Cheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions - Rachel E. Swallow
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Cheshire Castles in Context:
Outer Gateway, (c. 1280, since destroyed in 1790). Chester Castle by Moses Griffith c. 1750 (cropped) © Grosvenor Museums,
Some Conclusions
Rachel E. Swallow
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 115 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLE
Cheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
Cheshire Castles in Context: cause relatively little archaeological ex-
Some Conclusions cavations and survey have been
undertaken on the county’s castles (Table
Rachel E. Swallow
2). Research on Cheshire castles has thus
Introduction sought to contribute to pertinent theories
Recent and ongoing research by this author and current debate in Anglo-Norman
has confirmed medieval Cheshire to have studies, by considering the symbolic and
been a semi-regal county held by powerful defensive roles and significance of medi-
Anglo-Norman earls, with a separate iden- eval Cheshire’s castles within their land-
tity from England (Swallow 2015). Within scapes. Newly uncovered documentary
this context, research has been undertaken sources have driven the overall historical
into the number, location, distribution, na- interpretation to provide a contextual
ture, function and character of Cheshire’s framework. Indeed, the research has
castles built between c. 1069 and 1237 – highlighted the general omission of fresh
beyond which date, the county reverted and necessary historical and historio-
from the earls of Chester to the Crown. graphical work in related archaeological
Research draws upon a number of disci- surveys and excavation previously un-
plines and multiple sources of evidence and dertaken in the county. Aiming to redress
has given rise to new insights into fortified that imbalance, my research and publica-
tion includes the most relevant documen-
élite residences within Cheshire, consid-
tation from both Wales and England. The
ered in the wider context of the Anglo-Nor-
overall interpretation therefore contains
man world.
new elements of national and internation-
Set within current historiographical de- al significance by synthesising and rein-
bates, research and publication both take terpreting the Cheshire evidence.
into account the full geographical area of
Research thus crosses modern political
medieval Cheshire hitherto insufficiently re-
boundaries. The Welsh dynamic has been
searched in either depth or breadth. The
little researched and understood—this dy-
whole of medieval Cheshire has thus been
namic having been dwarfed by a readily
considered, and its fortifications from this
admitted Anglo-centric focus in most cas-
period have been contextualised in relation
tle studies (Creighton and Liddiard 2008;
to earlier and later developments in the re-
Hulme 2010). Placing the construction of
gion. This paper aims to provide a summary
the castle within the political framework of
of the key findings of this research to date.
Anglo-Welsh social and political relations
This research has crossed disciplinary is therefore an original dimension to both
boundaries. Landscape studies have seen castle studies and the study of the medieval
considerable recent debate, resulting in March of Wales. Additionally, south
the development of an interdisciplinary Lancashire/Greater Manchester rarely re-
research environment, thus reinvigorating ceives reference as part of medieval
castle studies by promoting new ap- Cheshire. For example, to include Buckton
proaches and interpretations. However, in Castle (Figure 1), in addition to the Anglo-
this work, Cheshire has been hitherto Norman castles to the west of the River
ignored, perhaps because few medieval Dee, is essential in order to (re-)interpret
documents exist for the county, and be- appropriately and correctly the form and
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 116 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLE
Cheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
siting of castles within the entire medieval A List of Castles in Cheshire
frontier county. Indeed, to base research on The regional research agenda for Cheshire
later boundaries established at various stag- (Brennand et al. 2006 and 2007) highlight-
es from the late thirteenth century would ed how little was known at that time of
miss obscured or overlooked vital and orig- motte-and-bailey castles, despite the coun-
inal interpretations concerning the continu- ty containing among the highest density of
ing significance of pre-existing and such sites in Britain, situated as it is on the
fluctuating Cheshire boundaries evidenced heavily defended Welsh border (Renn
in the historical record, the Mercian dykes 1973, 16). Probably because the River Dee
and the Lyme (see below, Figure 1, and see largely formed the western boundary from
also Swallow 2016 for full discussion). the end of the thirteenth century (Harris
The research has also attempted to avoid 1984, 1), Anglo-Norman castles located to
archaeological and historical categorisa- the west of the River Dee in medieval west
tion. Archaeological evidence is used to Cheshire have tended to be researched sep-
explore the contemporary definition of a arately from their counterparts to the east
castle, defined in a necessarily broad sense of the River Dee. This has had the overall
as ‘a comital or baronial residence, fortified effect of both diminishing the value of this
against the weapons of the day, normally important northern section of the Anglo-
serving as an administrative centre from Welsh border, and ignoring the significant
which the surrounding area was governed’ research and interpretation potential of the
(White 2012, 185). This demonstrably an- county’s castles and their landscapes in
swers Creighton and Liddiard’s (2008, terms of their individual and group signifi-
167) call for the de-compartmentalisation cance within medieval Cheshire. Indeed,
of pre- and post- Anglo- Norman Conquest the castles in west Cheshire formed parallel
houses and castles ‘once and for all’, so that defensive chains of fortifications either
research should focus away from the type- side of the watershed of the River Dee.
casting of castles as ‘agents of “identicide”’ The definition and delineation of Cheshire
(Speight 2007–8, 274). Removing such re- for this author’s research purposes is taken
strictive preconceptions in the overall anal- from the Latin Great Domesday Book text
ysis has enabled new interpretations to be (Morgan 1978; hereafter: GDB) according
made throughout previous and ongoing re- to the original entries in the manuscripts,
search. rather than according to the organisation of
In this paper, a list and map of Cheshire some modern editions. The GDB-noted
castles is provided in the light of the above administrative unit of a hundred was a
introduction, and each of the core themes of territory of a hundred hides from the tenth
the outcomes of interpretation is reviewed century—each hide being an area of taxed
in turn (pp. 118-19, and 131-36). The paper land sufficient to feed one family—and
will also identify how the findings of the was equivalent to the Welsh cantref (the
research have contributed to, and chal- head manor or court of which, was known
lenged, current perspectives and interpreta- as the llys). The townships within Dud-
tions in Anglo-Norman castle studies. estan Hundred (later Maelor Saesneg, in
part), as well as those of Exestan Hundred
(later Maelor Gymraeg), were not listed
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 117 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLE
Cheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 118 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLE
Cheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 119 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLE
Cheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
separately in GDB, but were, in fact, inter- Continuity: Re-use of Pre-Anglo-Nor-
spersed with other Cheshire townships. man Sites
Additionally, Atiscros Hundred townships Regional and provincial diversity has
appear to have been listed both amongst largely been overlooked to date (Creigh-
the Cheshire townships (of which there ton and Liddiard 2008, 167), and its ex-
were approximately five) and separately pression in the form and siting of castles
(these latter being predominantly unhidat- on the northern Anglo-Welsh border is
ed) (Swallow 2016). However, there is no first addressed by this author (Swallow
GDB title or subtitle introducing these 2015, 2016). The study of possible rela-
townships listed separately, to suggest that tionships between pre-Anglo-Norman
they were not included within Cheshire. planned systems of fortification, élite resi-
Inter Ripam et Mersam (later south Lan- dences and castles is also recognised as
cashire, and post-1974, Greater Man- generally lacking (Hulme 2010, 224).
