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.

Excavation
   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) were
   ⁴²  See note 1.
   ⁴³  B. Wenston and A. W. Burnside, an early member of this Society.