, and although Robert and his heirs contested this on the perfectly valid grounds that his agreement with Edmund had been made under duress, Edmund had the support of his father, and subsequently of his brother Edward I in maintaining possession of the confiscated lands (see also Chapter 2).

Robert was a major player in the Barons’ War of 1264– 66, but very much on his own account rather than as a consistent supporter of either Henry III or Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, leader of the main baronial faction. As early as 1263, Robert seized three of Edward’s castles, apparently as a unilateral act.39 On February 28th 1264, Robert led an attack on Worcester, initially at least in the company of Henry and Peter de Montfort and several other barons, capturing the town, plundering the Jewish quarter and killing its inhabitants, and plundering both religious houses and Crown lands. He then went on to reinforce Henry de Montfort at Gloucester, but Henry made a truce with the Lord Edward (son of Henry III, and the future Edward I) causing the collapse of the siege, the sack of Gloucester by Edward, and the end of Robert’s support for the de Montforts.40 Some of Edward’s followers attacked the western parts of Robert’s holdings in retaliation, and around Easter Henry III sent Edward to attack Robert’s lands in Staffordshire and Derbyshire, burning and laying waste to his property, and destroying (at least in part) Tutbury Castle.41

FROM EDMUND OF LANCASTER TO JOHN OF GAUNT The Earls of Lancaster The extent of the destruction of the castle in 1264 is probably exaggerated, since both the chapel and the round tower apparently pre-date this, although either or both may have been damaged, and it is possible that the 13th-century chancel was added to the chapel as a result of damage at this time. There are few references to Edmund directly concerning himself with Tutbury, but he apparently rebuilt parts of the castle, which was described in c 1298 as ‘firmly built, and in substantial repair’ with a garden, curtilage, and vineyard, together with a meadow and a fishpond. A hall and other buildings at the castle were in place by the early 14th century, although these may have been the work of Edmund’s son Thomas.43 Although his principal residence was Pontefract Castle in Yorkshire, Thomas visited Tutbury on a number of occasions.44 It was one of a small number of castles which acted as administrative centres for his massive estates, of which the honor of Tutbury remained one of the most significant (see Chapter 2). His wealth meant that Thomas was also in a position to spend money on construction at several of his castles, and even to build entirely new ones. For example, Thomas built a new castle at Melbourne in Derbyshire in 1313–14, protecting the eastern flank of his holdings in the area as well as the eastern approach to Tutbury, although the Melbourne estate itself had earlier been transferred in a complicated series of grants to his supporter Sir Robert de Holland and his heirs, and then granted back for the use of Thomas within his own lifetime.45 In the same year that he built Melbourne castle, Thomas also built a new gatehouse at Tutbury Castle, spending £100 on building a ‘new tower above the gate’, bringing in 4,267 ashlars from the nearby quarry at Winshill for the purpose, and also using 45 alders from Needwood Forest for the scaffolding.46 This was almost certainly the core of the gatehouse which stands today, although this was later modified (see below and Chapter 8). Like other gatehouses of the time, this was apparently constructed with a view to residence at least as much as fortification, apparently with windows on each face of the first-storey chambers and, if a much later

Robert declined to join Simon de Montfort when he defeated Henry III and Edward at Lewes, and Robert was even briefly imprisoned by de Montfort. However, he continued to act on his own behalf, raiding Edward’s lands and defeating a royal army near Chester before submitting to Henry on December 24th 1264. He was eventually released from imprisonment and allowed to redeem his lands on payment of a substantial fine. However, rather than learning from this experience, he almost immediately rebelled again, and was again captured and imprisoned in May 1266, while his lands were again forfeit, although technically redeemable on payment of a fine, this time assigned to the king’s younger son Edmund, who also received the lands of Simon de Montfort, who had been killed at the Battle of Evesham. Robert’s imprisonment lasted nearly three years on this occasion, and he was obliged to pay a rather larger fine to redeem his lands, reflecting his repeated disloyalty and lawlessness, and specifically his breach of the terms of his previous pardon (on comparatively generous terms) by Henry III in 1265.42 Although provision was made for Robert to redeem his lands, it seems likely that Henry’s intention was that the confiscation should be permanent, since Robert was released into the custody of Edmund, Henry’s younger son, to whom the proceeds of Robert’s fine had been   Ann. Dunst. 224; Dobrowolski 1993, 4.   Met. Chron. ii, 741–45; Mosley 1832, 17; Powicke 1947, ii, 457–58; Golob 1984, 323–25; Dobrowolski 1993, 5–6. 41   FH ii, 488–89; Mosley 1832, 17; Powicke 1947, ii, 462; Golob 1984, 324–25, Dobrowolski 1993, 6. 42  CPR 1258–66, 409, 503, 517–18, 522, 597, 612, 622, 672; DBM, 325– 27; Met. Chron. ii, 770–71; Powicke 1947, ii, 523; Dobrowolski 1993, 7–19. 39 40

  DL 29/1/3, m.4; DL 42/2, f. 93; Mosley 1832, 62–63.   Somerville 1953, 18, 79, 352; Maddicott 1970, 219–21, 338, 341–42, 345, 347; Tringham 2007, 15. 45   Maddicott 1971, 455–56. 46   DL 29/1/3/m.12; Birrell 1962, 115; Somerville 1973, 7. 43 44

96

Chapter 6: History of the Castle

Plate 6.4 ‘Tutbury Castle’ by Paul Sandby, 1793 (BM) illustration is to be believed, even a substantial groundfloor window overlooking the steep north-western slope of Castle Hill (Plate 6.4).

that the hall in question was situated much closer to the chapel than the later great hall complex at the south end of the castle. 48 However, references from a few years later include both a great hall, with a great chamber at its end, and another hall ‘near the well’ in addition to chambers for the steward and constable, a lodging for the receiver, plus a variety of functional buildings including old and new stables, grange, larder and charcoal-house.49 This suggests that there were at least two buildings labelled as halls, so the great hall may at this time have been located at the southern end, as later, with a second hall between the well and the chapel. However, there is also the possibility that there were two separate chapels, the location of the second one remaining uncertain. This possibility arises from the fact that the chapel was apparently dedicated to St Mary in the late 13th century, but to St Peter in the 14th century and in repeated references thereafter. 50 Unless the 13th-century references confuse the name of the castle chapel with that of the priory, or unless the chapel was rededicated, this suggests that at some point there were two chapels within the castle. Certainly it was within the chapel of St Peter that Thomas of Lancaster was recorded in 1318 as establishing a chantry for himself and his family as well as for the souls of his grandparents Henry III and Eleanor.51 Rather than a new foundation, this may have been a change to the remit

In the same year, a new stable was built at Tutbury Castle, paid for out of receipts from the honor, at a cost of £9. The stable measured 120ft by 22ft, and may well be the stable in the middle bailey recorded on a plan of 1584-5 (Plate 6.3). An old stable at Tutbury was also repaired at a cost of £1.17.0, and another within Yoxall Ward in Needwood Forest at a cost of £3.47 This expenditure on stables reflects the development of Tutbury and its environs as a major centre for horse breeding under the house of Lancaster. This may have begun under Edmund, especially since two of the stables referred to in 1313–14 were being repaired, rather than newly established. Nevertheless, it was under Thomas that Tutbury became a major stud, later revitalized by Henry VII and again by Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, and surviving until its dispersal c 1650 under the Commonwealth in the aftermath of the Civil War (see below and Chapter 2). Around the same time, repairs were carried out to a number of buildings. These included repairs to a doorway between the chapel and a hall, to the earl’s oratory, and to a free-standing bell-tower. The doorway between the chapel and the hall is probably the blocked up doorway in the south wall of the chancel (see Chapter 8) and suggests

  DL 29/1/3, m. 4; Tringham 2007, 25.   Somerville 1973, 8. 50   CPR1281–92, 385; Mosley 1832, 235–37; Tringham 2007, 109. 51   CPR 1317–21, 203–4; Tringham 2007, 109. 48 49

  Birrell 1962, 169.

47

97

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ of an existing chantry for which his father Edmund had received a patent in c 1282.52

he returned there himself in November 1322, December 1323 and January 1325.54 As an attainted traitor, all of the property held by Thomas was forfeited to the crown, and the records pertaining to his estates were examined from July 1322, to allow Edward’s officers to establish exactly what property Thomas had possessed. As one of the major administrative centres under Thomas, Tutbury Castle held a substantial archive, and although the records themselves were subsequently lost, a surviving list indicates that the Tutbury archive included the surviving de Ferrers and de Montfort archives, as well as a portion of the records of both Edmund and Thomas of Lancaster.55 On July 9th, around the same time that the process of evaluating these records began, the honor of Tutbury was granted to the king’s younger son John of Eltham, while a few days earlier William Davy, one of the clerks responsible for the removal of Thomas’s treasure from the castle, was appointed as receiver for the castles of Tutbury, Donington and Melbourne.56 With the castle falling so quickly into Edward’s hands, and with Thomas himself dispatched so quickly thereafter, it was clearly intended even before the grant to John of Eltham that the castle should be exploited rather than destroyed, and there is no record of any significant damage to the castle at this time. However, it is recorded that there was an accidental fire in the ‘high tower’ (presumably the donjon on the motte) after the departure of the king in December 1323.57 Repairs to an unspecified ‘tower’ at Tutbury Castle are recorded in 1337, and it is likely, in the absence of any earlier record of repairs, that this work was intended to make good the damage of 1323.58

The establishment of a family chantry is typical of both the ostentatious public piety and the sense of dynastic identity which were common amongst the medieval aristocracy. Nevertheless, the establishment of a chantry for Henry III stressed the fact that Thomas himself was of royal descent, and his position as first cousin to Edward II, combined with both his own inherited wealth and that of his wife, meant that Thomas was naturally one of the most prominent and powerful figures in the kingdom. Together with his own ambition, it also made him a natural focus for the widespread baronial opposition to Edward’s policy of showering rank and position on his favourites rather than on the established aristocracy. After years of undermining and opposing his cousin’s position, Thomas stepped over the line into open rebellion at the beginning of 1322. Since the events of 1322 led directly to the deposition of the Tutbury hoard, they are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, but it is worth noting here that once again the strategic importance of Tutbury’s position brought it into a direct role in civil war. Although Thomas held lands across much of England, his greatest strength lay in the north of England and the north Midlands, while Edward had firm control further south, especially once he had crushed Thomas’s allies in the Welsh Marches. A natural dividing line between the two spheres of influence was provided by the River Trent, which in March 1322 was flooded as a result of the winter weather, providing an additional barrier to Edward’s army. One of the most important crossing points of the Trent was at Burton, and nearby Tutbury Castle controlled both Burton and the road to the north west through the Peak District. It is therefore unsurprising that Thomas chose to make his stand at Burton Bridge, close to his castles of Tutbury and Melbourne. However, his army was routed at Burton Bridge on March 10th, having been taken completely by surprise by Edward crossing the Trent upstream, and betrayed by his formerly loyal retainer Robert de Holland. The speed of his defeat meant that Thomas was unable to reorganize his defence around Tutbury Castle itself, and he fled north, only to be captured at Boroughbridge on March 16th, and executed in his own castle at Pontefract on March 22nd.

Thomas had no children, so his heir was his younger brother Henry, who had not supported his brother’s rebellion. Although Thomas had taken up arms against the king, the king had not formally declared war on Thomas in return. Henry was thus able to make the argument that Thomas had been entitled under the terms of Magna Carta to a fair trial, and that on that basis his summary trial, without the right to defend himself, had been illegal. From that it followed that the forfeiture of his lands was also illegal, and that Henry therefore had a right to his family inheritance, although the de Lacy lands, which Thomas had held in right of his wife Alice, remained technically her property (see Chapter 2). Henry apparently recognized that he was unlikely to recover Tutbury once it was granted to John of Eltham, but he did secure the title of earl of Leicester in 1324, together with the earldom and honor of Leicester, with the exception of Kenilworth Castle. He also received some of the rights in Huntingdonshire associated with the earldom of Lancaster since its creation, but failed to secure either the honor or the earldom of Lancaster.59

Edward II took possession of Tutbury Castle on March 11th, and remained there for two nights before proceeding to Derby and then north to Pontefract for the summary trial and execution of Thomas. The castle was surrendered without a fight by its constable, Philip Barrington, but extensive looting took place in the intervening period, both in the castle itself and in much of the surrounding area.53 It was during this period that three barrels of coin contain around £1,500 were removed to the priory for greater safety, only to disappear from view completely until their recovery from the river Dove nearby in 1831 (see Chapter 2). Edward’s officials remained in the castle, and

 Tringham 2007, 16.   CPR 1321–24, 191; DL 41/1/35; Somerville 1953, 27. 56   CFR 1319–27, 139–40; CCR iii, 448; Dobrowolski 1993, 247, 250. 57  Williams 2006, 8. 58   DL 28/32/15. 59   Somerville 1953, 31–32; Fowler 1969, 24; Dobrowolski 1993, 240–43, 294–95. 54 55

  Mosley 1832, 235–36.   Somerville 1953, 27–28; Tringham 2007, 16.

52 53

98

Chapter 6: History of the Castle However, this proved not to be a lasting settlement. Edward’s favour towards the Despensers provoked a further round of baronial rebellion in 1326, under the leadership of Edward’s wife Isabella and her lover Roger Mortimer. Henry joined the rebels, and had assumed the title of earl of Lancaster, as well as earl of Leicester, by October 26th, when the young Edward III was chosen as king in the place of his father. Henry was responsible for the capture of Edward II at Neath on November 16th, and took him to Kenilworth Castle where he held him prisoner. In this situation, it is hardly surprising that in December 1326 he secured the restoration at the king’s pleasure of the honor and castle of Tutbury amongst other properties held by his brother. This was followed in 1327 by the reversal of his brother’s attainder, and the full restoration of the estates and titles held by Thomas at the time of his death, with the exception of those held by Alice de Lacy, and a few other minor exceptions. Henry was also appointed guardian of the young Edward III, and made head of the regency council.60 A falling out with the Mortimers forced Henry into nominal conflict with the king, and to the temporary sequestration of his lands and castles on January 16th 1329, but he had already secured the restoration of his property by February 6th, and this was followed by the grant of all liberties and free customs enjoyed by Edmund, and following the execution of Mortimer later that year, Henry thereafter retained the king’s favour, although blindness and other health problems led to a much reduced public role in the 1330s and 1340s.61 Henry seems to have been rather more closely associated with Leicester (where he founded a hospital, part funded with revenue from the honor of Tutbury) than with Tutbury, but he probably visited the castle for the wedding of his daughter Mary on or before September 4th, 1334, and he certainly visited in 1335, and probably also on other occasions, as did his three daughters.62

abroad pursuing the continental ambitions of Edward III, and Henry was active (and often successful) both as a military leader and as a diplomat, and he was rewarded, inter alia, with the lordship of Bergerac, which he himself had captured from the French. This meant that he had little time to spend on his English estates, although these were enhanced by the restoration of the earldom of Lincoln following the death of Alice de Lacy, while he was also rewarded for his service to the king by being granted the title of duke of Lancaster on March 6th 1351. This was the first English duchy to be created for anyone other than a son of a king, and reflected Henry’s status as one of the leading figures at Edward’s court, after Edward himself and the Black Prince.66

Henry was succeeded in 1345 by his son Henry of Grosmont. The younger Henry is first recorded as visiting Tutbury during a tour of his father’s estates in 1330, and his only other recorded visit was in 1358.63 This apparent lack of interest is probably misleading. Henry was created earl of Derby on March 16th 1337,64 and the repairs to the castle in that year (see above) may indicate that it was being restored to a condition befitting what had always been the chief castle of the earldom. Henry also seems to have assumed control of the honor of Tutbury during his father’s lifetime, perhaps at the same time that he received the earldom, since he was in a position to grant various liberties and privileges within the forest of Needwood to the burgesses of Tutbury on an unrecorded date in 1342–43.65 However, much of Henry’s life was spent

John of Gaunt and the Minstrels’ Court

Although he had achieved unprecedented status with his elevation to a dukedom, Henry of Lancaster had no male heir, although a single reference suggests that he had a son who died in infancy.67 However, he had two daughters, Maud, born in 1341 and Blanche, born in 1347. This raised the possibility that the massive landholdings built up over nearly a century under three generations of the house of Lancaster would be divided on Henry’s death (see Chapter 2), and Henry took precautions to ensure that his estate would be disposed of as he intended, appointing a number of eminent trustees, and enfeoffing a number of lands (including Tutbury) to ensure that the executors had the means to manage his bequests, which benefited his foundation of Newarke College in Leicester as well as his two daughters.68 In the event, when he died of plague on March 23rd 1361, his estate did not remain divided long, as Maud died childless just over a year later on April 10th 1362, so that the whole inheritance passed to her sister Blanche, and through her to her husband John of Gaunt, third son of Edward III, who was created 2nd duke of Lancaster on November 13th the same year.69

As one of the king’s younger sons, John of Gaunt had been created earl of Richmond as an infant in 1342, and the untimely deaths of his older brothers made him the preeminent figure at court during the final years of his father Edward III and during the minority of his nephew Richard II. Nevertheless, it was the Lancaster inheritance through Blanche that gave him his real wealth and power, and which gave their son, Henry Bolingbroke, the resources to seize the throne in 1399. In return, John reinvested a portion of that wealth on building works on his many properties, including Tutbury Castle. Although his involvement at court meant that he was obliged to spend much of his time in or close to London, either at the Savoy palace or, in his later years, at Hertford, he also took the time to travel around his widespread estates, and it was under John and

  Mosley 1832, 58; Somerville 1953, 31–33; Fowler 1969, 24–25; Dobrowolski 1993, 296–98. 61   Somerville 1953, 36–37; Fowler 1969, 25–26; Dobrowolski 1993, 332–40; Tringham 2007, 16. 62   Mosley 1832, 59; Fowler 1969, 27, 256; Tringham 2007, 16. 63   JGR I, 740; Fowler 1969, 27, 290. 64   CCR 1327-41, 390; Somerville 1953, 37; 65   Mosley 1932, 60. 60

  Somerville 1953, 39–40; Fowler 1969, passim.   Fowler 1969, 216. 68   Fowler 1969, 217–18. 69   Somerville 1953, 47–50; Fowler 1969, 218; Goodman 1992, 43. 66 67

99

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ his successors that Tutbury Castle saw the height of its importance. Gaunt was at Tutbury on July 1st 1362, and again for several days in August the same year, establishing what seems to have become a regular pattern of visiting his Midland estates in summer, and particularly of visiting Tutbury during the patronal festival of St Mary the Virgin on August 15th–16th.70 During that summer, he apparently assessed the condition of his newly acquired castles, including Tutbury, and made arrangements for extensive repairs, impressing carpenters, masons and other craftsmen to carry out the work, with the permission of the king. The exact nature of these repairs is unknown, and none of the surviving masonry can be dated to this period with any certainty. Later tradition has labelled the gatehouse as ‘John O’ Gaunt’s Gate’ but, as discussed above, the gatehouse appears to have been constructed for Thomas of Lancaster in 1313–14, and the association with Gaunt is probably entirely spurious, based on his known association with the castle. However, although very little of the top storey of the gatehouse remains, it does appear to represent a second phase of building (see Chapter 8) and this may conceivably represent an extension in Gaunt’s time. He returned the following year, but is not then recorded as visiting until the autumn of 1368. John spent much of the intervening period on campaign in France, returning abruptly on September 12th 1368 on learning that Blanche was seriously ill. In the event, her illness proved to be terminal, and she died at Tutbury, from where Gaunt apparently wrote to a number of bishops requesting them to order prayers for her soul.71 Blanche was commemorated not only in the Book of the Duchess, an early work by Geoffrey Chaucer (who enjoyed the patronage of both Blanche and John) but also in a tomb of Tutbury alabaster (see Chapter 2) in St Paul’s Cathedral, costing a total of £486,72 equivalent to over six months gross income from the honor of Tutbury at the time. The death of Blanche in no way diminished Gaunt’s fondness for Tutbury. He was there again on June 24th 1371,73 and he and his family seem to have been regular visitors over the next few summers. Blanche had left him with two daughters, Philippa and Elizabeth, and a son, Henry, but in September 1371 John was married for a second time, to Constance, daughter and heiress of the murdered Pedro the Cruel of Castile, and from January 1372 he adopted the title king of Castile and León in addition to his English titles.74 Gaunt clearly planned to visit Tutbury that summer, since on June 7th he ordered Robert atte More, receiver of Tutbury, to lay in supplies of wine there in preparation for his stay, although it is   JGR I, 255, 330–33; Walker 1990, 217; Goodman 1992, 43.   Somerville 1953, 56; Somerville 1973, 8; Goodman 1992, 46; Tringham 2007, 16–17. 72   Mosley 1832, 72; Cheetham 2004, 17. 73   JGR I, 740. 74   Goodman 1992, 48–49.

uncertain whether he did in fact visit, as various factors may have obliged him to spend the summer in the south of England.75 A storm that winter caused damage both to the castle and to Needwood Forest. On February 10th 1373 Gaunt ordered the castle bailiff, William Peek to carry out repairs to houses and ‘bretises’ (wooden towers) in the castle, and that the same time ordered officials in Needwood Forest, Duffield Frith and the High Peak to prevent local people from helping themselves to trees brought down by the storm, as the timbers could serve for the repair of the castle.76 Further orders to Robert atte More followed on April 23rd and July 6th. Robert was to continue with repairs to the castle and to prepare it for a visit by John’s ‘very dear and well-beloved companion’ the queen and his three ‘dear children’, including the provision of good wine, food, and as much as possible of the wood broken down by the wind, presumably as firewood.77 Again, it is uncertain whether Gaunt himself visited that summer. However, he was certainly there for several days in August 1374, with letters placing him there at least from August 10th to August 21st, during which time he gave orders amongst other things for the disposal of 40 oak trees within Needwood Forest.78 It would seem that repairs following the storm were not yet complete. At Ravensdale on August 26th, Gaunt gave orders that hunting lodges at Belmote should be taken down, and the lead re-used for repairs to both Kenilworth and Tutbury Castles. He gave further orders later that year and the next for Robert atte More to carry out repairs at Tutbury Castle to damage caused by ‘grantz tempests de ventz’, and for the construction (or possibly restoration) of a garden and vineyard for the queen’s use and for the creation of a new park below the castle, to be stocked with ten bucks and 20 does from Castle Hay Park. This latter was probably in anticipation of his own requirements for hunting, as he was at Tutbury himself again on August 21st 1375.79 Records are less complete for the late 1370s, when in any case Gaunt was active in France and at court, and also from the mid 1380s onwards. However, he was at Tutbury on August 2nd and again from August 10th to August 23rd 1380, and later that year gave orders concerning further repairs to the castle, including ‘le pount dehors la seconde porte’, presumably the bridge into the Inner Bailey.80 John certainly planned another visit in summer 1381, although his plans were disrupted by the Great Uprising (see below). He may also have intended visiting in person in 1382 when he ordered two tuns of Gascon wine to be sent to Leicester Castle and Tutbury Castle respectively for the use of his ‘treschere et bien amee damoyselle, Amye de Melbourne’,

  JGR I, 984; Goodman 1992, 50.   JGR I, 1161–63. 77   JGR I, 1236, 1369. 78   JGR I, 113–21, 630–33, 1458–69, 1536. 79   JGR I, 1473, 1550, 1722–23, 1742; Mosley1832, 75. 80   JGR II, 7, 344–56, 373, 419, 526–27, 964, 1100, 1161.

70

75

71

76

100

Chapter 6: History of the Castle and he certainly visited Tutbury again in the summer of 1383.81 It was during his visit in 1380 that John introduced, or perhaps formalized, an institution which survived at Tutbury for many centuries. This was the Minstrels’ Court, presided over by the King of the Minstrels. On August 22nd, John gave the following orders: John, by the grace of God King of Castile and León, Duke of Lancaster, to all them who shall see or hear these our letters, greeting. Know ye, that we have ordained, constituted and assigned to our well-beloved King of the Minstrels in our Honour of Tutbury, who is, or for the time being shall be, to apprehend and arrest all the minstrels in our said honour and franchises, that refuse to do the service and attendance which appertains to them to do from ancient times at Tutbury aforesaid, yearly on the days of the Assumption of Our Lady, giving and granting to the said King of the Minstrels, for the time being, full power and commandment to make them reasonably to justify, and to constrain them to perform, their services and attendance, in manner as belongeth to them, and has been here used, and of ancient times accustomed. In witness whereof, (etc.) Given under our privy seal, at our castle of Tutbury, the 22 day of August, 4 Ric. 82 Gaunt had his own household minstrels, notably pipers and clarioners,83 and this should rather be seen as an instrument for the regulation and licensing of minstrels not attached to private households. Itinerant minstrels were seen as a potential threat to law and order, and there were repeated attempts from Edward II down to Henry VI to regulate minstrels nationally along the lines indicated here.84 Some indication of the standing of minstrels in this period is provided by the fact that a similar established right to license minstrels in Chester also apparently covered prostitutes, with a difference of only ½d in the fee for licensing the two trades.85 Gaunt refers to ‘ancient times’, and a gathering of minstrels at Tutbury coinciding with the patronal Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (August 15th) as early as 1314.86 The origins of the minstrels’ court may thus go back to Thomas of Lancaster or even earlier. However, the fact that John of Gaunt chose to make this pronouncement a week after the Feast of the Assumption suggests that he saw the need for a greater degree of regulation, perhaps following a Minstrels’ Court at which standards were seen to have lapsed. Gaunt had already in 1372 granted the right to license minstrels (with the attendant fees) in Newcastle-under-Lyme to ‘William de Brompton, our burgess of the said town, and Margery his wife’ with all the rights that ‘all the ancestors   JGR II, 533, 688, 900.   JGR II, 1077; Plot 1686, 436; Mosley 1832, 77; Rastall 1968, 5. 83   Goodman 1992, 318. 84   Rastall 1968, 9–10. 85   Rastall 1968, 2–4. 86   DL 29/1/3, m.5; Tringham 2007, 20.

of the said Margery have been wont and ought to have from time immemorial.’87 Again, the emphasis seems to be on the confirmation of an existing right rather than the introduction of something entirely new. What does seem unusual is that Gaunt’s institution at Tutbury included a ‘king of the minstrels’ to license the other minstrels. This has been linked with the fact that John himself claimed the title ‘King of Castile and León’, as shown in the writ concerning the Minstrels’ Court.88 However, given that attempts had already been made to introduce greater regulation of minstrels nationally, and that the only other comparable minstrel’s court came within the jurisdiction of the county palatine of Chester (see above), it seems more likely that the peculiar status of the Minstrels’ Court at Tutbury had more to do with John’s position as duke of Lancaster than with his Spanish claims. When Henry of Grosmont was created duke of Lancaster in 1351, he was also given palatine powers (see Chapter 2), and although these were originally only supposed to apply to the county of Lancashire, rather than to the other lands held by the duke, John of Gaunt and his successors found it more convenient to apply them across the whole of their lands. Since from 1399 the duchy was also held by the Crown, effectively removing the potential conflict between Crown rights and duchy rights, this extension of the palatine powers became firmly established across the whole duchy, including Tutbury. In the longer term, the Tutbury Court indeed seems to have taken on a national role, since by the early 17th century it only excluded from its remit those areas where other liberties applied, such as the Chester Court already mentioned, while a portion of any fines exacted by the Court were due to the Crown (presumably originally in right of the duchy of Lancaster).89 The exact nature of the Court in Gaunt’s time is uncertain, although we have a detailed eye-witness account of its composition and of the attendant ceremonies from the late 17th century.90 This involved the election of 24 jurors, twelve each from Staffordshire and ‘the other counties’ (later Derbyshire), who in turn elected four stewards, two from each shire, and a king of the minstrels, who was to be one of the previous year’s stewards, drawn from Derbyshire or Staffordshire in alternating years. The officers of the Court also publicly reiterated the traditional standards and values associated with the Court, and the Court passed judgement on any minstrels accused of having beached the ‘ancient orders’ of the Court, with any fines divided between the Crown and the stewards. The court was attended, and the duchy’s interests represented, by the bailiff of the manor and the steward of the honor. This procedure survived as late as 1772, when the Derbyshire jurors refused to attend, although the Staffordshire minstrels maintained a version of the Court into the early 19th century.91

81 82

  Rastall 1968, 5.  Tringham 2007, 20. 89   Plot 1686, 438; Tringham 2007, 20. 90   Plot 1686, 435–39. 91  Tringham 2007, 20–21. 87 88

101

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ Plot’s description of the organization of the Minstrels’ Court, together with its clear function of maintaining professional standards, makes this sound very much like a trade guild. Although such guilds existed by the 14th century they were more typical of the 15th century and later, especially where musicians were concerned.92 Furthermore, the 1380 writ talks only of the services due from the minstrels, and not of their rights, nor explicitly of professional standards, and there is nothing in the document that suggests that Gaunt was interested in much more than the revenue to be gained from compulsory licensing. It is therefore likely that the Minstrels’ Court in the form described by Plot in 1686 represents a later development derived from the institution of the late 14th century, rather than a fossilized customs over 300 years old. Closely linked to the Minstrels’ Court was the custom of the Tutbury bull-running, which was again described by Plot in some detail, although first recorded in 1382. The prior of Tutbury was obliged to provide a bull for the minstrels which, mutilated, and greased to make it more difficult to catch, and infuriated by pepper, was released for the minstrels to chase. If a minstrel succeeded in catching and keeping hold of the bull before it crossed the River Dove, the minstrels had possession of the bull. If not, the bull reverted to the prior. By Plot’s time the responsibility to provide the bull fell to the earls (and subsequently dukes) of Devonshire, who maintained this responsibility until the custom was suppressed in 1778, although around the end of the 17th century the custom was modified such that the minstrels received the cash value of the bull, while the bull itself was returned to the earl and subsequently slaughtered and the meat distributed to the poor at Christmas.93 This responsibility may have passed to the Cavendish family as the purchasers of the priory estate.94 However, given the role of the steward of the honor of Tutbury in the Minstrels’ Court as described above, and also that successive members of the Cavendish family held that role, it is possible that the prior’s responsibility was transferred ex officio to the steward of the honor following the dissolution of the priory, and that it subsequently became linked directly with the position of earl/duke of Devonshire. Plot argued that this custom was introduced by John of Gaunt from Spain to please his Castilian wife, and that the Spanish had in turn derived the custom from the Romans, who according to him held a similar ritual around the same time of year on August 12th, having themselves ultimately derived the idea (under Julius Caesar) from Thessaly.95 The attribution to John of Gaunt was followed by Mosley, but other commentators have suggested that any similarity to Spanish bullfighting is coincidental, and that the bull-running fits into a broader English tradition of bull-baiting and other forms of cruelty to animals. While this cannot be certain, the

fact that the bull-running was originally associated with the priory rather than the honor is a persuasive argument against associating the introduction directly with Gaunt, especially since the custom coincided with the priory’s patronal festival.96 Nevertheless, the popular association with Gaunt says something about local perceptions of his influence, in the same way as the apparently false attribution of John O’Gaunt’s Gateway within the castle.97 For all his wealth and influence, John of Gaunt was not an unqualified success. There was a marked lack of English success in the French wars of the 1370s, including expensive failures under Gaunt’s personal leadership in 1378–80, and Gaunt’s interests in Castile (which was at times allied to France against England) meant that there was at least a perceived conflict of interest in the successful prosecution of the French war.98 These unsuccessful wars were funded through poll taxes in 1377, 1379 and 1380, a period in which Gaunt was prominent at court, and Gaunt added to his unpopularity by his heavy-handed approach both to the Church (over the Poll Tax, and over his interventions on behalf of the reformer John Wycliffe) and the Liberties of London.99 The end of Edward III’s reign and the opening of Richard II’s reign were both characterized by widespread corruption at court, and while Gaunt does not, in hindsight, seem to have feathered his own nest any more than this contemporaries, his immense power and influence at time of weak kingship made him a popular scapegoat for failings within the state, along with the chancellor, Archbishop Simon Sudbury, and the Treasurer, Sir Robert Hales. All three were particular targets of the rebels when popular resentment at the combination of poll taxes, political corruption and military failure turned to violence with the outbreak of the Great Uprising in June 1381.100 Sudbury and Hales were killed, and it is fairly certain that Gaunt would have met the same fate, had he been in London rather than the Scottish Borders. As it was, his Savoy Place in London was attacked on June 13th. The palace and furnishings were destroyed, and gold and silver items were chopped up and smashed before being thrown into sewers and into the Thames – the motive seems to have been more the destruction of Gaunt’s wealth than theft and self-enrichment. The estimated value of the contents of the Savoy at the time was around £10,000, roughly equivalent to the gross annual income from Gaunt’s estates, while a large quantity of records relating to the duchy estates under Gaunt and his predecessors were also lost in the fire.101 Attacks on Gaunt’s property were not confined to London. His Norfolk estates were attacked, as was Corpus Christi College in Cambridge, which had Gaunt’s patronage, and a group of rebels set out towards Leicester, with the aim of treating Leicester castle the same way as the Savoy. Gaunt’s wardrobe-keeper was sufficiently concerned to   Mosley 1832, 84, 372; Shaw 1798, 53–55; Tringham 2007, 100.   Goodman 1992, 24–25. 98   Dunn 2002, 38–41. 99   Dunn 2002, 42, 45–48; Jones 2009, 33–35. 100   Dunn 2002, 56, 73–80. 101   Goodman 1992, 78–80; Dunn 2003, 84–8. 96 97

  Rastall 1968, 12–13.   Plot 1686,439–40; Mosley 1832, 84–90; Tringham 2007, 100. 94  Tringham 2007, 100. 95   Plot 1686, 440. 92 93

102

Chapter 6: History of the Castle remove the valuables from Leicester Castle to Leicester Abbey on June 16th–17th, in the hope that they would be safer there, although the abbot refused to accept them, and they had to be returned to the castle. In the event, the rebels did not actually attack, perhaps because the townsmen of Leicester successfully mustered a militia to guard the town. However, Gaunt himself was mistakenly informed that both his castle and possessions in Leicester had been destroyed.102 It is probably against this background that one must interpret Gaunt’s orders at Berwick on June 19 for the provisioning of Tutbury Castle in anticipation of him visiting, although in the event he fled to Scotland to wait out the uprising, rather than moving south to Tutbury as planned.103 However, given the swift turn of events, it is possible that he was simply anticipating his usual summer visit to Tutbury, unaware that the Midlands were under threat from the uprising.

in the final stages of this phase of construction, but was probably true even of the construction of the curtain wall. Even in its current ruined state, Tutbury Castle dominates the landscape as seen from the flat ground to the north and north west, most of which was held by Gaunt and his successors. With the original keep on the motte still intact, and with a full length of wall between the gatehouse and the motte, the view from the north would have been even more impressive, and highly visible for many miles, while at the same time providing a dramatic backdrop close up when hunting in the Great Park and Little Park below the castle.

Apart from the development of the Minstrels’ Court, Gaunt’s main contribution to the castle was the beginning of a building programme which, over the course of the next 60 years, saw the inner bailey fully fortified, with most of the structures which survive today built during this period. The first phase of recorded construction was a new section of wall in 1393–95, when payments of £56.15.0½, £61.15.9½ and £68.0.8½ were recorded for work on the wall.104 Unfortunately the location of this section of wall is not recorded, but it seems likely that it was at the northern end of the inner bailey, close to the gatehouse. As discussed below and in Chapter 8, the building programme between 1400 and c 1460 saw building on the north-west side of the castle extending around the south side first to the South Tower and subsequently to the North Tower. The construction of the curtain wall between the North Tower and the gatehouse is not specifically recorded at any point, and this may be because some or all of this section had been constructed in the 1390s. However, financial accounts for Tutbury do not survive from every year in the 1450s, and it may well be that this section was completed at the same time as the North Tower. In that case, the work of the 1390s must have been to the west of the gatehouse, as the first stage of the building work extending gradually around the castle. If so, it is interesting that construction began on that side. The steep drop on the north-western side of the castle plateau meant that it would be almost impossible to attack the castle from that side even without stone walls (as shown by the successful defence of the castle in 1646, after the wall on this side had collapsed and been replaced by a palisade), whereas the east side of the inner bailey was much more easily approached, albeit that approach was defended by the outer baileys.