chester) townships, on the other hand, are Semple (2013) convincingly shows that
listed separately, and although they are the Anglo-Saxon reuse of prehistoric mon-
included within the Cheshire translation, uments and landscapes in England was for
are not generally considered as part of the purpose of articulating and manipulat-
Cheshire. ing their own identities. How far the loca-
A list of definite or possible extant and tion of any given castle in Cheshire had
non-extant castle sites established by the been influenced by the builder’s desire to
author is provided in the Table 1 below, as appropriate pre-Anglo-Norman power
are numerous other references to castle centres and ancient locales in the land-
sites/features, predominantly as field- scape has been addressed in recent publi-
names. These sites were within the geo- cation (Swallow 2016, Forthcoming
graphical area of Cheshire as defined by 2018-19). The results of this research ar-
GDB, and are listed together for the entire- gue for a conscious reference to the past,
ty of Cheshire for the first time, thus in- where pre-existing identities on the Ang-
cluding areas within present-day north-east lo-Welsh border were adopted and adapt-
Wales and Greater Manchester (the list for ed during the early Anglo-Norman period
west Cheshire was first provided in Swal- in the form and placing of castles.
low 2016; see also, Figure 1). The early reuse of place and form, along-
The castles date, or are believed to date, side geographical, routeway, riverine and
from c. 1069–1237 (Table 2), and it is to be Mercian dyke features in the landscape,
noted that the majority are situated to the are clearly evident once Mercian and early
west of the Mid-Cheshire Ridge. The Anglo-Norman Cheshire is studied as a
Ridge is a north-to-south (from Helsby to whole. To the west of the River Dee lie
Malpas) discontinuous ridge of Triassic three dykes: Offa’s, Whitford and Wat’s,
sandstone, with heights of between 143 m generally considered to have been early
and 211 m. The ridge forms two main Mercian boundaries (Worthington 1997;
blocks, north and south of what is known Hill 2000; Hill and Worthington 2003;
as the Beeston Gap. What follows is a brief Hill 2005; Tyler 2011; Ray and Bapty
summary of my interpretations to date 2016), although Whitford possibly has
(Swallow 2015). prehistoric origins (Jones 2013, CPAT
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 120 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLE
Cheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
Report No: 1182, 4, Fig. 33 and 34). Offa’s Clwydian Range of hills (immediately
Dyke, in part running parallel to the south- west of the Mercian dykes) and the Mid-
ern section of Wat’s Dyke, probably de- Cheshire Ridge (for a full description and
marcated Mercian lands in the late eighth analysis see Swallow 2016).
century (CPAT undated, retrieved 14 June As mentioned above, medieval Cheshire
2015). Offa's Dyke runs almost without a also had a liminal geographical and affor-
break between just north of the River Wye ested boundary called the Lyme. Taking a
near Hereford, to Treuddyn, south-west of multidisciplinary approach, this author de-
Mold in Atiscros Hundred (Hill and Wor- fines the defensive and administrative pre-
thington 2003). The relation of the Whit- dominantly natural boundary of the Lyme
ford Dyke monument with Offa’s and for the first time (Swallow 2015; 2018b).
Wat’s dykes is uncertain. The previously The Lyme is evidenced in an extensive
accepted view that it was, in fact, the north- series of place-names, including Audlem,
ern section of Offa’s Dyke, was initially Lyme Park, Lyme Handley, Lyne Edge,
challenged by David Hill in the mid-1980s Lymford Bridge, Lima and Lymm.
(Hill and Worthington 2003, 154 – 61). ‘Lyme’ place-names also exist immediate-
Whitford Dyke extends, with some breaks ly beyond the Cheshire boundary, in Inter
in its line, for around 9 km, forming a part Ripam et Mersam (e.g. Lyme) and
of the boundary between the parishes of Staffordshire (e.g. Newcastle-under-
Newmarket and Llanasa, more-or-less Lyme) (Dodgson 1970b, 36–37; Coates
along the centre of the Atiscros Hundred 2004, 40, Swallow 2016, 2018; Figure 1).
plateau, dividing the hinterland of the Dee Now a lost regional place-name, ‘Lyme’
Estuary from the Vale of Clwyd (Jones was understood to refer to an area of Lyme
2013, CPAT Report No: 1182). The earth- trees (Dodgson 1970a, 2–6; Bu’Lock
works of Wat’s Dyke, on the other hand, 1972, 25; and contra, Coates 2004, 44).
are suggested to have represented the later However, the Latin līmen means ‘thresh-
Mercian boundary of early ninth-century old, lintel’, or, at times, ‘field-baulk, limit,
conquest; it formed a strategic boundary boundary’, and is perhaps more plausible
against a changing political challenge from (Coates 2004, 36 and 47; Horovitz 2005,
the Welsh kingdoms, and from which at- 376–77; Tringham Forthcoming). The
tacks were launched into north Wales, thus Lyme was a district about 80 km long,
expanding Mercian power further west which demarcated Cheshire’s eastern and
(Malim and Hayes 2008, 147). The dyke is south-eastern border with Derbyshire,
about 65 km long, and runs more-or-less Staffordshire, part of Lancashire and
continuously as a bank and ditch between Yorkshire, and Shropshire. With the ex-
Basingwerk in Atiscros Hundred/Tegeingl ception west of the county, therefore, the
and south of Maesbrook (Shropshire, nota- Lyme covered all the routes into and out of
bly meaning ‘boundary brook’) (Ekwall Cheshire: all roads to the earl of Chester’s
1970, 311). Place-name and GDB tenurial Midland estates within the Honour of
evidence stress the importance of the dykes Chester, which extended into twenty of the
as a late eleventh-century boundary in the thirty-four English counties, and to Lon-
west of the Irish Sea Cultural Zone. The don (Sylvester and Nulty 1958, 1; Lewis
Irish Sea Cultural is broadly defined as the 1991a, 41). The Lyme district seems to
area of medieval Cheshire between the have been used as a political and adminis-
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 121 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLE
Cheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
trative boundary term for a region of natu- Hundred by 1086, which provided him
ral features: woods, moors, the Lyme with a legally protected hunting landscape,
Brook, and particularly uplands above a but also provided the county with an addi-
contour height of approximately 120 m tional defensive boundary to the east of the
(White 2015, 75; Swallow 2016, 2018). Mercian dyke boundaries, indicates his di-
The newly interpreted extent of the Irish rect and early focus on this cultural zone
Sea Cultural Zone (Swallow 2016) takes (Swallow 2016; Forthcoming 2018-19;
into account the position of the three earth- Figure 1). I have proposed elsewhere that
work dykes in the landscape, and demon- continuity from prehistoric, Roman or Old
strates that the reuse of monuments to the English/Welsh monuments to Anglo-Nor-
west of the Mid-Cheshire Ridge is indicat- man castles reflected the cross-cultural na-
ed by the high occurrence of mottes with ture of the Anglo-Welsh border in their
no baileys, and the unusual trapezoidal form, and thus reflected the military signif-
/rectilinear shape of those castles with bai- icance of the castles’ sitings (ibid.). This
leys. More particularly, both forms of cas- theory for the west of the River Dee is
tles were sited between the area east of the based on the so-called militarily determin-
Mercian dykes and west of the River Dee, istic view that castles were built where
and Roman Watling Street heading north- there had previously been fortifications
wards direct to Chester. More notably, the because different generations came to the
majority of the castles in this cultural zone same conclusion that these were good de-
were positioned along, or adjacent to, the fensible sites for surveillance.
