external references except at the end. It
will be convenient, therefore, to summarize the dates argued
on historical grounds. The lower two-thirds of the curtain and
the defensive structures associated with it (see below, p.
132) are ascribed to the early career of William de Eynsford
I, in the late 1080s. The hall, gate-tower and heightened
curtain to William II in the late 1130s. The Great Kitchen and
perhaps the forebuildings seem to be the work of William III,
some time in the later twelfth century. The reconstructed hall
and the new kitchen are from towards the end of the undivided
tenure, a decade or so before or after 1240. The dismantling
was in, or just before, 1312. The subsequent repairs were
ephemeral. The kennels lasted from before 1783 to 1835.
The excavation of 1835, reported by Cresy42
but led by two local clergymen,43 though
excellently surveyed, was, of course, just a wall-following.
They missed the kitchens, the gate-tower and even the internal
piers of the hall. Their trenches, clearly seen on all the
sections (Figs. 4, 5), were seldom deep enough to damage
significant stratigraphy. The value of the report lies in the
precise description of parts since fallen, including the west
curtain and certain details of the Hall.
The excavations between 1953 and 1961 were to
some extent determined by the consolidation of the ruins and
their exhibition at a suitable ground-level, which, according
to Ancient Monuments practice, is that of the final occupation
of the Castle as such. This suited conditions of heavy
overburden in a confined area: deep cuttings were generally
made subsequently. It did not affect the work on the bridge
and moat, which is here treated only incidentally.
The traces of the eighteenth-century kennels were
reckoned as expendable but worth recording. The first
soundings, in and just north of the Hall, showed this
occupation lying on a considerable depth of flint rubble,
leached white and free of soil, and distinct from a layer of
debris beneath it, in which red roof-tiles predominated and
rubbish, especially pottery, abounded. This pottery
immediately suggested, and no evidence to the contrary has
since appeared, that the debris was to be associated with the
damage complained of in 1312, and that this involved, beside
breaking-down of doors and windows, stripping of much of the
roof but not systematic demolition. Subsequently, it appeared
that, in a few areas, particularly north-east and north-west
of the Hall, there was flint rubble under the tiles or
thick clay between two layers of tiles, and in other places,
notably in the porch-turret, small areas of lime floor
immediately above the tile-spread and under the deep flint
rubble, while two pieces of rough walling (w and ww)
42 See note 1.
43 B. Wenston and A. W.
Burnside, an early member of this Society.