Gaunt would have seen the beginnings of this work as he was in Tutbury again in January 1398.105 However, the bulk of the rebuilding work took place under his successors. As discussed in Chapter 2 above, the duchy of Lancaster was retained as effectively a private financial resource separate from the royal estates when Gaunt’s son Henry Bolingbroke seized the crown as Henry IV in 1399, and the honor of Tutbury remained one of the most valuable groups of estates within the duchy. In addition to its role as the caput of the honor, Tutbury was now effectively a royal residence, and while a number of duchy castles were to some extent allowed to decline in the 15th century, building work on a large scale was concentrated on those, like Tutbury, which served as royal residences and/or estate centres.106 Henry’s intention to continue the developments at Tutbury Castle was evident as early as 1400, when a commission was issued to the constable and receiver of Tutbury, and to Robert of Skillington to take masons and other workmen from other royal sites. Skillington had previously been master mason at Kenilworth and at St Mary’s College Leicester, and is likely to have directed the works recorded at Tutbury over the next few years.107 Henry IV was at Tutbury himself in 1404 and again in 1405,108 and whether or not work had already begun before his arrival, there are repeated entries for expenditure on the construction of a ‘new wall’ and tower in 1404–6, using stone from Repton, and costing somewhere between £500 and £600 in total. The exact location of this is uncertain, but given the recorded areas of building in the years that followed, it seems likely that this was part of the wall on the northwest side, with the tower being the small tower on that side recorded in the 1580s (see below).109 This assumption is supported by reference to the new wall near ‘les portes’ towards the west in 1412–13.110 The foundations of much

The initial focus on the north-western side suggests that the purpose of the building programme was as much concerned with display as with defence. That certainly fits with the domestic character of the South Tower and North Tower   Goodman 1992, 319; Dunn 2002, 121–22, 128; Jones 2009, 171, 178.   JGR II, 533; Goodman 1992, 81–83. 104   DL 29/11982, 11985. 102 103

A ROYAL CASTLE UNDER LANCASTER AND YORK The House of Lancaster

  CPR 1396–99, 522.   Brown et al 1963, 179. 107   CPR 1388–92, 449; 1396–99, 74; CPR 1399–1401, 184, 230, 247, 371; 1401–5, 133; Brown et al 1963, 847–48. 108   DL42/16 f. 20; Somerville 1973, 8. 109   PRO DL 29/ 728/11987–88; 729/11995–96, 12001, 12004; 730/ 12006, 12008, 12011–12; 732/12029. Brown et al 1963, 848. 110   DL 29/12017. 105 106

103

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ of this length of wall remain visible below the fence on that side of the inner bailey, but the tower itself has not been securely located. Work continued on the new wall between 1408 and 1420,111 by which time it presumably extended all the way to the motte, and possibly beyond, as work between 1420 and 1442 is recorded on the wall at the south side of the castle, at an annual cost of around £30.112 The presence of the workmen for the wall proved vital in 1437–38, when emergency repairs were carried out on the castle well, which was in danger of collapse towards the bottom, so that the well had to be constantly emptied to keep it dry enough for repairs to be effected.113 Although there is no record of construction of a hall at this time, or of substantial expenditure other than on the wall, it seems likely that this length of wall was always intended to accommodate a new great hall, since the later adaptation of this area to incorporate the house of the 1630s seems to respect medieval features which suggest the presence of windows as part of the original design. Malcolm Hislop therefore argues (Chapter 8 below) that the great hall and chamber recorded in the 16th century were probably built as part of this phase of construction, although he notes the possibility of further reconstruction in the intervening period. As this section of the wall was being completed in 1441–42, planning began for the South Tower, under the supervision of the steward of the honor. Different possibilities were explored, including the siting of the tower on the footings of an earlier tower, for which we have no other documentation. However, it was eventually decided to locate the new tower ‘where there was no tower before’.114 Reference to alabaster in the rubble foundations of the old tower may have given rise to a surviving oral tradition of a ‘white tower’, made entirely of alabaster, although this might also be based on an mis-reading of ‘asteler’ (ashlar) as meaning alabaster. No record of such a tower can be traced, and alabaster is too soft a stone to build an entire structure with any stability, so the tradition of the white tower can probably be safely discounted. The exact location of the old tower is uncertain, and is perhaps concealed beneath the earth banks immediately to the east of the South Tower. However, the South Tower itself is perfectly sited to overlook the approach to the castle and the priory from the town, while also offering views south west across the parks to Needwood Forest. In addition to the views which the South Tower provided from the castle, it also provided a new view of the castle, as it was one of the most visible (and impressive) elements of the castle as seen from the town below. The building is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8 below, but the notable feature is that its function was primarily domestic, rather than military. This is shown by the comparatively low height, with the ceiling of the upper

chambers no higher than the curtain walls to either side, the large windows on both the interior and exterior faces, and the ornate decorations around the two fireplaces. The upper floor formed a suite of rooms, with an outer chamber linked by a wall passage to a smaller inner chamber, which was linked in turn to a garderobe turret at the southwest corner, outside the curtain wall. A small spur off the garderobe passage provides the only nod to military function, as this terminates in a small gun loop. There is some dispute as to whether the gun loop is an original feature or an addition of the 17th century, but it is hard to see a function for this spur passage without it, and there is no clear evidence of rebuilding. However, if the gun loop was original, it is likely to be a fashion statement, showing that the builders were aware of recent military technology, rather than serving a functional purpose. The angle of the loop, together with the narrowness of the spur, meant that it would only have been possible to deploy a very small cannon pointed fairly tightly along the line of the south curtain wall. Work began on the tower in 1442, with 6,597 pre-cut ashlars brought in from the quarries at Winshill, and at the same time work commenced on the curtain wall to the east. The king’s master mason, Robert Westerley was consulted at the planning stages, as were the masons William Hamell and John Swillyngton from Pontefract, another duchy castle, and at this time the major royal castle in the north of England. However, the work itself was carried out by masons John Hedon, John Chekley, John Bushby and Robert Shyngle recorded as builders, with the receiver’s clerk John Paute acting as clerk of works. 115 Around the same time, repairs were carried out within the castle on the chambers of the steward, receiver and auditor of the honor.116 The idea of the tower as a set of high-status apartments must be seen in the light of a visit to the castle by Henry VI in July 1440, the year before planning for the new tower began. Henry had earlier visited Tutbury in August 1434,117 and there may be other unrecorded visits, and it is reasonable to assume that the upper floor was conceived of as a set of royal apartments. The tower was apparently completed around 1449, in which year the two ornamented fire-surrounds were brought in, with some difficulty, by ox cart from Winshill, while timber for the roof was fetched from Marchington. The cost of the tower up to that point was recorded at £575.118 In the interim, however, the castle had changed hands. Henry had in 1444 married Margaret of Anjou by proxy, and she was crowned a year later in London. Her marriage jointure, settled in March 1446, was largely drawn from the estates of the duchy of Lancaster, including the three great Midland honors of Tutbury, Leicester and Kenilworth, as well as an annual income from duchy revenue elsewhere.119   DL 29/402/6456 & 6457; Brown et al 1963, 848   DL 29/6456 117   Somerville 1973, 8. 118   DL29/403/646; Brown et al 1963, 848 119   Somerville 1953, 208–9; Griffiths 1998, 259; Maurer 2003, 18, 23; Castor 2010, 324, 327. 115

116

  DL29/730/12012; 732/12029   DL29/402/6451, 6452, 6454; Brown et al 1963, 848. 113   DL29/6453; Somerville1973, 20. 114   DL29/402/6451, 6455; Brown et al 1963, 848 111

112

104

Chapter 6: History of the Castle There is no record of any visit to Tutbury by Margaret in the early years of her marriage, although her recorded itinerary is far from complete. However, as the tensions caused by Henry’s incapacity to govern brought the rival factions closer to civil war, the Midland estates proved central to Margaret’s strategy when she sought to exercise power herself in her husband’s name. The grant in 1454 to her young son Prince Edward of the earldom of Chester broadened her powerbase in the Midlands. Margaret successfully intervened to help force the resignation of Richard, duke of York, as regent on February 25th 1456, but rather than remaining in London, chose to relocate to the Midlands, together with her son.120 She moved to Tutbury in late April or May 1456 (she was there by May 6th), before moving on later in the summer first to Chester (by June 7th), then to Coventry, where she was joined by her husband.121 As one of the largest cities in England, centrally located, and situated close to another of Margaret’s major castles at Kenilworth, Coventry provided an obvious base for the Lancastrian court (although her use of Coventry as an alternative capital cost her the crucial support of the Londoners) and Margaret spent most of her time at Coventry and elsewhere in her Midland powerbase until the Yorkist victory at Towton on March 29th 1461 led to the successful usurpation of Edward IV, and to Margaret and her son being forced into exile, while Margaret’s estates were confiscated by the new king, with the assent of Parliament.122 It is not recorded that Margaret visited Tutbury again during the interim, but the high cost of maintaining the royal court means that visits to her other major estate centres in the region cannot be ruled out. Certainly, one of the most visible reminders today of her power at this period is the North Tower at Tutbury Castle, which was still referred to in the early 16th century as ‘Queen Margaret’s Tower’.123 The tower may already have been under way by the time of her visit in 1456, or may have been planned at that point, but construction was certainly under way in 1457–58, the only year between 1449 and 1461 for which financial accounts survive. By the time that the accounts resume in 1461, the tower was apparently complete, as no mention is made of it then or in subsequent years. Like the South Tower, the North Tower was built of Winshill stone, and cost £155.10.2 in 1457–58. The same year also saw expenditure of £9.5.0 on a new garden.124 Again like the South Tower, the North Tower was designed more as a high-status apartment building than as a defensive structure, although in this case the chambers were arranged vertically as a series of single-chamber lodgings rather than side by side as a suite. Although the outer face of this tower no longer survives, the drawing of the castle prepared as part of Sir Ambrose Cave’s survey of 1562 shows large windows on the outside, matching those which partially survive on the inner face, together with decorative animal   Maurer 2003, 135–36; Castor 2010, 352–54.   Maurer 2003, 130; Castor 2010, 354–66. 122   Griffiths1998, 778; Maurer 2003, 201–2. 123   DL 14/6, f.4 Brown et al 1963, 849. 124   DL 29/403/6463, 6465; Brown et al 1963, 849.

heads towards the top of the tower. Directly aligned with the hollow way between the two outer baileys, which probably formed the main entrance to the castle at this time, the North Tower again seems to have been designed at least in part for its visual impact. Whether the tower was actually commissioned on Margaret’s direct orders, or simply completed the final element of the impressive building programme begun by John of Gaunt, it provides a suitable reflection of Margaret’s status and ambition at the height of her powers. The House of York As discussed in Chapter 2, control of both the honor of Tutbury and Tutbury Castle was handed to a succession of (perceived) Yorkist loyalists or allies between 1461 and 1485. The revenue from the honor continued to be a valuable resource, while placing the heartlands of Lancastrian support under Yorkist control helped to secure the position of the new dynasty. Otherwise, neither Edward IV nor his brother the duke of Clarence (who held the honor of Tutbury from 1461 to 1473) seem to have taken much interest in Tutbury. This may in part have been because the circuit of the inner bailey had recently been completed, and that there was no perceived need for further building, but it is clear that other parts of the castle were rather neglected. In February 1480, it was noted that the roof and floors of the ‘utter tower’ (presumably the outer gatehouse) were broken and likely to fall.125 However, no further substantial work was carried out at the castle until the reign of Richard III. Under Edward IV, Richard had been chief steward of the north parts of the duchy,126 and may have been personally familiar with Tutbury, although no visit is recorded. In 1484, the receiver of Tutbury, John Agard, spent the considerable sum of £919 on building work within the castle. It is not specified exactly what buildings this was spent on, but the payments were to carpenters, plasterers, carvers, bricklayers and plumbers, suggesting that the expenditure was on domestic buildings within the castle.127 Compared to the cost of the stone buildings earlier in the century, this suggests building works on a fairly massive scale, and this may have been repairs to existing structures, or new building, or a combination of the two. It seems likely that this included either replacement or substantial rebuilding of the Great Hall and associated buildings at the southern end of the inner bailey, since a further £271 was spent by the receiver in 1487–88 on ‘repairing a new hall together with a chamber newly situated and built within Tutbury Castle’, including substantial payments to carpenters and for carving.128 The building work probably also included the East Range later used to house Mary Queen of Scots in 1585 but this can only be conjecture based on the description of the building at that time, and on the surprising scale of the expenditure in 1484. It is also possible that East Range was the main work carried out in

120 121

  DL 42/19 f.57   Somerville 1953, 422. 127   DL 29/404/6476–77; BL Harl 433 fo. 193; Brown et al 1963, 849. 128   DL29/6480; Colvin et al 295. 125 126

105

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ this period with no work on the South Range (see below Chapter 8), but that seems out of keeping with the level of total expenditure, and with the references to hall and chamber, which do not sit as easily with the description of the East Range as with the South Range. The hall and chamber of 1484–88, possibly combined with elements from the early 15th century are probably the King’s Lodging described in an undated document of the early 16th century, which tells us that ‘The king’s lodginge is faire and stronge, bounded and knytt to the wall, and a faire stagehall of tymber of a greate lengthe, faire chambers of tymbar and other howses of office well upholden within the walles of the said Castell’.129 Further details of the hall and associated buildings are provided in the papers of Sir Ralph Sadler, and are discussed more fully in Chapter 8.130 The relationship between Sadler’s description, the two plans of the castle also contained in Sadler’s papers (Plates 6.2–6.3), and the surviving structures, is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8 below. As noted there, it is uncertain how far the arrangement described by Sadler represents later modifications to the 15th-century structures, but the basic dimensions of the main rooms in this area are unlikely to have changed in the interim. FROM HENRY VII TO THE CIVIL WAR The Early Tudors As noted above, the building work begun under Richard III was continued under Henry VII in 1487–88. There are also references in the duchy records to buildings in the lower ward in 1490, and to repairs being ordered to the high wall next to the gate in 1494.131 Henry himself apparently visited on at least one occasion, 132 and Henry VIII visited in 1511.133 Thereafter, however, Tutbury castle seems to have been largely neglected until the reign of Elizabeth. Tutbury was not unusual in this respect. While it retained its importance as the administrative centre of the honor, castles had largely lost their military function, while the fashion for high-status residences also moved away from even the pseudo-military design of the late medieval castle to the greater comfort of entirely civilian palaces. While some castles, including Tutbury, served as occasional royal residences, the general history of royal castles under the Tudors ‘is one of neglect and gradual decay’134 It is true that the outer gatehouse was repaired in 1519, but three years earlier the kitchen roof had fallen down.135 A survey in 1523 revealed that many of the buildings had defective roofs, while there was a substantial gap in the curtain wall, which was ‘cloven in the middle where men shulde walke about 100 fote’. The round keep on the motte, described as ‘the Gylet or Dungen’ was ‘in utter decaye & not worthy   Bodleian, MS. Rawlinson C. 931, f. 26; Colvin et al 295   BL Add MS 33954, f.173. 131   DL 29/6481; DL 5/3 f.119. 132   Mosley 1832, 132–33; Tringham 2007, 18. 133  Tringham 2007, 188. 134   Colvin et al 230–31. 135   DL 42/95 58r; DL 42/95 f.45r.

to be repayred’ although had formerly contained ‘many pretty lodgings’ It was said to have been in decay for 30 years. The survey also makes reference to a range near the gatehouse called the Receiver’s Lodging. At the ‘nether end’ were a hall, kitchen and buttery, with two chambers above for the use of the receiver of the honor of Tutbury. At the ‘upper end’ there were four further chambers, two on each floor. This is presumably the same building featured in plans of the castle from the 1580s (Plates 6.26.3), although by then the internal layout seems to have changed somewhat (see Chapter 8). 136 The castle chapel was suppressed in 1548, as part of the general suppression of the chantries in that year. This probably indicates that the chantry established by Thomas of Lancaster in 1318 (see above) was within the chapel, 137 although it is also possible that the religious reform was used as a convenient excuse to remove the running costs of the chapel from the revenue of the honor without too much consideration for the chapel’s precise status. It is uncertain whether the chapel was actively demolished down to its current level at this time, or whether it was simply allowed to decline along with the rest of the castle. Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots It was nearly 40 years before the repairs to either the curtain wall or the tower identified in 1523 were addressed, but Tutbury did see a revival of interest under Elizabeth. The castle was included in a survey by William Humberstone in 1559, in which he notes an ‘Ancient round tower called Julius’ tower which as it is reported was builded by Julius Caesar, but I suppose that to be but old mens’ fables.’138 His caution was justified, as the name was certainly a corruption of the French term ‘gillot’ commonly used for keeps. Humberstone noted that the castle was ‘indifferently well repaired’ but also that it was ‘ys builded very statelie within a parke on the north side of the towne of Tutbury’.139 In 1561, instructions were given for repair to the curtain wall, and the extent of the repairs is still visible today, since the repaired section was only built to less than half of the width of the main wall (see Chapter 8 below). At the same time, repairs were ordered to the keep, and to ‘a place where the records lie’.140 The following year a survey was undertaken of several of the castles held by the duchy of Lancaster by Sir Ambrose Cave, chancellor of the duchy. It is to this survey that we owe the earliest representation of the castle (Plate 6.1), which shows the curtain wall intact, and on which the gatehouse, North Tower and South Tower are clearly recognisable. The apartments at the southern end are also shown, as is the round keep and its surrounding mantlet, as well as a turret tower in the south east of which only a trace remains today (see Chapter 8 below).141 Although the castle was ‘in many places decaide’, it was

129 130

  DL 43/4/6 f.4.  Tringham 2007, 109. 138   DL 42/109, f.3. 139   DL 42/109, f.3. 140   DL42/ 97 f.29r. 141   National Archives, MR 1/17. 136 137

106

Chapter 6: History of the Castle nevertheless decided that it should be maintained, despite the expense of repairs, both because it was an ‘old and statly Castle’ and, perhaps more to the point, because it was the centre of ‘a great Seignory furnished with forests, parks and chases’.142 As the administrative centre of the honor, Tutbury had a continued function (hence the place where the records lie’), and indeed also provided a focus for the administration of the neighbouring Melbourne estates, although there was some limited expenditure on the upkeep of Melbourne Castle in 1580–81.143 However, given Elizabeth’s fondness for riding and hunting, the forests, parks and chases may also have been part of the attraction. The value of Tutbury and the Needwood Forest for pasture and horse-breeding had long been appreciated (see above), and the one prominent use for Tutbury recorded under Henry VIII was as one of the most important royal stud farms, alongside Hampton Court, Malmesbury and Ripon. Through a combination of diplomatic gifts and purchase overseas, Henry began importing horses early in his reign, and built up a substantial collection for breeding purposes, both for military and ceremonial purposes on the one hand, and for racing on the other. Horses were pastured in various estates close to Tutbury, at Stockley, Castlehay, Rolleston, Hanbury, Obholme, and Rolleston, as well as at Little Park and the field known as The Trenches, immediately adjacent to the castle. While the stud, known as the ‘Tutbury Race’ seems to have gone through a period of neglect or at least stagnation following the death of Henry, it was revitalized under Elizabeth. One of Elizabeth’s first acts as queen was to appoint Robert Dudley (later to become her favourite, and earl of Leicester) as her Master of Horse. While in general Dudley seems to have been more interested in the privileges than the responsibilities of rank, he was genuinely both interested in and knowledgeable about horses and horsemanship, and took his position of Master of Horse seriously, to the point that he refused to relinquish the position even late in life, when he was probably no longer well enough to derive much personal pleasure from riding. He also played an active role in continuing Henry VIII’s policy of seeking to import quality foreign horses to strengthen the strain for breeding, and also sought to import and promote expertise on the breeding and handling of horses, whether this expertise was home-grown or imported144 It is unclear whether he ever visited Tutbury in person, but it would not be surprising, since it is a relatively short journey from his own castle of Kenilworth in Warwickshire. Certainly he did commission a report in 1576 into the studs at both Tutbury and Malmesbury by the Neapolitan expert Prospero d’Osma, in which he made a number of recommendations for the improvement of conditions in the Tutbury Race, together with the relocation of the Malmesbury horses to Tutbury. While this last point was not carried through, the stud continued to thrive and

expand.145The continued importance of the Tutbury Race can be seen from the fact that even when Tutbury Castle was being used to accommodate Mary, Queen of Scots in 1585 (see below), Leicester sought assurances from her custodian, Sir Amyas Paulet, that Little Park would remain reserved for the use of the race. While Paulet clearly took a slightly different view of the priority of the Race and of maintaining horses close to the castle ‘to attend upon the Scottish Queen upon every short warning’, he clearly felt it prudent to accommodate Leicester’s wishes, and rented an adjacent piece of land to pasture the garrison horses.146 Whether for the benefit of the Master of Horse, or because Elizabeth herself planned to make use of the castle, or simply in recognition of its importance as the administrative centre of the duchy estates in the region, further repairs were undertaken at Tutbury in 1566. The lodgings were made watertight and the bridges (presumably those immediately outside the inner gatehouse) mended. Total expenditure on the rebuilding that year cost £399, mostly spent on the lodgings.147 However, there is no evidence that Elizabeth ever visited Tutbury, but in 1568, Tutbury was prepared for another royal visitor. In that year Elizabeth’s cousin Mary Queen of Scots fled to England from her imprisonment at Loch Leven Castle. Mary was not initially technically a prisoner, but a conference was established in October 1568 to determine her position. The conference, with representatives of Mary herself, the Scottish regency and England met initially in York but then moved to London where Elizabeth could supervise more directly. While Mary was originally lodged at Bolton Castle as a refuge rather than a prison, Elizabeth’s Council agreed on October 30th 1568 that she should be imprisoned in Tutbury Castle once the conference was over, and Elizabeth gave orders that Tutbury Castle should be prepared as a residence for Mary. A total of £468 was spent on works and repairs at the castle ‘against the coming of the Queen of Scots’, and she moved to Tutbury on January 15th 1569, under the supervision of George Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, and his wife, Bess of Hardwick, who also had the responsibility of preparing Tutbury for Mary’s arrival.148 One of Burghley’s emissaries, Nicholas White, visited Mary at Tutbury on his way to Ireland the following month. White describes Mary as possessing ‘an alluring grace, a pretty Scottish accent and a searching wit, clouded my mildness’. He also notes that she resided in two chambers, an outer presence chamber, in which he met Mary, and an inner privy chamber to which she retired at the end of the interview. From a later letter of Sir Amyas Paulet, Mary’s guardian at Tutbury in 1585, we may be reasonably certain that these two chambers were on the upper floor of the South Tower (see below). As these rooms were probably the grandest in the castle at the time,   Prior 1935, 2–5, 11–38; Jenkins 1961, 154 Loch 1986, 184–85, 243– 44; Tringham 2007, 44. 146   Morris 1832, 45–46. 147   DL 42/97 100r; DL29/6551; SP 46/14, f.14; DL 42/97 139r. 148  DL 29/6553, 6560; Kendall, 1980, 118; Weir 2003, 450–58; Guy 2004, 440. 145

  DL41/12/33; DL44/75.   Colvin et al 179–80. 144   Jenkins 1961, 60–61, 98, 101, 112–13, 154, 193–94, 263; Kendall 1980, 26, 80; Gristwood 2007, 116–18. 142 143

107

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ this indicates something of the way that Mary was treated in the early years of her captivity. As Paulet was later to note, the large windows of these chambers made security more difficult to maintain than had Mary been confined elsewhere in the castle, but also meant that Mary’s rooms were on this occasion well lit. She was also well provided in these early years with carpets, tapestries, candles, and chairs upholstered in cloth of gold, with a formal cloth of state over a high-backed chair on a dais in the presence chamber, and a smaller cloth of state over the chair in her bedchamber. Elizabeth herself had sent beds, bedding and carpets to Tutbury in anticipation of Mary’s residence there. Her two main meals, dinner and supper consisted of a choice of around 16 dishes for each of the two courses, while she and her household were also well-provided with both wine and beer.149 While Mary wrote dismissively of the limited comforts that Tutbury had to offer, the passages from her letters which particularly demonstrate this date not from her early visits in 1569–70, but from her later visit in 1585 (see below), by which time she was held in considerably lower standing by Elizabeth, while Tutbury Castle had suffered a further 15 years of neglect in between. Mary was also able to import fine silks and gold thread for embroidery, which provided not only a way for her to pass her time, along with Bess of Hardwick, but also an outlet for her frustrations. A number of embroideries attributed to both women survive, as well as several anonymous pieces which may have been made by either, or perhaps by their ladies in waiting. Many of those which can be attributed to Mary on the basis of the inclusion of her name or monogram in the design, were innocuous, drawing inspiration from illustrations in various books, most notably a number of illustrations of birds and animals based on the drawings of Conrad Gesner, with the designs copied directly onto the canvas by Mary’s embroiderer Pierre Oudry for her to copy.150 However, a number of Mary’s embroideries contained coded messages and mottos, if not always particularly subtle ones. Nicholas White’s conversation with Mary had included a discussion of the relative merits of carving, painting, and embroidery, and was terminated abruptly when White voiced the view that painting (which Mary had extolled ‘for the most considerable quality’ of the arts) offered only a ‘false truth’. Mary may simply have responded to Protestant boorishness, but she may also have read more into White’s statement than was intended. On departing, White noted Mary’s cloth of state, which, along with her coat of arms, carried the motto ‘En ma fin gît ma commencement’ (in my end is my beginning), which he noted ‘is a riddle I understand not’. This motto, along with the symbol of the phoenix, had been used by Mary’s mother Marie de Guise, and while White may not have understood it, its adoption by Mary at this stage in her life seems a fairly clear statement of Mary’s intention to recover her lost power.151

Since Mary made no secret of her intention of recovering the Scottish throne, this idea, also reflected in an embroidery of a Phoenix, was not particularly controversial. The same cannot be said of an embroidered cushion sent to the duke of Norfolk in 1570, and from the date perhaps partially worked at Tutbury. This showed the hand of God with a pruning hook, cutting off the unfruitful branches from a vine with the motto Virescit vulnere Virtus (Virtue flourishes by wounding). This clearly implied the removal of the unfruitful Elizabeth, leaving the more fruitful Mary to flourish, indicating Mary’s willingness to plot against Elizabeth even at this early date.152 Other embroidered statements were purely visual. A copy of Gessner’s drawing of a cat, coloured ginger to reflect Elizabeth’s red hair and with the addition of a small mouse, is often taken to symbolise Mary’s view of Elizabeth’s treatment of her. She did, as an apparently conciliatory gesture, send a handembroidered satin skirt to Elizabeth in1574, which can perhaps be identified with a surviving skirt of the period said to have been embroidered in captivity by Mary for Elizabeth. Elizabeth apparently ‘found it very nice and has prized it much’.153 If so, she perhaps understood Mary’s riddles no better than Nicholas White, since the attractive floral design shows the Scottish thistle rising above other flowers, including the English rose. Despite the introduction of additional comforts to Tutbury, the castle remained cold and damp, and Mary suffered from rheumatism and fever, and was moved to the greater comfort of Wingfield Manor on April 20th, and subsequently to Chatsworth.154 However, it was feared that she might be too easily rescued from there in the plotting around the projected marriage of Mary to the duke of Norfolk, and she returned to Tutbury on September 21st, now briefly in the charge of the firmly protestant earl of Huntingdon. This was ostensibly because of issues with the earl of Shrewsbury’s health, but there was apparently some disagreement in Council as to whether under these circumstances Mary should be under the sole custody of Huntingdon, Shrewsbury, Sir Ambrose Cave (chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster), or any combination of two of the three, and whether at Tutbury or Huntingdon’s own nearby castle of Ashby-de-la-Zouche.155 Mary complained bitterly in a letter of September 25th about being placed in custody of Huntingdon, who she saw as her enemy and a rival pretender to the English throne.156 Shrewsbury was swiftly reinstated as joint guardian alongside Huntingdon, and Huntingdon withdrawn altogether by November 18th, although the outbreak of the Northern Rising that month led to Mary’s removal around that time, first to Ashby and then to Coventry. Mary was still at Tutbury on November 10th, but reached Coventry on November 25th.157 The Rising was quickly suppressed, and Coventry lacked suitable facilities, and Mary returned to Tutbury for her third stay   Swain, 1986, 75.   Swain 1986, 78, 82–83. 154   Guy 2004, 442. 155   Collinson 1987, 25–26. 156   Strickland 1844, 183–86. 157   Strickland 1844, 183-6, 192–93; Collinson 1987, 31. 152 153

  Clifford 1809 438; Collinson 1987, 18–19; Guy 2004, 442–45.   Swain, 1986, 61–72. 151   Swain 1986, 63; Guy 2004, 443. 149 150

108

Chapter 6: History of the Castle on January 2nd 1570. She remained there until May 24th or 25th, when she was removed again to Chatsworth, and she then spent nearly 15 years in the various properties in north Derbyshire and the Sheffield area belonging to the earl of Shrewbury and Bess of Hardwick.158 It was only in January 1585, once the strains of her prolonged custody had both ruined the Talbots’ marriage and seriously damaged their finances, that Mary returned once again to Tutbury Castle for her fourth and final visit.

‘I am in a walled enclosure, on the top of a hill, exposed to all the winds and inclemencies of heaven. Within the said enclosure, resembling that of the wood of Vincennes, there is a very old hunting lodge, built of timber and plaster, cracked in all parts, the plaster adhering nowhere to the wood-work, and broken in numberless places; the said lodge distant three fathoms or thereabouts from the wall, and situated so low, that the rampart of earth which is behind the wall is on a level with the highest point of the building, so that the sun can never shine upon it from that side, nor any fresh air come to it; for which reason it is so damp, that you cannot put any piece of furniture in that part, without its being in four days completely covered in mould… and the only apartments that I have for my own person consist – and for the truth of this I can appeal to all those who have been here – of two little miserable rooms, so excessively cold especially at night, that but for the ramparts and entrenchments of curtains and tapestry which I have had made, it would not be possible for me to stay in them in the daytime; and out of those who have sate up with me at night during my illnesses, scarcely one has escaped without fluxion, cold, or some disorder… If I must proceed to my conveniences, I have not, as I heretofore informed you, any gallery or cabinet to retire to occasionally alone, excepting two paltry holes, with windows facing the dark surrounding wall, and the largest of them not above a fathom and a half square. For taking the air abroad on foot or in my chaise (there being no vacant spot on top of that hill) I have only about a quarter of an acre of ground contiguous to the stables, which Sommer had dug up last winter, and enclosed with a fence of dry wood; a place, to look at, fitter to keep pigs in than to bear the name of garden: there is not a sheeppen amidst the fields but makes a better appearance.

Plans for Mary’s return to Tutbury coincided with a tougher attitude towards Mary at Elizabeth’s court. A Bond of Association, instigated by Lord Burghley but initially without the queen’s formal sanction, developed over the winter of 1584–85 into a full Act of Parliament, the Act for the Queen’s Safety. Although Elizabeth herself acted to moderate the original terms, the Act provided for a sentence of death for anyone who attempted violence against Elizabeth, and also for anyone involved in an attempt against Elizabeth’s life to be specifically disbarred from the succession. However, the heirs of any such guilty party were specifically not disbarred.159 This was directly aimed at driving a wedge between Mary and her son James, now ruling Scotland in his mother’s absence, since it allowed for the possibility of setting aside Mary’s claim to the English throne, while still leaving James as a potential heir for the childless Elizabeth. Mary had never abandoned her hopes of being restored to the Scottish throne, but James responded to the new Act by announcing that he would not accept his mother back as queen or even as joint-ruler with himself, but only as queen-mother, and followed this decision with a treaty with England.160 Mary’s disappointment and fury at what she saw as his treachery comes through clearly in her letters at this time, and she clearly saw this (probably entirely correctly) as the result of a deliberate plot to reduce her standing.161 These events also coloured Mary’s attitude to Tutbury, which she already disliked from her earlier visits, and which held particularly negative associations as her first formal prison. Furthermore, the castle had declined in the intervening period. Sections of the north-west curtain wall had collapsed, and the gaps filled with wooden palings in 1575–76,162 and while Mary had been lodged in the grandest chambers in the castle during her early visits, she was now lodged in rather more rudimentary accommodation. She described this at some length in a lengthy letter of complaint written in early September 1585 to the outgoing French ambassador M. de Mauvissière and his replacement M. De Chateauneuf, begging for their intervention to have her removed from Tutbury:

As for taking exercise on horseback, during the whole winter, as I experienced, sometimes snow, sometimes rain, break up the roads in such a manner, that there is no house containing so many people of the lower sort as this does, which can be kept clean long, whatever pains may be taken with it. Then, again, this house, having no drains to the privies, is subject to a continual stench; and every Saturday they are obliged to empty them, and the one below my window, from which I receive a perfume not the most agreeable. And if to the above I may be permitted the opinion which I have conceived of this house, a thing to be considered in the case of persons inferior to me in station when in ill health, I will say that, as this house has been my first prison and place of confinement in this kingdom, where from the first I have been treated with great harshness, rudeness and indignity, so have I always held it to be unlucky and unfortunate…and in this sinister opinion I have been not a little confirmed by the accident of the priest, who, after having been grievously tormented, was found hanging from the wall opposite to my windows... and

  Collinson 1987, 31–35.   Dunn 2003, 457–58; Guy 2004, 475–76. 160   Guy 2004, 476–77. 161   Strickland 1844, ii, 136–53. 162  DL44/555. This is confirmed by one of the plans of the castle from the papers of Sir Ralph Sadler (Plate 6.2) which provides exact measurements for the surviving sections of wall and paling in 1584–85 (BL Add MS 33594, f. 174). 158 159

109

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ then, four or five days afterwards another poor man was found who had tumbled into the well.’163 Mary had arrived back at Tutbury on January 14th, under the temporary guardianship of Sir Ralph Sadler. The elderly Sadler was chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, and had previously acted as a temporary substitute for Talbot in 1572. He had again been appointed on a temporary basis in August 1584, relieving Talbot on September 7th after a short overlap and eventually remaining in post until April 19th, as Lord St John, Talbot’s intended successor, refused the post, and although Sir Amyas Paulet was appointed in his place on January 4th, his insistence on receiving very clear instructions on how to treat his prisoner delayed his taking up office.164 This meant that Sadler had the responsibility for planning and executing Mary’s return to Tutbury. Preparations took several months, and an extensive correspondence concerning this survives in Sadler’s papers.165 Sadler also recorded the dimensions of the various rooms in the South Range (see Chapter 8), and his papers included two plans of the Inner Bailey (Plates 6.2–6.3) indicating the location of different buildings, and assigning them for the accommodation of different members of Mary’s household.166 These plans disagree in some details, and it is clear that they do not represent every building within the Inner Bailey, nor is provision made for Sadler’s own household – his own occupancy of the South Tower (see below) is not mentioned. It is probably more appropriate to see these plans as working documents for deciding on the housing of Mary and her companions rather than necessarily as an accurate record of who stayed where,167 although his plan of the East Range in which Mary was to be lodged corresponds well with Mary’s description above: a long narrow building, close to but not adjoining the eastern wall, with one end close to the North Tower. The building was some 18ft wide, and the upper floor 9ft high. Mary’s chamber on the upper floor was 33ft long. The upper floor of the building was allocated as Mary’s bed chamber, dining chamber, cabinet and closets, and a chamber for her gentlewomen, while the lower floor was allocated to apartments for her steward, Andrew Melville, her French secretary Claude Nau, the surgeon and the apothecary, together with a wardrobe chamber, pantry and buttery. Marmaduke Darrel, a royal clerk appointed to manage her household finances, was to be lodged in the Receiver’s Lodging near the gatehouse, along with the Mary’s embroiderer Pierre Oudry and his family. Another secretary, Gilbert Curle, her valet de chamber, Bastien Pages, and Mary’s doctor and chief cook were each assigned one floor of the North Tower.168 Mary did not initially complain so vehemently about her accommodation. The amount of space was greater than she   Strickland 1844, ii, 160–69.   Collinson 1987, 31. 165   Clifford 1809, 423, 429,434–40, 442–515. 166   BL Add MS 33594, f. 173–75. 167   Lesley Smith, pers. comm. 168   BL Add MS 33594, f. 174–75; Clifford 1809, 490, 503; Mosley 1832, 185–86; Lang 1905; Tringham 2007, 26.

had previously been allocated at Wingfield, but she was distinctly unimpressed by the quality of both the hangings and the furniture provided from the confiscated estate of Lord Paget, while other hangings provided by Elizabeth were far too long for the relatively low ceiling.169 Her unhappiness at Tutbury probably derives in part from the fact that she now had rather fewer liberties than she had previously enjoyed. Sadler, who had first encountered Mary as a baby when serving as Henry VIII’s ambassador to Scotland,170 was not unkind to her, and allowed her to accompany him on occasion when he went out hawking, although he was obliged to defend himself against criticism for this with the note that when this occurred they were accompanied by an escort of 40 armed men on horseback.171 Sadler also allowed her some of the dignity of a queen, permitting her to set up her cloth of state in the great chamber, and also allowing her servants to distribute alms in the surrounding area. His replacement, Sir Amyas Paulet, was considerably more restrictive, and has often been portrayed as being personally unduly harsh and unsympathetic. This is somewhat unfair to Paulet. He was acting under strict instructions from Burghley and Walsingham so when, for example, he prohibited Mary’s priest, Camille de Préau from distributing alms on her behalf as he had previously done (with liberal generosity), he was carrying out orders which he had received before he even reached Tutbury,172 and was restricting an activity very closely associated with royal status. Mary herself was still allowed out occasionally in her coach, but only if accompanied by horsemen with pistols and ‘a good number of arquebussors on foot, with their matches lighted.’ Her coachman was no longer allowed out alone, but he was permitted to exercise his horses under supervision, and Paulet makes it clear that he specifically mistrusted the coachman as a potential conduit for illicit information. He also attempted to increase surveillance on the laundresses lodged outside the castle who came to take Mary’s laundry, noting that this also provided an ideal opportunity to smuggle messages, although he noted that it would not be appropriate for soldiers to investigate all laundry too closely, and that he could only be certain that the laundresses were not carrying messages if they were stripped to their smocks, which again he clearly felt inappropriate.173 Most notoriously, Paulet removed Mary’s cloth of state from the Great Chamber. This has sometimes been described in dramatic terms: according to John Guy, for example, Paulet ‘tore down her cloth of state’ from her presence chamber repeatedly in ‘a battle of wills in which he would dismantle the offending canopy and a tearful Mary would have it put back.’174 Paulet’s own description   Mosley 1832, 184–86.   Dunn 2003, 459. 171   Clifford 1809, 538; Guy 2004, 456. 172   Morris 1832, 6, 39–40, 53–54, 61–62, 161–62; Tringham 2007, 27. 173   Morris 1832, 13–14, 52–54; Collinson1987, 26; Dunn 2003, 460–61; Guy 2004, 457–58. 174   Guy 2004, 457.