Mercian dykes, which indicates their likely Continuity in terms of direct succession
surveillance and defensive purposes. of Mercian to Anglo-Norman landhold-
Dodleston Castle’s newly identified and ings, seen at the Mercian multiple es-
uniquely phased structure of motte, ring- tates—that is, dependencies based on a
work and trapezoidal form and siting with- central settlement or caput (Faith 1997, 8,
in this Irish Sea Cultural Zone (Swallow 12; Davies 2009, 184, 198)—takes into
2014a; Swallow 2016; Forthcoming 2018- consideration the first GDB entry for each
19), was pivotal to, and representative of, Cheshire Hundred. This entry usually has
multi-period, cross-cultural and cross-pro- the highest value at 1066 of all other land
vincial continuity. It is ironic that the new- tenure under the same lordship; may well
ly interpreted distribution of the have been the site of a burh (Anglo-Saxon
hitherto-named ‘minor’ and ‘thinned out’ ‘fortified place’, particularly royal resi-
castles of the Anglo-Welsh border of dences;) was most probably the caput
Cheshire indicates maximum cross-period (head manor) of the Hundred in question,
continuity in an area which witnessed the and occasionally includes mention of a
greatest fluctuation of boundaries. hall (aula) and/or court (curia). At its
I would also argue that Hugh I core, the Anglo-Saxon royal and later co-
d’Avranches’s (Earl of Chester from 1070 – mital demesne had the minster, or
1101) castles at Hawarden and Mold were superior/mother church (Baxter and Blair
probably built on the sites of pre-medieval 2006, 35). Cheshire GDB shows a strong
structures in the Irish Sea Cultural Zone correlation between minster churches and
(Swallow 2016, Forthcoming 2018-19). hundreds, each hundred usually consisting
That Hugh had created a forest in Atiscros of two or three interlocking parishes (Blair
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 122 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLE
Cheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
1985, 118; Harris and Thacker 1987, 268– cates that continuity of significance of
73; Higham 1993, 126–81; Blair 2005, 309). landscapes of lordship and land tenure
Nevertheless, Cheshire GDB provides only probably occurred within a core zone, rath-
limited implicit evidence to identify the er than on the pre-existing hundredal caput
county’s eleventh-century minsters. Blair (ibid.; Swallow 2012, 2016, 2018a,
notes (1985, 106) that just under half of 2018c). These new locations of power had
GDB minsters were attached to royal de- stronger grips on the county’s economics
mesne generally, and thus identifies the after the Norman Conquest.
Cheshire minsters of Farndon, Acton, Ches- East of the Mid-Cheshire Ridge, Hugh I
ter and Halton in this way (Blair 1988, 2; largely retained the Mercian Earl Edwin’s
1985, 106). Less reliable as evidence, High- 1066 holdings of high value and cultural,
am (1993, 127) suggests that minsters can be rather than overtly defensive, significance.
identified where more than one priest is The analysis of how the distribution of
recorded for a manor in Cheshire GDB, high-status settlement in Cheshire affected
where the priests had substantial lands that the choice of castle site (Swallow 2016;
were separately noted, and where there is Swallow Forthcoming 2018-19) indicates
evidence that they enjoyed an element of tax that some pre-Conquest buildings contin-
exemption. As Blair points out, however, ued in use during the Anglo-Norman peri-
this pattern of minster identification cannot od and the castle (whatever we, or they,
be universally applied, as priests were itiner- might mean by the term) came later. Ex-
ant in their pastoral role, and so built them- amples include the likely initially royal
selves churches in dispersed locations for forestal residences, which Hugh retained at
their convenience, rather than in the central Frodsham and Macclesfield, for example
locations of the minsters themselves (Blair (Swallow 2018c). The case studies for
1985, 104, 113; Blair 1987, 271). Additional Nantwich and Aldford castles (Swallow
complications of identification are that GDB 2012; 2018a) also call for a closer exami-
records collegiate churches, many of which nation of hundreds with Mercian hall com-
were old minsters, but some were relatively plexes and later castle sites within
new and non-parochial (Blair 1985, 104). Cheshire (Table 3), where the continued
On and to the west of the Mid-Cheshire interplay with the religious holdings, both
Ridge, there was a high degree of continu- on a parochial and bishopric level, needs to
ity in terms of direct succession of Mercian be understood.
to Anglo-Norman landholdings seen at the Cheshire as a Frontier
Mercian multiple estates and later capita
castles of Malpas, Nantwich, and Halton. I The traditional military approach pre-
proposes that a multiple estate and later sumed that defence took precedence over
castlery with close links to Chester also other considerations, and revisionist theo-
existed at the caput of Dodleston in its ries consider non-military explanations for
newly interpreted original hundred of Dud- castle features. It has recently been sug-
estan (Swallow 2014a; Swallow gested that this debate needs reframing, in
Forthcoming/work in progress). Evidence that the issue is not an ‘either/or’ situation,
at the capita of Acton/Nantwich, but one of clarifying the military and élite
Farndon/Aldford, Overton/Frodsham and residential roles of castles at different
Depenbech/Malpas, on the other hand, indi- times and places (Creighton and Liddiard
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 123 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLE
Cheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
2008, 165; Hulme 2010, 223). This ap- to the earls after the end of twelfth centu-
proach eliminates the restrictive, categor- ry, and particularly in the early thirteenth
ised interpretation of castles, an analytical century, when Ranulf III de Blundeville
process already hampered by limited avail- (Earl of Chester from 1181 – 1232) made
ability and survival of historical and ar- both Frodsham and Macclesfield bor-
chaeological sources. oughs, along with Leek in Staffordshire.
