Content uploaded by James Elliott
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James Elliott on Apr 25, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Fordhall Farm
Archaeology Project 2009
Project Report
By James Goodhind
Acknowledgments:
I would like to thank Charlotte and Ben Hollins for allowing me to conduct this research.
Without their approval this project would not have happened. I would also like to thank
the Robert Kiln Charitable Trust for their financial support of this project. What was
originally a shot in the dark from an internet website turned into my only source of
funding. Thanks to Michael Fradley for his technical help leading up to and during the
project weekend. Thanks to Golden Software Ltd for creating the wonderful diagrams
from the survey data. And finally special thanks to my team; Lisa Leach, Rosemary
Lewis, Laurence Tondelier, and Amber Watkin.
James Goodhind
The team (less Lisa Leach) walking to the site
i
Contents Page
Section Page number(s)
Acknowledgements i
Contents page ii
Photograph and diagram list iii
Introduction 1-2
Background Literature Research 3-9
The Project survey 10-19
Discussion 20-25
Conclusion 26-27
Bibliography 28
Appendix
Appendix Contents Page 29
A: English Heritage report 2001 30-31
B: Statistics from survey and English Heritage report 32
C: Survey methodology – Day by day outline 33-36
D: Team diary 37-40
E: Project photographs 41-48
F: Survey data 49-51
G: Control station location data 52
ii
Photograph and diagram list
Photographs:
Description Page(s)
Total Station set up with Amber and Laurence in distance Front cover, 11
The team (less Lisa Leach) walking to the site i
James Goodhind using the theodolite 10
Prism mounted on pole 11
Eastern side of site with River Tern in view 13
Project team and Fordhall Farm ‘Weekend Workers’ volunteers 27
Project photographs- 41-48
Looking at the site…
From the west 41
From the south 42
From the east 43
From the north 44
Looking out of the site…
To the west 45
To the south 46
To the east 47
To the north 48
Zeroing point reference photograph 52
Diagrams
Description: Page(s)
Depiction of motte and bailey castle 3
Ordinance survey map of site from English Heritage 4
Rough map of site with control stations 12, 33
Scatter graph of survey data sets 15
Contour diagram of survey site with imposed survey data 16, 20
Contour diagram of survey site 17, 20
3D diagram of survey site 18, 22
3D diagram of survey site with height exaggeration 18, 22
3D diagram of survey site with height exaggeration zoomed on western flank 19, 21
Survey data tables 49-51
Control station location data 52
iii
Fordhall Farm Archaeology Project 2009
Introduction:
Background information:
Fordhall Farm in North Shropshire was saved from development in June 2006 when over
8000 people purchased not-for-profit £50 shares in the Fordhall Community Land
Initiative (FCLI). Now owned by its shareholders, the land and house are leased to Ben
and Charlotte Hollins for farming, whilst the FCLI utilises the same land for community
benefit through events, volunteering, educational visits and a farm trail. The FCLI is
registered as a charitable community benefit society (Industrial and Provident) and
endeavours to support organic farming methods, conservation, biodiversity, health,
access, country life, heritage, and wildlife for the inhabitants of Market Drayton and the
wider community.
Fordhall Farm Archaeology Project 2009 was an independent archaeological survey of an
English Heritage scheduled monument situated on Fordhall Farm, locally known as
Castlehill. The English Heritage site, an earthwork covering an area approximately
200m2, dates from the late Anglo-Saxon period to the late 12th century. Ongoing literature
research is under way, with the initial results presented and discussed within this report.
The project intended to increase current knowledge of the site for the FCLI and visiting
members of public, as current information is limited and relatively inaccessible.
A team of 5 people conducted the survey between the dates of Friday 14th August and
Monday 17th August 2009. The project was led by James Goodhind, who has a
background in archaeological research at Newcastle University. During the project the
team members also lent a hand working on the farm, aiding Ben and Charlotte Hollins
whilst using the FCLI facilities. The Robert Kiln Charitable Trust, who support
archaeology and environmental conservation causes, generously donated funds to hire
equipment and cover project costs. Golden Software Ltd kindly produced 2D and 3D
diagrams from the survey data using their specialist mapping software called Surfer 9.
Project Aims:
The aims of the project were:
• To increase knowledge of the earthwork in Castlehill Wood through literary
research and topographical survey.
• To analyse research findings and compare earthwork topography with sites of a
similar nature.
• To provide a report stating the project’s results.
1
Project Objectives:
The objectives of the project were:
• To conduct background literature research on Norman Motte and Bailey castles
and related subjects.
• To familiarise volunteers with surveying equipment and its use.
• To photograph the site.
• Conduct a topographic survey of the earthwork and surrounding area.
• Collate survey data to produce a detailed diagram of the site.