163

169

164

170

110

Chapter 6: History of the Castle suggests a more considered decision. The cloth of state was not removed from Mary’s own chambers but rather from the Great Chamber, where it had been set up on her arrival, on the assumption that Mary would normally dine there, together with Sadler, whereas in fact the room was normally used by Sadler, and subsequently by Paulet, whereas Mary had only dined there once, and normally dined in her own dining-room. Since the Great Chamber was therefore a part of the castle occupied by Elizabeth’s representatives, Paulet felt that it was inappropriate, according to court practice, for the cloth of state of ‘any foreign Prince’ to be allowed. He therefore discussed the situation with Mary’s secretary Nau, indicating that Mary could reinstate the cloth of state in her own diningroom ‘if she thought good’, and also referred the matter to Walsingham. Especially seen against the background of the recent Act for the Queen’s Safety, and Elizabeth’s changing relationship with both Mary and James, the removal of the cloth of state was interpreted by Mary as a deliberate diminution of her status. Nevertheless Nau agreed, if reluctantly, to its removal from the Great Chamber, with the proviso that Paulet should agree to pass on further representations by Mary on that point, and Paulet later confirmed that a cloth of state was indeed set up in Mary’s own dining-room.175 Mary’s complaints about her accommodation may have been to some extent exaggerated in order to justify her removal from a castle which clearly held particularly unpleasant associations for her. Mary’s view of the castle as particularly unlucky is repeated by Paulet on October 16th, when he cites Nau as informing him that Mary ‘holdeth this house as unfortunate, that she began her imprisonment here, that she shall end her days here.’176 Although Mary complained about the state of her lodgings, she was obstructive about any attempt to move her elsewhere at Tutbury to permit repairs to be made. Paulet informed Walsingham on August 19th that there had been some discussion of a temporary move to Mr Cavendish’s house below the castle to permit repairs to Mary’s lodging. This was rejected as being too small to accommodate both Mary and Paulet, and in any case, Mary refused to accept that anything short of complete rebuilding could render her lodgings fit for habitation. There was also discussion of her moving into Paulet’s chambers, described by Mary as too cold. The account makes it clear that Mary had herself been lodged in those chambers on one or more of her previous visits. Paulet also had reservations about the suitability of these chambers for Mary, which he described in some detail to Walsingham: The two chambers wherein I am lodged have their windows open upon the dykes, and are distant in height from the ground twenty-four foot. All such of this castle as will walk into the little park (the only place of recreation for this household), being forced to pass close by these windows, which give free liberty   Morris 1832, 12–14, 19.   Morris 1832, 108.

as well of conference, as of other conveyances, and, as I have been informed by gentlemen of good credit in these parts, have served to that purpose in time past. These windows overlook the town, and a good part of the country adjoining, and have their full prospect into the way which leadeth from the town to the castle, by means whereof it may be easy for the Scottish people to have intelligence with those abroad at their pleasure. The danger of escape by these windows is also evident, if they be not watched day and night, which will require a greater number of soldiers, as also a new house to be builded to that purpose. There is belonging to these chambers a house of office, which is open at the foot, and was found to be of such danger when this queen first came to this castle, that the earl of Shrewsbury caused a hovel to be made at the foot of the wall for the succour of the soldiers appointed to watch in that place, but the truth is that it will be very hard, for many causes, to guard that place with a watch in any security. It seemeth worthy of consideration, that having these two chambers added to those which they have already, they have all their rooms several to themselves, so as they shall live by day and night all shut up from the view and sight of the governor and his company; whereas now my wife, myself, and those of my chamber, pass through the room wherein the Queen’s gentlemen and gentlewomen do dine and sup, so as the whole company saving the Queen herself and Pierrepont, are seen every day, a necessary matter in my simple opinion, and of good surety to the governor.177 Although this passage has sometimes been interpreted as indicating that Paulet was lodged in the gatehouse, this description must refer to the South Tower. The two grand upper chambers would have made a suitable lodging for Mary for her early visits, when she was still treated with considerable liberty and respect, and the adjoined ‘house of office’ open at the foot can be identified with the extramural garderobe chamber accessed from the inner of the two upper chambers (see Chapter 8), which was apparently the one described by Nicholas White in 1569 as Mary’s privy chamber. The external windows indeed overlook the way between the town and the castle, while the moat around the south end of the castle below the tower must have provided access to Little Park, as it would today, if not fenced. Sadler’s plans indicate the existence of some sort of connecting gallery structures between the north end of Mary’s lodgings in the East Range, and the buildings, including the South Tower, at the south end of the castle, and this would presumably have provided direct access to the tower, hence Paulet’s concerns about Mary and her retinue spending their entire time free from observation. Paulet’s description also suggests that Mary’s retinue ate in one of the rooms in the South Range, perhaps the Great Hall itself, since we know from the account of the removal of Mary’s cloth of state on Paulet’s arrival (see above),

175 176

  Morris 1832, 89–91.

177

111

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ that first Sadler then Paulet were accustomed to dine in the Great Chamber. Mary’s complaints about the state of her lodgings and the general effect of the castle on her health and that of her staff may or may not have been justified, but Mauvissière did intercede successfully on her behalf and secured a promise from Elizabeth that Mary would be transferred somewhere more salubrious and comfortable.178 These complaints led to nearby Chartley Hall being actively assessed as an alternative as early as mid-September, although Mary’s own physician took the view that the move ‘would rather impair his mistress’ health than otherwise’.179 From Elizabeth’s perspective, Chartley perhaps had the advantage that she hope to offload onto its owner, the earl of Essex, some of the costs of maintaining Mary’s household.180 In any case she was eventually moved there on December 24th 1585,181 although Chartley was too small to provide all of the proper facilities to support the households of both Paulet and Mary. In particular the brewhouse was much too small to provide enough beer, and it was necessary to import beer from a Burton brewer. This was probably the same brewer who had supplied the household at Tutbury, with beer brewed in the confiscated house of Lord Paget.182 In any case, the brewer was suborned by Mary into smuggling messages in and out of Chartley in the beer barrels, although this supposedly secret process took place with the full knowledge and indeed encouragement of both Paulet and Walsingham, who hoped to use this method to entrap Mary by allowing her to incriminate herself in plots against Elizabeth, after which it would be possible to proceed against her under the terms of the Act for the Queen’s Safety. Mary, who was by no means reconciled to her situation after having had her way over the move to Chartley, became embroiled in the Babington plot, which allegedly included plans for the murder of Elizabeth as well as the rescue of Mary, and thereby ultimately led to Mary’s own execution.183 Elizabeth’s final years to Charles I Following Mary’s death, Elizabeth never seems to have recovered the interest in Tutbury that was evident in the repairs of the 1560s. The reason for this may well have been the association with Mary, or because her interest in hunting, and in traveling outside southern England, diminished as she grew older, and especially following the death of Dudley in 1588. More prosaically, it may simply be that the cost of maintaining such an expensive property outweighed any romantic appeal of the ‘stately’ character of the castle, or its administrative role within the duchy estates. By 1595, the castle was described as being ‘in great ruin’.184 A survey of the castle, reports that it was

badly dilapidated, and that several buildings had been uncovered by tempest, including the outer gatehouse and privy kitchen, with one side of ‘the mayne wall strowke almost downe’. Foundations of a chimney had shrunk, and a total of 500’ of decayed glass was in need of replacement. Repairs were estimated at £40, excluding the North Tower, which was described as ‘a great strength of the Castle’ and was ‘cracked quite thorowgh the myddest… and if speedie order be not taken yt will grow to an excessive charge.’ A survey of the tower by William Spicer, gentleman (probably the later surveyor of the Queen’s Works) was commissioned, but there is no record that this took place, although a survey of the tower was undertaken by William Sault in 1597. Sault estimated that the cost of repairs at £200, not including timber and lead, arguing that it was necessary to take ‘the crackes and ryftes down to the grounde and new builded up again with sundry strong buttresses of stone to support and mayntaine the said Tower.’ No repairs seem to have been carried out on the North Tower in either 1595 or 1597, but some repairs were carried out on the more minor works identified in 1595, and various other small repairs followed under James I.185 A further survey of the king’s ‘decayed Castells’, including Tutbury, was carried out in 1609, and by this time the estimated cost of repairs had risen to £1,000. It was noted that Tutbury required prompt attention ‘or else it will soone decaye’, and maintaining the castle was justified on the grounds that it ‘belongeth to one of his Ma[jes]ties honors & is neere unto many of his Ma[jes]ties great chases and parks.’186 The proximity of the castle to the parks and chases reflects the continued value of the Needwood Forest for hunting, and although shortage of money meant that the duchy was obliged to dispose of some estates at this time, including some within Needwood forest, James’ interest in hunting made him reluctant to dispose of forests and chases, and in some cases stocks of deer were actively increased.187 Hunting was probably a major reason why James I visited Tutbury on at least three occasions in 1619, 1621 and 1624, although in each case his visit also apparently coincided with the holding of the Minstrels’ Court.188 Charles I also visited Tutbury for two weeks as part of a royal progress in August 1634, returning in August 1634, when the Minstrels’ Court and bull-running had to be postponed for a week through fear of plague.189 He was clearly sufficiently taken with Tutbury on his first visit to see it as worth some investment, but rather less taken by the state of the accommodation, and the period of 1634–37 saw first a survey of the castle by Thomas Rawlins then building works totalling over £2,300, including ‘the repair of Tutbury Castle’ and ‘building a house for the lord king at Tutbury’.190 This new house was a substantial construction   DL 44/526; DL 42/98, f. 2.61; DL 29/6576-6593; DL44/555; Colvin et al 1975, 296–97. 186   SP 14/49/82; Colvin et al 1975, 405. 187   Somerville 1970, 21–22; Tringham 2007, 18. 188   Mosley 1832, 208; Tringham 2007, 18. 189   Shaw 1798, 47; Mosley 1832, 88, 219; Tringham 2007, 18. 190  DL 26/12/7; DL 41/83, warrt 13 Feb; DL 28/127; Somerville 1970, 36; Colvin et al 1975, 297; Tringham 2007, 27–29. 185

  Labanoff 1844; 227, Strickland 1844, 169. 179   Morris 1832, 93–94, 108. 180   Mosley 1832, 198–99. 181   Collinson 1987, 26; Dunn 2003, 466; Guy 2004, 458. 182   Morris 1832, 31–33. 183   Dunn 2003, 467–97; Guy 2004, 479–502. 184   DL 42/98 f.239. 178

112

Chapter 6: History of the Castle at the south end of the castle, on the site of the medieval Great Hall, and elements of it survive in the later house which still stands, as well as in the windows and postern gate alongside the house in the south wall (see Chapter 8). The Civil War Although the rebuilding of the 1630s was concerned with the castle in its character of royal residence and estate centre, it reverted to a military role for a final time with the outbreak of the Civil War between Charles I and Parliament in 1642. Tutbury’s strategic location was as important as ever, all the more so as a royalist fortification in a region largely controlled by Parliament. This was specifically recognised in August 1644 by the earl of Manchester, who noted Tutbury as one of four strongholds which threatened parliamentary supply lines in the Midlands.191 Charles had issued an order on November 26th 1642 to Sir Edward Mosley of Rolleston, High Sheriff of Staffordshire ‘to raise sufficient forces of horse and foote, to be paid by the county, and to putt the same into the castle of Tutbury, for the defence and security of the same against all leavies of the rebels, and other ill-affected persons in that or the neighbouring counties.’ However, it wasn’t until January 1643 that the castle was actually garrisoned, at the order of Colonel Henry Hastings of Ashby, later Lord Loughborough.192Sir John Gell, the parliamentary commander at Derby attacked Tutbury Castle in July of the same year, coming close enough to success to be able to plant a double barrel of gunpowder against the castle gate to blow it open, although in the event this was captured by the garrison and turned against him by the besieged. It was claimed that the castle was within two days of surrender, being low on supplies for both men and horses, but later events show that Gell was willing to misrepresent the situation to his own advantage and at the expense of his colleagues, so this may be unreliable. In any case the parliamentary horse from Nottingham sent to reinforce Gell’s attack withdrew after a single night, and Gell himself was obliged to withdraw, lacking sufficient men and munitions to take the castle.193 The following years saw a series of minor clashes and skirmishes in the year. Parliamentary troops from Derby raided Tutbury in September 1644, capturing three royalist soldiers and two townspeople and immediately withdrawing, and Hastings, now a general, was at Tutbury in the same month following his defeat by Sir William Brereton at Eccleshall Castle. However, Tutbury was not immune from royalist plundering, and in April 1644 the town had been plundered by royalist troops on their way to join Prince Rupert, who had amongst other things stolen horses belonging to Hastings.194 Lacking the resources to attack Tutbury Castle effectively, Sir John Gell set up a garrison of his own at Barton Blount around 3½ miles north of the castle, from where his forces could harass

the Tutbury garrison and disrupt communication. Another raid was made on Tutbury in January 1645, killing three royalist soldiers and capturing 25, and further raids in April and May succeeded in capturing royalist supplies and horses.195 On May 25th the king himself stayed at the castle for two nights, along with Prince Rupert, having held a rendezvous with other royalist troops at Foston Heath, a little to the north west of Tutbury. The king was on his way from Chester to Leicester, stopping at Tutbury and Ashby on the way, and gathering troops before moving on to his defeat at Naseby on June 14th. 196 A planned attack on Tutbury Castle was abandoned when parliamentary infantry and ordnance failed to appear as planned, although cavalry from both Derby and Stafford mustered for the intended siege on August 5th. This may explain the presence of a large body of cavalry under Gilbert Gerrard (500 according to Mosley) at Barton Blount a few days later, who were able to harass an army under the command of the king himself. Charles had arrived at Lichfield around August 12th, and proceeded to Tutbury Castle for the last time on the 13th, subsequently moving on to Ashbourne, Chatsworth and Chesterfield with a force (according to parliamentary sources) of around 3,000 cavalry. On the 13th, cavalry from Barton Blount met and defeated a brigade of the king’s army near Tutbury Castle, killing a number of men, and ‘forced the King’s rere-Guard up to his main Body, not fearing the frown of a King, nor the force of his illegall Army’. A parliamentary pamphlet credits this to Gell, and portrays it as a parliamentary victory, but other accounts suggest that the royalist rearguard had the victory, taking prisoners before rejoining the king at Ashbourne. 197 Tensions in the area continued, with repeated harassment from the garrison at Barton Blount, although the Tutbury garrison was reinforced. Tutbury was raided again, in January 1644, by Gell, who carried off men and horses. The following month saw another raid by parliamentary troops from Derby and Stafford, who destroyed a small fort built by the royalists around the market cross, presumably with the intention of frustrating further hit-and-run raids on the town. On February 15th there was also a fierce if inconclusive encounter between royalist reinforcements bringing supplies from Uttoxeter and parliamentary forces from Barton Blount.198 The end of Tutbury’s resistance came with a formal siege, carried out by troops from both Derbyshire and Staffordshire, under the overall command of Sir William Brereton, who was himself based at Lichfield, where he was also besieging the Cathedral Close. Brereton’s nephew Colonel John Bowyer technically had command of the troops at Tutbury, but Gell commanded the   Mosley 1832, 225; Tringham 2007, 29.   Mosley 1832, 227–28; Somerville 1970, 45; Colvin et al 1975, 298; Tringham 2007, 29. 197   A True Relation, 3–5; Mosley 1832, 228; Somerville 1970, 45; Tringham 2007, 29. 198   Shaw 1798, 48; Mosley 1832, 229; Tringham 2007, 29. 195 196

 Tringham 2007, 29.   Mosley 1832, 219–20; Somerville 1970, 45; Tringham 2007, 29. 193   Mosley 1832, 222–23; Tringham 2007, 29. 194  Tringham 2007, 29; Mosley 1832, 223–24. 191 192

113

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ Derbyshire troops and was unwilling to co-operate with his Staffordshire colleagues. The siege began on March 13th and as early as March 24th a twelve-day cessation of hostilities was agreed to allow Sir John Fitzherbert, one of the royalist commanders, to go to the king to seek instructions on whether the garrison might surrender without further bloodshed. During his absence, and without authorization, Gell agreed his own terms of surrender with Colonel Peter Kniveton, the governor of the castle on April 6th, but Brereton objected to this, referring the matter to the Committee for Both Kingdoms. The Committee supported Brereton, rebuking Gell and repudiating his treaty, and placing negotiations categorically in the hands of Brereton and Bowyer.199 Gell continued to interfere (with the support of his men), negotiating directly with Kniveton, and began to withdraw his troops, in defiance of the direct orders of the Committee, and thereby potentially jeopardizing the siege. Even after he apparently submitted to orders to withdraw from Tutbury in person to answer to the Committee in London he passed secret orders to one of his officers to withdraw his troop and then to return later, potentially undermining Brereton’s negotiating position.200 Meanwhile the Derbyshire and Staffordshire committees bickered over the size and quality of their respective contributions to the siege.201

local people ‘that they are freed from the great oppressions they have long suffered under the power of the Tytbury Garrison’. The published Articles read as follows: Articles agreed upon for surrender of the Garrison of the Castle of Tytburie for the Service of the Parliament, April 20, 1646. 1. That all the Fortifications in and about the Castle of Tytburie be sleighted, and the House made incapable of being made a Garrison, and delivered into the hands of them, who had the keeping thereof in times of peace: and that Barton Garrison be also sleighted in like manner, so soone as possible, and delivered to the late Owner thereof, he making his peace with the Parliament. 2. That all Commanders, Gentlemen and Officers, in Commission, may march away with their Horses and Arms, and their own proper goods; and the Common Souldiers with their Swords and Arms, and proper goods, to any of the Kings garrisons unbesieged, they marching eight miles a day, and Carriages to be provisioned accordingly. And all those that desired, may have liberty to live at home and enjoy their Estates, submitting to the Ordinances of Parliament; and to be secured in their persons and Estates from violence and plunder. 3. That all Officers and Souldiers that desire to goe beyond Seas, may have liberty so to do; Providing it be within sixe weeks time next ensuing, and in the interim be protected, doing nothing prejudiciall to the Parliament, and no Oath to be imposed, but an ingagement never to beare arms against the Parliament. 4. That all that desire their Sequestrations taken off may have liberty to go to compound with the Parliament, and to have three moneths time for that purpose without interruption. And after Compositions made, and Pardons sued out, they may have liberty to dispose of their Estates as freely as formerly. 5. That the sleighting of the said Garrisons shall be begun to morrow, or upon Wednesday next, and that all those that are to march from the said Castle, according to the aforesaid articles, shall begin their march upon Wednesday next.

Although the parliamentary forces were too divided to act entirely effectively, and were also short of ammunition, there was illness, described as plague, in both the castle and the town and Kniveton and Fitzherbert felt it better to negotiate surrender with Brereton and other parliamentary representatives on April 15th–18th. Not all of their followers supported the surrender, and Kniveton and Fitzherbert were locked out of the castle by their own troops on the 15th, although they eventually managed to return. Terms were effectively concluded on the 18th, but were confirmed by Brereton on his own authority on the 20th. As he subsequently explained to the Committee, he had agreed to this in part because of concerns about increasing sickness in the town and amongst his soldiers, and partly because of the cost of maintaining the siege, especially with both the Derbyshire Committee and the Derbyshire troops proving difficult, and with friction growing between the Derbyshire and Staffordshire soldiers.202 Work began immediately on the slighting of the defences, as Brereton couldn’t spare the men to garrison the castle, and was concerned that the work be completed as quickly as possible to prevent the possibility of a further siege if matters deteriorated. The terms were finally confirmed on April 27th by the House of Lords who initially ordered that only the earthworks should be destroyed, rather than walls and towers as Brereton preferred.203 Parliament also had the main Articles of Surrender published on April 27th, together with a covering letter from Brereton dated April 22nd reporting the surrender, and noting the joy amongst   SWBLB 75, 85, 94, 96–98, 101–2. Tringham 2007, 30. 200   SWBLB 113–14, 119, 128. 201   SWBLB 136, 143, 151; Tringham 2007, 30. 202   SWBLB 119, 124–25, 141, 145, 147, 152–53; Tringham 2007, 30. 203  Tringham 2007, 30. 199

Signed by Sir William Brereton and the Commissioners for Parliament, John Bowyer, Henry Fernon. Signed by the Governours and Commissioners of the Castle, Peter Kniveton, John Fitzherbert, John Gerrard, William Brown204 These terms were not materially different to those agreed by Gell and Kniveton on April 6th to which Brereton   Foure Strong Castles, 7–9; SWBLB, no. 84.

204

114

Chapter 6: History of the Castle had objected so strongly, with the exceptions that Gell’s agreement offered more generous individual terms to a number of officers within the castle (and several friends and relations outside) to compound with Parliament to end the sequestrations of their property, and that only the works of the castle were to be pulled down and slighted, while the castle itself was not to be defaced, nor was Parliament to retain a garrison there.205 A further clause to the final terms of surrender not publicized by Parliament, but agreed on the same date by the same signatories, allowed for payment of 30 shillings each to those soldiers who wished to march to unbesieged royal garrisons, with a further payment of £50 to Kniveton to distribute amongst the officers in the castle as he saw fit. It had already been established on the 18th that those officers and soldiers who wished to ‘goe beyond Seas’ (more specifically to take service with Venice) under the command of Captain Gerrard should receive 40 shillings per head rather than 30.206 In the event, around 140 men chose to return home, while the remainder of around 120 chose to seek service with Venice.207 The surrender of Tutbury and other royal castles was also celebrated in The Palace of Justice Opened and set to Veiw[sic], a sermon delivered to Parliament, based on Deuteronomy 16.20: That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the Lord they God giveth thee. The sermon was primarily an exhortation to Parliament to continue to behave justly in the wake of these victories, as it would otherwise forfeit the favour of God, which had brought these victories about. However, it also comments briefly on the significance of each surrender. In the case of Tutbury, this was the strategic importance of the castle as ‘the lock of two Shires, Stafford and Derby’.208 Slighting of the castle continued into 1648, with the House of Commons ordering in March 1647 that the castle should be rendered untenable, and people from as far away as Uttoxeter compelled to contribute both to the cost and the labour required to complete the demolition. In addition to the formal slighting, it appears that the part-ruined castle was widely seen as a source of high-quality building stone and timber, and material from the castle was apparently being robbed out and incorporated into a large number of properties in the Tutbury area as late as 1660.209 It was thus during the interim between the fall of the castle in 1646 and the restoration in 1660, through a combination of deliberate slighting and the recycling of building materials, that the castle was reduced to its current ruinous state, with rubble and debris from the destruction subsequently roughly leveled across much of the site.

  SWBLB, Appendix III.   SWBLB, nos. 78, 85. 207  Tringham 2007, 30. 208   Palace of Justice, 2. 209   DL 5/36 f.8;Shaw 1798, 48; Mosley 1832, 233–24; Somerville 1970, 12; Tringham 2007,30.

POSTSCRIPT: AFTER THE CIVIL WAR As discussed in Chapter 2, the honor of Tutbury, Needwood Forest and the Tutbury Race were all either completely or partially sold off under the Commonwealth, and although the honor and the forest were partially recovered, Tutbury Castle never regained the importance which it had enjoyed as the centre of a ‘great seignory’. Nevertheless, it still occupied a prominent spot, and played a continuing role within the management of the Tutbury and Needwood estates, as a venue for the manor courts, and for meetings of the Minstrel’s Court, which lingered on into the early 19th century. The castle itself was leased to the duke of Ormonde in 1678 for 99 years, although he held it in trust for Colonel Edward Vernon of Sudbury. Some repairs were carried out around this time, as 88 trees in Needwood forest were felled for the purpose in 1680–81, but the duke declined to spend £500 or £1,00 developing the site and house in 1685.210 Vernon had permission to pull down any of the existing walls or towers, and to build a commodious house for the use of duchy auditors, stewards and other officers. By 1710 this had not been done, but much of the castle had fallen down, and the materials sold off, and it was deemed dangerous to hold courts in the castle.211 As a result, the duchy was obliged to carry out repairs in 1751. The house of the 1630 was largely demolished, and the traveller Dr Richard Pococke, who observed this, describes the destruction of ‘an apartment of about three grand rooms, a floor with handsome window-cases and doors of modern architecture’, together with heaps of white gypsum from the plaster floors. As discussed in more detail in Chapter 8, this was then replaced by the brick house which stands today, which incorporates a number of features from the earlier building, some in situ, some not. The pseudo-ruinous top of the house was apparently part of the original conception, as the former house had no such ruin as late as 1731.212 The lease was by this time held by George Venables-Vernon of Sudbury. In 1766, by which time he had been granted the title of Lord Vernon, he renewed the lease. It was under his son, who succeeded in 1780, that the folly was built on top of the motte, replacing a stump of the round tower still visible in illustrations up to the mid 18th century. This had been completed by 1792, as it is shown in an illustration of that date reproduced in Shaw’s History and Antiquities of Staffordshire, together with the false top floor of the South Tower (see Chapter 8), which is also absent from earlier illustrations. The new folly on the motte was also illustrated in more detail by Paul Sandby in 1793 (Plate 6.4). Sandby also shows rather more of the gatehouse than survives today, with a window on the west side which has now been replaced by a section of blank wall which is clearly a relatively modern repair. The gatehouse had been described in 1751 by Pococke as ‘the finest stonework and masonry I ever saw’.213  Tringham 2007, 31.   DL 42/146, p.5; Mosley 1832, 234; Somerville 1973, 87, 110; Tringham 2007, 21. 212   WSL, SV-XI.79; Cartwright 1888, 219; Somerville 1970, 13, 20; Somerville 1973, 116; Tringham 2007. 31. 213   Cartwright 1888, 219.

205

210

206

211

115

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Plate 6.5 Death of the Fox at Tutbury Castle, after Alexander Davis Cooper, 1839 (BM)

Visitors’ descriptions, drawings and prints demonstrate one of the main functions that the castle had assumed by the mid to late 18th century, which was that of a picturesque ruin and tourist attraction, enhanced (to the eye of the time) by the recent Gothic additions. Dated graffiti within the castle begins as early as the 17th century, but becomes more common from the beginning of the 19th century, and concern over graffiti led to the introduction of a ticketed entry system (although with free entry) in 1847.214 A number of illustrations of the castle survive from the 19th century, although some of these appear to be copied directly from earlier illustrations rather than original interpretation.215 Some of these are very much fantasy pieces and can be actively misleading, as for example ‘Death of the Fox at Tutbury Castle’, after Alexander Davis Cooper, printed by the New Sporting Magazine in 1839, which has turned the interior face of the South Tower into a free-standing picturesque ruin (Plate 6.5). Another print of the castle, drawn by F Calvert and engraved by T Radclyffe in 1830 shows a somewhat speculative filling in of the space between the South Tower and the house, set against the dramatic background of the entirely fictitious

mountains behind the castle.216 Other illustrations are more useful, showing various developments to the house and ancillary buildings in the course of 19th century, such as a two-storey canted bay shown on the front of the house in the place of the present front door as late as a drawing by Thomas Peploe Wood in 1837, but replaced by the current arrangement in another drawing by Edward Blore in 1869.217 An early photograph seen by the author shows some sort of pavilion set against the south curtain wall of the castle, and this probably reflects the use of the castle for occasional public events such as drilling troops, fêtes, school feasts, and occasional sporting events such as an archery completion held at the castle in 1825. The house also continued to be used into the early 19th century for the storage of duchy records, for formal events relating to the duchy estates and the Minstrel’s Court, and also for parish wakes, but the house was also occupied by tenants, so that the large public room on the upper floor could only be accessed through one of the bedrooms. 218 There was also discussion of turning the castle into a prison in 1832, at the request of the people of Tutbury, but this was not pursued, although the duchy did invest in the repair of  WSL, SV-XI.82c.  WSL, SV-XI.80b; BL Add MS 42023, f. 3. 218  Shaw 1798, 49; Mosley 1832, 234; Somerville 1970, 13, 20; Tringham 2007, 20, 31. 216

  Somerville 1970, 13; 1973, 490. 215  A number of these are preserved in the Staffordshire Views collection in the William Salt Library, Stafford. 214

217

116

Chapter 6: History of the Castle the folly, and the installation of buttresses to support it, although Lord Vernon as lessee declined to contribute.219 In addition to its public function, the castle also functioned as a farm from the mid 18th century. Mosley places this as far back as the rebuilding of the house in the 1750s, when he notes that the house was ‘injudiciously converted into a farm-house, the consequences of which has been, that some of the walls have been barbarously defaced by the rude erection of hovels and pig-sties against them.220 As with the house itself, these outbuildings have gone through a series of modifications and transformations, as the castle remained a working farm until 1952, when the associated farmland was re-assigned to other duchy properties in the area, leaving only the slopes below the castle attached directly to the castle property. Since then, Tutbury Castle has been solely used as a visitor attraction, and the former farm buildings, including the co-byre, converted into a tearoom. Elizabeth II and the duke of Edinburgh visited the castle in 1957 and again in 1982 as part of tours of the Needwood estate, and on the former occasion planted the two trees which stand between the house and the chapel. 221 Between 1952 and 1999 Tutbury was run by custodians on behalf of the duchy of Lancaster, but since late 1999 the castle was leased to the current curator, Lesley Smith and her husband. Various refurbishments were carried out in 1999 and 2000, and since Easter 2000 the castle has been open to the public on a more regular basis between Easter and the end of September each year. A variety of historically-based events make the castle a popular attraction with general visitors, while the romantic setting has also made the castle one of the most popular venues for weddings in the region, while the castle’s Bonfire Night have attracted national media attention.222

  Somerville 1973, 274.   Mosley 1832, 234. 221   Somerville 1970, 13; Williams 2006, 7; Tringham 2007, 31. 222   Eg, www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2008/oct/30/uk-bonfire-nightfirework-displays; www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/festivalsandevents/ 6495987/Spectacular-bonfire-nights-and-firework-displays-inthe-UK.html. 219 220

117

Chapter 7: The Earthworks Mark Kincey

INTRODUCTION The aim of the topographic survey at Tutbury Castle was to provide a detailed record of the extant earthworks at the site, to aid interpretation of the complex archaeological remains, provide a broader context to the targeted excavations, and to assess the condition of the earthworks and any threats they may be facing. The survey was conducted over three field seasons (2004–6) as part of the student training programme, with undergraduate students collecting the data under supervision by members of staff from Birmingham Archaeology. METHODOLOGY Survey control was provided by a primary control station located on top of the castle motte, established using a Leica System 500 Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) and post-processed to the Ordnance Survey active GPS network. This method provided processed

coordinates to an accuracy of ± 0.02m and therefore well within the precision range specified by English Heritage for survey control networks.1 These processed station coordinates were then used as the basis for a wider survey control network laid out to provide intervisibility with all areas of the site. The survey of the site was conducted to the English Heritage defined Level 3 standard,2 with the aim being to generate a complete record of the castle earthworks and topography. The survey employed the Leica System 500 DGPS and Total Station survey to record a dense grid of spot heights at a ground resolution of c 2m. This gridded data collection was combined with an interpretative survey recording specific topographic changes to emphasise the form and morphology of the earthworks, as well as hard detail such as visible structural remains and modern   Lunnon 2000, 2.1.1.   English Heritage 2007, 23.

1 2

Figure 7.1 Digital elevation model (DEM) of castle earthworks 118

Chapter 7: The Earthworks

Figure 7.2 Perspective view of DEM of castle earthworks (facing NW)

Figure 7.3 Interpretative earthwork plan (showing features referred to in text)

119

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 7.4 Location of earthwork profiles

landscape features. In some areas of the site, especially on the western, northern and eastern slopes of Castle Hill, the vegetation was too dense for the adequate recording of much topographic detail using even optical surveying equipment. In these areas a series of spot heights was collected in order to provide data on the general form of the slope, although the possibility remains that some of the micro-topographic variation has been missed. The results of the GPS and Total Station surveys were combined within a geographical information system (GIS) before a digital elevation model (DEM) of the topographic survey data was produced using the kriging interpolation function (Figs 7.1 and 7.2). Further GIS analysis on the digital results of the survey included the creation of contour plots, hillshade models and earthwork profiles. The results of the survey were also used alongside additional fieldwork to create a hand-drawn hachure plan of the castle earthworks following standard archaeological drawing conventions.3

DESCRIPTION The earthworks at Tutbury Castle are generally well preserved and carefully maintained, being largely covered by short pasture and with dense woodland covering the outer slopes. Apart from the ‘Park Pale’ (described in Chapter 4), the earthworks under discussion are restricted to the extent of Castle Hill, although a wider survey may well reveal other associated archaeological remains in the broader vicinity. Consideration of the earthwork remains at Tutbury should take account of the broader topography of the area discussed in Chapter 3. For ease of description the earthworks have been divided into separate sections within the text, although there is an inevitable level of overlap between the content in places. Individual feature numbers referred to in the text relate to the labels shown on Figure 7.3. A series of elevation profiles have also been produced to emphasise particular elements of the castle earthworks (Figs 7.4 – 7.8).

  English Heritage 2007, 33.