Earl Ranulf thus tightened control on the
I agree with the argument that physical
county’s economics, creating an income
geography played a major role in the shap-
from the burgesses and the port at Frod-
ing the character of a historic landscape
sham (Swallow 2018c).
(Williamson 2013), and thus in the shaping
of the form, purpose and siting of Cheshire’s It would appear that the majority of all
castles. The continuity of geographical fea- efforts, expense and personnel were ini-
tures dictated the framework of historical tially located and employed for the build-
external and internal boundaries (River ing of the county’s castles to the west of
Mersey to the north of the county; the Lyme the Mid-Cheshire Ridge, with the excep-
(cf. above); Pennine hills to the east of the tion of Stockport and Shipbrook castles,
county; Mid-Cheshire Ridge (cf. above); and three de Masci estate castles lining
and Clwydian Range west of the Mercian the River Bollin between the northern
dykes). The geography also dictated the county boundary of the River Mersey and
county’s economics, such as salt and miner- the earls’ forestal estate at Macclesfield.
al extraction; the position of important ports Landscapes seemingly not subject to def-
at Chester and Meols, for instance; and riv- inite comital castle-building were also
erine and road communication routes. The situated to the east of the Mid-Cheshire
location and purpose of forests was also Ridge, and include Frodsham, Maccles-
dictated by the soils, topography and the field and the Wiches of Middlewich and
forests’ proximity to the county’s upland Northwich. In Cheshire GDB, the Wiches
boundary landscapes. In turn, the physical refer to the three main salt producing
geography directly affected the form and industrial settlements of Northwich, Mid-
siting of the county’s castles. dlewich and Nantwich (Swallow 2018a).
To what extent each castle’s martial and Castles on hilltops displayed offensive
strategic role played a part in the choice of and symbolic power in and over the
locations, purposes and shaping of land- Cheshire Plain landscape. In Cheshire,
scapes has been discussed (Swallow 2016; hilltop castles were held by the earls, or
Swallow Forthcoming 2018-19), the re- by men they had placed in positions of
sults of research highlighting the vital role significant power within and throughout
of the defence of trade in Cheshire (salt the county (Swallow 2018b). The role of
and minerals, in particular). Although the Stockport Castle in this respect is unclear
county’s castles were situated predomi- and requires further investigation (Swal-
nantly to the west of the Mid-Cheshire low, forthcoming 2019). The other hilltop
Ridge, the whole of the county has to be locations were Overton (possibly), and
considered as a frontier, not just that part The Roft held by Osbern fitz-Tezzo, both
of it on the Anglo-Welsh border. East of sites marking the south-west boundary of
the Mid-Cheshire Ridge became important the county, and the south of the Irish Sea
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 124 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
Cultural Zone; Halton Castle, held by the Hunting Landscapes
earls’ constables; and Mold Bailey Hill, The revisionist approach to castles studies
held by the earls’ seneschals. Hilltop sites is concerned with the idea of display of
also included Buckton Castle, probably power, despite it rarely being the main
built by Ranulf II Kevelioc (Earl of Ches- reason for the construction of the castle
ter from 1153 – 81), and emulated about (Hulme 2010, 226). Perception of strength
fifty years later by his grandson when he was perhaps as important as actual
built Beeston Castle (Swallow 2018b). strength, as argued for the offensive hill-
Notably, all hilltop castles marked and top locations of Buckton and Beeston cas-
overlooked pre-Anglo-Norman boundar- tles (see above). In addition, the
ies: Stockport Castle overlooked the River mid-fourteenth-century-recorded tower
Mersey and the disputable Inter Ripam et with oriel window at the comital residence
Mersam to the north, and may have at Frodsham would have looked impres-
formed part of the de Masci lands (Swal- sive, and would have displayed wealth and
low 2015; Swallow, forthcoming 2019); power within its hunting landscape setting
Mold in the far west of the county sat west (Swallow 2018c). However, it is argued
of Wat’s Dyke and at the northern end of that these features did not seriously impact
Offa’s Dyke; Halton was positioned to the the effectiveness of castles as fortifica-
north of the Mid-Cheshire Ridge, and tions (Hulme 2010, 226).I would also ar-
overlooked the River Mersey estuary to gue that hunting landscapes cannot be
the west, the River Weaver to the south, divorced from the overall purpose and
and the constable’s adjoining lands in In- location of the castle. This is seen in the
ter Ripam et Mersam to the north; Buck- detailed case study at Aldford, where con-
ton Castle overlooked the Lyme to the tinuity of important cultural significance
east, as well as the counties of Derbyshire, in the west Cheshire landscape provided
Yorkshire and south Lancashire; Beeston the context for newly identified castle
significantly bounded the east of the Irish parks (Swallow 2012). The meaning of the
Sea Cultural Zone on the southern stretch Anglo-Saxon word haia(e), or hay(s), is
of the Mid-Cheshire Ridge, and is mark- also considered for the county for the first
edly visible from both the Welsh hills of time, where these enclosures are shown to
the Clwydian Range, and from the Lyme fall within the areas of the comital forests
to the south and east. (Swallow 2015; Swallow Forthcoming
Considering the whole of Cheshire as a 2021). This observation within and with-
frontier, it can be seen that it was delineat- out the county is new.
ed by boundaries which fluctuated over Forest creation represented élite comital
the study period, but also that an identity power on two levels: defence and hunting.
of significant power, place and memory The forests were all sited on Cheshire’s
was contained within them. Ultimately, external (west, south-east and Lyme) and
the various roles that castles within internal (Mid-Cheshire Ridge) boundary
Cheshire played as a tool of frontier lord- areas. The Welsh were quick to criticise
ship are demonstrated, particularly in its Hugh I’s gluttony and love of hunting, but
trade and military functions. this author suggests that his 1070s forestal
creation had the additional, and perhaps
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 125 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
ABOVE: Halton Castle, from the south-east © R. Swallow.
BELOW: Halton Castle from the south, Samuel and Nathaniel Buck, 1726.
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 126 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
prime, purpose of providing stringently Swallow 2013, 2014b; 2018b,
restricted areas for defence on these bound- Forthcoming/work in progress) suggest
aries, as well as providing the protection of cross-period and cross-cultural similarities
riverine and road trade routes centred on in their form and siting. Such collaboration
the county’s caput at Chester and the Irish and identities have not been identified, or
Sea Province (Swallow 2015, 2016, Forth- fully addressed or understood previously. I
coming 2018-19, Forthcoming 2021). argue for an episodic, close political align-
Collaboration ment between the earls of Chester and the
Welsh rulers prior to and following the
Ellenblum (2007, 304) has argued that cas- Norman Conquest, which can be witnessed
tles ‘could not have developed in a vacu- in both the documentary and archaeological
um, unconnected to the military tactics of record. This alignment is used as a context
land battles, the essence of the frontier, and for analysing the significance of location,
the different capabilities of the two adver- form and architectural features of Cheshire
saries’. He argues that castles should be and north Welsh castles. This significance
regarded as the obvious visual expression was part of a wider political dynamic in
of the cultural dialogue between provinces, northern England, Wales and, indeed, in
‘not because one of the sides “borrowed” Ireland and Normandy. Important conclu-
an architectural expression from the other, sions are made in terms of how we view the
but because they were the outcome of a relationship between Cheshire, the English
lengthy ongoing dialogue between two state, and the rulers of the native Welsh
schools of military tactics and approaches’ principality of Gwynedd. Although
(ibid.). This interpretation is reached for Beeston (Cheshire) and Cricieth (Gw-
the string of castles on the Anglo-Welsh ynedd) castles are well known, for the first
border (Swallow 2016, Forthcoming 2018- time, and in a single context, a discussion is
19). However, the results of my research made of their landscape settings and their
furthers this argument by considering the wider political/cultural environment (Swal-
under-researched and under-played social, low 2014b).
political and symbolic dynamics between
élite powers from different provinces Medieval Cheshire was not only a milita-
(Frame 1988), and in this case, between rised frontier, but was also a border area of
Cheshire, Wales and England. acculturation. The newly interpreted Irish
Sea Cultural Zone and cross-border rela-
Personal power played a significant part tionships of power made a significant con-
in the choice of locations, in the purposes tribution to the form and siting of the
to which the castles were put, and in the castles in medieval west Cheshire; castles
shaping of their landscapes, and that inter- were symbols of a palimpsestic landscape
action of personal powers, as well as con- of both contest and collaboration.
flict, affected the form, placing and
landscape of Cheshire and Gwynedd cas- Overall Conclusions
tles. The continuity of form and purpose in Disciplines construct their own internal
the Irish Sea Cultural Zone (Swallow boundaries (Mullin 2011, 3), and in taking
2016) and the case studies for Dodleston, a cross-disciplinary approach to research,
Beeston (and Cricieth) castles (Swallow I aim to break down non-contemporary
[under the name of McGuicken] 2010; boundaries to emphasise the relative inde-
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 127 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
pendence of medieval Cheshire and how very with irregularly shaped baileys, as well as
powerful the county’s Anglo-Norman earls Old English place-names indicating a pre-
were within England and Wales. The study of Anglo-Norman origin; they are identified
the diversity in form of the castle, location by their location on, or to the immediate
and function in Cheshire has thus far pro- east of the Mercian dykes, and Wat’s
duced the following overall conclusions. Dyke, in particular. This suggests consec-
Despite sometimes inconclusive results, the utive or subsequent reuse of their form and
endeavour of trying to match a complex site siting in the landscape.
biography of often changing locations and The second type is the more typical
uses to a specific legal status of the Cheshire motte-and-bailey structures within and to
castle has wider implications. Archaeologi- the east of the River Dee within this cultur-
cal and historical context demonstrates that al zone. Those positioned to the east of the
contemporary descriptions lacked consisten- River Dee and along or adjacent to the
cy and precision of either what we now call Roman Watling Street trade route to Ches-
‘castles’ in the Anglo-Norman period, or ter, were clearly also defending and con-
regal and comital halls throughout the Ang- trolling movement of people and trade in
lo-Norman period. The case study at Frod- the Irish Sea Cultural Zone, along with
sham (Swallow 2018c), for instance, appears their western counterparts. The majority of
to represent a national conundrum, and lack castle sites in this category were associat-
of any further clarity, surrounding contem- ed with manorial settlements, including a
porary and subsequent nomenclature of the church adjacent to the castle. Continuity
‘castle’. It highlights the fact that the termi- for this category is demonstrated by the
nology of medieval documents might not likely presence of a former Anglo-Saxon
relate to the archaeology and architecture multiple estate, where the elements of a
that survives, and that we should not let the burh, mother church, burh-geat (and suc-
former govern our interpretations and expec- ceeding castle site with a park), river and
tations of the latter. Roman road are generally present (see
With this in mind, and ironically at the risk Farndon/Aldford, and Acton/Nantwich,
of renewed categorisation, this author high- for instance: Swallow 2012, 2018a). These
lights four broad types in Cheshire, of what more settled and expansive castle land-
we now term a ‘castle’. The first type is the scapes could indicate a higher degree of
defensive chain of isolated castles in the security experienced in this area. Their
Irish Sea Cultural Zone, which were all development may have been due to the
situated to the west of the River Dee and to continuing cultural significance of their
the east of the Mercian dykes in a north- relatively high pre-Conquest values as
south alignment (Figure 1). They defended Earl Edwin’s Mercian estates (Malpas
the riverine and Roman road commercial (and thus Shocklach: (Swallow 2013);
network to Chester, which ran onto the Irish Aldford/Farndon (Swallow 2012);
Sea via the port of Meols in Wilaveston Acton/Nantwich (Swallow 2018a); and
Hundred. This category of castle generally possibly Shotwick (Swallow 2016, Forth-
had minimal, or no, associated manorial coming 2018-19), for instance). Addition-
settlement. These castles have a high occur- ally, their development may have been due
rence of mottes with no baileys, and mottes to their proximity to Chester and an impor-
tant London-Irish Sea Roman road. Typi-
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 128 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
cal motte-and-bailey structures also existed 1–12) — which homogenises the multiple,
in the east of the county, at the de Masci contemporaneous purposes of a castle in an
castles of Dunham Massey, Watch Hill and unrealistic and consecutive temporal sense.