3

120

Chapter 7: The Earthworks

Figure 7.5 Earthwork profile across Castle Hill

Figure 7.6 Earthwork profile across inner bailey defences

Figure 7.7 Earthwork profile across middle and outer baileys

Figure 7.8 Earthwork profile across motte and southern defences

121

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Plate 7.1 The castle motte, facing south west (BA)

The Motte The substantial motte at Tutbury is broadly circular in plan, measuring approximately 83m east–west by 80m north–south at its base and 25m in diameter at the summit (Feature 1, Plate 7.1). Although probably subject to significant post-medieval adaptation, the top of the motte (102m AOD) still stands c 24m above the level of the southern ditch and c 12m above the interior level of the inner bailey. From the summit of the motte an observer has extensive views to the west up the Dove valley towards Uttoxeter, as well as to the south and south east across the town of Tutbury itself. The slopes of the motte are steep-sided, with the summit reached via a wooden staircase to the north (Feature 2) or a more circuitous footpath along its eastern flank. Although the eastern and southern flanks of the motte are grasscovered, the western and northern slopes, as with much of the exterior slopes of the castle in these directions, are covered with dense woodland (Plate 7.2). The motte is only surrounded by the ditch along its south and west flanks. It is unlikely that a ditch was ever constructed to the north of the motte due to the pronounced slope down to the floodplain in this direction, which precluded the need for anthropogenic enhancement of the natural defensive qualities. However, it is not clear whether there was originally a ditch separating the motte from the

inner bailey, as is typical of many motte and bailey castle arrangements. The Inner Bailey The inner bailey forms an irregular enclosure measuring c 8900 m², separating the motte to the west from the middle and outer baileys to the east. The bailey can be entered from either the 14th-century gateway to the north (Feature 3) or through the 17th-century entrance in the King’s Lodging to the south (Feature 4). The interior of the inner bailey is relatively flat, aside from the rectangular depression of excavated ground within which the 12th-century chapel, uncovered in the late 1950s, is located (Feature 5) (Plate 7.3). There are several areas of faint microtopographic variation, especially across the western half of the bailey, although these were only visible in low sunlight during a later winter field season and were therefore not recorded as part of the main topographic survey. Importantly, the minor changes in topography in this area of the bailey correlate with the location of a number of potential structural features recorded during the 2004 earth resistance survey (see Chapter 9). The north-western limit of the inner bailey lacks a defensive earthwork in the form of either a substantial bank or ditch, presumably due to the significant natural incline of the slope down to the floodplain at this location

122

Chapter 7: The Earthworks

Plate 7.2 The castle motte viewed from Park Pale, facing north (BA)

Plate 7.3 The inner bailey viewed from the North Tower, facing south west (BA)

123

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Plate 7.4 The eastern rampart and curtain wall, facing north (BA) (Feature 6). Such a pronounced slope may have obviated the need for an artificial earthwork along this boundary of the bailey, with later evidence suggesting that a wooden pale or wall was deemed sufficient.4 The eastern defensive circuit is by far the most pronounced in terms of the level of anthropogenic alteration. On this side the bailey is defined by a sizeable earthwork bank (Feature 7) (Plate 7.4) bounded on its exterior (east) by an equally substantial ditch (Feature 8). The top of the bank stands approximately 4m above the level of the inner bailey, with the difference between the top of the bank and the base of the eastern ditch being c 12m. A relatively low counterscarp bank extends along the eastern lip of the outer ditch (Feature 9) (Plate 7.5), immediately to the west of the modern access route into the castle. The inner faces of the eastern ramparts display a reduced gradient in comparison to the outer slopes. A section of masonry curtain wall extends along the crest of the eastern bank, reaching to the South Tower at its southern limit, and as far as the main gatehouse to the north. Midway along the eastern defensive circuit stand the remains of the North Tower, located adjacent to a pronounced break in the internal bank (Feature 10). It is likely that in its original form the castle was constructed of earthen and timber defences, with the logical assumption being that this break   Greenslade and Baugh 1976.

4

in the eastern earthwork defences therefore relates to a later phase of adaptation in advance of the construction of the stone buildings on the site. Also worthy of mention is the presence of a probable substantial internal ditch revealed during the geophysical survey of the inner bailey, which excavations suggest either predates the castle or dates from its earliest period (see Chapter 10 below). The original area enclosed by the inner bailey defences would therefore have presumably been far smaller than its current form suggests. A series of low earthwork mounds is located within the eastern external ditch, concentrated mainly towards its northern end (Feature 11). The northernmost mounds were investigated as part of the 1986–1988 excavations by Staffordshire County Council (see Chapter 10, Area 8 below), based on the hypothesis that they represented dumps of industrial glass or gypsum waste. Although the material forming the earthworks was post-medieval in date, there was no evidence of industrial activity, leaving the origin of the deposited material still in question. Their location is consistent with a collapse into the ditch from the outer side, and one of the plans of 1584–85 suggests that the outer gatehouse was somewhere in this general area (see Chapter 6, this volume, especially Plate 6.3), although the plan is too roughly drawn to permit a certain location for the gatehouse. However, the large mound immediately to the east of the North Tower almost certainly represents

124

Chapter 7: The Earthworks

Plate 7.5 The external eastern ditch separating inner and outer baileys, facing south (BA)

Plate 7.6 The earthwork mounds in external eastern ditch, facing south east (BA)

125

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Plate 7.7 The southern section of the inner bailey ditch, facing east (BA)

Plate 7.8 Break in the inner bailey ditch counterscarp bank providing access to the floodplain, facing south south west (BA) 126

Chapter 7: The Earthworks the collapse of masonry from the tower itself, perhaps following the Civil War slighting of the castle defences (Feature 12) (Plate 7.6). The southern end of the eastern defensive circuit terminates in a sizeable earthwork mound measuring c 50 m in diameter and located approximately parallel with the southern edge of the outer bailey (Feature 13). To the south of this is a broad area of relatively flat ground connecting the main eastern and southern defensive ditches with the modern access gateway into the site, located close to Tutbury Priory and cemetery (Feature 14). This almost certainly represents a later alteration to the castle earthworks in order to improve access to and from the town. It is likely that the eastern counterscarp bank originally continued further south to connect with the counterscarp of the southern ditch to form a continuous, and therefore effective, defensive circuit. The exact date of this postmedieval adaptation is unclear but it appears to have been formed by removing the counterscarp bank and depositing the spoil further north to form the aforementioned mound. Although the southern limit of the inner bailey does not exhibit a clear earthwork bank, the buildings along this boundary are situated upon a slight terrace of raised ground. Beyond these buildings the ground slopes away steeply until it reaches the base of the southern castle ditch (Feature 15) (Plate 7.7). This substantial ditch is bounded to the south by a pronounced counterscarp bank that forms the back row of a series of property boundaries along Castle Street. At its western extent the southern defensive ditch splits into northern and southern branches (Feature 16). The northern branch extends for a distance of c 45 m until it tapers out, along with its associated counterscarp, on the western side of the motte (Feature 17). The southern branch instead cuts through the counterscarp bank to continue south west and provide access to the floodplain of the Dove (Feature 18) (Plate 7.8). At this location the northward extension of the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks appears to connect to the southern counterscarp bank of the castle earthworks. The relative stratigraphy of the earthworks appears to suggest that the southern ditch originally continued unbroken along its northern branch, with the bank of the ‘Park Pale’ abutting the counterscarp bank to form a continuous enclosure. The break through the counterscarp earthwork along the southern branch is most likely a post-medieval alteration, perhaps for providing more direct access between the farm buildings known to exist on the site of the castle in the 18th and 19th centuries,5 and the pastureland to the south and west. The Middle Bailey The middle bailey is located to the north east of the site and is accessed either from the inner bailey via the main castle gateway or from the outer bailey across a spur of land separating the inner bailey ditch from the cleft between the baileys (Feature 19). Covering an area of approximately  Tringham 2007, 31.

5

6500m², the bailey is broadly D-shaped with the curved site directed out to the north east (Plate 7.9). The bailey stands c 34m above the level of the adjacent floodplain at c 88m AOD, with steep, tree-covered slopes to both the north and the east. The topographic survey of the middle bailey highlights a gentle, yet clearly identifiable, south-west to northeast downward slope across the entire area. Although the gradient is only minor, the ground nearer to the castle itself is higher, possibly suggestive of deliberate human alteration. Maintaining a downward slope from the castle outwards would presumably allow better drainage than a uniformly flat bailey and would also provide a further physical defence, however slight, to anyone attempting to attack the castle from this direction. To the far south and west of the ward the ground slopes away in a westerly direction at a steeper gradient than is present across the rest of the area (Feature 20). This dip is the eastern extent of the sizeable moat which encircles three sides of the inner bailey and motte. The gradient begins as this gentle incline before dropping sharply further to the west to form the outer slope of the ditch. The depression continues as far as the wedge of ground between the inner gatehouse and the modern approach path to the castle. This possibly indicates that the moat originally continued as far north as the main inner gatehouse, with a drawbridge providing access to the inner bailey when required, but that this portion of the ditch has since been infilled. This is consistent with various textual references to bridges and with all three of the 16th-century illustrations of the castle (see chapters 6 and 8, and plates 6.1–6.3, this volume). There is also an additional rise in topography towards the southern corner of the field, located close to the modern access between the middle and outer baileys (Feature 21). Whether this rise is natural or man-made, it would have had the effect of accentuating this side of the depression between the baileys, which has been viewed as a potential approachway. The plateaux on which the middle and inner baileys stand overlook this central approach route and could have provided formidable defensive positions, and extended a considerable degree of control over it. By artificially heightening this location, or even simply exploiting a natural rise in the ground level, the occupiers of the castle might have reinforced their defensive capabilities still further. The original function of the cleft between the middle and outer baileys remains unclear (Plate 7.10). It is plausible that it initially formed a heavily defended entrance route into the castle from the floodplain to the east, forcing visitors to traverse the low ground overlooked by the two baileys and the North Tower before turning north to enter the inner bailey via the inner gatehouse. However, it is equally plausible that it was a natural feature either maintained or modified as a defensive element of the castle plan, without actually functioning as a direct access route. It is also worth mentioning that an alternative hypothesis 127

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Plate 7.9 The middle bailey viewed from North Tower, facing north east (BA)

Plate 7.10 The cleft between the middle and outer baileys viewed from the North Tower, facing east north east (BA) 128

Chapter 7: The Earthworks

Plate 7.11 Detail along the cleft between middle and outer baileys to floodplain of the River Dove, facing east north east (BA)

Plate 7.12 The outer bailey from the North Tower, facing south east (BA) 129

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ exists, with Tringham arguing that the cleft may have been a deliberate undertaking in order to expose the underlying alabaster rock and create a distinctive, symbolic character to the castle that would have been visible for some distance.6 The Outer Bailey The outer bailey is located to the south east of the site, close to the main modern entrance to the castle and connected to the middle bailey by the spur of land that spans the cleft separating the two baileys. The bailey is again broadly D-shaped, covering an area of approximately 6600 m², but stands slightly lower than the middle bailey at a height of c 86 m AOD (Plate 7.11). Although relatively flat across its area, there is a very slight downward west to east gradient. The earthwork mound to the south west of the bailey probably only represents the post-medieval or modern alteration of the site, involving the destruction of part of the external bank to provide an access route, and the subsequent deposition of the excavated spoil onto this corner of the bailey (Feature 22). The 2007 excavations suggested that the northern border of the outer bailey had been artificially modified, to increase the enclosed area through the deposition of excavated spoil along the southern flank of the cleft separating the two baileys (Feature 23). DISCUSSION The relative phasing of the earthworks at Tutbury Castle still remains largely unclear, even despite the detailed topographic surveys and additional archaeological investigations that have taken place. Tentative claims have been made for an Iron Age earthwork enclosure situated on the summit of Castle Hill that was later modified into the medieval castle with the arrival of the Normans.7 However, there is actually very little direct evidence for late prehistoric activity on the site, beyond its characteristic location and topography. It appears likely that the motte and inner bailey form part of the castle’s initial phase of construction, along with the defensive rampart, external ditch and counterscarp to the east and south. The eastern rampart was presumably a continuous earthwork at this stage, prior to the later break created in its centre to provide access to the North Tower. It is also likely that a substantial internal ditch flanked the interior of the eastern rampart, as suggested by the geophysical survey results (see Chapter 9 below). However, there are no clear indications that the middle and outer baileys belong to a substantially later phase than the inner bailey, raising the possibility that the original earthwork castle at Tutbury was actually based on the three-bailey plan. Although obviously flattened and altered

in outline form, the area covered by these two additional baileys must have still formed part of the high ground on top of Castle Hill, even prior to any human adaptation. If the middle and outer baileys were later than the first phase of medieval construction, then this elevated eastern area would have been the most vulnerable to attack, and presumably, therefore, the delineation of the additional enclosures was soon made a priority. Aside from the infilling of the internal inner bailey ditch, and the creation of the break midway along the eastern rampart, presumably coincident with the construction of the North Tower, evidence for later medieval phases of alteration is sparse. Furthermore, the relative chronology between the north-western extent of the ‘Park Pale’ earthworks and the southern counterscarp bank of the inner bailey ditch is also unclear. As mentioned in Chapter 4, the ‘Park Pale’, at least in its latest form, almost certainly relates to the boundary around the medieval settlement of Tutbury. However, whether this boundary earthwork relates to a later phase of medieval activity or was constructed as an intended settlement extent in the late 11th century, along with the castle itself, is unclear. The main route into and through the medieval castle is still somewhat ambiguous, and may well have changed at times during the occupation of the site. A direct route from the castle gate to a mill on the fleam below the castle is known to have existed in the later 12th century,8 although it is uncertain as to whether this passed down the cleft between the middle and outer baileys, or whether it traversed the steep outer slopes of the middle bailey, from the gateway that was recorded on Sadler’s 1585 plans of the castle as the route to the town.9 Although the 14th-century gateway remained as the main entrance into the inner bailey, a new primary approach route was selected from at least the early 14th century. Tringham argues that this subsequent route was far more circuitous, passing through the borough, up Castle Street and past the priory church before entering the castle grounds via the western edge of the outer bailey.10 Even though the modern access road into the castle follows this suggested route, which is certainly the most direct approach from the town of Tutbury, there are reasons for questioning the suitability of such a path, especially from a defensive perspective. The land to the south of Castle Hill is significantly higher, standing on the same natural terrace as the castle itself. Without the additional protection provided by the steep natural topography to the west, north and east of the hill, the south would have been by far the weakest flank of the castle. If the main entrance to the castle was from the space between the south-western corner of the outer bailey and the castle ditch, the fortifications at this location must have been considerable. A potential  Tringham 2007, 22.   BL Add MS 33954, f.174-5. 10  Tringham 2007, 22. 8

 Tringham 2007, 22. 7  Tringham 2007, 2. 6

9

130

Chapter 7: The Earthworks alternative route into the castle could have been along the cleft and causeway between the middle and outer baileys, before turning north to reach the north-eastern gateway. This route is certainly far more naturally defensible, with any visitors being overlooked by the two baileys and the North Tower, as well as providing direct access to the Derbyshire road via the bridge across the Dove to the east of the castle. However, this route could also be questioned as it does not provide immediate access between the castle and the town. At present the exact approach route into the castle has to remain a largely unanswered question. Direct earthwork evidence for defensive alterations to the castle during the Civil War garrisoning of the site by the royalists, or even for the documented slighting of the castle defences that followed the conclusion of the siege in 1646, is largely absent. Many of the earthwork features at the site display potential evidence of alteration of form, but differentiating natural slippage or erosion from a deliberate policy of 17th-century demolition did not prove possible. One potential exception could be the earthwork mounds within the eastern ditch investigated by Staffordshire County Council in 1986. The excavation of these earthworks revealed that they were constructed of 17th-century material – possibly spoil resulting from the deliberate destruction of sections of the castle outworks. Reconstruction of the 17th-century landscape is one of the avenues of research that is deserving of further attention, both in terms of the use of the site as a defensive stronghold but also the positioning of the besieging Parliamentarian forces. The later post-medieval adaptation of the castle earthworks is probably best evidenced by the break in the outer castle bank to the south west of the site. This deliberate break in the outer defences appears to have been constructed to provide access between the castle and the pastureland in the Dove valley to the west, probably for the farm that was situated there from c1750. Similarly, the earthwork mound located at the junction of the eastern and southern ditches provides direct access between the castle and Tutbury town and priory, again probably associated with the use of the site as a farm in the later post-medieval period. Twentieth-century alteration of the castle earthworks can be seen in the rectangular depression surrounding the chapel in the inner bailey, the result of the 1950s excavations on the site, as well as possibly in the apparent alteration of the south-western corner of the outer bailey to create the access road still in use today.

131

Chapter 8: The Architecture Malcolm Hislop

INTRODUCTION The standing buildings are almost entirely confined to the inner bailey, its perimeter, and the motte (for the exception see the outer ward below) (Fig. 8.1). This chapter deals, principally, with the extant buildings, but also discusses some of the more significant buildings that formerly existed. There is a wide range of periods, the earliest visible remains being the foundations of the chapel excavated by Somerville in the 1950s, a freestanding building close to the centre of the bailey on a roughly east–west alignment, the nave of which has been assigned to the 12th century. A 13th-century date has been suggested for the chancel, in which case, it is likely to be a close contemporary of the cylindrical keep that formerly stood on the motte, the foundations of which were revealed by Somerville c 1960. The 14th century is represented by the gatehouse at the northern apex of the bailey, but it is the 15th-century works that form the most significant masonry element, and which make the biggest contribution to the architectural character of the castle. Surviving buildings from this period include the remains of a curtain wall, extending from the gatehouse in the north to the motte in the west, so enclosing two of the three sides of the inner bailey, and two large residential towers (the north and south towers) situated along its length. Other significant structural phases include the alterations to the south curtain associated with the demolished King’s Lodging of 1634–6, and the 18thcentury construction of a folly on the motte and a house and stable block against the south curtain. THE STRUCTURES OF THE MOTTE The Donjon (Julius Tower) The donjon was mentioned in a survey of 1523 by which time in was in such a dilapidated condition that it was not deemed worthy of the expense of repair.1 Although the donjon no longer exists, it is depicted in each of the three 16th-century drawings described above (Plates 6.1–6.3). Sadler described it as the ‘Julius Tower’, no doubt in reference to its supposed eponymous builder, Julius Caesar.2 We can say little about the building except that it occupied the motte, and that it was cylindrical, and therefore a comparatively rare type for this part of

  Colvin et al 1975, 295.   Such erroneous attributions are not uncommon: the 13th-century great tower of Spandau Castle in Berlin is also called the Julius Tower, and this was the name accorded to the 12th-century gatehouse at Chester Castle, now usually given the equally Roman title, the Agricola Tower; moreover, Shakespeare’s Richard III (III, i) reflects a popular 16thcentury association of the Tower of London with Caesar. 1 2

the country.3 Reference to buildings of similar character suggests that it is likely to date from the late 12th or early 13th century.4 Some remains of the building were uncovered during the course of Somerville’s excavation; we have a photograph which shows the outer face of a curving wall immediately outside the arc of the 18th-century folly, but of a larger radius. The masonry appears to be of ashlar quality and the top of the wall terminates in a chamfered offset, probably denoting the level of the principal floor. Otherwise, the only clue to the outward appearance and internal arrangement of the donjon is the drawing of 1562,5 which depicts a tower of at least two storeys, with a large transomed and traceried window lighting the lower level and two rectangular loops to the upper level, one much smaller than the other as if it were a stair loop. A curious convex broken string is shown at mid height, and, rising above the plain battlemented parapet are two cylindrical chimneys, one of which has a finialled conical cap and circular side vents, a type that would be compatible with a 13th-century date.6 The other has a crenellated cap without side vents, a form with a wider date range. The Folly The medieval great tower was replaced sometime in the 18th century by the existing folly which echoed its cylindrical form, and which seems to have been built largely from re-cycled medieval masonry. Doctor Pococke, in the record of his visit to Tutbury in 1751, makes no mention of the folly, but remarks that there had been a circular tower on top of the motte, suggesting that the foundations were still visible.7 By 1792, the folly was in existence, for a drawing bearing that date was published by Stebbing Shaw in the first volume of his history of Staffordshire,8 where he also recorded that the tower had been built by ‘lord Vernon the present possessor of the castle’,9 that is to say, the second baron, George VenablesVernon of Sudbury Hall (approximately 5.6km (3½ miles) to the north west of Tutbury), who succeeded to the estate in 1780.10 The folly, therefore, can be dated to sometime between 1780 and 1792.   The only other cylindrical donjon in the West Midlands is at Chartley Castle in Staffordshire, believed to date from the early 13th century. 4   Brown 1976, 77–78. 5   NA MR 1/17. 6   See Wood 1965, 281–87. 7   Cartwright 1888, 219. 8   Greenslade and Baugh 1976, II, 37. 9   Greenslade and Baugh 1976, II, 49. 10   Shaw started writing his history of Staffordshire in 1791, and the first volume, containing Tutbury, appeared in 1798; see Greenslade and Baugh 1976, I, vii. 3

132

Chapter 8: The Architecture

Figure 8.1 The inner bailey, phase plan There is little doubt that the tower was intended to represent a ruin, for there is a wide break in the circuit towards the east (Plate 8.1). Ostensibly of two storeys, it has a crudely chamfered offset at about head height. Two large groundstorey windows with semi-circular arches and broad squared hood moulds give views to the north west towards Alton and the high ground of the southern Pennines, and to the south west over Needwood Forest towards Beaudesert

Park on the edge of Cannock Chase. These two windows are matched to the north east and south east by a pair of half windows of similar type, apparently truncated by the rift in the wall. Both are now blocked and further obscured by two of three 19th-century buttresses. Around the upper storey is another, plain, offset, which acts as a sill band to a two-centred window with a chamfered surround, a re-used feature of c 1300. The only access to the interior

133

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ Mow Cop Castle comprises a round tower, which acted as the summer house, and a length of walling attached to the tower by a high arch. The effect is of an uneducated romanticism, the oeil-de-boeuf windows contrasting with Sanderson Miller’s more serious attempts at authenticity. If realism is lacking, the overall effect is highly theatrical, and makes a pointed reference to the romantic past. The great round tower, which occupies the summit of the hill, was evidently intended to represent a keep, and the attached straggling ruined wall line was included to support the idea of a castle, and to emphasise the suggested antiquity of the site.

Plate 8.1 The folly from the south (BA)

is through the rift in the east side. Inside, just below the upper window is a series of joist sockets, although whether these indicate the former existence of an upper floor, and thereby imply that the building was roofed, is open to question. The Tutbury Castle folly follows in the footsteps of a number of Gothic castle ruins erected in the west midlands during the 18th century. Sanderson Miller was the pioneer, his sham castle ruin of 1745–7 (now the Castle Inn) on the skyline at Edgehill near Radway Grange in southeast Warwickshire, being one of the first in the region; the Edgehill monument is dominated by a high polygonal tower, perhaps inspired by Guy’s Tower at Warwick Castle. Only slightly later are his castle ruins in the grounds of Hagley Hall, Worcestershire c 1747–48,11 a rectangular building with round corner towers, in essence similar to Shirburn Castle in Oxfordshire, a late 14th-century construct that had been remodelled c 1716–25.12 Miller’s castles at Edgehill and Hagley combine utility, in that they are in some measure habitable, with romantic effect, in that the habitable element has mock ruins attached. The same is true of a slightly later building at Mow Cop, a highly visible rock outcrop on the northwest Staffordshire border overlooking the Cheshire plain. At Mow Cop a mock castle was built in 1754 for Randle Wilbraham of Rode Hall in Cheshire, both as an eyecatcher for the Hall and as a summer house. The tower was built by local masons John and Ralph Harding, but no architect is recorded.   Colvin 1995, 653–54; Brooks and Pevsner 2007, 339.   Colvin 1995, 492.

The Tutbury Castle folly is not dissimilar in its essential aims and characteristics. Here, too, it was the cylindrical keep that was chosen as the focus of an 18th-century evocation of the past; it too surmounted a high point in the landscape, and, with its large windows, showed a similar disregard of archaeological correctness. Mow Cop Castle indeed has much to recommend it as a possible source of inspiration for the builder of the Tutbury folly. Of course, the Tutbury tower, being within an authentic medieval castle site, with its own genuine ruins, had no need of further embellishments, unlike Mow Cop, where the site was lacking in antique context. The other difference is that Tutbury does not seem to have been intended to offer shelter, although this is explicable given that such a function could have been served by the near contemporary house within the grounds. There is reason to suspect from the other 18th-century Gothic aspects of the castle, that Tutbury, like Mow Cop, probably served as a place for an excursion, at which to picnic and enjoy the views in the atmosphere of the Middle Ages. THE INNER GATEHOUSE COMPLEX Introduction There is good reason to suppose that the inner gatehouse is to be identified with the ‘new tower above the gate’ that Thomas earl of Lancaster spent £100 on in 1313–14.13 While it cannot as yet be proven that this entry in the accounts does not refer to the now lost outer gatehouse (qv), the details of the surviving inner gatehouse are clearly compatible with an early 14th-century date. Description Exterior The gatehouse to the inner ward is situated at the northern apex of the enclosure, thrust forward at the end of a salient extending from the north-west and east curtains, so that it is extends partway across the inner bailey ditch (Plate 8.2). Facing north east, it is now approached across an earthen causeway that breaches the ditch, but in the 16th century there was a bridge.14

  Brown et al 1963, I, 847 and N.10.   Shown on BL Add MS 33954, f.174 and NA MR 1/17.

11

13

12

14

134

Chapter 8: The Architecture

Plate 8.2 The inner gatehouse from the east (BA)

Plate 8.3 The inner gatehouse, interior from the south (BA)

135

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ The remains of the gatehouse comprise a single rectangular tower pierced by a slightly off-centre gateway. This is now prefaced by two short but massive barbican walls, although it is clear that these were not part of the original design: the contrast between the large ashlar blocks of the barbican and the lesser quality coursed and dressed stone blocks of the gatehouse is emphasised by a straight joint between the two components. The ashlar of the barbican is of similar character to that of the 15th-century buildings of the inner ward and it is probable that it is of similar date. There are a number of cut-outs in the stonework of the barbican, the majority of which probably represent putlog holes. Others, at two levels in the stonework to either side of the barbican entrance, relate to the positions of former hinges, thereby indicating the former presence of a gate. To the rear of the barbican, high up above the older gate arch, a gallery is carried by a shallow segmental-pointed arch, with a wave-moulded outer edge. Above this was a parapet with a double quarter-round-moulded string, fronting a gallery that connecting the two sides of the barbican. There is now no clue as to how this gallery was reached, the only apparent access being from the first-floor window in the front of the gatehouse. Of Thomas of Lancaster’s gatehouse itself, only the northeast, north-west and south-east walls survive, although the line of the south-west wall is probably indicated by a number of stones at ground level which correspond with a break in the masonry of the side walls whereby vertical joints separate the ashlar of the gatehouse (north east) from the rubble of the core (south west). If this is indeed the position of the former rear wall, then the building measured approximately 9m (30ft) by 6m (20ft) externally. A peculiarity of the design is that the two surviving (north and east) corners of the building were rounded, a concept that finds an echo in the bold convex quarterround mouldings found around the gateway arch and the ground-floor window on the south-east side of the building (Plate 8.4). Similar mouldings can be found at Dudley Castle, approximately 48km (30 miles) to the south west of Tutbury, around the entrances to the keep and main gateway to the bailey, both associated with the licence to crenellate of 1264.15 The barbican gave access to the segmental-arched gateway, which has a continuously moulded surround with a second moulded order to the arch only. There is no evidence to show that it was protected by a portcullis, although vestigial remains of a gate rebate survive around the inside face of the gateway (see interior description below). The ground floor fenestration is confined to a single rectangular loop situated in the south-east elevation (Plate 8.3), which lit a porter’s lodge (see interior description below), and a cruciform arrow loop in the north-east  Although it is clear that some work was being carried out in the early 14th century: CPR 1307–13, 369. For a discussion of the date of the great tower of Dudley see Hislop 2010. 15

Plate 8.4 The inner gatehouse, detail of south-east window (BA)

elevation, which is now blocked by the barbican and only visible from the interior. No other architectural features are to be found at this level. The first-floor room was lit by at least three large windows of which two substantially survive in the north-east and south-east walls, the latter directly above the ground-floor loop. Both have twocentred heads, and, although the tracery has been destroyed, each appears to have had a transom at about mid height, two upper lights and an oculus at the apex, shown on the drawing of 1562 (Plate 6.1) as a quatrefoil. The style is compatible with an early 14th-century date, as, for example, at Markenfield Hall of 1310 in the former North Riding of Yorkshire. Beneath the south-east window is a corbelled projection executed in grey ashlar masonry, which contrasts with the red sandstone of the gatehouse. Structural anomalies to either side of it, namely, a straight joint on the left-hand (south-west) side and loose jointing on the right-hand (north-east) side, suggest that it is a later interpolation, and it is probable that it represents the remains of a chimney stack associated with the conversion of the ground-floor window embrasure into a fireplace (see interior description below). Above the first-floor windows there is a moulded string, and, surmounting this, at the north-east end of the gatehouse, fragments of a former third storey, essentially five courses of squared, dressed and coursed sandstone masonry, the lowest course being splayed towards the north-east front. This stonework is different from that in the main body of the gatehouse, being of slightly better quality workmanship, a deeper shade of red, and in a better state of preservation. The contrast suggests that this upper storey also belongs to a different construction period and that it represents a modification to Earl Thomas’s work of 1314. Other than the character of the surviving masonry, what little we know about the nature of this addition is gleaned from its appearance in the drawing of 1562 (Plate 6.1), which depicts the north-east front. This shows the upper storey rising from a two-tier second-floor offset, and lit by a central rectangular cross window with a small loop to 136

Chapter 8: The Architecture the right (north west) at a higher level, apparently lighting a staircase within the north angle of the gatehouse. This latter point appears to be confirmed by the presence of a small rectangular or polygonal turret in this position, rising behind and above the crenellated parapet of the gatehouse. The drawing suggests the turret had panelled sides, and clearly depicts a battlemented parapet. Turrets like this one, which marked the position of a corner staircase, were a common feature in the 14th century.16 In addition to the turret two tall crenellated chimneys are shown, one much larger than the other, although this differentiation in size may be an attempt at perspective. The larger of the two, which seems to be planted directly above the secondfloor window, is polygonal with panelled sides. The other appears to be cylindrical; both have crenellated caps, which may suggest a 14th- or 15th-century date.17 The gatehouse was connected to the curtain by the salient, the south-east side of which continued the line of the southeast wall of the gatehouse, meeting the east curtain at a right angle. The north-west side began as a continuation of the line of the rear (south-west) wall of the gatehouse but soon turned towards the south west and extended for approximately 30m (100ft) until it was terminated in a small square turret adjoining the former north-west curtain. Interior The interior of the gatehouse measured 7.35m (24ft 1½ins) by 4.42m (14ft 6ins), and was divided at ground level into a 2.9m (9ft 6in) wide gate passage to the north west and a porter’s lodge to the south east (Plate 8.3). Just below the gate arch on the south-east side of the opening are the vestigial remains of a rebate for a gate, now mostly rendered to prevent further attrition. In the north-east wall of the lodge is a cruciform arrow loop, now blocked by the barbican walls, within a semicircular arched embrasure with chamfered surround. A similar embrasure in the south-east wall has, at an unknown date, been converted into a fireplace with a raised hearth of tiles and a flue in the head of the embrasure. To the west of this embrasure is a wall scar, beyond which was a second room, with a 14th-century fireplace in the east corner and a partially exposed wall flue above. At first-floor level, in the north-east wall, the former twolight window has a concave semi-circular rear arch with quarter-circle-moulded surround and window seats within the embrasure. This window was partially blocked when the barbican was added. The south-east window is of similar character, and the north-east jamb of a third can be seen directly opposite in the north-west side. These three openings are significant architectural features and demonstrate that the first-floor contained a high class apartment. There is now no indication as to where the access

to this upper chamber lay, although one possible site of a staircase is at the south angle, where there is a thickening of the wall to accommodate the ground-floor fireplace. At first-floor level, above the wall scar that denotes the former division between the two ground-floor rooms, is a shallow, square-headed, chamfered, recess reaching to the height of the adjacent window arch springer stone; this has the appearance of a blocked opening, although consolidation work in this area has obscured the original arrangement. Discussion The antecedents of the Tutbury gatehouse go back to the rectangular single-tower gatehouses of the 11th and 12th centuries. Exeter, Richmond, Tickhill and Ludlow are all 11th-century examples of the ‘hall’ gatehouse, in which the gateway gave access to a chamber occupying the whole of the ground storey, rather than a passage. Typologically later, appearing in the early 12th century, for example, at Norham in Northumberland, is the gatehouse with a gate passage proper, often vaulted. The inner gatehouse of Tutbury owes something to both forms. As an architectural type, Thomas of Lancaster’s gatehouse at Tutbury presents a marked contrast to the great twin drum-towered entrance that had been used to considerable effect in many English castles since the construction of the outer gatehouse of Chepstow Castle towards the end of the 12th century,18 and which reached its apogee in Wales during Edward I’s castle building programme of the later 13th century.19 The dissimilarity is endowed with a greater interest when it is considered that it was this monumental twin-towered type that Thomas of Lancaster caused to be built at his Northumbrian castle of Dunstanburgh at almost exactly the same time as his work on the gatehouse of Tutbury.20 However, while the rectangular single-towered gatehouse may have been less popular in the 13th century than it was in the 12th, there is no doubt that by the early 14th century it was a serious alternative to these more ostentatious and expensive schemes. The main two-storey gatehouse to Dudley Castle, for example, which was rebuilt under the licence to crenellate of 1264, had much in common with its counterpart at Tutbury, including its rectangular form and the characteristic broad quarter-round mouldings, which are found around the entrance arch. Another rectangular single-towered entrance is the mid 14th-century Peveril Tower at Haddon Hall, some 40km (25 miles) to the north of Tutbury. It is indeed Dunstanburgh rather than Tutbury that is likely to be the anomaly, for the Dunstanburgh gatehouse has been seen as a theatrical political statement rather than a candid architectural work, a grandiose façade whose principal  Avent and Miles 2006, 51–62.  At Rhuddlan 1277, Harlech, 1283 and Beaumaris 1295. 20   The Dunstanburgh gatehouse was begun in 1313: Bates 1891, 169, citing the account of the receiver of Embleton, duchy of Lancaster records, bundle 1, No. 3, PRO. 18

  For example, Carlisle Castle outer gatehouse of 1378–83; Wressle Castle, near Hull, south-west and south-east towers of c 1390; Winchester College Middle Gate 1387–94. 17  Wood 1965, 286–88. 16

19

137

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ purpose was to create an impression from a distance.21 It has been suggested that the siting of the Tutbury gatehouse on the edge of the bluff was also a deliberate attempt to make an impact, 22 but the this building is devoid of any reference to the royal works, and any effect it produced would have been upstaged by the dominating presence of the great tower surmounting the motte. Defence does not seem to have been the dominant consideration, the only unambiguously martial feature being the single arrow loop on the left-hand (south-east) side of the gateway. The lack of a portcullis or drawbridge, and the presence of the large, decorative and very domesticlooking first-floor windows show that the gatehouse was not intended as a serious obstacle to a determined assault. It has instead more of the character of a lodge, heralding the impending presence of a great house. The gatehouse juts boldly from the line of the curtain to greet the visitor and convey him or her in stately fashion through a ceremonial archway and elongated entrance passage into the castle proper. THE CURTAIN WALL Introduction The curtain wall, which extended around the inner bailey, was built in several phases from 1400 onwards,23 and the three surviving sections display distinctive characteristics. In the following account these sections are described in geographical order, which is also believed to be their chronological order,24 that is to say: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Between the gatehouse and the motte Between the motte and the south tower Between the South Tower and the North Tower Between the North Tower and the gatehouse

Section 1: North-west side between the Gatehouse and the Motte The foundations of the north-west curtain built between 1400 and 1420,25 can now only be traced for approximately 30m (100ft) beyond the terminating turret of the gatehouse salient, but its position is marked on the plan of 1913, including two large lengths of foundations, described as being ‘60ft’ (18.29m) and ‘30ft’ (9.14m) in length respectively. Slightly more information about the character of the curtain is to be gleaned from the 1562 drawing which depicts it in a good state of preservation, incorporating a square mid wall turret, rising above the parapet of the curtain and entered from the wall walk. By the time the Sadler plans were drawn up, however, it seems

 Ashbee 2006, 28–37.  Tringham 2007, 22. 23   Brown et al 1963, II, 847–48. 24   Brown et al 1963, II, 847–48. 25   Brown et al 1963, II, 848.

that most of the wall, including the turret, had gone, and had been replaced by paling.26 Section 2: South side between the Motte and the South Tower The wall between the motte and the South Tower, which was built between c 1420 and 1442,27 was provided with a series of rectangular turrets, three in all, which project outside the line of the curtain, although their inner faces are flush. The turrets have widths of 3.07m (east), 3.11m (centre) and 2.68m (west), although the latter has been truncated, and it is probable that the intended measurement for all three was 10ft (3.05m). As depicted on the 1562 drawing they are not dissimilar from the turret of the north-west curtain, and, likewise, rise above the parapet of the curtain with crenellated parapets. Whereas curtain walls of the 13th century had been dominated by the circular or D-shaped tower, small rectangular projecting wall towers or turrets were becoming popular features again by the early 14th century, particularly in the north of England at, for instance, Alnwick (c 1309), Dunstanburgh (1313–22), Pickering (1323–6), and Pontefract (1323–6). These examples contained residential accommodation, whereas the Tutbury turrets were solid up to wall walk level, and indeed, although the upper parts of the turrets have been lost, the external widths were not really large enough to have accommodated a lodging, and they cannot have contained more than a shelter or passage along the length of the alure. These characteristics have more in common with buttresses, such as those that are ranged along the north-east curtain of Carlisle Castle.28 The eastern half of the curtain, which extends as far as the garderobe turret of the adjoining South Tower (qv) to the east, is pierced by the later openings of the ‘King’s Lodging’ (qv) of 1634–6, but, it is evident from a study of the wall that the 17th-century windows reflect a medieval fenestration pattern, evidently part of the 15th-century scheme. The physical evidence for this is confirmed by a 16th-century survey, which described the buildings as being ‘bounded and knytt to the wall’.29 The south curtain incorporates a chamfered offset, which, along this section, follows a crenellated pattern descending at regular intervals from first-floor level to create a series of recesses within the lower storey. These recesses are now occupied by the 17th-century windows of the King’s Lodging, but presumably served the same function in the 15th century, and so provide evidence for the former presence of a 15thcentury great hall in this position (Fig. 8.2).