Ullersford, for instance, which lined the I would therefore agrees with Ellenblum’s
River Bollin running south from the north- (2007, 182) description of a castle, that it
ern county boundary of the River Mersey. ‘is not one type of settlement, but a form of
Possible exceptions to the general distribu- construction stemming from the medieval
tion of this typical motte-and-bailey catego- way of life, and therefore, common to all
ry are Rhuddlan (Twt Hill) and Hawarden types of medieval settlements’.
motte-and-bailey castles, both situated in Placing together sources from a variety
the heavily defended Atiscros Hundred to of disciplines creates a more expansive
the west of the River Dee (ibid.). interpretative picture, which means that in
The third type of a Cheshire castle relates turn, research thus far has had to be neces-
to élite residences, which may or may not sarily selective with its examples and case
have been fortified in some way, typified studies. However, there is much evidence
by Frodsham and Macclesfield. These were that Cheshire stood apart from England in
generally situated adjacent to important Ro- the minds of the contemporaries. Pre-Con-
man roads leading to Chester, and within quest Mercia, and the Welsh March known
forestal landscapes to the east of the county. to exist from 1160s (Swallow 2015, Forth-
The pre-Conquest royal/comital estates coming 2018-19), are both place-names
were of relatively high value at 1066 for the meaning ‘boundary’. This suggests that
county, and Hugh I’s direct succession of Cheshire was considered a firm frontier
them suggests continuity of cultural signif- zone, which reinforces the contemporary
icance. This does not necessarily suggest impression of Cheshire’s separateness. Yet
the presence of early castles, nor indeed, the frontier of Cheshire had influence be-
anything other than what have since been yond its boundaries: it was representative,
called fortified manors at any date. and indeed pivotal, to changes within the
The fourth and final type is the hilltop British Isles. The county was clearly and
castle, summarised above, which was pre- intrinsically linked with the overall politi-
dominantly a symbol of significant offen- cal, social and economic dynamics of not
sive and élite personal power in the forestal only England, but also Wales and the Irish
landscapes. These were situated within the Sea Province.
surrounding landscape of the Cheshire My previous and ongoing interpretation of
Plain, and on or adjacent to the county’s Cheshire castles has therefore questioned
principal boundaries (Swallow 2018a). traditional documentary and secondary
While different types of castles are ac- source narratives, which have taken on divi-
knowledged generally (e.g. Liddiard 2000), sive Welsh versus English cultural identities
the above differentiation of site-types does based on false or irrelevant, modern, and
not appear to have been considered before. thus constrictive, historic time periods and
Instead, the form of castles tends to be tenurial boundaries.
categorised by the perception of their de- Within this context, Cheshire’s castles
velopment over time — that is, ‘from func- were intrinsically and continuously linked
tionalism to symbolism’ (Liddiard 2005, to a greater or lesser degree with defence,
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 129 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
trade, hunting landscapes, and élite social poses of the significance of landscapes of
networks within and without the county. I lordship and land tenure of Cheshire’s
agree with the broad argument put forward castle.
by Prior (2006), who argued for a more
strategic approach to the study of castles.
He claimed that the key to the Anglo-Nor-
mans’ success was that it mattered less
what was built, but where it was built. In
addition, I would argue that where a castle KEY to the following Tables:
was built was influenced by the county’s DMV Deserted Medieval Village
geography and related available resources Encl. Enclosure Castle
and Irish Sea trade. In turn, these character- FM Fortified Manor House
istics directly dictated what was built, in the F-N Field-Name
form of one or more of the four types of M&B Motte-and-Bailey
Cheshire ‘castle’ and their inextricably
M&B? Motte and possible bailey
linked élite landscapes, outlined above. A
Mas. Extant masonry
multidisciplinary, critical approach to re-
Motte Motte (only)
search on castles and their landscapes is
therefore considered essential, as O’Keeffe MS Moated Site
(2013, 261) stressed when he expressed his N/E Non-extant
frustration at archaeologists who categorise P-N Place-Name
seemingly ‘new’ castles without the ‘requi- PS Planned Settlement (including
site scrutiny’. castle/church proximity)
R Ringwork
Likewise, as Creighton and Barry (2012,
S Settlement (organic, and/or no evi-
65) point out, ‘A key challenge for the dence of planning)
future is, of course, to address the fact that
Spur Castle positioned on a spur
our understanding of the medieval rural
U/K Unknown
scene has been compartmentalised into
these different categories, effectively re- C. King (King 1983, I)
tarding any ambition we might have to- CSMR Castle acknowledged in Cheshire
Historic Environment Records
wards the appreciation of the countryside in
(CHER) and Clwyd Power Archae-
toto’. Documentary sources include both ological Trust (CPAT) reco
above and below ground archaeology, and
Morgan Morgan 2001
all have a part to play in an interdisciplinary
PN Place-Name volume references cas-
approach, which overcomes homogenisa-
tle (Dodgson, 1970a–1981b, inclu-
tion. Where such research and publication sive; Owen and Morgan 2007)
distinguishes itself from previous studies, √ Mentioned/accepted as a castle
therefore, is in its recognition, definition within time period
and presentation of the entire medieval - No mention
county of Cheshire as a medieval frontier.
? Disputed/possible
Considered separate from England by its
X Rejected, or not within time period
contemporaries, this frontier, and the
(1069–1232)
unique power of the earls of Chester, pro-
vided the contexts for the multifarious pur-
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 130 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
Table 1: Cheshire Castles c. 1069-1237
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 131 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
Cheshire Castles, c. 1069-1237 continued
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 132 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
Possible Cheshire Castles, c. 1068-1237 continued
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 133 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
Table 2: Cheshire Castles (Definite & Possible: Dates of First Mention
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 134 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
Table 1 Cheshire Castles (Definite aand Possible): Date of First Mention, continued
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 135 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
The Anglo-Saxon Minster and Anglo-Norman Castle
Table 3: Landscapes of Lordship and Tenure.
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 136 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
Bibliography Coates, R. 2004. The Lyme, Journal of the English
Place-Name Society, 36, pp. 39–50
Baxter, S. and Blair, J. 2006. Land Tenure and Royal CPAT (Clwyd and Powys Archaeological Trust)
Patronage in the Early English Kingdom: A Model (undated): What is Offa’s Dyke?