21 22

 The paling was erected in 1574–75: Colvin et al 1975, 296.   Brown et al 1963, II, 848–49. 28  Tentatively assigned to the 16th century: McCarthy et al, 1990, 20, 29. 29   Colvin et al 1975, 295. 26 27

138

Chapter 8: The Architecture

Figure 8.2 The King’s Lodging, south elevation

Section 3: South-east side between the South Tower and the North Tower The middle section, between the South Tower and North Tower, which was being erected simultaneously with the South Tower in 1442,30 had no such features, but, a broad rectangular block, incorporating two flights of steps, projects from the interior face. This structure seems to have been associated with a former mural garderobe, of which the opening to the pit is visible on the exterior in the form of a low four-centred arch. On the interior, in the stonework to either side of the pit, is a vertical slot, 0.46m (18ins) long by 8cm (3⅛ins) square, and, extending along the top of the northern slot, a horizontal 6.4cm (2½in) square rebate. These have evidently been provided to accommodate a wooden fitting, perhaps a lavatory seat. The 1562 drawing (Plate 6.1) suggests that this section of the curtain wall was surmounted, at parapet level, by at least three battlemented bartizans. These seem to have been cylindrical, and to have projected from the face of the wall on stepped corbelling; at least one of the bartizans shown in the drawing is situated at an angle in the curtain, and, although it is not obvious in the drawing, it is possible that the others were similarly sited, because there are four such changes of direction in this section of curtain. This general type of bartizan, which can trace its origins back to Edward I’s late 13th-century castle-building programme in north Wales, 31 was widely adopted in northern England from the mid 14th century to crown the corners of castellated secular buildings,32 and the form   Brown et al, II, 848.   At Harlech Castle barbican (1283–90), and the Gate-next-the-sea at Beaumaris (1296–98). 32   Eg, Micklegate Bar (1350–75), Monk Bar (early 14th century) and Walmgate Bar barbican (14th century) in York, the residential towers of Belsay (c 1370), Chipchase (c 1370), Halton, Edlingham, Hylton (c 30 31

used at Tutbury, in which nearly the whole body of the bartizan stood proud of the front of the curtain, rather than being largely encompassed within the main structure, is reminiscent of surviving 15th-century examples in northern England and Scotland.33 Each of the Tutbury bartizans appears to have been pierced by a circular loop, perhaps a gun loop, but equally possible is that these features were purely ornamental. Section 4: North-east side between the North Tower and the Gatehouse Between the North Tower and Inner Gatehouse the curtain wall changes character again for it is the only stretch to have had a series of narrow external buttresses, four in all, of which traces survive. One of these, now detached from the curtain, has a particular interest in that the core contains re-used masonry including a roll-moulded fragment, a possible vestige of an earlier stone phase at Tutbury. The southern half of this section of walling, a length of some 24.38m (80ft), has been replaced, probably in the 1520s,34 with a much narrower wall, only about 0.6m (2ft) thick, reusing the medieval masonry. THE SOUTH TOWER Introduction The South Tower was built between 1442 and 1450, the King’s master mason, Robert Westerley, being involved in its design and construction, although advice was also

1400), and the gatehouse of Tynemouth Priory (c 1390). 33   One of the prototypes on the barbican of Harlech Castle, is of this type, but, it is generally a much later phenomenon. Otherwise, in northern England the curtain wall of Witton Castle, Witton le Wear, Durham (c 1410), embodies some of the earliest examples. See Hislop 2007, 37–38. 34   Colvin et al 1975, 295.

139

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Plate 8.5 The South Tower from the north (BA)

Plate 8.6 The South Tower from the south east (BA)

140

Chapter 8: The Architecture

Plate 8.7 The South Tower, detail of monolithic window (BA)

Plate 8.8 The South Tower, large basement from the south (BA)

141

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ sought from duchy masons based at Pontefract Castle.35 The tower was originally intended to occupy the (unspecified) site of an earlier tower, but exploratory work around the foundations resulted in a change of plan, so that the tower was eventually built in its present position.36 Description Exterior The South Tower is situated at the southern angle of the castle at the junction of the south and east curtains. It is built of sandstone ashlar and comprises a rectangular main block aligned north west to south east with a smaller, similarly aligned annexe attached to its south-west side, and a still smaller garderobe turret of parallelogram plan adhering to the south-west side of the annexe and aligned east–west. Projecting from the north-west face of the tower, at the junction of the main block and annexe, is a rectangular stair turret (Plate 8.5). The tower is only of two storeys, and is thus a rather squat building, hardly worthy of its title. In this respect, it is a somewhat unusual and unexpected structure to find as one of the wall towers of a castle in which at least the semblance of defence had been preserved. Indeed, despite its position, and its appearance of solidity, it is the domestic aspects of the South Tower that prevail, even in the portion that lies outside the curtain. One highly inventive unifying aspect of the outward embellishments is a two-tier plinth with moulded copings that extends all around the structure, and which was used to admirable architectural effect, stepping up at the ends of the main (north-west) front, and up and down the east elevation, to reflect the slopes of the rampart (Plate 8.6). The centrepiece of the main architectural front, towards the courtyard, is the stair turret, which projects from the centre of the front at the junction of the two main elements, so emphasising the division in concert with the recessing of the annexe. The turret has a central two-centred doorway with continuous moulded surround, and bold hood mould, and, at first-floor level, a cruciform loop with circular terminations. The short eastern return is blind, but the deeper western return is pierced by two chamfered loops one above the other, lighting the lower and upper parts of the turret. The main block, to the left (east), has a ground-storey arrangement of openings reminiscent of a chapter house entrance. It comprises a two-centred doorway flanked by a pair of single-light trefoil-arched windows, deeply set within two-centred frames; all three openings have heavily moulded surrounds and bold hood moulds. Above the eastern window, at first-floor level, is a tall, deeply set window of four trefoil-headed lights and the remnants of panel tracery. Above the doorway, at first-floor level, is the rebated internal face of an inserted entrance. Immediately   Brown et al 1963, II, 848.   Brown et al 1963, II, 848–49.

35 36

below and to either side of this insertion is a pair of blocked, inserted, beam sockets, one hard up against the stair turret and the other against the west jamb of the firstfloor window; these sockets have counterparts in two stone courses above the doorway, and the two pairs seem to represent the respective positions of the first floor and wall plate of a timber-framed extension that formerly projected from the tower within the angle made by the main block and stair turret. Extending upwards from the western wall plate socket, at an angle of 45°, is a groove in the stonework for the accommodation of lead flashing, indicating the pitch of the roof. A smaller socket immediately to the right (west) of the doorway probably indicates the position of an internal partition. The annexe to the west of the stair turret is set back further than the main block. It was entered from a two-centred doorway with continuous moulded surround. Above the apex of the hood mould is an inserted stone block perhaps replacing a sculptured finial or other embellishment. To the left of the doorway is a trefoil-arched window with moulded surround, and above the doorway, at first-floor level, a window similar to that lighting the main block, but now devoid of tracery. To the left of this is a small monolithic window of three trefoil-arched lights with sunken spandrels, and straight returned hood mould (Plate 8.7). The exterior is blind at ground level, but both the main block and the recessed auxiliary block each retain the lower half of a large first-floor window in their south walls. Set back from the auxiliary block to the west are the remains of the garderobe turret, which comprise the south and west wall stubs attached, respectively, to the auxiliary block and to a thickening of the south curtain. In the west elevation of the latter, at first-floor level, is a circular gun loop, the only such feature recorded at the castle. In the 18th century a folly was raised on top of the South Tower comprising a ruined wall pierced by a semi-circular-arched doorway with panelled spandrels and raised keystone, probably a re-used detail from the demolished King’s Lodging (qv) of 1634–36, and part of the 18th-century Gothic scheme at Tutbury that included the construction of the castellated house (qv) against the south curtain and the folly on the motte (qv). Interior Basement The basement comprised two self-contained, independently-entered chambers, one in each of the two main components of the tower. The doorway in the south elevation of the main block gives access to a flight of eight steps leading down to a stamped earth floor. The interior of the doorway has a concave quarter round-moulded surround and a segmental-pointed rear arch. To each side of the steps is a segmental-arched mural cupboard, above each of which is a window with a

142

Chapter 8: The Architecture two-centred rear arch (Plate 8.8). Another mural cupboard is to be found at the south end of the room, very mutilated, but possibly original also. The room was intended to have a barrel vault with faux rib decoration; the high pointed profile of which is delineated by the moulded wall ribs, which have been incorporated into the stonework of the north and south end walls (Plate 8.9) Provision has been made in this arrangement for a ridge rib and a pair of longitudinal ribs, the profiled positions of which survive. The sides of the vault were begun, and the partially completed stonework springs from a moulded impost band with (from top to bottom) ogee, quarter circle and ogee profile. The vault is of ashlar, and blocks were carved with sections of moulded faux ribs projecting from them, and then assembled in the fashion of a three-dimensional jigsaw. Five transverse ribs divide the vault longitudinally into six bays, and, in addition, there is a pattern of diagonal tiercerons, all these members being intended to meet the longitudinal rib. The resultant design over this lower part of the vault would have been one of bisected triangles, both upright and inverted. Above this partially completed structure, along both the east and west walls, is a row of corbels, and, above them, corresponding sockets for the first-floor beams. The corbels would have carried supportive posts, in the manner of hammer posts, and it is probable that arch braces would have extended between the posts and the first-floor beams. The entrance to the basement of the annexe opens to a flight of eight steps, which descends to the earth floor. The rear of the doorway has a continuous concave quarter circle moulding with pyramid stops (Plate 8.10). This room was also intended to be vaulted, and work started on an acutely pointed tunnel vault, although as in the basement of the main block, the upper floor was ultimately supported on transverse timber beams. First Floor Neither of the two basement rooms communicated with any other part of the building, and the first floor was reached separately from the stair turret, which contains a newel stair ascending to parapet level. A straight flight of stairs branches off from the newel and leads east to a lobby within the north wall of the tower. This room was probably lit originally by a small window (akin to that on the north elevation of the annexe at first-floor level), which was destroyed by the inserted doorway. From this lobby a pointed doorway, with continuous moulded surround, led into a large chamber occupying the main body of the tower. The large north window has a continuous rollmoulded surround and four-centred rere-arch (but no sign of window seats). In the east wall there is a large fireplace with continuous moulded surround and flat lintel, the centre stone above the lintel being wedge-shaped to form a joggled joint, thereby relieving pressure on the lintel. To the south of the fireplace a window embrasure with rebated surround and shouldered lintel, is set at an

oblique angle so that it sights towards the outer face of the curtain wall. At the north end of the west wall a twocentred doorway with continuous moulded surround leads to a privy chamber within the annexe. Around the head of the wall is a moulded cornice. The privy chamber is lit by two large windows, one in the centre of both north and south walls, with continuous rollmoulded embrasures extending down to floor level, but containing no window seats. In the east wall is a central fireplace with hollow-moulded surround, and a lintel bearing carved motifs. Here too the head of the wall is finished with a moulded cornice. In the west wall a two-centred doorway with moulded surround leads into a mural passage. This passage is lit by a plain rectangular window 0.79m (2ft 7ins) x 0.28m (11ins) situated immediately opposite the entrance, and is roofed in stone slabs carried on a corbel table. Towards the south, the passage branches west to terminate in a circular gun loop, and at the south end of the main passage itself, a two-centred door with chamfered surround and pyramid stops led into the now destroyed garderobe turret. Tusking on the north side of the turret indicates that the interior was divided at first-floor level. Discussion The South Tower was evidently intended as the lodging of a very important and specific personage. As a type, it resembles those substantial wall towers containing high quality lodgings that had begun to appear in the early 13th century,37 and which, during the later 14th century, were to attain particular heights of prominence in a number of northern castles, notably the Neville and Bulmer towers at Brancepeth (Durham) and Clifford’s and Joan’s towers at Raby (Durham), and, conspicuously closer to Tutbury, at Warwick Castle, where Guy’s Tower and Caesar’s Tower dominate the two ends of the mid 14th-century entrance front. The South Tower, in consequence of its two-unit plan, was slightly more complex than most of these earlier buildings, and, unusually in buildings of this type, height was eschewed in favour of a horizontal spatial progression from the outer to inner chamber. Indeed, the building is squat in appearance, and, with only two storeys to its credit, the lower of which is partly below courtyard level, it hardly merits the appellation ‘tower’. Any loss of presence produced by the lack of height, however, is compensated for by the elongation of the courtyard front, and the skilful massing of the main components to create a bold piece of architecture in which the three-dimensional qualities are accentuated. Close parallels are hard to bring to mind; although such an air of castellated domesticity had been a recurrent   For example, the Wakefield Tower of the 1220s at the Tower of London: Curnow 1977. 37

143

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Plate 8.9 The South Tower, abortive vault from the north west (BA)

Plate 8.10 The South Tower, small basement from the south (BA)

144

Chapter 8: The Architecture

Plate 8.11 The North Tower from the south west (BA)

Plate 8.12 The North Tower, detail of cruciform loop (BA)

theme of seigneurial sites since the later 13th century at, for example, Bishop Robert Burnell’s strong house at Acton Burnell in Shropshire. However, more than anything else, one is reminded of the Warkworth donjon in Northumberland of c 1390. The squat proportions, the three-dimensionality created by the massing of separate components, the apparent solidity of the building, and the high quality of the details, are all reproduced in the South Tower albeit on a smaller scale.

hall at Wingfield represents a completely different system to that intended for the basement of the South Tower.

A parallel that is closer, both geographically and chronologically, is the one that Emery draws with the hall range at Wingfield Manor begun c 1439, only a few years before the North Tower, and still in progress in 1442. Emery has drawn attention to the shared characteristics of high quality ashlar work, doorways with deep continuous mouldings, large square-headed fireplaces with highly decorated lintels, and the ornate vaulted undercrofts.38 However, while Wingfield provides a measure of broad comparability, its structural details are far from convincing as specific antecedents for the South Tower. This is particularly so in respect of the vaulting patterns, where the quadripartite rib vaulting of the undercroft beneath the

High pointed barrel vaults were characteristic of some late 14th- and 15th-century residential towers to be found in castles in northern England and Scotland, notably Belsay (c 1370), Raby (c 1381),39 Warkworth (c 1390)40 and Borthwick (c 1430), but are otherwise comparatively rare. These earlier northern examples are plain constructions, akin to the vault of the annexe, and for closer parallels with the vault of the main block, and its applied vaulting ribs, we have to look to ecclesiastical analogues. The chapter house of Gloucester Abbey had a pointed barrel vault raised over it in the 12th century, which may be significant in that Robert Westerley’s name hints at a Gloucestershire origin.41 However, when compared with Tutbury, the chapter house vault was a simple affair with only transverse ribs. Closer in date is St Catherine’s chapel in Abbotsbury, Dorset, some 130km (80 miles) to the south of Gloucester, which dates from c 1400.42 Here, as in its counterpart in the South Tower basement, the vault was given applied ridge, longitudinal, and transverse ribs,  The basement of Clifford’s Tower.  The basement of the donjon. 41   Harvey 1984, 330. 42   RCHM 1952, 3–4. 39 40

  Emery 2000, 438.

38

145

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ but interspersed with two tiers of cinquefoil-headed panels rather than the more inventive diagonal pattern of Tutbury.

Interior

THE NORTH TOWER (ALSO THE HIGH TOWER; QUEEN MARGARET’S TOWER)

Like that of the South Tower, the basement was entered directly from the courtyard, the west entrance giving on to a flight of six steps down to a single rectangular room, with a floor of stamped earth and an ashlar barrel vault of pointed section. Anomalies in the stonework at the east end of the side walls, and the lower quality of the masonry of the east end wall suggest that the east wall has been rebuilt; this wall contains a blocked, large segmental-arched opening, probably a window. The north wall contains a niche, latterly used as a fireplace. This feature is somewhat altered, but retains the eastern half of a chamfered segmental-arched lintel. The western side appears to have been widened and has a splayed jamb and roughly shaped lintel stone that contrasts markedly with the fine quality of the original feature. There are no other facilities within the basement.

Description Exterior The North Tower of 1457–c1460, of which only the western half survives, is an ashlar-built four-storey structure with a stair turret at the north-west angle breaking forward towards the west (Plate 8.11). Fortunately, in common with the South Tower, the main (west) front towards the courtyard survives. Here, a two-tier plinth with both chamfered (lower) and moulded (upper) copings is carried over both the main tower and projecting stair turret, although it does not continue around the sides of the building as in the case of the South Tower. Towards the left-hand (north) end of the elevation, two entrances give access to the stair turret and to the basement respectively. Each has a comparatively high four-centred arch, a continuous chamfered surround and a mutilated hood mould. The three upper storeys of the stair turret are each lit to the west by a single cruciform loop with circular terminations (Plate 8.12). The basement is not lit towards the west, but each of the upper storeys in the main body of the tower has a small window to the left (north) and a large window to the right (south). Of the former, the middle one is the best preserved; it is square-headed with three trefoil-headed lights and sunken spandrels and returned hood mould. The others were similar in character though the hood mould of the first-floor window terminated in sculptured heads, now so decayed as to be unidentifiable. Each of the frames appears to have been cut from a single stone, a technique that was used in the construction of some of the South Tower windows.43 The larger windows, of which only the lowest survives in any degree of completeness, were square-headed with deeply recessed surrounds of two orders, the outer with a concave quarter circle moulding, and the inner chamfered. These windows appear to have had central mullions, transoms at about mid height, and square hood moulds with returned ends. Although the sill of the lower window and the area beneath it have been damaged, the remains of a mural drainage spout, which gives the appearance of having extended through the wall to discharge outside, survives within the core. Towards the top of the tower is a fragment of moulded parapet band. The drawing of 1562 shows a series of four gargoyles around the foot of the parapet carved as the heads of wild beasts, although there is now no trace of any such features, and it cannot be ascertained whether they ever really existed.   For a discussion of this technique see Briggs 1968.

43

Basement

First Floor The spiral staircase gives access to a landing or lobby at first-floor level, lit to the west by the small window already described, from whence a doorway in the east wall led into the first-floor chamber. This entrance has a three-centred head with flat lintel and a continuous roll and concave quarter circle-moulded surround. The floor of the room is now concreted, and, owing to the partial demolition of the tower, few details other than the door survive. The west window has a splayed embrasure and heavily eroded window seats, and although the embrasure head has been largely destroyed, surviving obliquely-cut stones above the window suggest that it formerly had a joggled lintel. At floor level, beneath the windowsill, is the drain, which has been described above under the section concerning the exterior. There was a mural passage in the south wall, part of which survives, which probably led to a garderobe discharging towards the east, perhaps accommodated in a turret at the south-east angle. Second Floor Continuous convex-quarter-round corbelling carried the second floor on the west side. A door in the west wall gave access from the lobby. Like the first-floor doorway it has a three-centred head with flat lintel, but the surround is chamfered rather than moulded. The stonework of the wall over the doorway is worth remarking upon. The door lintel itself is cut from two stones; above it a wedge-shaped stone acts as a joggled joint, and above this is a long narrow stone, and then another wedge shaped stone. The remnants of the west window embrasure suggest that it too had a joggled lintel. Third Floor At third-floor level, the western entrance has a chamfered surround and Caernarvon arch. The floor was supported on continuous corbelling of similar character to that at second-floor level, but situated on the north side. There is

146

Chapter 8: The Architecture also a Caernarvon-arched door in the north wall, which led to the former curtain wall parapet walk. At the north end of the west wall is a single corbel, which probably supported a former roof truss. Analysis Whereas the effect of the South Tower is achieved by an appearance of solidity, and the massing of its separate components, the North Tower lives up to its alternative name, the ‘High Tower’, by placing greater reliance on height, although the effect is lessened from inside the inner bailey owing to the lower storey being mostly below ground level. In the late 15th century, apart from the 13thcentury keep on top of the motte, this would have been the principal vantage point within the castle. Its four singlechamber storeys constitute a much simpler concept than the South Tower. The most immediate analogy, geographically as well as chronologically, is the High Tower of Wingfield Manor House in Derbyshire, which dates from the 1440s, a decade before the North Tower was begun. Essentially, both towers were designed to contain a series of three elevated, well-lit, single-chamber lodgings, with lesser accommodation in the basement. They occupy comparable positions in being situated along the outer circuits of their respective complexes, and in projecting externally from the curtain. While both towers have a very similar purpose, there are, of course, points of divergence. For instance, the Wingfield tower is a slightly larger building, and, because it is integrated with the adjacent accommodation ranges, the architectural effect was to a great extent confined to the exterior. In contrast, the North Tower of Tutbury was an independent structure, which allowed the builder to create an embellished, though asymmetrical, entrance front towards the courtyard (west). While the Wingfield chambers may have been slightly more spacious than those at Tutbury, they were entered directly from the staircase, whereas at Tutbury each was served by a small mural lobby, giving them a slightly more private approach. THE SOUTH RANGE The Medieval Hall Range The 15th-century great hall stood on the south side of the inner bailey, and what we know of its character is gleaned in part from the evidence of the existing curtain wall described above, but largely from documentary evidence, namely, the perspective of 1562, a summary 16th-century description, and the two plans of the castle drawn up at the instigation of Sir Ralph Sadler in the 1580s. Consequently our knowledge is scanty, and the pictorial evidence is, in varying degrees, suspect, so we can only deal in generalities.

The 1562 drawing shows a rambling, two-storey, multigabled building extending from the motte as far as the South Tower to which it appears attached. More reliable, perhaps, is the evidence offered by the curtain, which formed the south wall of the range. The configuration of the offset pattern towards the south (see above under Curtain Wall) implies that there were five bays of windows along this front. A clue as to how many of these served the great hall is provided by a rise in the height of the upper level of the stepped offset, which occurs immediately to the left (west) of the second window bay from the west (Fig. 8.2). The most likely explanation for this anomaly is that it denotes a hierarchical division of the interior; in doing so, it suggests that there was a three-bay hall to the east and a two-bay chamber block to the west. Possible confirmation of this arrangement comes from the description of the accommodation in this area drawn up for Sir Ralph Sadler in the 1580s, which gives dimensions for the great hall of 61½ft (18.75m) long by 29ft (8.8m) wide and for the great chamber of 40ft (12.2m) long by 29ft (8.8m) wide. These longitudinal measurements replicate the 3:2 ratio of the south elevation, and fit well with the length of the building, based on the fenestration pattern.44 The two apartments were reported to ‘forme one room’ and to ‘conteyne one breadthe’, suggesting that they were in a linear progression beneath one roof. There was also a 42½ft (13m) by 19ft (5.8m) lobby associated with the great chamber, and a 21ft (6.4m) by 11½ft (3.5m) ‘entre’ into the South Tower. Reconciling these details with the two 16th-century plans, however, is problematic. Apparently representing two different floor levels, both depict a linear block of buildings aligned with the south curtain and connected to the South Tower and East Range by a ‘passage’, depicted on the plans as an enclosed space with a rounded southeast corner. A more specific point of correlation is a narrow building that projects from the centre of the west gable end, and which is described in both instances as a scullery. The ground-floor plan shows a roughly rectangular block with a wing breaking forward from the west end of the north front to form an approximately L-shaped complex. Immediately east of the wing is the principal entrance to the hall range, which comprises opposed entrances suggestive in their arrangement of a traditional medieval cross passage, the southern half of which is labelled ‘entry to the hall’. This may be thought to suggest that the hall occupied the ground storey, but, if so, the proportions described on the plan appear somewhat circumscribed. Certainly, a greater pictorial significance is assigned to the pantry and buttery, which lie on the east side of the cross passage, but which appear to have been entered from another passage, or ‘entre’ extending along the north side   The distance between the outer edges of the two western embrasures, which would have lit the great chamber, is approximately 10.2m (35½ft), and the distance between the outer edges of the three eastern embrasures, which would have served the great hall, is approximately 16.6m (54½ft). 44

147

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ of the building and allowing egress from the range to the South Tower. On the north side of this passage, against the main wall of the building is what appears to be a staircase, presumably leading to the first floor. A second staircase lies on the west side of the cross passage also leading west, and, on its north side, is a chamber within the north projecting wing. Sadler’s first-floor plan shows a great chamber situated at the east end of the range, partitioned from the hall. Two entrances to the great chamber are shown; one to the east opening to a passage communicating with the South Tower and East Range, and one to the west giving access to a corridor or ‘entry’ within the range. At the west end of this corridor, dividing the hall, somewhat inconveniently, is a grand staircase, apparently ascending from north to south, and perhaps entered from outside the building. A line projecting from the north wall of the range to the west of the stair may perhaps represent a stair turret. At the west end of the building was another chamber: ‘Mr Charles’ chamber’. The plans, of course, represent the 16th-century arrangement, which may have diverged quite markedly from the 15th-century layout. The King’s Lodging 1634–6 The 15th-century hall range was swept away in the 17th century and replaced with a new range on the same site; built between 1634 and 1636, it was the first major addition to the castle’s architecture since the end of the Middle Ages. Thomas Rawlins of Alton, Staffordshire (19km (12 miles) to the north west of Tutbury),45 perhaps the father of Thomas Rawlins, the 17th-century engraver, may have been responsible for its design.46 The building was demolished in 1751 in the presence of Dr Pococke, whose brief note on the structure described it as ‘an apartment of about three grand rooms a floor with handsome windowcases and doors of modern Roman architecture’.47 What survives today is the south front, a remodelling of the medieval curtain (Plate 8.13), which has been described as ‘of some interest as a provincial essay in the classical style then fashionable at Court’.48 A terrace was created on this side of the curtain wall, and an entrance from it to the ground storey of the apartment was broken through the curtain immediately west of the garderobe turret of the South Tower. To the left (west) of the entrance, the fenestration articulates a five-bay front (hereafter numbered 1–5 from left [west] to right [east])   Colvin et al 1975, 297.   Colvin et al 1975, 297. Thomas Rawlins the engraver was also a playwright who dedicated his 1640 play, ‘The Rebellion’, to Robert Ducie Esq., of Little Aston near Lichfield in Staffordshire, who is described as a relative. Robert Ducie’s father was Sir Robert Ducie (1575–c 1634) Lord Mayor of London in 1631, but the family had been established in Staffordshire since the Middle Ages. Sir Robert’s sister, Ellen, married one William Rawlins, which explains the family connection. 47   Cartwright 1888, 219. 48   Colvin et a1 1975, 297; Tringham 2007, 31. 45 46

of basement and piano nobile.49 One of the 15th-century turrets is interspersed between the centre window (3) and its western neighbour (2). The focus is on bays 2 and 4 where the lower and upper lights are separated only by their respective lintels and sills, creating a near continuous opening; the suggestion is of a large central chamber with smaller rooms at each end, echoing a medieval hall and chamber block arrangement. The entrance is framed by Doric pilasters on panelled pedestals and a triangular pediment with a pendant keystone at the apex (Plate 8.14); the doorway itself has a semi-circular arch springing from plain imposts that carry over the flanking pilasters as bands. The arch is rusticated, being made up of rather unusual cranked voussoirs.50 The basement windows have heavy raised surrounds with channelled rustication, the jambs having the odd feature of alternating courses of horizontal and twin vertical stones (Plate 8.15). The rustication extends to the voussoirs of the flat joggled lintels, which also have raised faceted keystones. In contrast to the rusticated lower lights, the upper windows have plain sills and ovolo-moulded raised frames, eared top and bottom, and stepped towards the openings (Plate 8.15). Like the lower windows they have flat joggled lintels, but are each surmounted by a flat cornice hood. Apart from the south wall, the only other part of the 17thcentury King’s Lodging to have survived in situ appears to be a red brick chimney stack, situated between the second and third window from the west and now incorporated into the 18th-century house that occupies the west end of the site (Plate 8.16). The east side of this house is a patchwork of different structural phases. A strong vertical joint in the brickwork to the left (south) rises to eaves level in the former King’s Lodging. A corresponding joint to the right (north) does not rise as high, but both delineate a former chimneystack containing two blocked fireplaces with stone surrounds, one above another. The flush brickwork to either side seems to be infill relating to the house, implying that the stack is an earlier feature and that it probably relates to the former King’s Lodging. The lower fireplace surround has been mutilated so that the facings of the stonework have largely been lost, but, what can be said is that the head was slightly cambered and that it was joggled, being made up of three components, including a large raised keystone. Above it is a brick relieving arch. The upper fireplace is quite different; the face of the surround is plain, and flush with the brickwork; the opening has a slight rebate, and the lintel is made up of two L-shaped arms. In neither case do we have the finished article, but simply the structural elements of the fireplace that would have been hidden by ornamental chimneypieces placed in front of them.

 There is no surviving evidence for a third storey.  The pattern has been described as ‘crazy’ (Pevsner 1974, 189).

49 50

148

Chapter 8: The Architecture

Plate 8.13 The King’s Lodging, south elevation from the south east (BA)

Plate 8.14 The King’s Lodging, south entrance (BA)

Plate 8.15 The King’s Lodging from the South West (Ba)

Plate 8.16 The King’s Lodging, interior from the east (BA) 149

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Plate 8.17 The house and stable from the north east (BA)

Plate 8.18 Re-set 17th-century fireplace in the house (BA)

150

Chapter 8: The Architecture are a subtle component of a complex design, at Tutbury they take centre stage, dominating the entrance, so that the emphasis of the composition has more in common with the prominent use of this device in Dietterlin’s Architectura of 1593,53 which, incidentally, also seems to have been a source for John Smithson.54 The pattern of alternating horizontal and vertical stones used for the window jambs is also unusual, but, the general principle is also to be found in John Smithson’s work at Bolsover, in the entrance to the great hall (probably of the 1630s), and something approaching the relative proportions used at Tutbury is apparent in several of Smithson’s designs at Bolsover, including the near contemporary jamb stones of the terrace entrance, where, incidentally, the decorative facing of the horizontals suggests a masonry joint.55 As with the doorway details, these models have been interpreted in a decidedly individual form. Two other details of the King’s Lodging may be derived from Bolsover. The faceted keystones of the ground-floor windows had also been used by Smithson in the terrace entrance, whereas the re-set doorway in the west wall of the house could quite easily be based on the rather plain entrance to the Little Castle, which has a round arch and sunken spandrels. While the former was reproduced faithfully, the latter was reinterpreted, so that it was the delineation of the spandrels that was recessed rather than the spandrels themselves. Plate 8.19 Re-set 17th-century doorway in the house (BA)

A little more evidence as to the character of the King’s Lodging is to be found in two reset 17th-century doorways of identical design, one at first-floor level in the west wall of the house (Plate 8.19), and the other incorporated into the folly on top of the South Tower. Another detail that may have come from the King’s Lodging is a re-set 17thcentury fireplace to be found in the 18th-century house (qv) that occupies the west end of the site (8.19). Discussion The cranked voussoirs of the entrance arch are unusual, but precedented, in a less overt form, at Bolsover Castle, Derbyshire, the house of William Cavendish, some 48km (30 miles) to the north east of Tutbury, in the entrances to the Riding School Range, designed by John Smithson in the 1630s. The source for the entrances is thought to be Alessandro Francini’s Book of Architecture of 1631,51 although something akin to the Tutbury voussoirs seems to have been in Smithson’s repertoire from 1619 to judge from some of the details sketched during his visit to London in that year.52 Whereas at Bolsover these details  Worsley 2000, 32–33.   Eg, Colonel Sissell’s House in the Strand and Arundel House. See Girouard 1983, plates XV and 163. A not dissimilar arrangement was 51 52

There is good reason to suppose, then, that John Smithson’s work at Bolsover was a source of inspiration for the designer of the King’s Lodging. The chronology is certainly supportive of such a probability: the first stage of the Bolsover Terrace Range dates from 1629–30, and the long gallery had probably been completed by 1633.56 King Charles I was entertained by Cavendish at his Nottinghamshire seat of Welbeck Abbey, and again in 1634, when he visited Bolsover.57 The King’s Lodging was begun in the same year, and it may well be that these visits were a factor in prompting him to make improvements at Tutbury. In some measure the King’s Lodging followed in the footsteps of the classical style pioneered by Inigo Jones; the upper windows, for example, are conventional pieces that might have been derived from Serlio’s Book of Architecture.58 In contrast, other aspects are unexpected, and although it is probable that they were influenced by some of the details used at Bolsover, the designer did not feel constrained by his exemplars, but developed them in a highly original way. used by Inigo Jones in the gateway to Beaufort House, Chelsea of 1621; illustrated in Triggs and Tanner 1901, 15, fig.14. 53   See, for example folios 14, 68 and 153. 54   Girouard 1983, 266–69. 55   Girouard 1983, 260–69. 56   Girouard 1983, 260–66. 57   Girouard 1983, 265–66. 58   Serlio 1980, III, Chapter 4, Fol. 12.

151

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ THE HOUSE Introduction At the west end of this former apartment is a red brick house with the remains of a high parapet retaining fragments of crenellations (Plate 8.17). This building is usually assumed to date from the mid 18th century, although there is no doubt that it contains earlier material,59 including elements of the former King’s Lodging. The building must date from sometime between 1751, when the King’s Lodging was demolished, and 1798, when the farmhouse was mentioned by Stebbing Shaw.60 Shaw described the house as ‘a building, with a large room, partly of brick, and of later date than the rest of the castle, inhabited by a family. Here, the steward entertains the tenants occasionally; and at wakes andc it is used for assemblies.61 Mosley, writing some forty years later also referred to the house which he dated to ‘about the middle of the last century’, and also makes mention of ‘a large chamber, where manor courts were held for a time’, although in Mosley’s day it was being used to store cheeses.62 The house is depicted in a drawing of 1837, by the Staffordshire artist Thomas Peploe Wood, which emphasises its Gothic character.63 The front was dominated by a central two-storey canted bay with ground-floor portico and first-floor oriel. Detailing included a first-floor band containing quatrefoils, and a crenellated parapet. To the right of this window, at firstfloor level, was a tall, apparently blocked, arched window, and the main parapet of the house was battlemented, but apparently ruinous, presumably by design. Description Exterior The house faces north towards the bailey, where, despite brick being the predominant material, the lower storey of the entrance front is dominated by a band of reused sandstone ashlar. This is apparent in the centrally positioned square porch, which has a cavetto-moulded cornice, a crenellated parapet with moulded coping, and an entrance with a flat lintel. The porch gives access to a front doorway over which is a relatively high segmentalpointed arch with a keystone. This seems to be re-used medieval material, and the period character of the feature is corroborated by the otherwise odd arrangement of the entrance itself in which the two jambs are unevenly splayed towards the south east. Although such contrivances might have been commonplace as components of medieval internal planning, in this context, there was no obvious need for such a device. While there is every reason to suppose that this detail has been incorporated into the house for its medieval associations, whether it is ex situ, or whether it is in its original position, is uncertain. However,   Serlio 1980, III, Chapter 4, Fol. 12.   Greenslade and Baugh 1976, I, 49. 61   Greenslade and Baugh 1976, I, 49. 62   Mosley 1832, 234. 63  William Salt Library. 59 60

the point is worth pondering, because, if the doorway and its surrounding stone walling have preserved their provenance, then they probably represent a remnant of the former medieval hall range. The current character of the house has been determined by a 19th-century remodelling that involved the removal of the canted bay and subsequent infilling and refenestration. Two 19th-century windows flank the entrance, and there is a single centrally placed 19th-century window to the upper storey; all have boldly projecting stone surrounds containing small-pane wooden frames. The upper window lintel is joggled in a manner reminiscent of a 15th-century technique found in the masonry of both the north and south towers. The position of the former canted bay is denoted by two vertical breaks in the brickwork, the left-hand (eastern) one rising from the centre of the left-hand (eastern) window and the right-hand (western) one coinciding with the lefthand (eastern) jamb of the right-hand (western) window. These joints ascend to a timber beam that spans the gap. To the right (west) of the first-floor window the jambs of the arched window shown in Peploe’s drawing can be seen, although the blocked opening is now bereft of its head. Interior Ground Floor The front doorway gives access to a small entrance hall, which acts as the hub of communications within the building. The most significant of the ground-floor rooms, is the south-east room, which probably constituted the kitchen or ‘house’. The main feature is a large fireplace in the centre of the east wall; to the south of it is the entrance to a cupboard within the space between the chimney breast and outer walls. There is access from this room to the cellar. To the north a bathroom has been created. The two western rooms are entered independently from the entrance hall. First Floor A straight staircase ascends from the entrance hall directly into the ‘great hall’, a large room occupying two thirds of the first-floor space, and divided from north to south by a two-bay semi-circular arcade. Set into the west wall, is a re-set 17th-century fireplace (Plate 8.18). In contrast to the other known details of the 17th-century King’s Lodging, which are classical in inspiration, the fireplace is essentially Gothic in character, with Tudor arch, ovolo-moulded inner surround and ogee-moulded outer surround. The room is now lit to the south by a large window set within a 15thcentury embrasure, and by a single window at the east end of the north wall. A re-set 17th-century doorway door (Plate 8.19) at the south end of the same wall gave access to a first-floor landing leading to the loft over the stables, and to a staircase ascending from the former stable itself. The doorway has a semi-circular arch with a raised key springing from plain imposts; spandrels are picked out with unrefined channelled surrounds in sympathy with the

152

Chapter 8: The Architecture rustication of the south front. A pair of doors in the east wall communicated with two small rooms, the northern one giving access to an attic over the southern room. Analysis In its 18th-century manifestation the form and situation of the house appears to have been designed as a counterbalance to the 15th-century South Tower, which sits at the east end of the former King’s Lodging, and the crenellated parapet makes a pointed reference to the architectural setting. Its architectural purpose, then, was to enhance the medieval character of the site. Emphasis is provided by the medieval stonework in the lower front elevation, by the blocked arched window depicted in Peploe’s drawing, and by the ruinous character of the battlements, probably conceived as such from the outset. The house has evidently undergone a substantive remodelling since 1837, with the removal of the central bay and the refenestration of the north front. THE ANCILLARY BUILDINGS Description Exterior The much altered 18th-century stable block (now housing the castle refreshment room) is attached to the west side of the house, with its length ranged along the curtain wall. The building comprises an east–west aligned, two-storey main block to the left (east), and an attached single-storey western annexe to the right (west) set at a slight angle to the main building. Attached to the south-west corner of the annexe is a north–south aligned outhouse, which faces towards the east, its rear wall being embedded in the foot of the motte. The main stable block is a red brick lean-to building with a steeply pitched plain tile roof. The ground-floor openings are all segmental arched, two 18th-century doors alternating with two large mid 20th-century windows with small-pane fixed lights and concrete lintels. The wide right-hand (western) doorway is original and retains plain sandstone hinge blocks to the right (west) and a latch block to the right (east). The narrower left-hand (eastern) doorway may also represent an original opening; directly above it is a blocked segmental-arched window, suggesting an elongated arrangement with an extended overlight above the door. A single hay loft opening survives to the right (west) of centre, which retains its boarded door, although two fixed-light windows have been inserted during the mid 20th century. In the re-entrant angle between the stable and main block is a small brick lean-to building, which acts internally as a link between the two buildings. The 1913 plan shows that it formerly extended much further to the right (west), almost to the eastern doorway, and that the present building is largely of mid 20th-century date.

The front wall of the annexe to the right (west) has been completely rebuilt during the mid to late 20th century, and now contains three small-pane windows of that date. However, the 1913 plan suggests that the building was formerly detached from the main stable block, and that there was a passage between the two structures leading to an inserted entrance in the curtain. The outhouse is a roughly rectangular structure of indeterminate date, although most of its characteristics have been shaped during the 20th century. Built of coursed stone blocks it has a flat concrete roof. The front (east) elevation has a central door flanked by a pair of windows, all three openings having two-centred arches, which give the building a nominal Gothic appearance, no doubt intended as a reference to its surroundings. Interior The interior has been largely remodelled since the compilation of the 1913 plan. At that time the greater (western) part of the main block was given over to a stable, while the east end, which included a projecting wing towards the north, had a more domestic character, including a fireplace (within an external stack) and copper. The annexe and outhouse were virtually independent structures, the former containing a single open space, and the latter divided by a central partition wall into two rooms. During the mid to late 20th century several changes were effected. The east end wall of the annexe was demolished, and the north wall rebuilt and extended to the east to meet the main stable block. At the same time the east wall of the main block was broken through to create a single room comprising the annexe and the western part of the main stable. The east end of the former stable was partitioned and a staircase built within it giving access to the first floor. The easternmost part of the range was gutted and remodelled at both ground- and first-floor levels. The hayloft over the stable, however, survives largely intact, with an 18th-century roof structure jointed, pegged and inscribed with carpenters’ marks. THE EAST RANGE (MARY’S LODGING) Of the east range, no trace now survives above ground level,64 but it is known from the Sadler drawings, and has a particular association with Mary Stuart who was lodged here during her last stay at Tutbury.65 Mary described the building as ‘a very old hunting lodge, built of timber and plaster, cracked in all parts, the plaster adhering nowhere to the woodwork and broken in numberless places; the said lodge distant three fathoms or thereabouts from the wall, and situated so low, that the rampart of earth which is  However, a fragment of the foundations was exposed during excavations in 1988 and again in 2004; see below under Chapter 10. 65   The references on the Sadler plans to the Scottish Queen’s (‘Sc. q’) accommodation leave no room for doubt that Mary was lodged on the first floor of the east range and that the ground floor was given over to her servants. 64

153

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ behind the wall is on a level with the highest point of the building ….’66 The Sadler drawings depict a long two-storey building close to the east curtain, with a high-pitched gabled roof from which four chimneys emanate, emerging either from the ridge line, or from behind the ridge, in some cases possibly from external stacks on the east face of the building; the north gable end is shown with a single mullioned and transomed window on each storey. It was evidently a substantial structure extending for much of the length of the curtain between the north and south towers. The description of the building as ‘very old’, in the 1580s, while inexact, seems to push its construction date back towards the medieval or early post-medieval periods. A substantial building project was carried out at Tutbury under Richard III,67 and it is conceivable that the East Range formed part of these works. At ground level, towards the north end of the range, was an entrance giving access to a small lobby and a staircase leading to the first floor. A doorway led from the lobby into a chamber at the north end of the range, designated ‘Nau’ on the plan, after Mary’s secretary Claude Nau. To the south of this entrance were six rooms, most of which were entered separately from the west. These were occupied (from north to south) by the wardrobe; the wardrobe chamber; Andrew Melville’s manservant; Andrew Melville, steward of the queen’s household; the surgeon and apothecary; the queen’s pantry and buttery. A chimney stack at the north end of the building indicates that there was a fireplace in the northernmost room occupied by Nau. The ‘wardrop chamber’ had a fireplace against its south wall, the flue being shared by a fireplace against the north wall of the adjacent room occupied by Melville’s servant. The next two rooms to the south, occupied respectively by Melville himself, and by the surgeon and apothecary, each had a fireplace set against the rear (east) wall. The staircase at the entrance lobby ascended to an antechamber at first-floor level. To the north of the lobby was the gentlewomen’s chamber, and to the south a doorway gave access to the queen’s bedchamber. At the north-east corner of the bedchamber, and entered only from within it, was a ‘cabinet’ or small private room. Beyond the bed chamber a passage led along the west side of the range, past a ‘closet’, to the queen’s dining chamber. South of the dining chamber were another small room and a stair leading to a passage that linked the east range with the South Range and the South Tower.

THE RECEIVER’S LODGING There is now no trace of the Receiver’s Lodging, and the building is known almost exclusively from the plans drawn up for Sir Ralph Sadler in the 1580s. These suggest that it stood on the east side of the inner bailey, close to the gatehouse, and that it was aligned with the curtain wall. Indeed the closeness to the curtain is so emphasised on one of the drawings for it to be shown as an attached structure. In the more accomplished of the two illustrations, however, the Receiver’s Lodging is depicted as a two-storey freestanding building with a pitched roof, curiously stepped towards the north end, and two chimney stacks. There were three rooms on each floor; at groundfloor level were a lodging, the embroidery presided over by Mary’s master designer, Pierre Oudry, and a room occupied by Mary’s servant, Bastian; on the first-floor were a lodging, Mr Dorrell’s bed chamber, and an office. The ground-floor lodging and Bastian’s room had external entrances, and there was an external staircase, which presumably ascended to the first floor. THE CHAPEL The earliest visible structure in the castle complex is probably represented by the excavated foundations of the chapel of St Mary, which lie within the inner bailey slightly east of centre (Plate 7.3) The foundation date is unknown, although it was recorded in 1318 that a chaplain had been provided for by Earl Robert de Ferrers, lord of Tutbury between 1260 and 1279.68 The chapel of St Mary was certainly in existence in 1290 when Edmund, earl of Lancaster was granted a licence for the alienation in mortmain of land and rent to pay for a chaplain to celebrate divine service.69 In 1318, Thomas, earl of Lancaster, received confirmation of a grant to William of Tutbury, chaplain, in respect of a chantry in his chapel of St Peter in Tutbury Castle for the benefit of his own soul as well as those of his grandparents, parents, successors and Earl Robert de Ferrers.70 The chantry and chapel were suppressed in 1548.71 The chapel was apparently a freestanding building aligned roughly east–west, the visible remains of which comprise a nave, and a chancel of collegiate proportions with the remains of an altar at the east end. The coursed rubble masonry of the walls contrasts with the high quality 15thcentury ashlar of the towers and curtain, or, indeed, the slightly lesser quality dressed stonework of the gatehouse, and it clearly represents a different phase of construction. The nave walls form a plain 13.4m by 8.6m rectangle with a western entrance which retains the stubs of a single order of colonettes. There was also a doorway (now blocked)   CPR 1317–21, 203–204.   CPR 1281–92, 385. 70   CPR 1317–21, 203–204; Tringham (2007, 199) suggests that the dedication to St Peter merely represents a different name rather than a different building. 71  Tringham 2007, 109. 68 69

  Leader 1880, 23.   Brown et al 1963, II, 849.

66 67

154

Chapter 8: The Architecture towards the west end of the north side. The chancel is also rectangular (9.6m by 6.9m) and had a narrow south doorway at the junction with the nave. At the east end is a stone platform surmounted by the base of an altar. While the nave is dated to the late 12th century, the chancel is structurally later, as it abuts the east end of the nave, the relationship being emphasised by a vertical joint between the two units. THE OUTER GATEHOUSE There is now no trace of the outer gatehouse, which the two 16th-century plans of the castle locate, somewhat inconsistently, on the north side of the middle bailey (or, what in the 16th century was known as the ‘base court’). Only one of the plans makes any attempt at depicting the character of the gatehouse, and this shows a rectangular building with a central gateway flanked by a pair of lodges entered from the gateway. On this evidence it would seem that the outer gatehouse was either a single or twin-towered building, both common medieval types. THE OUTER BAILEY The only structure in the outer bailey that predates the latter half of the 20th century is situated at the south-east angle (Plate 8.20) adjacent to the churchyard. An initial examination suggests it is a folly in the guise of a chimney stack. Built of coursed sandstone blocks, it comprises a ruined length of walling pierced by a chamfered rectangular loop, and is surmounted by a square stack. The chimney has, within living memory, apparently been connected (presumably via a pipe through the churchyard) to the heating system in the church.

Plate 8.20 The outer bailey, chimney (BA)

155

Chapter 9: Geophysics Mark Kincey

INTRODUCTION The geophysical surveys at Tutbury Castle were carried out over three seasons of work between 2004 and 2006. The surveys formed part of the student training element of the research project, with undergraduate students collecting the data under the supervision of members of Birmingham Archaeology. The principal aim of the geophysical surveys at the castle was to provide information on any subsurface archaeological remains, both to guide the positioning of the excavation trenches and to contextualise the information gained from the invasive work. In 2004 an earth resistance survey of the inner bailey was carried out, followed in 2005 by a survey of the middle bailey using the same technique. In 2006 the resistance survey was extended to cover an area of the outer bailey, as well as being supplemented by a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey of the middle and outer baileys. It was hoped that the earth resistance surveys would provide useful information primarily relating to the presence of buried structural remains, whilst the GPR survey would allow consideration of changing vertical stratigraphy and the relative depth of any archaeological remains. In total, the earth resistance surveys covered 14,600m², and the GPR surveys 8,110 m² (Fig. 9.1). METHODOLOGY The grid locations for the geophysics surveys were initially established in the project GIS to allow the alignment of the maximum number of complete grid-squares within the irregular field boundaries. Once created, the co-ordinates of these grid corner points were uploaded onto a Leica GPS500 and the Differential GPS unit used in the field to ‘stake-out’ the various point locations with temporary plastic pegs. This provided the geographical positioning of the grid intersections to an accuracy of K 0.02m and therefore within the accuracy range specified by English Heritage for geophysical surveys.1 Each peg was labelled with a number relating to the GIS plot and marked with a bamboo cane, to assist the relocation of the points during the survey period. Earth Resistance Survey The resistance survey was carried out using a Geoscan RM15 resistance meter connected in the twin probe configuration, and with a mobile electrode separation of 0.5 m. Data were collected at sample intervals of 0.5m along traverses spaced 1m apart, using marked ropes for   Jones 2008.

1

guidance. The traverses were collected in a zig-zag pattern rather than uni-directional due to time constraints and the relatively large survey areas. The data were downloaded into the Geoplot software and a composite of all the individual grids created. The overall datasets were processed to remove any anomalous readings that are inherent in most resistivity surveys and to emphasise the archaeological features from within the background geological ‘noise’. This processing followed standard procedures and included clipping, despiking, edge matching between grids and filtering. Low- and high-pass filters were independently applied to the data to respectively analyse the results with the high frequency small-scale spatial detail removed, as well as with the low frequency background noise omitted. The processed greyscale images were then exported into ArcGIS and georeferenced to the corrected grid points recorded with the GPS unit. Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) The GPR data were collected with the SIR3000 GPR system manufactured by Geophysical Survey Systems Inc. (GSSI). The survey was carried out using a 400MHz antenna to provide a suitable combination of depth penetration and resolution of results. A calibrated survey wheel was employed for the data collection to ensure that the length of transects was accurately recorded. Radar scans were carried out along traverses 1m apart, using measuring tapes and bamboo canes for guidance. For the outer bailey the data was collected along uni-directional parallel transects to prevent any misalignment of adjacent transects. However, time constraints meant that the data for the middle bailey had to be collected along zig-zag transects, although considerable care was taken to maintain alignment to the grid. The sample interval was set to record 512 samples per scan and 100 scans per metre. The range setting was set to 60 nanoseconds, providing a maximum depth of c 2.6m, although it should be noted that this is an estimated depth based on an assumed dialectric soil value of 12. The processing of the radar data was carried out in Radan 6.5 software. The raw traverse (.dzt) files were initially loaded into Radan for a preliminary examination prior to any processing or combining of files. The processing techniques to be applied to the datasets were first tested on several of the profiles individually until suitable parameters were obtained. A macro was created using these processing functions and applied to all of the files within each project. The processing included a timezero correction, an FIR filter for horizontal background 156

Chapter 9: Geophysics

Figure 9.1 Location of geophysics survey areas

removal, a four-point linear gain alteration and a variable velocity migration. Following processing, the individual profiles were then combined to form single Radan 3D files which could subsequently be viewed as three-dimensional cubes, allowing both plan (timeslice) and profile views of the data at varying depths. Relevant timeslices were exported from Radan and interpolated within ArcGIS for further analysis and for the creation of the interpretation plots. INNER BAILEY: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION Earth Resistance (Figs 9.2 and 9.3) The 2004 resistance survey of the inner bailey covered eleven 20m² grids, although due to the presence of numerous surface obstructions and garden beds only two of these were complete grids. A large rectilinear low resistance feature extends around the area of the exposed 12th-century chapel in the centre of the bailey (Feature 1), situated adjacent to a second equal-sized low resistance area immediately to the south (Feature 2). The most likely explanation for these responses is that they are caused by disturbed soil relating to the 1955–1960 excavations at Tutbury Castle carried out by Robert Somerville.

To the east of the survey area and extending in a broadly north–south orientation parallel to the eastern curtain wall, is a broad low resistance anomaly (Feature 3). This feature measures approximately 5m in width and could plausibly be the remains of an internal castle ditch. This interpretation received further support from the presence of a large cut feature located on this alignment within the 2006 excavation area (see Chapter 10 below). The linear resistance feature is bounded to the west and east by a number of irregular high resistance anomalies, possibly either structural remains or caused by the upcast of compacted soil from the excavation of Feature 3. The curving high resistance anomalies located at features 4 and 5 are most likely to be responses caused by modern features. The compacted, dry ground creating the high resistance response at Feature 4 appears to have been caused by the presence of two mature trees and their associated root systems. The high resistance response at Feature 5 is caused by the modern gravel surface surrounding much of the castle well. The south-western area of the inner bailey contains a large number of anomalies of both high and low resistance (centred on Feature 6). Although many of these features

157

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 9.2 Results of inner bailey resistance survey

Figure 9.3 Interpretation of inner bailey resistance survey 158

Chapter 9: Geophysics

Figure 9.4 Results of middle bailey resistance survey

Figure 9.5 Interpretation of middle bailey resistance survey 159

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ are irregularly shaped and can therefore only be described as of possible archaeological interest, there are also several that appear to exhibit a regularity of form that is at least suggestive of structural remains. Further to the west of this concentration of anomalies is a broad area of low resistance surrounded by a series of linear and rectilinear high resistance anomalies (Feature 7). Without further investigations the features cannot be said to certainly relate to archaeological remains, but the regular form is again suggestive of possible buried structures. Perhaps the feature that is most indicative of probable archaeological remains is a high resistance rectilinear anomaly measuring approximately 5 x 6 m (Feature 8). The markedly higher resistance values in this location, along with the regularity of form of the anomaly, are strongly suggestive of a buried structure. This interpretation appears to be supported by the presence of additional high resistance linear/rectilinear features extending in a broadly square pattern to the north and west of Feature 8, at least as far as the northernmost extent of Feature 9. Feature 9 is a broad rectilinear area of low resistance values measuring approximately 21 x 25 m, within which is located a dense concentration of additional high and low resistance features. A series of possible low resistance features surround the interior edge of the broad spread of Feature 9. Amongst the other additional features are a number of high resistance linear anomalies that are strongly suggestive of structural remains. Of particular interest was a single rectangular high resistance feature measuring c 1.5 x 1 m, over which Area 7 was placed in the 2006 season revealing a stone built plinth (see Chapter 10 below). To the north of the survey area was a further concentration of linear anomalies that are again suggestive of possible structural remains (Feature 10). The dense concentration of features of potential archaeological interest within this area, and the broader inner bailey survey area overall, corresponds well with the multi-period history of construction and use recorded in the documentary sources relating to the castle. MIDDLE BAILEY: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION Earth Resistance (Figs 9.4 and 9.5) The results of the resistance survey for the middle bailey have highlighted a number of possible features which may warrant further investigation, as well as several anomalies that are probably natural/modern in origin. The large arc of high resistance readings located to the north of the bailey (Feature 1) almost certainly relates to the line of vegetation that borders the field at this point. The soil in the immediate vicinity of the vegetation will generally be drier due to the take-up of water by the tree roots, so creating the high resistance readings displayed in the survey results. Equally, the low resistance curving linear feature located

to the far west of the survey area (Feature 2) can probably be discounted as modern in origin. This feature originates from an external electricity socket situated close to the Inner Gatehouse and is almost certainly, therefore, the signature of the power cable which extends from this point. The broader area of high resistance located around this cable (Feature 3) could also relate to disturbance caused by the electricity cable. However, there were considerable problems with attaining probe contact in this area, as the ground was noticeably drier and more compact. This could plausibly relate to sub-surface compacted material, although the location and electricity point suggests it may again be modern in origin. To the west of the gatehouse are two linear features, one high resistance and one low, located at Feature 4. These features are oriented south east to north west and run parallel to the line of the castle moat as it leads up to the castle entrance. The high resistance linear was located on top of the eastern bank of the moat and therefore probably relates to the differential drainage patterns of the local topography. Any moisture in the ground will tend to drain to the base of any negative features such as ditches, consequently leaving this probable counterscarp bank relatively dry, when compared to the surrounding soil, and causing the high resistance readings. The low resistance linear is located on the east side of the high resistance linear and is possibly deserving of further investigation. There were no surface topographical changes to account for the feature, and therefore it appears to relate to a subsurface negative feature such as a ditch or channel located on the exterior of the moat itself. An irregular concentration of high resistance readings (Feature 5), again with no surface features to account for its occurrence, was located to the north west of the bailey. This feature has no clearly regular shape to it, and so no real interpretation can be made as to its actual nature. However, the readings are markedly higher than those around it and are suggestive of some form of buried compacted material. To the south east of this feature and of a similar size, is a concentration of low resistance readings (Feature 6). This feature is roughly square in shape and measures approximately 8 x 6m. Again the shape and association are not obvious enough to clarify the nature of the anomaly and further work is therefore required. In the centre of the bailey are two faint yet perceptible low resistance linear features oriented roughly north west to south east. The western linear is approximately 45m in length and runs in a broadly straight line (Feature 7). The eastern linear runs fairly parallel to the other feature for 13m before turning abruptly south for a further 24m (Feature 8). These features again necessitate additional investigation, as they cannot be linked to surface features. Their shape and linearity is possibly suggestive of drainage channels but this requires verification. A large and fairly amorphous area of high resistance is located in the centre of the middle ward (Feature 9). The 160

Chapter 9: Geophysics

Figure 9.6 Results of middle bailey GPR survey

Figure 9.7 Interpretation of middle bailey GPR survey 161

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ feature is broadly rectangular in shape, but with relatively indistinct western and eastern edges, and has an overall size of approximately 25 x 12 m. This feature is of particular interest as it was also visible on the ground as areas of stunted grass growth during the 2005 resistance survey. Furthermore, a feature of similar shape and size was tentatively identified at this location through parchmarks visible on an aerial photograph examined as part of the 2004 season.2 The size and shape of this feature is suggestive of a large area of sub-surface compacted material and could feasibly be the outline of a building, although this remains a tentative interpretation requiring more examination. Ground-Penetrating Radar (Figs 9.6 and 9.7) The GPR survey of the middle bailey only focused on the central portion of the bailey (80 x 40 m) but appears to have highlighted a number of features of possible archaeological origin, as well as several which are clearly modern. It should be noted that all of the depths mentioned in the following text are only estimated measurements based on the assumed dialectric permittivity of the soil (see GPR methodology above). Feature A represents a rectangular area of reflective responses measuring approximately 16 x 12m and visible on the 0.2–0.6m slices. Although the responses are not as high as many others visible in the survey area, the regularity of form of the feature is clear. At the centre of A is an irregular but stronger response, which appears to show the presence of a dense reflective material such as masonry or a compacted surface. Feature B is a broader spread of reflective responses visible between 0.2 and 1.2m from the ground surface. Although there is not a clear definition to this area, it contains a number of well-defined features within it. Feature C is the clearest response on the GPR survey results. This feature is visible from the ground surface and displays the response of the GPR to the modern compacted approach road to the castle. Likewise, feature D which is located to the south west of the survey area, is modern in origin, showing the response obtained from the edge of the bordered playground area. Feature E is visible on the 0.55–0.8m timeslices and highlights a relatively flat reflective surface, such as masonry. This feature measures roughly 4 x 3m and is situated on the southern edge of the broad spread B. Without further investigation it is unclear whether the feature is archaeological or simply reflects a localised natural change in the soil stratigraphy. Feature F, however, is far more convincingly archaeological in origin. This feature is a roughly circular set of responses measuring over 12m in diameter and approximately 2m in width. The response appears at a depth of 0.55m and is lost   Barratt and Hislop 2004, 4.1.

2

at around 1.0 m with the attenuation of the GPR signal. The outline of the feature is marked in profile by a clear hyperbolic response, with the interior displaying a regular surface response sloping gradually down to the south. This surface possibly continues beyond the southern extent of the feature as displayed on the interpretation plot, although the general background noise in this location obscures the clarity of the anomaly. Features G and H are located to the north east of the survey area, and are more difficult to interpret. Feature G is a point reflector which is visible from the surface of the cube down to the base. The shape and clarity of the feature suggests it may be modern but nothing was noted as visible during the fieldwork and further investigations are therefore necessary. Feature H is a poorly defined irregular anomaly stretching for almost 7m from the north-western edge of the survey area. In profile this feature appears as a surface response with numerous separate reflectors. This response is possibly indicative of an irregular compacted material such as rubble but the outline of the feature is poor and therefore this cannot be substantiated. Below a depth of approximately 1.5m the GPR results for the middle bailey become largely obscured by the attenuation of the radar signal. This problem is inherent on many GPR surveys in Britain due to the relatively high clay content of many soils, precluding the collection of meaningful data at certain depths.3 OUTER BAILEY: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION Earth Resistance (Figs 9.8 and 9.9) The resistance survey of the outer bailey has highlighted a series of anomalies requiring further investigation. Perhaps the most intriguing result from this geophysical technique is the large, roughly circular high resistance feature (Feature 1) in the central section of the survey area. This feature measures approximately 23m in diameter, with the high resistance ring itself measuring between 0.5–1m in width. The resistance values are markedly higher than those around it and are suggestive of some form of buried compacted material, such as a masonry wall. Several other anomalies are visible both within the bounds of this high resistance circuit and directly around it. A broad irregular spread of low resistance (Feature 2) is identifiable extending from the centre of the circuit to its northern segment, measuring c 12 x 14m. This low resistance spread is bounded to the west by a spread of high resistance values of a similar size (Feature 3), which appears to extend either side of the western arc of the circular anomaly, therefore possibly representing a feature relating to a different phase or function. The southern interior section of the circular feature contains a series of narrow linear high resistance features, possibly the remnants of walls or associated internal features. To the east   Gaffney and Gater 2004, 48.

3

162

Chapter 9: Geophysics

Figure 9.8 Results of outer bailey resistance survey

Figure 9.9 Interpretation of outer bailey resistance survey 163

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ of the interior of the circular feature is a high resistance, figure-of-eight shaped anomaly (Feature 4). This feature appears to extend as far as the eastern arc of the circuit but not to continue any further than this, suggesting that it is directly associated with the circuit itself. The feature forms two cell-like areas, with the northern cell measuring c 4m in diameter, and the southern being slightly larger at c 5m in diameter. The cells are surrounded by an amorphous spread of high resistance values. Although a slight topographic rise is discernible at the location of the features, there are no other obvious clues on the ground as to their origin. The complete absence of the feature on any of the 19th-century Ordnance Survey or estate/tithe maps analysed for this work, does suggest that the feature probably at least predates this time but additional, invasive work is almost certainly required to further inform any interpretations. Further to the north of Feature 1 is a group of other notable features which, based on their location and orientation, could plausibly be associated with it. A linear high resistance feature (Feature 5) was recorded, aligned roughly north–south and measuring 13.5 m in length and 1.5 m in width. This feature is clearly defined with straight edges and appears to show the presence of some form of buried compacted material, possibly a wall. To the south of this a broader spread of high resistance values appears to show the continuation of the linear feature, although with a far less clearly defined outline (Feature 6). This irregular spread of high resistance extends for approximately 20m along the same alignment as the aforementioned linear, until it meets the circular feature outlined above. The linear feature (5) and the spread (6) are both bounded by a large amorphous background of high resistance readings, suggesting considerable sub-surface remains/ disturbance. Although it is unclear without excavation, it is possible that these two anomalies are associated and form a continuous feature, or set of features, leading up to the circular anomaly. Further investigations are of course again required to clarify the nature of these buried features. To the west of the survey area a number of other features, both high and low resistance, were located. A high resistance linear feature (wall?) measuring 18m extends north east to south west (Feature 7). To the south of this linear is a cluster of low resistance anomalies, bounded to the west by a clearly defined rectilinear high resistance feature (Feature 8). This rectilinear feature measures approximately 6 x 5.5m and is also orientated north east to south west. Further to the west is a series of other, less clearly defined, features of possible archaeological origin. It is unclear from the resistance survey whether these features are associated with each other but this location would be another suitable focus for future investigations. Although the survey area was extended as far as the perimeter fence, few features were located within a band of approximately 10m in from the edge of the bailey. Apart from an irregular high resistance feature to the far south

west of the bailey (Feature 9), this widespread band was notable for displaying much lower resistance values, which is probably owed to a combination of the vegetation around the bailey and the weather conditions in the weeks prior to the survey. The perimeter fence is marked by a line of trees to the south and east, and tall grasses to the north. This vegetation provided shade for the area immediately inside the bailey for considerable portions of the day, keeping the areas close to the field boundary cooler than the centre of the bailey. There had been several weeks of hot, dry weather prior to the field survey, with intermittent heavy rain during the resistance data collection. It appears likely that the low resistance readings close to the perimeter fence therefore reflect areas where the topsoil had been allowed to retain the moisture from the recent rainfall, whereas the centre of the bailey had dried out to a significantly greater extent due to the lack of shade. As well as explaining the presence of the low resistance band around the bailey, this interpretation also raises the possibility that some archaeological features may well have been obscured by high background disturbance caused by this differential moisture retention. A repeated resistance survey when the field conditions are more suitable may well provide a better understanding of the buried remains of this bailey. Ground-Penetrating Radar (Figs 9.10 and 9.11) The GPR survey of the outer bailey of the castle has also highlighted a number of features of possible archaeological origin. It should again be noted that all of the depths mentioned in the following text are only estimated measurements based on the assumed dialectric permittivity of the soil. The linear features A and B indicated on the interpretation plot are both visible in plan form between a depth of 0.1 and 0.25m. The location and shallow depth of these features, along with their appearance in profile as narrow reflectors, suggests that they may be modern in origin. Both features appear to be orientated towards the castle ticket booth and wash facilities located in the north of the outer bailey. It is therefore possible that they may represent modern pipe utilities. Equally, Feature C, the 20m long curving linear response visible in the 0.1–0.2m deep timeslice, may well be the result of this section of the bailey previously being used as a turning circle for vehicles visiting the castle. Feature D is a linear response extending for over 26m in a south-east to north-west orientation, visible at a depth of 0.7m. In profile, this anomaly appears as a clear, narrow reflector, similar in form to features A and B. Although it is possible that this feature is modern, it is significantly deeper than the other two probable utility responses and may therefore be deserving of further investigation. Features E and F are more extensive spreads of activity highlighted by the GPR survey, which are clearly visible on the timeslices but which lack any obvious definition. Feature E is an arc of responses which follow the northern and north-eastern field boundaries of the bailey for a

164

Chapter 9: Geophysics

Figure 9.10 Results of outer bailey GPR survey

Figure 9.11 Interpretation of outer bailey GPR survey 165

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ length of over 50m and a maximum width of 8m. The feature probably relates to the change of vegetation which occurs close to the edge of the field, both due to the contact problems caused by the longer grass and also the changes the differential drainage may cause to the subsoil strata. Feature F is a more irregular spread of differing reflective responses measuring over 50m in diameter and located towards the middle of the bailey. This spread contains numerous features of probable archaeological origin which are outlined below. Feature G is a curving response measuring 16m in length and 1.2m in width, visible at a depth of 0.3–0.45m. In profile, this anomaly appears as a poorly defined hyperbolic response which may reflect a compacted feature such as a curving wall. A similarly shaped, although considerably smaller feature, is located at H. This feature measures almost 10m in length and again appears as a poorly defined line of hyperbolae in profile. Although these features could plausibly be archaeological, their lack of clarity means that further investigation is required to verify their origin. The features clustered around I were identified between depths of 0.4–0.7m and are more convincingly archaeological in origin. A broadly north–south response meets an east–west feature at a clear right-angle, with a larger, irregular reflector located just to the north west. In profile, these features appear as hyperbolic reflectors, although with a broadly flat surface response extending between them. The linear features themselves are suggestive of compacted, but well-defined, features such as walls, whereas the flat reflective response between could conceivably be a man-made surface such as a floor or yard. This interpretation receives more support from the presence of another cluster of similar features located just to the south at J. Visible at a depth of 0.4–0.8m, these anomalies comprise a large curvilinear response with its apex to the west, bounded by a broadly rectilinear feature measuring 7 x 8m, approximately 1m further west. The curvilinear feature appears as a clearly defined response, suggestive of walling. A relatively irregular, undulating surface response also extends across all of the elements of J. The multiple reflectors creating the irregular nature of the surface could possibly indicate an accumulation of rubble or debris. The location and arrangement of the features at I and J appear to be the most promising GPR responses archaeologically, although invasive work will be required to verify this. To the south west of the survey area is a fairly regular anomaly, K, measuring approximately 8 x 6m. This feature appears at a depth of approximately 1m and can be traced, at least partially, down to the 1.6m timeslice. The feature is obscured to the east by the background ‘noise’ recorded along the baseline grid edge (see below) and more investigations are again required to clarify its full form. Also only partially revealed was the feature at L, located to the far west of the survey area. This feature appears as a semi-circular anomaly at a depth of 0.7m, visible as a reflective surface sloping gradually down towards the east.

Unfortunately the feature was only partially covered by the survey area and the full outline form is therefore unknown. The majority of the features outlined above are from the upper 1–1.5m of the GPR cube. There are two main possible reasons for this relative lack of features occurring with depth. The first conclusion could simply be that this distribution reflects reality, with there being little archaeological activity below the estimated 1–1.5m timeslices. However, there are a number of reasons to believe that the GPR slices may only be providing useful data down to this depth and that any archaeological features lower than this have simply not been picked up. From the 1.6m slice downwards there are clearly visible, strong linear responses being displayed on the results of the GPR survey, forming a grid pattern across the survey area. When the survey grid is overlain on the GPR results in the GIS it is apparent that these features clearly follow the edges of the grid, therefore reflecting on-site data collection rather than archaeology. The only large linear response that does not match the grid lines is situated in the second row of grids from the north. This response does, however, follow the line of data collection and appears to represent an automatic gain adjustment by the radar along one of the transects, possibly following a battery change. These linear features have obscured large portions of the survey area, making further interpretations at these depths problematic. A further contributing factor appears to relate to the attenuation of the GPR signal at depths below 1.3– 1.5m, visible on the GPR profiles from the survey. CONCLUSIONS The geophysical surveys at Tutbury Castle have only proved partially successful at elucidating the subsurface archaeology, due to a combination of unsuitable field conditions at the time of survey and the relative complexity of the archaeological remains. The especially hot, dry weather leading up to the 2005 and 2006 field seasons caused hardening of the upper soil horizon across the site and resulting complications in maintaining consistent probe contact during the resistance surveys. Furthermore, the predominantly clay-rich soils at Tutbury are less than ideal for ground-penetrating radar surveys, causing the rapid attenuation of the radar signal and therefore only limited depth penetration. The excavations also demonstrated that the archaeology at Tutbury is complex, multi-period and, at least in places, deeply stratified. Even with suitable field conditions many geophysical techniques would only prove capable of recording the upper archaeological deposits, especially in light of the limited penetration of the GPR. In addition, the results from both the inner and outer baileys amply demonstrated the intensity of archaeological activity at the site, with a high number of overlapping and interconnected geophysical anomalies that proved especially difficult to interpret. However, despite these limitations, the geophysical surveys did provide some important insights into the archaeology of Tutbury Castle. One of the most obvious 166

Chapter 9: Geophysics results was the differing levels of density of archaeological features between the three baileys. The inner bailey had by far the highest number of detected features spread across its entire area, suggesting either a higher concentration of contemporary archaeological activity or a more prolonged period of use for this enclosure. The centre of the outer bailey was densely concentrated with both resistance and GPR anomalies that potentially relate to past anthropogenic activity, although with notable extensive blank areas towards the south and east field boundaries. In comparison, the middle bailey revealed relatively few features suggestive of substantial buried archaeology. In terms of revealing specific features of outstanding archaeological interest, the geophysical results were slightly more limited. Although the inner bailey survey revealed a large number of anomalies, relatively few features can be confidently interpreted as definitely archaeological in origin. These include the probable internal defensive ditch to the east of the bailey, the possible structural remains in the centre of the survey area, and the stone plinth confirmed during the 2006 excavations. The resistance and radar surveys of the middle bailey revealed a limited number of features within the centre of the bailey that may correspond with parchmarks recorded on an aerial photograph examined as part of the 2004 season, potentially representing buried structural remains. In the outer bailey the clearest archaeological feature was the circular high resistance feature measuring c 23m in diameter and located slightly off-centre within the bounded space. This feature is of particular interest as there are no further hints to provide a suitable interpretation and no archaeological parallels have yet been identified from other similar sites. The geophysical surveys have clearly contributed to the overall suite of archaeological investigations at Tutbury through the broader contextualisation of the upstanding architecture and excavated remains, as well as by revealing a range of intriguing potential targets for future work.