and a Case Study, Anglo-Norman Studies, 28, pp. http://www.cpat.org.uk/offa/what.htm, retrieved 14
19–46 June 2015
Blair, J. 1985. Secular Minster Churches in Domes- Creighton, O. and Barry, T. 2012. Seigneurial and
day Book, P. Sawyer, Domesday Book: A Reassess- Elite Sites in the Medieval Landscape, Medieval
ment, London: Hodder Arnold, pp. 104–42 Rural Settlement Britain and Ireland, AD 800–
——— 1987. Local Churches In Domesday Book 1600, Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 26–30
and Before, J. C. Holt (ed.), Domesday Studies, Creighton, O. and Liddiard, R. 2008. Fighting yes-
Woodbridge: Boydell, pp. 265–78 terday’s battle: beyond war or status in castle stud-
———1988. Introduction: From Minster to Parish ies, Medieval Archaeology, 52, pp. 161–69
Church, J. Blair, (ed.), Minsters and Parish Church- Davies, R. R. 2009. Lords and Lordship in the
es: The Local Church in Transition 950 – 1200, British Isles in the Late Middle Ages, Oxford: Ox-
Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology, ford University Press
pp. 1–19
Dent, J. S. 1977. Recent Excavations on the site of
——— 2005. The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society, Stockport Castle, Transactions of the Lancashire
Oxford: Oxford University Press and Cheshire Antiquarian Society, 79, pp.1–13
Brennand, M., with Chitty, J. and Nevell, M. (eds) Dodgson, J. McN. 1970a. The place-names of
2006, 2007. The Archaeology of North West England. Cheshire. Part I, English Place-Name Society XLIV
An Archaeological Research Framework for the (1966–7), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
North West Region, Vol. I & II. Resource Assessment,
ALGAO and English Heritage with the Council for ——— 1970b. The place-names of Cheshire. Part
British Archaeology North West II, English Place-Name Society XLV (1967–8),
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
British Library: B. M. Harleian M.S. 2074 f.189
——— 1971. The place-names of Cheshire. Part III,
Brown, K. and Johnson, B. 1985. Watch Hill, Bow- English Place-Name Society XLVI (1968–9), Cam-
don, The Greater Manchester Archaeological Jour- bridge: Cambridge University Press
nal, I, pp. 35 – 37
——— 1972. The place-names of Cheshire. Part IV,
Bu’Lock, J. D. 1972. Pre-Conquest Cheshire. 383– English Place-Name Society XLVII (1969–70),
1066, Chester: Chester Community Council Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Calendar of the Close Rolls preserved in the Public ——— 1981a. The place-names of Cheshire Part V
Record Office, Edward I, 1272–79, London: HMSO, (1:i),English Place-Name Society XLVIII, Cam-
1900 bridge: Cambridge at the University Press
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem: Volume 2, Ed- ———1981b.The place-names of Cheshire Part V
ward I, J. E. E. S. Sharp (Ed.), London: HMSO, 1906 (1:ii), English Place-Name Society XLIV, Cam-
Calendar of the Liberate Rolls preserved in the Pub- bridge: Cambridge at the University Press
lic Record Office: Henry III, 1216–72, I , II, London: Ekwall, E. 1970.The Concise Oxford Dictionary of
HMSO, 1835)
English Place-Names (4th edn.), Oxford: Clarendon
Chibnall, M. (ed) 1968–80. The Ecclesiastical Histo- Press
ry of Orderic Vitalis, Oxford: Clarendon
Ellenblum, R. 2007. Crusader Castles and Modern
Christie, R C. (ed. and trans.) 1887. Annales Cestriens- Histories, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
es, A Chronicle of the Abbey of St Werburgh, London:
Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 14 Ellis, P. (ed.) 1993. Beeston Castle, Cheshire: Exca-
vations by Laurence Keen and Peter Hough, 1968-
Clark, G.T. 1889. Contribution Towards a Complete 85, English Heritage Archaeological Report no. 23,
list of Moated Mounds or Burhs, Archaeological London: English Heritage
Journal, 46, pp. 197–217
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 137 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
Everson, P. 1998a. ‘Delightfully Surrounded with Ithel, W., ab (Ed.), 1860. Brut y Tywysogion Jesus
Woods and Ponds’: Field Evidence for Medieval Gar- MS 111 (Red Book of Hergest), London: Longman
dens in England, P. Pattison (ed.) Royal Commission on and Roberts
the Historical Monument of England. ‘There by Design.
Jones, N. W.1999. Erddig Motte and Bailey, Ar-
Field Archaeology in Parks and Gardens’. Bar Series
chaeology in Wales, 39, pp.131–33
267, Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 32–38
Jones, N. W. 2013. The Whitford Dyke, Flintshire:
Eyre, G. E. and Spottiswoode, W. (eds) 1876. Calen-
Excavation and Survey 2012, CPAT Report No:
dar of Recognizance Rolls of the Palatine of Chester
1182
(fifteenth century).The thirty-seventh annual report
of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, II, Jones, T. (ed.) 1955. Brut y Tywysogion, or Chron-
London: Eyre and Spottiswoode icle of Princes: Red Book of Hergest Version, His-
tory and Law Society, XVI, Cardiff: University of
Faith, R. 1997. The English Peasantry and the Growth
Wales Press
of Lordship, Leicester: Leicester University Press
King, D. J. C.1983. Castellarium Anglicanum: an
Frame, R. 1988. Aristocracies and the political Config-
Index and Bibliography of the CastlesinEngland,
uration of the British Isles, R. Davies (ed.) The British
Wales, and the islands, I, Millwood, New York:
Isles 1100–1500: Comparisons, Contrasts and Con-
Kraus International
nections, Edinburgh: John Donald, pp. 142–59
Leach, G. B. 1957. Excavations at Hen Blas.
Grimsditch, B. Nevell, M. and Nevell, R. 2012.
Coleshill Fawr. Near Flint: First Report, Journal of
Buckton Castle and the Castles of North West Eng-
Flintshire Historical Society, 17, 1–15
land, University of Salford, Loughborough: Acorn
Print Media Leach, G. B. 1960. Excavations at Hen Blas.
Coleshill Fawr. Near Flint: Second Report, Journal
Harris, B. E. 1984. Cheshire and its Rulers, Cheshire:
of Flintshire Historical Society, 18, pp.13–60
Cheshire Libraries and Museums
Lewis, C.P. and A.T. Thacker (eds) 2003. A history
Harris, B. E. (ed.) and Thacker, A. T. (assist.) 1987.
of the County of Chester, 5, Pt. 1, The City of
The Victoria History of the County of Chester, I,
Chester; general history and topography, Wood-
Prehistory, Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Domesday,
bridge: Boydell & Brewer
The Institute of Historical Research. Oxford: Oxford
University Press Liddiard, R. 2000. Landscapes of Lordship: Nor-
man Castles and the Countryside in Medieval Nor-
Higham, N. J. 1993. The Origins of Cheshire, Man-
folk, 1066 – 1200, Oxford: BAR British Series, 309
chester: Manchester University Press
——— 2005. Castles in Context. Power, Symbol-
Hill, D. 2000. Offa’s Dyke Pattern and Purpose,
ism and Landscape, 1066 to 1500, Macclesfield:
Antiquaries Journal, 80, pp.195–206
Windgather Press
——— 2005. The Eighth-Century Urban Landscape,
Liddiard, R. and McGuicken [Swallow], R. 2007.