167

Chapter 10: Excavation Malcolm Hislop with Matthew Edgeworth, Jon Goodwin, Emily Hamilton, Christopher Hewitson, Philip Mann, and Helen Martin-Bacon

THE MOTTE Malcolm Hislop, Philip Mann, and Helen Martin-Bacon Investigation of the motte in 2005 was influenced by the walling recorded on the north side of the monument on J F S Jack’s plan, where it was described as ‘Portion of Early Tower discovered 1913’ (Fig. 1.1). The 1913 plan represents the only record of this intervention, although Somerville also dug in this area in 1960. A wide balk to the south, left in place for safety considerations connected with the structural stability of the folly, separated this excavation from a second trench on top of the motte (Area 2). In 2006, two further trenches were opened, one a northeast extension of Area 1, and the other on a flat area on the south side of the motte (Area 3) (Fig. 10.1).

Area 1 The combined area excavated in 2005 to 2006 was roughly L-shaped, consisting of a northern arm aligned roughly north east to south west, and a southern arm aligned roughly north west to south east (Fig. 10.2). Phase 3/4 The Motte Surface The earliest layer recorded was at the north-east end of the northern arm, where a firm, roughly flat, red clay surface (7014) was encountered at a height of 98.25m AOD. Although no finds were recovered from this context, it is believed to represent the late medieval summit of the motte.

Figure 10.1 Trench location plan 1986–88 and 2004–7 168

Chapter 10: Excavation

Figure 10.2 The motte, Area 1 site plan and Section 1 The Mantlet Above this surface was a mass of stone walling, interpretation of which was to some extent hampered firstly by its reduction in places to an amorphous spread of rubble, and also by the constraints imposed by the limitations of the site. Notwithstanding these restrictions, however, the material appeared to represent the conjunction, at an angle of 70˚, of two sections of walling, which thereby formed the corner of a structure. Of these two sections, that which

occupied the southern arm of the trench was aligned north west to south east, and was 1.98m (6ft 6ins) thick (Plate 10.1). It was joined at its north-west end by the second section, which filled the west corner of the excavated area. The inner (south-east) face of this part of the wall was exposed, but its outer (north-west) face, lay beyond the limits of the excavation so that its full thickness could not be determined, although it must have been over 1.70m (5ft 7ins).

169

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Plate 10.1 Area 1, the mantlet from the south west (BA)

Both these walls were faced in squared and dressed stones of near ashlar quality. On the north-east side of the northern section, the top of the foundations was reached at 98.64m AOD. On this side the surviving wall stood to a height of 0.69m and consisted of three courses of faced sandstone blocks, of which the lowest was a chamfered plinth that sat upon a large, roughly shaped, foundation stone. The corner of the plinth survived, showing that it returned to the south west, at about the point of juncture between the two arms of the structure, although the exact arrangement could not be ascertained owing to much of the surrounding stonework having been robbed, including the rubble core immediately behind these facing stones. The lower of the two courses that survived above the chamfered plinth incorporated a stone that bore a shallow carving depicting a narrow perpendicular stem flanked at the top by a pair of leaf-like lobes (Plate 10.2). This was evidently a re-used block, the carving having once formed part of a larger design. On the south-west side, the top of the foundation was reached at 1.45m below the existing upper surface of the wall (97.39m AOD). This face, and the adjacent south-east face of the northern section, each comprised six courses of faced ashlar blocks with fine mortaring between them. The southern section was stratigraphically later, and was keyed into the existing northern section in only two places. The facing stones of both walls, however, were of similar character, and displayed three contrasting types of tooling marks. Some had fine single-directional diagonal striations; a second type consisted of fine two-directional

diagonal striations forming a chequer pattern, whereas a third had coarse chisel marks made with a ¾–1in (2– 2.5cm) wide blade; several bore masons’ marks, and the material was undoubtedly late medieval in character. The variety in the treatment of the stones was shared with the early 14th-century gatehouse. In those areas that had not been robbed of dressed stonework, the upper surface of the structure survived as a flat stone pavement at a height of 98.84m AOD. This paving remained only at the south edge of the northern section, but a greater area was preserved on the southern section. The pavement, which was at much the same height as the top of the foundations to the north east, appeared to be stratified beneath the surviving facing stones on this side. The southern wall extended for a distance of 2.16m (7ft 1in) to the south east, the paving stones having been robbed towards the south-eastern end (leaving an irregular surface, and an exposed north-east to south-west aligned channel, which was possibly the lower part of a putlog hole) before being terminated in a rather abrupt fashion. Although it is probable that the wall formerly continued beyond this point, this could not be confirmed because space restrictions and safety considerations precluded deeper excavation in this area. On the north-east side of this part of the wall, approximately 1.2m from the south-west face and 0.9m from the truncated south-east end, were the three lower stones of a door jamb, rebated at its south corner, and apparently designed to accommodate a door on its south-west or south-east side.

170

Chapter 10: Excavation

Plate 10.2 Area 1, the mantlet, re-used sculptured fragment from the north east (BA) The former would have been an external entrance; the latter would have divided one section of the parapet wall from another. An external doorway at parapet level seems unlikely, although there is a precedent for a door or gate dividing the alures of the outer and inner wards at Conway Castle of the 1280s.1 This structure seems to be the one recorded on Jack’s plan. Stratified dating evidence was therefore lacking, and the phasing of this structure has been based on its architectural character. The masonry is of similar high quality to that of the 14th- and 15th-century structures elsewhere in the castle. The flat, slightly projecting plinth that is to be found on the interior of the mantlet is similar to that found along the base of the north-east, south-east and south curtains, whereas the chamfered plinth on the outer side may be compared with that of the North Tower. It is possible, then, that the mantlet may date from the 15th-century reconstruction of the castle by the Crown, but, given the similarities in the tooling marks, we cannot rule out the possibility that it is a contemporary of the gatehouse, that is to say, early 14th century. However, it is also conceivable that some of the masonry is reused. Phase 5 Demolition Layers In the northern arm, to the north east of the mantlet, Phase 3/4 layer 7014 extended for at least 3.5m towards the edge of the motte (Fig. 10.2). Overlying it on this side was a  Taylor 1957, 37–38.

1

red-brown silty-clay layer (7008/7012), the upper plane of which sloped down towards the edge of the motte, so that, in section, it diminished in thickness from 0.74m (south west) to 0.28m (north east). Sealing 7008 was a 0.12m–0.16m band of silty clay containing mortar and rubble (7013). These layers seem to represent demolition and tumble; a further rubble destruction layer covered the mantlet towards the south-west end of the trench. Phase 6 Retaining Wall Abutting the south-east side of the door jamb on top of the mantlet was a north-west to south-east aligned rubble drystone wall (5025) (Fig. 10.2). This structure, which had a flimsy appearance, and which seemed to have been raised with the express purpose of acting as a retainer for the earth behind it, is depicted in one of Somerville’s photos of his excavations on the motte and may date from that time (not illustrated). Somerville’s Excavation The Phase 5 demolition layers (7008, 7012 and 7013) had been cut by a trench (7012), which seems to have been dug with the purpose of revealing the wall, before being backfilled with silty clay containing small to medium size sandstone demolition rubble throughout (7007). This layer contained finds of mixed date including a sherd of 11th/12th-century Stamford ware, a 17th-century clay pipe stem, a sherd of 17th-century pottery, eight fragments of 19th-century bottle glass and a sherd of 20th-century glazed ware; it is probably to be identified with the backfill 171

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ from Somerville’s excavations in the mid 20th century. These disturbances were sealed by topsoil and turf (7001). Area 2 Phase 4 Stone Pavement Owing to the substantial depth of the deposits in Area 2, restrictions on the size of the trench, and the necessity for stepping the excavation for safety, only a small area at the north-west end of the trench could be properly investigated (Figs 10.1 and 10.3). Here, approximately 2.80m below the ground surface at a height of 97.74m AOD, a level bedding surface (5019), comprising flat pieces of sandstone pressed into a red clay layer, was partially exposed. It was sealed by a second metalled surface (5021) composed of large flat stone blocks 0.30m thick, shaped and closely fitted, which partially fell within the projected line of the mantlet wall exposed in Area 1. Phase 5 Demolition Layers The apparent pavement was sealed by brown silty sand containing rubble (5020). Above 5020 was a whole sequence of layers (in depositional sequence, 5012, 5011, 5010, 5007/5014), consisting of sandy silt containing rubble. Layers 5011 and 5007 contained large amounts of charcoal and burnt material, and were generally consistent in character with destruction layers. Pottery and clay pipe material from 5007 and clay pipes from 5010 suggest a mid 17th-century deposition date for the two uppermost layers in this sequence. Phase 6 On the north-east side of the excavated area, a construction trench (5008) cut Phase 5 layers 5011, 5010 and 5007. The trench contained red clay and the drystone rubble foundations of a north-west to south-east aligned wall (5009), possibly a continuation of the structure of similar build (5025) found in Area 1. This feature was sealed by a deposit of light brown sandy clay (5001) which was cut by two small postholes (5005 and 5003), both containing black sandy silt (5006 and 5004 respectively) incorporating charcoal flecks and animal bone. The postholes were overlain by a thin layer of sandy silt (5018) containing a large quantity of crushed alabaster and white mortar. Layer 5018 was directly sealed by topsoil and turf (5000). Area 3 Area 3 was aligned east–west, parallel with the south curtain, the pre-excavation ground level rising from a height of 97.33m AOD at the east end to 98.41m AOD at the west end (Fig. 10.4).

Figure 10.3 The motte, Area 2, site plan and Section 2

172

Chapter 10: Excavation

Figure 10.4 The motte, Area 3, plan and sections 3–4 Phase 2

Phase 6

A hard red clay layer (7005), which sloped downwards from south to north, was located in a sondage at the west end of the trench 0.90m below ground level, at a height of 97.37m AOD; it was seemingly related to the construction of the motte, although no datable finds were recovered from it.

7003 was in turn sealed by an inclined rubble demolition or tumble layer (7002) containing mid to late 19th-century pottery, clay pipe and fragments of glass. These deposits were overlain by a dark brown organic topsoil and turf (7000).

Phase 5 A dump of alabaster rubble (7004) lay on top of 7005 in the south-west corner of the trench. These materials were sealed by an inclined layer of silty red clay (7003), 0.26m in depth, pressed into the surface of which, towards the east end of the trench, was a series of flat stones, the remains of a possible metalled surface (7006).

Discussion Despite being limited in their extent, the excavations on top of the motte have contributed a good deal to our knowledge of the character of the mound and its superstructures. Some evidence of the structural nature of the motte has been revealed by the solid red clay material with a relatively flat upper surface, that was encountered on the north side of the motte in Area 1 (7014) at 98.25m AOD; similar 173

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ material was revealed on the east side of the motte in Area 3 (7005) at 97.37m AOD, and there is a good chance that it represents the medieval surface of the motte. If so, then it seems that the area inside the mantlet may have been slightly lower than the summit of the motte on the northeast side (to judge by the 97.39 AOD height recorded for the top of the mantlet foundations), suggesting that the top of the motte may have been delineated by a bank so that the mantlet acted as an internal revetment. The stone remains which cut into and rise above this clay stratum comprise the north corner of the mantlet that encircled the top of the mound, where its north-east and north-west sides met, and a stone pavement further to the south, on the line of the north-east wall. The top of the bedding surface for the pavement (5019) found in Area 2 was 0.35m (1ft 2ins) above the top of the mantlet foundations in Area 1, and the top of the stone pavement (5021) 0.91m (2ft 9¾ins) below the top of the wall. The interpretation of the excavated structures is influenced by the two 16th-century illustrations, which show a circular tower or keep (the Julius Tower) on top of the motte with a polygonal or sub-polygonal mantlet wall surrounding it. The perspective view depicts the mantlet as a hexagonal structure, and although the plan is less clear, both seem to agree that two of the wall sections met on the north side of the motte. It is reasonable to assume that the mantlet is the structure uncovered in Area 1. If the two conjoining walls did form part of a mantlet around the top of the mound, it is hard to see its paved upper surface as anything other than an alure or wall walk. In which case, the outer face of the wall above foundation level would have consisted solely of a parapet rising little more than 2m (6½ft) above the foundations on the outer side. Such an arrangement would have amounted to little more than a decorative crown around the top of the motte. It is hard to reconcile such an arrangement with a medieval context, and it is possible that it represents the reconstruction or remodelling of a medieval structure using recycled material, perhaps the result of the repair programme ordered for the ring wall around the motte in 1561.2 Apart from its height in relation to the mantlet foundations, the stone pavement in Area 2 also presents difficulties of interpretation because it lies on the projected line of the north-east wall, and therefore represents a break in the supposed circuit. It is possible that there was an entrance or other anomaly here, such as a mural chamber niche or passage. None of the 16th-century drawings shows an external opening in this position, and, on those grounds, the assumption must be that we are dealing with a feature accessible only from inside the mantlet. The excavation has also shown that the profile of the motte has been affected firstly by the destruction of the keep and mantlet at the time of the Civil War, which has resulted in   Brown et al 1963.

2

a considerable build up of rubble extending over much of the monument, and, secondly, by the raising of the summit in order to accentuate the position of the18th-century folly. THE INNER BAILEY Area 4: North Tower Malcolm Hislop, Jon Goodwin, Christopher Hewitson and Helen Martin-Bacon The history of excavation in the vicinity of the North Tower begins with Somerville, who discovered traces of foundations on the east side of the bailey in 1960. Although the exact location of his work is unknown, there is reason to believe that it intruded into Area 4. In 1988 a 15m by 9m site was excavated immediately in front of the North Tower (TC 88 Site B) (Fig. 10.5). The southwest end of this trench was reopened in 2004, and two sondages excavated down to the natural red clay subsoil, one immediately in front of the North Tower and the other approximately 3.5m to the south west of the building. The excavated area was extended to the south in 2005, and again in 2006, into the area formerly occupied by the East Range (Fig. 10.6). Phase 1 (Pre-castle) The natural clay subsoil (1033) was encountered at 1.54m below the existing ground level. Immediately above the subsoil in Sondage 1 (Fig. 10.7, S5) was a light brown sandy clay layer with charcoal and small stone inclusions (1032). This layer, which was between 0.25m and 0.32m thick, produced a Mesolithic flint blade and a small quantity of animal bones. In Sondage 2 (Fig. 10.7, S6) the subsoil (1033) lay at 1.72m below ground level; the layer directly above it (1030), which ranged in depth from 0.11m (south) and 0.27m (north), comprised a dark, moderately compact, clay and sand mixture containing some medium-sized rounded stones and some specks of charcoal. This layer also produced flint artefacts including a blade, possibly Mesolithic in date. Phase 2 (The Early Castle c 1070–c 1175) In Sondage 1, the layer above 1032 consisted of dark blue/green clay with a heavy charcoal content (1024a), but also contained animal bone and further Mesolithic flint artefacts, including a crested micro-blade and a micro-blade. It is probable, however, that these artefacts are redeposited, and that 1024a dates from the time of the early castle. The evidence for this comes from the layer directly above 1024a (1020), a material similar in appearance, which seems to have formed a thin crust (0.05m) over 1024a. This layer contained a sherd of 11th/12th-century Stamford ware, and probably represents a deposit associated with the first castle. An equivalent, but undated, layer in Sondage 2 (1023) was 0.30–0.35m deep, of plastic consistency, and heavily flecked with charcoal; on being exposed, it exuded an unpleasant methane-like smell of the kind sometimes associated with excavated cess pits. 1023 was sealed by a narrow (0.03–0.06m) layer (1022) of compact red/brown clay containing a few small-

174

Chapter 10: Excavation

Figure 10.5 The inner bailey Area 4, 1988 site plan (TC88 Site B)

175

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 10.6 The inner bailey, Area 4, 2004–6, composite site plan to medium-sized pebbles and flecked with charcoal, which was, in turn, covered by a 0.04–0.07m grey charcoal rich band (1019). Sealing 1020, in Sondage 1, was a dark red/ brown sandy clay layer (1028), with small stone inclusions, possibly a continuation of 1022, but up to 0.53m thick. Phase 3 (The Stone Castle c 1175–c 1399) A north–south aligned linear feature (F109), possibly a ditch or construction trench, was cut into 1028, immediately in front of the North Tower (Fig. 10.7, S5). No datable artefactual evidence was recovered from this

layer, and it is also possible that it belongs to an early stage of Phase 4. In the south-eastern part of the excavated area, the top of the earliest recorded layer was revealed in Sondage 3 at a depth of 1.2m below ground level (Fig. 10.7, S7). It consisted of charcoal-rich, thick brown clay (3032) into which rounded pebbles had been pressed to form a cobbled surface. The recovery of 12th- or 13th-century pottery from this context, and the height of its upper plane in relation to other parts of the castle, suggests that it constituted a medieval yard or floor surface.

176

Chapter 10: Excavation

Figure 10.7 The inner bailey, Area 4, Sondages 1–4, sections 5–8

Phase 4 (Reconstruction c 1400–c 1499) The North Tower Forecourt Uppermost in sondages 1 and 2, and covering much of the area immediately west of the North Tower, was a very compact clay and pebble layer (TC88 013, recorded as 1003/1021/1026 in 2004), which formed a flat solid surface that represented the general depth to which the

1988 excavation extended (Fig. 10.5). In Sondage 1, this layer (1003) filled F109, and in Sondage 2, it (1021) was found to be approximately 1.2m deep (Fig. 10.7, S6). Although no datable finds were recovered, it was evidently associated with the North Tower, forming a solid yard surface or forecourt in front of the tower, which extended for at least 5.75m to the west.

177

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ At the north end of the area excavated in 1988, the western extent of the yard surface lay beyond the trench section, but towards the south it was terminated by a north–south aligned cut or scarp (designated F105/F106 in 2004, Fig. 10.6), which coincided with the line of a lightly constructed sandstone foundation (TC88 031), and, further to the south, by an L-shaped configuration of insubstantial stonework (TC88 023) both excavated in 1988 (Fig. 10.5). These putative foundations were believed by the 1988 excavators to be contemporary with the yard surface, and to have formed a plinth for a timber building. However, the dating evidence for these structural remains is poor, and it seems probable that they are considerably later in date than originally believed (see below). West of the North Tower Forecourt Excavation further to the west of the scarp and stonework uncovered a flat area extending for some 5m (Fig. 10.6). The stratigraphy, as revealed by a sondage at the west end of this area (Sondage 4), suggested a medieval/early post-medieval date (Fig. 10.7, S8). The earliest layer recorded was a thin deposit of clay sand containing flecks of charcoal and alabaster (3041/3047/3048/3055), which was sealed by charcoal-rich dark brown/black silty clay (3038/3040/3045/3046) containing pottery of 12th-/13thcentury date. Overlying this was a compact mix of sand, mortar and silt (3025/3031/3039) from which pottery of possible 15th/16th-century date was recovered. Cutting through layer 3039 was a pit of ovoid plan with a bowl-shaped profile (3042). This feature contained a lower fill consisting almost entirely of charcoal (3044),

and an upper fill of loose grey/green ashy material (3043) containing animal bone; it may, therefore, have functioned as a firepit where cooking was carried out. The Gully Overlying this pit, and terminating this whole western area was a north–south aligned gully (3008) formed from 0.18m thick sandstone slabs, 0.74m wide at the north end, narrowing to 0.56m at the south end, and cut with a shallow channel (Plate 10.3). Abutting the west side of the gully, and clearly associated with it, was a metalled surface comprising a series of irregularly shaped flat sandstones (3006). Only a small extent of this surface was within the excavated area, but it evidently continued towards the west, and may represent a path, floor or yard surface. Structure 1 South and west of the line of wall TC88 031, and lying at right angles to it on an east–west alignment, was a 2.76m length of masonry wall foundation (TC88 025, Fig. 10.5). Here designated Structure 1, this foundation was 0.7m (2ft 4in) thick, constructed of large undressed blocks of masonry, and the north side lined with several courses of clay tiles laid horizontally and bound with lime mortar; the north-facing section drawing of this area, prepared in 1988 (Fig. 10.8) shows that the feature was dislocated at approximately mid way along this length, the surface of the western part having a pronounced slope from east to west, suggesting, perhaps, that the foundation had slumped. Interpretation of this feature is hampered by the fact that only a short length was uncovered, but, one possibility is that it represents the north end wall of a structure that

Figure 10.8 The inner bailey, Area 4, Section 9 (TC88 Site B)

178

Chapter 10: Excavation Phase 5 (Early Post-medieval) Two substantial retaining walls, which abutted the North Tower and bounded the 1988 area of excavation to the north and south, were built on top of the Phase 4 forecourt surface; they were believed by the 1988 excavators to be contemporary with the structure represented by 023. The exact dates of these structures is unclear, although it would appear that the building represented by wall 023 had been demolished before the construction of Phase 6 Structure 2 (see below). Towards the west, the south end of the stone gully was broken through to create a small pit into which a complete Midlands purple pot (3033) dating from the 15th/16th century was deliberately deposited and packed round with brown silty clay and three roughly-worked pieces of sandstone. The pot was filled with loose dark silt containing a number of animal bones (3034). The northern end of the gully had also been damaged by the excavation of a small circular pit (3035) filled with dark loose silt (3036), very similar to the fill of 3033, containing early to mid 17th-century pottery. In Sondage 3, Phase 3 layer 3032 was cut by a circular pit (3051), the south-eastern edge of which was demarcated by an arc of three large blocks of stone. This feature, which was not excavated, contained large amounts of charcoal and burnt material (3052). Plate 10.3 Area 4, the gully from the south (BA)

occupied a position immediately to the west of the inner bailey bank, the further foundations of which still await discovery. This north wall was overlain by the corner of a substantial stone structure (Structure 2: described below under Phase 6). Sondages were excavated between these two structures (Sondage 5) and immediately to the north of Structure 2 (Sondage 6). In Sondage 5, the earliest archaeological deposit to be encountered was a layer of red clay sand (1018) containing mid 13th- to14th-century pottery. Overlying 1018 and abutting Structure 1 were otherwise undated layers: a 0.02m thick layer of yellow brown clay (1009), and, over this, a wet and soft layer of green clay containing charcoal, red clay and mortar (1007). In Sondage 6 a 0.30–0.50m thick clay layer (1017), considered to be the equivalent of 1018, produced a sherd of 14th- to 15thcentury pottery. 1017 was sealed by a charcoal rich layer (1035), probably identifiable with 3038/3040/3045/3046, but this was not recorded in Sondage 5, although patches of charcoal were present.

Otherwise, most of the material recorded in this part of the excavation was post-medieval in date. The pit (3051) and the earlier surface (3032) were sealed by a sequence of layers (in depositional order: 3030, 3054, 3023, 3019) which sloped downwards from east to west, ie, in the same direction as the bailey bank (Fig. 10.7, S7). Along the eastern edge of the trench, visible within the section, and bedded into the top of layer 3030, were several sandstone blocks (3022), unconvincing as part of a structure, and more probably representing tumble. Much the same impression was induced by the subsequent layer (3023) which contained a substantial quantity of degraded alabaster chunks. These layers were sealed by thick, compacted, brown clay (3054) with charcoal flecking and animal bone throughout. Red clay (3019) sealed layer 3054. Two of the layers (3019 and 3023) contained pottery and clay pipe fragments which dated them to the mid 17th century, and the probability is that they relate to the disturbances wrought during and/or after the Civil War sieges. If Phase 4 Structure 1 extended this far to the south, as suspected, then these deposits would have impinged upon it, suggesting that the building was destroyed before or during the Civil War period. Another sondage (Sondage 5, Fig. 10.6), at the south end of the excavated area, was dug to a depth of 0.95m below ground level. The earliest layer recorded consisted of redorange-brown clay-sand (6009) flecked with charcoal. Overlying this deposit was a shallow layer of black

179

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Plate 10.4 Area 4, relationship of buildings 1 and 2 (BA)

charcoal/slag-silt (6003) consistent with having been burnt. Phase 6 (Later Post-Medieval) A vestigial sandstone foundation or plinth (TC88 020, Fig. 10.5), approximately 2m west of the North Tower and parallel with it, lay on top of the Phase 4 cobbled surface (TC88 013). The most visible part of this feature extended from north to south across the southern end of the area excavated in 1988 for about 5m, although ephemeral indications of its continued progress across much of the site may be discerned in the plan drawn up at the time (Fig. 10.5). The feature enclosed a drain, and what the 1988 excavators interpreted as a curing slab (TC88 016) set against the west face of the North Tower. It is probable that this structure was related to the farm that existed at Tutbury from the mid 18th century onwards, being one of the buildings that ‘barbarously defaced’ some of the walls of the castle when Mosley was writing his history.3 Structure 2 Overlying the Phase 5 deposits, and extending across the whole of the southern part of the excavation, was a levelling layer of compact red clay/silt (1006/3003/3011/6002), 0.20m–0.30m thick, being encountered at a depth of between 0.4m and 0.65m below ground level. It contained no datable artefacts later than the 17th century, and, on those grounds, it is possible that it

belongs to Phase 5, but, if that were indeed the case, then it would fall into very narrow date range, almost certainly being related to the Civil War period. However, because it sealed a substantial depth of 17th-century deposits, this seems unlikely, and it is more probable that it belongs to Phase 6, specifically to the reoccupation of the site in the 18th century, when a farm was established within the castle. This levelling layer formed the base on which were constructed the stone foundations of a 5.66m (18ft 7ins) wide, north-east to south-west aligned building. Its construction had been preceded by the demolition of Phase 4 Structure 1, and the north-east corner of Structure 2 being built over it and its associated demolition debris (Plate 10.4). It also seems that the structure represented by wall 023 was no longer in use because a plaster mixing bed and dump deposit associated with the construction of Structure 2 lay over its north-eastern corner. The best-preserved section of Structure 2, of which only a portion fell within the excavated area, was the plinth for the north end wall (TC88 004). Approximately 0.5m high by 0.35m wide, the plinth was generally of poor quality construction, but had an uppermost course of dressed sandstone blocks chamfered on the exterior face. The unprepossessing character of much of this plinth suggests that only the 0.20m high upper course was intended to be seen, and that the lower courses were intended as belowground foundations.

  Mosley 1832, 234.

3

180

Chapter 10: Excavation When the 1988 excavators exposed the north-east corner of Structure 2, they recorded a tile-lined doorway in the north wall of the building, although no such feature has been discerned on the site plans of the time, nor was it visible when the area was re-investigated in 2004. Inside the building, ie, immediately south of the north wall, the 1988 excavators recorded an alabaster floor (TC88 011) lying on a clay foundation (TC88 012), clay pipe fragments from which pointed to a terminus post quem of between 1610 and 1700 for the laying of the alabaster floor surface. However, no such feature was uncovered during the further excavation of this building between 2004 and 2006. Similarly well preserved, retaining its dressed and chamfered upper course, was the 1.4m of the east wall that fell within the excavation area. The west wall, the line of which was traced to a distance of 8.26m (27ft 1in) from the north corner of the building, was not generally in such good condition, the degree of survival progressively diminishing towards the south west, at one stage being reduced to mortar traces, before being picked up again in better condition in a test pit beyond the main trench. Towards the north-east end of this side was a 1.4m (4ft 7ins) gap, flanked by two further lengths of foundations of similar character projecting at right angles towards the west to form a rectangular projection or wing. The Phase 6 layer 1006/3003/3011/6002 was sealed by loose charcoal rich silt (3014/3018) containing pieces of brick and tile and 17th-century pottery. This had in turn been overlain by grey/brown charcoal flecked silt (3010/3020) which produced mid 17th-century pot along with two sherds of 19th-century pottery. The upper levels within the vicinity of Structure 2 comprised what is best described as dumps of mixed demolition material. Within the building itself layer 1006/3003/3011/6002 was cut by a large bowl-shaped hollow (3049), which was filled by crushed yellow mortar (3053) sealed by mixed rubble and earth (3050/3029). According to the 1988 excavation records, overlying all the structures excavated at that time, with the exception of Structure 2, was an extremely finds-rich loamy layer (TC88 009), which yielded ceramic vessel sherds, clay pipes and metal finds (including a great deal of lead scrap and twisted came) with a wide date range extending from the late 15th to the mid 19th century. It was believed that Structure 2 was still in use when this layer was deposited, because debris from the later demolition of the building was found either to overlay 009 or, in one instance (005), to be contained within the building itself (006, 007 and 010), burying the alabaster floor. Finds from each of these demolition deposits spanned the period c 1600–1850. Covering these demolition deposits was a layer of clay/ loam (003), which was, in turn, overlain by a mass of masonry rubble (002). This was again believed to represent slighting debris, although ceramic finds from this context

suggest deposition in the second half of the 19th century, with earlier finds merely pointing to some degree of residuality within the context. In the 2004–6 excavation it was found that large parts of the interior, as well as the masonry walls of Structure 2, was covered by a substantial quantity of rubble (3002/6001) consisting, in the main, of pieces of unworked sandstone mixed with handmade red brick, tile, slate and pieces of alabaster, but which also contained large quantities of animal bones and mid 17th-century pottery, clay pipe bowls, metalwork, and fragments of moulded stonework. Towards the southern half of the trench there was a concentrated spread of loose pale brown mortar (3017). A thin layer of dark brown finds-rich silt (3001) sealed layer 3002 and layer 3010 and was overlain by topsoil and turf (3000). Discussion The flint implements recovered from the lowest levels adjacent to the North Tower suggest human activity on the site during the Mesolithic period, with the charcoal and calcified bone recovered from the same levels providing evidence that animals were being cooked and eaten here. A thin layer in Sondage 1, which a single sherd of 11thto 12th-century Stamford Ware has been identified as belonging to the Norman (Phase 2) occupation of the site, directly overlay the prehistoric levels. This early medieval layer also contained bone, which bore cut and chop marks and signs of canid gnawing. Further to the north, again, immediately above a putative Mesolithic layer (1030), a possible cess pit (1023) was picked up in Sondage 2; this also may date from Phase 2. At an unknown date, but probably soon after the construction of the North Tower (1442–c1450), the whole area now in front of this building was built up with a compact clay and pebble layer to a maximum depth of 1.10m. The absence of any evidence for the former existence of the inner bailey bank in this area, or, indeed, of any intervening deposits between the Phase 2 and Phase 4 layers, suggests, perhaps, that there has been some truncation of deposits. The most obvious explanation for this would be that the preparation for the construction of the North Tower impinged upon this area. Structure 1, which also seems to date from the late medieval or early post-medieval period, appears to have occupied the position of the East Range in which we know that Mary Queen of Scots was lodged in the 1580s. This latter building was destroyed before or during the Civil War, and its remains were obliterated from view in the subsequent preparation of the site for the raising of Structure 2. The excavated fragment of the north end wall is the only physical evidence we have to supplement the 16th-century drawings of the East Range. However, it does seem that the building was sited to avoid encroachment on the entrance front of the North Tower.

181

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ Structure 2 was comparatively short lived, all physical evidence and memory of it apparently lost by the time Mosley was writing his history of Tutbury in the early 19th century. This may be one reason to support an early, eg, Civil War, date for the building, although the evidence from the 1980s work suggested that the building was still in use in the 19th century. The overlying layers had a mixed chronological character, ranging, in the main, from the 17th to 19th century. We can assume, therefore, that there was a good deal of material strewn in this area, which would have emanated from the slighting of the castle during the Civil War. We know that Somerville excavated in the vicinity in the 1950s, and the disturbed nature of the deposits may, in part at least, result from his work. In particular, the enigmatic bowl-shaped feature (3049) that occupied the centre of Structure 2, for example, may well be a consequence of the 1950s excavations. The reliability of these upper layers is therefore suspect and should be treated with caution. Area 5 (South Tower) Malcolm Hislop, Jon Goodwin and Helen Martin-Bacon Introduction The area was first excavated in 1988 when an 18m x 7m area was opened in front of the north-west face of the 15th-century South Tower (Fig. 10.9). Parts of this trench were re-opened in 2004, when the investigation was concentrated on the north-east and south-west ends, the latest archaeological horizons being red clay with stone inclusions (2005) to the north east, and a compact red clay layer to the south west, apparently the surfaces uncovered and recorded in 1988 (Fig. 10.10). Three sondages were excavated through these layers, two at the south-west end (Sondages 1 and 2), and one at the north-east end (Sondage 3). Sondage 1 was located directly in front of the South Tower, Sondage 2 was further to the north west, and Sondage 3 in the north corner of the north-eastern sector. Sondage 1 was excavated to a depth of 0.75m, Sondage 2 to 1.15m, and Sondage 3 to 1.35m. In none of these three areas was the depth of the natural subsoil ascertained. Phase 2 The earliest deposits in Sondage 1 comprised a series of compact red sandy clay layers (in depositional order: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2009, Fig. 10.11, S10), which appeared to form a sequence of tip lines falling away from south east to north west at angles ranging from 25°–40°; a very similar stratigraphy was recorded in Sondage 2 (2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010). No dating evidence was recovered from these deposits but those in Sondage 1 were cut towards the south by the construction trench for the South Tower, and must, therefore pre-date the beginning of construction in 1442 (see below). These inclined tip lines are characteristic features of timber castle banks, examples having been

recorded at Sandal Castle4 and other sites, and they probably represent the lower courses of the bank around the inner bailey. To the best of our current knowledge, the most likely date for the removal of the upper part of the bank is 1442, immediately prior to the construction of the South Tower. In Sondage 3 a different stratigraphy was encountered (Fig. 10.11, S11). The excavated material was harder, more compact, clay than the fills of sondages 1 and 2, and there was no sign of the comparatively narrow tip lines that were so marked in the other two sondages. However, the general pattern of the stratigraphy was similar in that a series of layers (in depositional order 2032, 2033, 2031, 2030, 2028) sloped down from south to north. Layers 2033 and 2031 and 2028 all produced pottery dating from the late 11th–12th century, which suggests that these soils, and, by implication, the layers in the other two sondages, all formed part of the inner bailey bank, and that this latter was raised in the 11th century when the castle was first created. In the bottom of Sondage 3, at its far south-west end, the lowest layer, 2033, was cut vertically to the north west by a feature (F212), possibly the base of a posthole, but difficult to interpret, because only a portion fell within the excavated area. Seemingly associated with this feature to the north west of the cut line, 0.37m across at its widest point, and dated by pottery to the second half of the 11th century but also producing an early to middle Saxon rim sherd (see Rátkai below, Chapter 11), was an area of dark material containing a large quantity of charcoal (2036), which, in common with 2033, was sealed by layer 2031. This context seemed to represent an area of in situ burning, possibly the destruction by fire of a timber structure associated with 2033, and the consequent collapse of 2031 over its burnt remains. Phase 4 The remains of the Phase 2 bank were cut by a straightsided foundation trench (F208), recorded as 0.39m wide in Sondage 1, with loose stony clay fills (2025 and 2024). At the north-east end of the site, part of this foundation trench (F209), which had been excavated in the 1980s to a depth of 0.38m, was re-opened. The foundations for the northwest face of the South Tower consisted of massive blocks of roughly hewn masonry breaking forward from the face of the tower to form a plinth on which the ashlar facing stones were laid. The foundations were not aligned with the north-west face of the tower, the asymmetry being most noticeable towards the north-east end of the excavated area. Here, the foundations of the main block protruded by 0.34m immediately to the north east of the basement doorway, but this difference progressively widened until it reached 0.74m at the north-east end of the elevation. These foundations are the only aspects of the below-ground archaeology that can be assigned definitively to Phase 4.   Mayes and Butler 1983, 32 and fig. 32, section 20.