D. Hill, and M. Worthington, (eds) Æthelbad and
Beeston Castle, London: English Heritage Guide-
Offa. Two Eighth-Century Kings of Mercia, Bar Brit-
books
ish Series 383, Oxford: Hadrian Books Lt, pp.97–102
Lowerre, A., Edwards, J., Smith, I. and Ward, S.
Hill, D. and Worthington, M. 2003. Offa’s Dyke.
1999. Aldford Castle Cheshire: 1999 Excavation
History and Guide, Stroud, Gloucestershire: Methuen
Interim Report, Chester Archaeology Evaluation
Hogg, A. H. A. and King, D. J. C. 1963. Early Castles and Assessment Report, 58, Chester: Chester City
in Wales and the Marches: a preliminary list, Archae- Council
ologia Cambrensis, 112, pp. 77–124
——— 2001. Aldford Castle Cheshire: 2000 Exca-
Horovitz, D. 2005. The Place-Names of Stafford- vation Interim Report, Chester Archaeology Evalu-
shire, Stafford: David Horovitz ation and Assessment Report, 61, Chester: Chester
Hough, P. R. 1982. Chester Castle, Cheshire Archae- City Council
ological Bulletin, 8, pp. 45–6 ———2003. Aldford Castle Cheshire: 2002 Exca-
Hulme, R. 2010. Revisionism in Castle Studies: The vation Interim Report, Chester Archaeology Evalu-
Unresolved Issue of Castles and War, The Castles ation and Assessment Report, 66, Chester: Chester
Studies Group 2009–10 Journal, 23, pp. 220–31 City Council
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 138 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLECheshire Castles in Context: Some Conclusions
Lumby, J. R. (ed.) 1876. Polychronicon Ranulfi Ray, K. and Bapty, I. (eds) 2016. Offa's Dyke:
Higden, monachi Cestrensis, VII, London: Long- Landscape and Hegemony in Eighth Century Brit-
man ain, Oxford: Windgather Press
Malim, T. And Hayes, L. 2008. The date and Renn, D. F. 1973. Norman Castles in Britain, Lon-
nature of Wat’s Dyke: a reassessment in the light don: John Baker Publishers
of recent investigation at Gobowen Shropshire, S.
Reynolds, S. and White, G. 1995. A Survey of
Crawford and H. Hamerow (eds), Anglo-Saxon
Aldford Castle, Cheshire Past, 4, pp. 14–15
Studies in Archaeology and History, 15, Oxford:
Oxford University School of Archaeology, pp. Round, J. H. (Ed.), 1899. Calendar of Documents
147–79 Preserved in France I (A.D. 918-1206), London:
HMSO
Manley, J. 1980. Excavations at Rhuddlan, Clwyd,
1979–80, Archaeology in Clwyd 1980, pp. 9–10 Semple, S. 2013. Perceptions of the Prehistoric in
Anglo-Saxon England. Religion, Ritual and Ruler-
McNeil, R. 1980–81. Nantwich, three years of
ship in the Landscape, Oxford: Oxford University
excavations and observations, Cheshire Archaeo-
Press
logical Bulletin, 7, pp. 30–33
Smith, S. (ed.), 1941. The Great Roll of the Pipe for
McNeil, R. 1983. Two Twelfth Century Wich
the seventh year of the reign of King John, Michael-
Houses in Nantwich, Cheshire, Medieval Archae-
mas 1205 (Pipe Roll 51) (Pipe Roll Society Publi-
ology, 27, pp. 40–88
cations 57)
McNeil, R, undated. Archaeology in Nantwich.
Soden, I. and Swallow, R. 2012. Archaeological
Crown Car Park Excavations. Interim Report
Excavation and Watching Brief at Woodhouse Farm,
McNeil, R. and Jamieson, A. J. 1987. Halton Aldford, Cheshire, October 2011–April 2012,
Castle. A Visual Treasure, Liverpool: North West Northampton: Northamptonshire Archaeology
Archaeological Trust: Liverpool. Report No. 1
Speight, S. 2007-8. Castles as Past Culture 2: Adap-
Miles, H. 1971. Rhuddlan Norman Borough, Ar- tation and Identity in the Post-Life of Castles, The
chaeological Excavations 1970, pp. 42–43 Castle Studies Group Journal, 21, pp. 268–275
Morgan, P. (ed.) 1978. Domesday Book. Cheshire: Swallow, R. E. Forthcoming/work in progress.
including Lancashire, Cumbria and North Wales, Shifting Border, Shifting Interpretation: Interdisci-
Chichester: Phillimore plinary Research and Dodleston Castle, Cheshire,
Mullin, D. 2011. Places in Between. The Archae- (to be submitted to Medieval Archaeology Journal)
ology of Social, Cultural and Geographical Bor- ———Forthcoming 2021. Haiae, Parks and Elite
ders and Borderlands, Oxford: Oxford Books Residences in Comital Cheshire (title to be con-
O’Keeffe, T. 2013. Hall, ‘hall-houses’ and tower- firmed), in S. D. Church (Ed.), Anglo-Norman
houses in medieval Ireland: disentangling the Studies XLIII, Proceedings of the Battle Conference
needlessly entangled, The Castles Studies Group 2020
Journal, 2013–4, pp. 252–62 ———Forthcoming 2019. Stockport Castle,
Ormerod, G. 1819. The History of the County Cheshire: From Minor to Major, in Transactions of
Palatine and City of Chester, II & III, London: the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire,
Lackington 168
Owen, H. W. and Morgan, R. 2007. Dictionary of ———Forthcoming, 2018-19. Domesday and Cas-
the Place-Names of Wales, Ceredigion: Gomer tles: Patterns of Continuity and Change in North-
Press East Wales, in D. Thornton (Ed.), Domesday Book
and Wales, Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer
Prior, S. 2006. A Few Well Positioned Castles–
The Norman Art of War, Stroud: Tempus ———2018a. The eleventh-century elite landscapes
of Nantwich Castle and Acton, Cheshire: A para-
Quinnell, H., Blockley, M.R. with Berridge, P. digm shift in continuity of site significance?, in Guy,
1994. Excavations at Rhuddlan, Clwyd 1969-73 N. (ed.), Castles: History, Archaeology, Landscape,
Mesolithic to Medieval CBA Research Report 95, Architecture, and Symbolism. Essays in Honour of
York: Council for British Archaeology Derek Renn, Castles Studies Group, 12-32
THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL THE
NO 29: 139 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 32: 2018-19
2015-16
CASTLEYou can also read