4

182

Chapter 10: Excavation

Figure 10.9 The inner bailey Area 5, 1988 site plan (TC88 Site A)

Phase 6 Overlying the south-western extremity of the foundations and abutting the west corner of the South Tower, is a north-west to south-east aligned wall (TC88 1004) that still retains the higher ground of the King’s Lodging area

to the south west. This structure sits upon a sandstone and limestone foundation (TC88 1005) and is faced with coursed and squared limestone blocks. There is no doubt that it post-dates the medieval period, although it is less certain as to whether it belongs to Phase 5 or 6.

183

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 10.10 The inner bailey, areas 5 and 6, 2004–6 composite plan

184

Chapter 10: Excavation

Figure 10.11 The inner bailey, Area 5, sondages 1–3, sections 10–11 showing the lower levels of the truncated inner bailey bank

Bonded into the north-eastern elevation of this retaining wall, and extending towards the north east at a right angle, were the foundations of another wall (TC88 1008), which, though heavily depleted, had once been faced with limestone blocks. The building represented by these two sections of walling was interpreted by the 1988 excavators as part of an early to mid 16th-century extension to the tower, although the character of the masonry does not allow us to be confident about this interpretation. A second building in this area was represented by a heavily robbed, north-east to south-west aligned limestone wall (TC 88 1006), located in the west corner of the excavated area. The wall survived as a foundation of nine limestone blocks, bearing a single-course wall comprising three limestone blocks at its south-western end. These blocks had been laid on end, and had an inset middle section suggesting that their purpose may have been to take a timber beam, which would, in turn, have supported a wooden superstructure. An east–west aligned brick and stone masonry block (TC88 1010) abutted the southern

end of TC88 1006. On the south-eastern side of TC88 1006, and contemporary with it, was a cobbled surface of rounded stones (TC88 1014) set into a clay matrix (TC88 1015). This building and yard are thought to belong to the farm established on site in the mid 18th century (Mosley 1832, 234), and which continued to operate until the 1950s. The 1988 excavation team highlighted several deposits that possibly resulted from the slighting of the castle in July 1647. Although post-excavation analysis has revealed that few of these contained any secure dating evidence to fix them to this event and period, two rubble deposits (1037 and 1042, Fig. 10.12) both contained a high percentage of ceramic finds datable to around the middle of the 17th century. Context 1037 also featured a great deal of lead, both in the form of twisted window came and sheet offcuts, which were presumably removed from the castle buildings. It is possible, therefore, that these contexts do indeed relate to the castle’s destruction during the Civil War.

185

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 10.12 The inner bailey, Area 5, 1988 Section 12 (TC88 Site A) Area 6 Malcolm Hislop, Christopher Hewitson and Helen Martin-Bacon In 2005, a north-west to south-east aligned trench was hand-excavated to the north west of Sondage 3, the original intention being to establish the back of the rampart and to relate it to the inner bailey (Figs 10.10 and 10.13). The discovery of a power cable in a strategically inconvenient position resulted in a wide balk being left between the two areas, so that a direct relationship could not be established. The unexpectedly deep stratigraphy encountered in this trench meant that it was impossible to excavate the trench fully in the allocated time during the 2005 season,

and, consequently, the exposed area was too small to allow a satisfactory interpretation of the results. Further investigation, then, was carried out in 2006, when the partially excavated end of the trench of the previous year was re-opened with a mechanical excavator and extended towards the north west. At the lower levels, this 2006 trench was divided into two sectors by a central balk. The Natural Subsoil The natural subsoil (4015, not illustrated) was reached, by auger, at the south-east end of the excavated area, at a depth of approximately 2.55m below ground level (87.70m AOD).

Figure 10.13 The inner bailey, Area 6, Section 13

186

Chapter 10: Excavation Phase 2

Phase 3

The natural was overlain by a 0.45m deep layer of redeposited silty clay (4014/6509), which was observed by the 2004/2005 excavation supervisor to have resembled the material recorded in the 2004 sondages 1 and 2. This layer was, in turn, sealed by a 30mm thick deposit of pale grey silty clay (4013, not illustrated), above which was a 0.3m–0.4m thick green, organic waterlogged silty clay layer (4012, not illustrated) containing a substantial amount of bark and wood in addition to producing pieces of leather and sherds of 12th-century pottery. A 20mm thick deposit of black peat (4011, not illustrated), with abundant charcoal and animal bone throughout, sealed layer 4012. Overlying the peat was a 50mm spread of dark grey clay (4009/4010, not illustrated) containing animal bones and sherds of 12th-century pottery.5

These organic layers were sealed by a layer of compact red clay (4008), which produced 12th-century pottery; a layer of brown clay (4007) above this also yielded 12th-century pottery.

Within the extended area a compact grey-red sand-silt (6509), identified with 4014, was located at a depth of approximately 2m below ground level, and excavated in a sondage to a depth of 0.6m. Above it, a light grey sand-silt (6506), identified with 4013, extended across the southeastern half of the excavated area, although it did not follow through to the north-west side of the central balk. At the north-west end of the trench 4014/6509 was either cut by or formed the lining of a feature (6512) with an irregular profile, which extended beyond the north-east, north-west and south-west sections. This feature, either a ditch or a large pit, the deepest point of which was 2.86m (88.21m AOD) below ground level, contained two organic layers, the earliest of which (6511) was dark brown silt containing birch bark, partly decomposed wood, animal bone, and late 11th/12th-century pottery. Overlying this context was a layer of grey-brown sand-silt (6510), containing similar organic material, the uppermost part of which rose above the level of the feature. Layer 6510 was sealed by a third organic layer (6507), c 0.3m deep, containing a quantity of 12th-century pottery. A sequence of waterlogged organic layers was also recorded to the south east of the central baulk, the earliest of which (6506) was at a similar level to 6510, and probably identifiable with it, and which comprised a greyish black silt containing large quantities of birch bark and partly decomposed wood as well as late 11th-/12thcentury pottery. This was sealed by a thin layer of partly decomposed birch bark and wood containing 12th-century pottery (6505), which apparently terminated to the north west within the central baulk. Above this was a layer of grey-black organic silt (6504), possibly identifiable with 6507 on the north-west side of the baulk, which also contained 12th-century pottery.

  A quantity of mid 17th-century pottery was also recorded as having come from this layer, but it is now believed that this material was misassigned. 5

Phase 6 4007 was sealed by a similar layer (4002) containing 17th- and 19th-century ceramics, as well as a coin of James 1 dating from 1623. Two pits or postholes (4003, not illustrated, and 4005) cut layer 4002, the smaller of which (4005) contained a charcoal-rich fill (4006) while the larger (4003) contained crushed rubble and a large quantity of mixed 17th-century to 19th-century material (4004). This deposit was overlain by topsoil and turf (4001 and 4000 respectively). Discussion One possible interpretation of the feature (6512) at the north-west end of the trench is that it represents the counterscarp of a ditch extending along the inner side of the inner bailey bank, to form a continuation of the linear feature represented by the area of low resistivity recorded further to the north (see Chapter 9 above). The waterlogged deposits, however, were not confined to this putative ditch, but extended approximately 0.5m above it, and for at least another 5m to the south east above the flat redeposited clay surface. The waterlogging of the layers above this surface is only really explicable if, like the ditch deposits, they too were contained within quite definite confines. While it is probable that this function was exercised by the bailey bank on the south-east side, it is also necessary to postulate either an inner bank on the north-west side of the putative ditch, or, an extended scarp rising to a bailey above the level of the berm between the bailey bank and the proposed inner ditch. The waterlogging itself indicates that this area of the castle contained a sizeable volume of water, a possibility supported by the analysis of the plant remains from these layers, which revealed several species ‘specific to water/ waterside conditions and/or damp ground’ (see Mckenna and Smith, Chapter 15 below). If feature 6512 is indeed to be identified with the possible ditch identified during the resistivity survey, then these conditions might be extended for some considerable distance, and would point to a substantial water-filled feature within the present confines of the inner bailey. The presence of late 11th-/12th-century pottery in the fill of 6512 suggests that the feature either predates the castle or belongs to its earliest period, and that it is, in some measure, contemporary with the inner bailey bank. If so, then behind the early castle’s bailey bank there would have been a berm some 6–7m wide, then the inner ditch of approximately 5m wide (see Chapter 9 above). The whole complex of earthworks would have delineated a much smaller inner bailey than the present one.

187

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ The early pottery that appeared not only in the putative ditch (6512), but which was distributed right across the excavated area in the lower layers, shows that this arrangement was comparatively short lived, and that the area behind the rampart, including the putative ditch itself, was soon filled with organic material. The environmental analysis suggests high volume dumping of stabling waste, which perhaps points to a period of disuse and the disposal of accumulated rubbish prior to a major reorganisation of the castle, during which the debris was sealed preparatory to re-use. The pottery indicates the 12th century, which could, perhaps, indicate a connection with the destruction of the castle by Henry II after the rebellion of 1174, and its later reoccupation by the Ferrers. Area 7 Malcolm Hislop and Emily Hamilton Area 7, which measured 8m by 8m (Fig. 10.14), was located over one of the anomalies recorded during the geophysical survey (see Chapter 9 above). After the initial removal of the topsoil and underlying layer, the area was divided into quadrants and a series of sondages excavated as follows: • Area 7a - Close to the centre of the excavated area adjacent to and around a stone structure (5007). • Area 7b - Against the north section. • Area 7c - In the north-west corner. • Area 7d - In the south-east corner. Phase 4 The earliest deposits revealed in Area 7 were generally undiagnostic and dating evidence was scarce, but, they probably belong to the late medieval phase of the castle. Area 7a (Centre) (Fig. 10.15, S14) The earliest layer in the central sondage was a brown silty-clay (5011), the top of which was encountered at a depth of 88.44 AOD, and which was evident in the western and northern sections of the sondage; two sherds of 12thcentury pottery and a bone die were recovered from this layer. 5011 was partly overlain by a grey-brown silt-sandclay (5010), and both 5011 and 5010 were sealed by an orange-red silty-sand layer (5009). Towards the west end of the southern section was a dark brown silt-sand-clay layer (5012), which produced a large amount of animal bone. Situated between these contexts, towards the east end of the southern section, was a sequence of different layers, comprising, in chronological order, a mid brown clay (5032), a dark brown sand silt clay layer (5033), and an orange brown clay sand (5031). At the south-east corner, a posthole (5022) cut layer sequences 5011/5009 and 5032/5033/5031. A second posthole (5021), situated at the south-west corner, cut

5032/5033/5031 and 5012. Both had a dark brown silty clay fill (5024 and 5023 respectively). Area 7b (North) (Fig. 10.15, S15) The earliest deposit recorded in the northern sondage was a compact red sandy-clay (5013), with frequent small pebbles throughout, the surface of which was encountered at a height of 87.86 AOD. Overlying this layer was deposit 5012, also found in the central sondage, which was sealed in turn by layer 5016. Area 7c (North West) (Fig. 10.15, S15–S16) The earliest layer in Area 7c was a dark brown silty-clay (5027), the surface of which was encountered at a height of 87.92 AOD, which extended across much of the sondage. Above this was a red-brown silty-clay layer (5026), and, above 5026, an orange-red sandy-silt clay layer (5025). Both 5025 and 5026 were cut by a large feature (5030), the fill of which was a red-orange silty-clay (5016). This, in turn, was overlain by a mid to dark grey silty-clay (5015). Area 7d (South East) In the south-east corner a surface comprising an orangebrown sandy-clay layer (5020), revealed at a height of 88.97 AOD, was evident over the greater part of the sondage, and a heat-affected red sandy layer (5017) at the south end, the two contexts being contemporary, and perhaps identical, until the application of heat. Set within, and adjacent to, these two contexts were a number of stratigraphically later charcoal patches (5018), the three within 5017 being arranged in an arc curving from north east to south east. Immediately east of the northernmost charcoal patch was a small, burnt, semi-circular sandstone structure, suggestive of a hearth or oven, containing degraded limestone (5019). Phase 5 Area 7a (Centre) (Fig. 10.15, S14, S17–S18) Overlying 5012 and mixed with both it and with layer 5011 was a rubble foundation layer (5028) consisting of tightly packed cobbles. On top of this feature was a stepped plinth-like structure (5007), constructed of two courses of squared and dressed sandstone blocks, seemingly reused, the upper course having chamfered edges angled to 45°, 1.90m long (north–south) by 0.90m wide (east–west). Pottery recovered from within the fabric of 5007 dated from the 12th to 13th century. General Overlying all the deposits and features described above, with the exception of 5007, which it abutted, and otherwise extending across the whole of Area 7, was a silty sand layer with frequent gravel inclusions (5002), varying in colour from orange-brown to yellow-orange, and in depth from 0.1m to 0.2m. The upper surface of this was partially 188

Chapter 10: Excavation

Figure 10.14 The inner bailey, Area 7, plan metalled with stone (5006). Layer 5002, which was interpreted as an early post-medieval courtyard surface, contained two sherds of early to mid 17th-century pottery. The exact relationship of feature 5007/5028 to the adjacent deposits, which it appeared to abut, was not entirely clear, but it is probable that a trench for the foundation was cut through the layers, filled with hardcore, and then the superstructure was erected. It is not certain whether this trench cut 5002 as well as the earlier deposits, or whether 5002 post-dates the structure, but the two were, in some

measure, contemporary, with 5002 having served as the yard surface around the stone feature. Phase 6 Area 7c (North West) 5002 was cut by the foundation trench (5029) for a possible wall (5004) that extended from north north east to south south west across the north-west corner of the trench. This structure, which was built on top of Phase 4 layer

189

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

FIgure 10.15 The inner bailey, Area 7a–7c, sections 14–18 5027 (Fig. 10.15, S15–S16), consisted of rough cobble and rubble block foundations, supporting a single course of faced alabaster, c 0.60m deep. It was sealed by a greybrown silty-clay (5003) from which were recovered three sherds of late 16th- to mid 17th-century Cistercian ware, apparently residual. General Overlying 5002, and present across the whole area, was an apparent destruction layer (5001) that produced brick and tile fragments, animal bones, glass and a large

quantity of post-medieval ceramics, predominantly of mid to late 17th-century date. This layer is believed to be representative of the destruction of the castle during the Civil War. Layer 5001 was sealed by modern topsoil and turf (5000) from which 19th- and 20th-century items including coins (dated to the mid 19th century, mid 1940s and 1970s) were recovered. Discussion Comparatively few finds were recovered from the Area 7 excavation, and it may be argued that the datable artefacts

190

Chapter 10: Excavation

Figure 10.16 The inner bailey ditch, Area 8 (TUMS 1986 Site 1) plan

191

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’ that were identified are an insufficient basis upon which to build a definitive chronology. However, it may be worth noting that no artefacts later than the medieval period came from the contexts below 5002, whereas the two datable finds from 5002 itself were both of the early to mid 17th century, and the large numbers of finds in the subsequent layer (5001), were predominantly of the mid to late 17th-century. It is likely, then, that 5002, which spread across the whole of the excavated area, represents the courtyard surface immediately prior to the Civil War, and that the earlier layers represent the late medieval and early post-medieval periods. Of those earlier layers we can surmise little, but we are able to say something about this area in the 17th century and later. Thus, the wall foundation (5004) in the north-west corner of the site, which post-dates the 17th-century courtyard area (5002), very probably represents the base for a timber-framed building, a type of structure that was largely obsolete in Staffordshire by the beginning of the 18th century, and, in the latter stages of its development, confined to lower status buildings including cottages and agricultural buildings. The purpose of the dressed stone structure, 5007, was unclear. The upper two courses above the rubble base 5028

had clear aesthetic appeal. Although initial speculation included a grave cover, neither their size nor the results of the excavation could support or disprove this theory. The feature was also clearly isolated from any adjacent walls, making it unlikely to have been a structural element of a building. Its substantial hardcore foundation suggests that it may have been intended to bear a weight, and it therefore seems probable that it was the base for a fixture. The pottery from within the structure provides a 12thcentury terminus post quem. This context also produced a bone die, probably of medieval date. Postholes 5021 and 5022 may have been associated with 5007 but the exact relationship between them, if one exists, is unclear. THE INNER BAILEY DITCH Jon Goodwin and Malcolm Hislop Area 8 (TUMS 86) (Figs 10.16 and 10.17) A small trench, 4m x 9m, was excavated on a north-east to south-west alignment in the ditch on the eastern side of the inner bailey. The trench was sited to investigate the possibility that mounds in the area had been formed by the dumping of industrial glass or gypsum waste.

Figure 10.17 The inner bailey ditch, Area 8 (TUMS 1986 Site 1) sections 19–22

192

Chapter 10: Excavation Excavations uncovered two pits (1005) and (1006), located in the northern half of the trench. Both pits produced pottery, apparently medieval in date, although this material was accompanied by some post-medieval sherds. No evidence of industrial waste was encountered. THE HOLLOW WAY (TIGS 87) Jon Goodwin and Malcolm Hislop Two small trenches were also dug in the depression between the two outer baileys to establish whether or not this represented a medieval hollow way. Both were aligned north west to south east. The results of the excavation were inconclusive, as the small amount of material recovered was post-medieval (c 1700–1900). Nevertheless, the project team believed that certain unexcavated deposits were almost certainly medieval in date. Area 9 (Figs 10.18 and 10.19) The most easterly of the two trenches was situated in the bottom of the hollow way, was approximately 10m long by 3m wide, and was excavated to a maximum depth of 0.44m it at its northern end. A single context was excavated. Area 10 (Figs 10.20 and 10.21) Area 10 was sited at the south-west angle of the hollow way, close to the causeway that carries the existing drive linking the outer and middle baileys, thereby occupying the southern scarp of the feature. This trench, which, was approximately 7m long by 3m wide was excavated to a maximum depth of 1.84m at its eastern corner. THE OUTER BAILEY Malcolm Hislop and Matthew Edgeworth In the 2007 season attention centred on the outer bailey within which the geophysical surveys had indicated a very high level of activity. Two trenches were excavated, one to the north side of the bailey and the other close to the centre. Area 11 (Fig. 10.22) Phase 1 The earliest archaeological horizon to be revealed in Area 11, which was reached at 0.75m below ground level, consisted of a compact mid reddish brown sandy clay layer (808) (Figs 10.28 and 10.30). Inclusions of charcoal flecks within the layer suggested that it was not natural in origin, but its upper surface had been cut by several archaeological features, all of which lay within the eastern half of the trench. The Kiln (Figs 10.22, S30) Figure 10.18 The hollow way, Area 9 (TIGS 1987 Site 2) plan

The largest of these features (813) lay on a north-east to south-west axis, and was only partially contained within

193

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 10.19 The hollow way, Area 9 (TIGS 1987 Site 2) sections 24–27

the excavated area, evidently extending further to the east beyond the eastern section. It had a minimum length of 3.4m long, and the full width of the exposed section was 2.8m. Despite being irregular in shape, this feature had distinct component parts. There was a rounded southwestern end, about 0.9m wide and 0.4m deep, with steeply undercutting sides of vitrified clay, giving this part of the feature a bell-shaped profile. On the north-west side there was a very well-defined rectangular cut, measuring about 1.2m x 0.6m in plan and 0.3m in depth, with vertical sides and right-angled corners; a shallow linear channel 1m long and 0.3m wide extended from here towards the north west.

Pits (Fig. 10.22, S31)

The main part of the feature was at least 0.8m deep. The lower fill (826) was a black and red layer of charcoal and burnt clay – indicating an episode of burning or firing. This was overlaid by reddish-brown clay silt (810), which filled most of the south-west end. A single sherd of Roman pottery was found in this fill. A band of dark greyish-brown clay (827) formed a distinct bowl-shaped soil horizon, perhaps indicating the start of a separate phase of backfilling of the feature. Upper layers consisted of dark brown sandy clay (824) and light brown silty clay (814). Both contained moderate amounts of charcoal, and the latter contained several sherds of Roman pottery. The few medieval and post-medieval sherds from this fill were found near the top and are likely to be intrusive. Overall the feature had the appearance of a large multi-flued oven or kiln.

Pit 811 was a small sub-circular feature measuring 0.7 x 0.45m in plan. It was 0.15m deep. The fill (812) was a dark reddish-brown sandy clay with frequent inclusions of small stones.

Three other features were cut into layer 808, all to the south of feature 813, and although no datable finds were recovered from them, it seems likely that they were of similar date to 813 and possibly associated with its use. They are described here from west to east. Pit 820 was situated on the southern edge of the trench, with only about half the feature within the excavated area. This portion measured 0.66m wide and 0.4m long, and was 0.18m deep. The only fill was a dark brown silty clay (821).

Pit 822, which was situated in the south-east corner of the trench, measured 1m x 0.75m and was 0.35m deep. Because it extended beyond the edges of the trench in two directions, it could only be partially excavated. Its fill was a dark brown silty clay (823), and, at the bottom of the feature a single large (0.3 x 0.3 x 0.25m) stone was revealed, which must have been placed within the pit prior to backfilling. After excavation and recording the stone was removed and inspected but showed no sign of having been worked.

194

Chapter 10: Excavation This in turn was sealed by orange brown sandy clay (804), which lay beneath a compact gravely layer (803). Above 803 was the compact mid reddish brown sandy clay (815) from which a single sherd of 11th-/12th-century pottery was recovered. Above both 815 and 804 was a dark brown silty clay layer (802), which contained numerous post-medieval finds including 19th-century pottery. Cut into layer 802 was a shallow sub-oval pit (806). The feature was 0.9m in length as excavated but the feature continued beyond the northern edge of the trench. It was 0.8m wide and 0.18m deep. The dark brown sandy clay fill (807) contained numerous fragments of burnt animal bone. Sealing pit 806 was layer 801, which comprised topsoil containing 19th- and 20th-century finds. This lay directly under the modern turf (800). Discussion The discovery of the Roman oven-like feature in the middle of the lower outer bailey area fits in with other Roman finds made at Tutbury Castle in the past. Sherds of Iron Age and Roman pottery were found during excavations in the inner bailey in the 1980s, and it has been suggested that an Iron Age hillfort might have been located here (Staffordshire County Council 1992, 3–4). If so, it is unsurprising that the high ground later to be occupied by the castle continued to be utilised during the Roman period. Area 12 Phase 2 (Fig. 10.23) Postholes The natural subsoil (911), which consisted of a reddishbrown clay, was encountered at a depth of 1.5m below ground level, sloping down towards the north east. Three postholes (913, 915 and 917) were cut into the natural, all three of which had a similar dark greyish-brown silty clay fill (914, 916 and 918 respectively). Posthole 913 (Fig. 10.23, S33) was oval in plan, 0.22m long and 0.17m wide; posthole 915 (Fig. 10.23, S34) was sub-oval, 0.45m long and 0.25m wide, whereas 917 (Fig. 10.23, S35) had a rectangular plan, and was 0.3m long, 0.18m wide and 0.08m deep. Given their proximity to each other and the similarity of their fills, all the postholes described above may have formed part of the same structure. Figure 10.20 The hollow way, Area 10 (TIGS 1987 Site 3) plan Later Phases (Fig. 10.22, S31) All the features described above were sealed by a dark reddish-brown sandy clay layer (805) containing two sherds of medieval grittyware (?mid 13th to 15th century).

The postholes were sealed by dark brown silty clay loam (905), 0.5m deep, which was dated by pottery to the 11th/12th century, and which also contained a small stone hone. Cobbled Surface Set within 905 was a linear cobbled surface (912), consisting of a layer of small to medium sized cobbles, 195

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 10.21 The hollow way, Area 10 (TIGS 1987 Site 3) sections 28–29

0.7 m wide, in a silty clay matrix. The cobbled surface was aligned approximately north–south and may well be the linear feature that was picked up by geophysical survey in 2006. Phase 3 (Fig. 10.24) Linear Feature Towards the east end of the trench, layer 905 was cut by large linear ditch-like feature (906/908), aligned roughly north west to south east. It was excavated in two segments and was found to have a shallow U-shaped profile up to 2.5m wide and 0.7m deep. The fill (907/909) was a mid reddish-brown clay, which was unusual to dig, in that the fill was much lighter than the dark material into which the feature was cut – an inversion of the usual situation. It is possible that, rather than being a ditch, the feature might represent a consolidation of ground that provided a compact base for a timber structure. The feature was overlaid by a mid brown silty clay layer (904), up to 0.25m deep, which, apart from a single sherd of Roman pottery, contained only medieval ceramics, the latest dating from the 14th century. Later Phases (Fig. 10.23, S32) Layers 904 and 905 were overlaid by the dark reddishbrown silty clay (903), which was up to 0.4m deep and

which contained post-medieval finds including 19thcentury pottery. This was overlaid in turn by the dark brown silty clay layer (902), up to 0.20m deep. Above 902 was the modern dark brown clay silt topsoil (901), which was overlaid by the modern turf (900). Discussion The marked difference in the character of the stratigraphy found in Area 11 and Area 12 sheds interesting light on the morphology of the outer bailey. It has always seemed probable that the natural topography of the Castle Hill has been modified at various times in order to bring about an optimal defensive formation. The evidence from Area 11 shows that the plateau of the outer bailey was in existence in the Roman period, long before the castle was constructed, and furthermore, the excavation in Area 12 proves that it was extended probably in the 11th/12th century, with further material being added at later dates. It is possible that some of this material originated from the planing away of the outer bailey surface further to the south, which may account for the shallowness of the medieval material and the closeness of the Roman levels to the present ground surface. Alternatively, it may be suggested that it represents material excavated from the hollow way to the north, perhaps as a result of artificial deepening at the same time.

196

Chapter 10: Excavation

Figure 10.22 The outer bailey, Area 11, plan and sections 30–31

197

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 10.23 The outer bailey, Area 12, phase plan and sections 32–35

198

Chapter 10: Excavation

Figure 10.24 The outer bailey, Area 12, phase plan and sections 36–37

199

Chapter 11: The Pottery

THE ROMAN POTTERY Jane Timby Introduction A total of nine sherds of pottery of Roman date were recovered during the 2007 excavations. The sherds are in poor condition with abraded edges and were distributed across five contexts. The assemblage was recorded using the National Roman fabric reference series1 and quantified by sherd count and weight. Description of fabrics and forms South Gaulish samian (LGF SA). Rim from a cup Dragendorff type 27 from context (904). Lower Nene Valley colour-coated ware (LNV CC).2 Small whiteware bodysherd with traces of an orange-red slip. Severn Valley oxidised ware (SVW OX).3 Seven bodysherds. Comment This is a very small assemblage with few chronologically diagnostic sherds. The pottery was recovered from Areas 11 and 9. The earliest piece is the samian from Area 12, which is probably later 1st century AD in date, but also from the same trench is the sherd of LNV CC. The date of the earliest production of Lower Nene Valley colourcoated wares is not known precisely but the industry appears to have become fairly well established by the later 2nd century.4 Production then continued through to the 4th century. The impression is thus that this is not a chronologically coherent group and combined with the poor condition of the sherds might suggest redeposition from an area of Roman occupation peripheral to that being excavated Area 11 produced slightly more material, but this was restricted to seven unfeatured sherds of Severn Valley ware all from an oven feature. The Severn Valley ware industry was a long-lived one, spanning the 1st to 4th centuries, and dating unassociated bodysherds is difficult. The group is also very small but the stratigraphic interpretation, which suggests that this may be a Roman feature, is supported by the pottery evidence as it stands. Overall the range of material is entirely consistent with that to be expected from the area.  Tomber and Dore 1998.  Tomber and Dore 1998, 118. 3  Tomber and Dore 1998, 148–9. 4   Perrin 1999, 87.

THE MEDIEVAL POTTERY Stephanie Rátkai and Emma Collins Introduction and Methodology Excavation at the castle between 2004 and 2007 produced some 9831g of pottery in total. Assessment reports were prepared on material from 2004 to 2006 by Stephanie Rátkai and on material from 2007 by Emma Collins. The pottery was recorded by sherd count and weight, rim count, and rim percentage (eves). Vessel form, decoration, glaze, and sooting were recorded. All the data were entered onto an Excel spreadsheet. Only four phase groups were large enough to form the basis of any meaningful analysis. These were Area 4 Phase 4, Area 5 Phase 2, Area 6 Phase 2 and Area 12 Phases 2 and 5/6. Despite the paucity of large phase groups for analysis, the pottery from the castle is important, since there is little published work on assemblages from this area of Staffordshire. Secondly there can be some degree of accuracy in the dating of the earliest post-Conquest material since it is associated with the construction of the castle c 1070. The pottery report consists of three sections. The first describes the pottery fabrics. Where possible, a suggested date for the pottery is given, although often this can only be on typological grounds. The second section discusses selected groups in more detail and the final section contains a general discussion of the pottery. The Pottery Fabrics (Table 11.1) Pre-Conquest Pottery Typologically, two rim sherds appear not to belong to either the Roman or post-Conquest periods, and although the fabric is broadly similar to Fabric SCW (see below) it is very dark grey throughout. The larger of the two sherds (Fig. 11.1, 1) was found unstratified in the 2005 excavations and appears to be from a jar. The vessel form, but not the fabric (although these two sherds may possibly belong to Vince’s clast group SST5), can be paralleled at Catholme.6 The second sherd (Fig. 11.1, 2) is also from a jar and was found in the backfill of a Phase 2 posthole (2036); the form is similar to one from Catholme.7 Both sherds are relatively large and neither is abraded. This

1 2

 Vince 2002.   Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002, fig. 3.90.33. 7   Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002, fig, 3.92.200. 5 6

200

1

1

3.42%

309

27

3.70%

0.47%

0.42% 0.29%

0.98%

201 1054

41

  TABLE 11.1 Fabric quantification by phase by percentage sherd weight and percentage sherd count  Table 11.1 Fabric quantification by phase by percentage sherd weight and percentage sherd count

159

2016

3784

0.20% 292

1.09%

Total weight/ count

0.63%

Modern (19th-20th c) 4236

0.68% 0.45%

0.73%

Coarseware (Post-med)

Yellow Ware (Post-med)

0.63%

0.07%

Blackware (Post-med)

0.05%

0.10%

0.34%

3.13% 0.34%

28.47%

0.05%

3.14%

Cistercian Ware

4.73%

4.40%

9.13%

MPW03

MPW02

42.23%

22.01%

2.58% 39.02%

11.84%

13.74%

15.97%

76.00%

14.63%

22.01%

MPW01

3.80%

19.69%

LRW

1.03%

4.88%

0.33%

3.42%

1.89%

GRITTYW03

0.34%

0.66%

0.31%

2.44%

GRITTYW02

0.85%

0.60%

0.34%

0.28%

0.25%

GRITTYW01

0.63%

8.93%

0.60%

0.89%

1.54%

9.97%

0.10%

1.64%

Weight Topsoil & U/S

1.09%

0.21%

0.63%

12.58%

0.63%

0.63%

0.63%

1.89%

1.89%

16.35%

0.63%

8.18%

0.63%

Count Postmedieval

BUFFW04

BUFFW03

0.57%

BUFFW02

0.05%

5.10%

BUFFW01 2.44%

0.29% 1.90%

SANDW08 9.76%

2.44%

2.44%

0.16%

3.85%

1.94%

SANDW07

SANDW04

SANDW03

0.34%

0.68%

1.71% 0.57%

0.26% 0.14%

SANDW01

SANDW02

2.64%

88.89%

CAW

96.44%

0.03% 69.52%

0.68%

11.42%

21.95%

1.35%

0.05%

Weight Postmedieval

82.70%

12.43%

4

Count

SCW

7.41%

4

Weight

7.29%

1.62%

3

Count

0.83%

19.52%

3

Weight

Stamford-type Developed Stamford Ware?

0.34%

0.68%

2

Count

Stamford Ware

0.40%

2 0.12%

100.00%

1

Weight

Anglo-Saxon

100.00%

1

Count

Roman

Fabric

Phase

Weight

103

0.97%

0.97%

0.97%

4.85%

24.27%

8.74%

1.94%

11.65%

8.74%

1.94%

0.97%

0.97%

8.74%

1.94%

1.94%

4.85%

12.62%

1.94%

0.97%

Count Topsoil & U/S

11400

0.04%

0.34%

0.27%

0.04%

0.04%

0.55%

6.61%

23.87%

0.46%

6.02%

9.39%

0.51%

0.19%

0.11%

1.50%

3.45%

0.10%

0.05%

0.15%

0.10%

0.59%

0.57%

0.98%

40.04%

0.01%

0.31%

3.22%

0.44%

0.06%

Weight Total %

623

0.16%

0.32%

0.32%

0.32%

0.32%

0.80%

4.82%

5.14%

0.32%

8.99%

7.54%

1.12%

0.16%

0.32%

1.93%

5.30%

0.16%

0.16%

0.48%

0.16%

1.12%

1.93%

0.80%

44.14%

0.16%

0.32%

11.88%

0.32%

0.48%

Count Total %

Chapter 11: The Pottery

Tutbury: ‘A Castle Firmly Built’

Figure 11.1 Medieval pottery 1–22

202

Chapter 11: The Pottery is consistent with both sherds having been undisturbed within feature fills. The sherds would appear to date to the early to middle Saxon period. Four sherds in different fabrics and of rather smaller size but similar date were found at Dudley Castle in clay sealing a series of postholes. A C14 date for charcoal from one of the postholes indicated a date of c AD 742. However, the Dudley postholes contained fragments of very degraded fallow deer bone. Fallow deer were generally thought to be a post-Conquest introduction to England, but some now question this and posit a Roman introduction and the continuance of post-Roman feral populations. If correct, then it would seem that there was a pre-Conquest fortified site at Dudley, on the site of the later castle, a situation possibly mirrored at Tutbury. The presence of Saxon pottery at Tutbury Castle need come as no surprise, since the castle is sited close to the Trent river system, a major Saxon routeway, along with the Avon, into the west midlands. However, the pottery may be the only material evidence so far that Tutbury was originally an Anglo-Saxon defensive site (see chapters 3 and 4, this volume). Post-Conquest Medieval Pottery Sandy Calcareous Ware, Fabric SCW (Fig. 11.1, 4–7, 9–19, TTD05 u/s) Originally this fabric group was divided into four subgroups (SC01–04). However, variations between the fabrics seem to reflect nothing more than natural variations within the clay source used. There is no evidence that the clay was well prepared and no evidence of additional fillers being added. The following fabric description, therefore, represents an ‘average’ sherd and the relative frequency or size of inclusion type can vary. Manufacture: hand-formed Colour: light brown, light-medium grey Inclusions: moderate sub-rounded quartz 0.25–0.5mm, sparse calcareous matter/voids, rare rounded fe oxide up to 0.5mm, rare orthoclase feldspar up to 0.5mm, rare sandstone up to 0.5mm Vessel Forms: cooking pots, jugs/pitchers (rare). Dating: This is one of the earliest fabrics associated with the castle and was in all probability made in the final three decades of the 11th century. Typologically it is likely to have been made throughout the 12th century and probably into the 13th century. This fabric was also found at Monk Street Tutbury. Source: local. Calcareous Ware Fabric CAW Manufacture: hand-formed Colour: dark grey Inclusions: moderate crushed limestone (sometimes laminar), 0.25-3.0mm, rare organic matter

Vessel Forms: cooking pot Dating: This coarse crudely made ware was found only in early Phase 2 layers in Area 5 and Area 6 (see below) and must date to the late 11th or early 12th century. Source: The absence of fossil shell and/or ooliths indicates that a Jurassic limestone source is unlikely and a more local, possibly Pennine, provenance should be sought. Sandy Wares Fabric SANDW Fabric SANDW01 Manufacture:? Colour: brown, light grey Inclusions: abundant, well sorted fine sand c. 0.1mm, rare larger quartz grains, rare organics Vessel Forms: cooking pots Dating: ? Source: ? Fabric SANDW02 Manufacture: ? Colour: yellow-buff, grey, orange-brown Inclusions: Finely sandy matrix with sparse, ill-sorted, sub-rounded, quartz up to 0.5mm, sparse rounded fe oxide up to 1.0mm Vessel forms: cooking pots, jug Dating: 13th–14th century? Source: north Staffordshire? Fabric SANDW03 Manufacture: wheel-thrown Colour: brown, black surfaces Inclusions: abundant very fine quartz, sparse larger grains