• Extract statistical information.
• Compare the site with other sites and information from relevant literature.
• Discuss the findings, noting key themes and theories.
• Conclude the findings.
• Identify future research possibilities.
• Create a report stating the project results.
Project Team:
The project team consisted of five individuals, including:
James Goodhind (Project lead)
Amber Watkin
Laurence Tondelier
Lisa Leach
Rosemary Lewis
Apart from James Goodhind, who studied a BSc (Hons) in Archaeology with
Bioarchaeological Science at Newcastle University, the team did not have a background
in archaeology or surveying. Kathleen Mason, a current student of archaeology, was to be
second in command, but could not attend due to illness. In her place was Amber Watkin,
who rose to the challenge, having heard about the project a week beforehand.
Division of Labour:
The project weekend coincided with a 'Working Weekend' at Fordhall Farm, where
volunteers would stay at the farm working on FCLI projects. As the volunteers of the
archaeology project were using FCLI facilities it was agreed that they would help on the
farm in the morning and survey in the afternoon. To ensure that the archaeological
project would not be hindered by this division of labour, the project organiser worked on
the survey both morning and afternoon.
Team diary:
For an informal account of the project weekend please refer to the Team diary within the
appendix.
2
Background Literature Research
Introduction:
Little research has been done on Castlehill and as such there are very few mentions of
this nationally rare earthwork in current academic literature. The research in this chapter
focuses on Castlehill's local and national history as well as investigating its structure
function and relationship with the local area. Archaeological and historical research into
Castlehill is ongoing and future developments in academic understanding of the site will
build upon the findings of this report.
Background information-
The official name for the monument is 'Ringwork and Bailey Castle 390M West of
Buntingsdale Hall', but for the sake brevity this literature review will use the local name
Castlehill. Castlehill is classified as an English Heritage scheduled monument, which has
an official English Heritage report and Ordinance Survey map. The most recent report
and map of the site dates from 2001 can be found within the appendix (English Heritage
report 2001). Below is an extract from the report outlining the importance of Castlehill as
a rare ring earthwork:
The monument includes the earthwork and buried remains of a ringwork and
bailey castle occupying an elevated position on a spur of land next to the steep
north west valley side of the River Tern. From this commanding location there
are extensive views of the land to the west and the Tern valley.
Ringworks are medieval fortifications
built and occupied from the late Anglo-
Saxon period to the late 12th century.
They were comprised of a small
defended area containing buildings
which was surrounded or partly
surrounded by a substantial ditch and
a bank surmounted by a timber
palisade or, rarely, a stone wall.
Occasionally a more lightly defended
embanked enclosure, the bailey,
adjoined the ringwork. Ringworks
acted as strongholds for military
operations and in some cases as
defended aristocratic or manorial
settlements.
The following page shows the English Heritage map of the site.
Depiction of a motte and bailey castle (Ref: Belmont University)
3
4
History:
Mentioned within the local Tithe Records of 1838, 'Castle Hill' covered a sizeable area of
8 acres, 28 perch. Given the name of the hill, the existence of a castle must have been
locally known for quite some time. However, it wasn't until 1950 that during tree felling
Peter Bently officially 'discovered' the site of a very small promontory fort, as described
by J.P. Waggolt in the first official English Heritage report in 1967. The report stated that
the site is typical of a Norman castle of a local type which adapts a naturally strong
position. The only attempt to date the site more precisely has been by Michael Fradley in
2006, suggesting it is a 'post-Conquest settlement which was probably largely deserted by
the end of the thirteenth century at the latest'. Because of the elusiveness of Fordhall
Farm within the historical record it is difficult to assess the history of its Castlehill.
However, by examining the history of the Norman Conquest of England it may be
possible to put Castlehill into perspective.
The Norman Conquest-
In 1066 the success of William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings made him the new
ruler of England. However, in order to exert control over his new found kingdom he first
required conquest of the country. The Normans used their fortifications called 'castella'
(castles) to subdue and claim their new land. The conquest was quick and permanent, and
as a result the Normans became some of the richest people in Europe and their Duke was
made a King. Many Norman castles are still visible today within the modern landscape,
dotted across the country in cities, towns, and throughout the countryside. Each castle had
a specific role or function according to the period of the Norman Conquest.
A large part of this literature research owes its knowledge to The Norman Art of War: A
few well positioned castles by Stuart Prior (2006). Within this book he states three phases
of the Norman Conquest:
1. Initial conquest period
2. Subjugation period
3. Colonisation period
By examining these three periods of Norman Conquest one can begin to understand the
history of Norman ‘castella’ in relation to Castlehill. These periods can be summarised
and applied to Castlehill as follows:
Initial conquest period – During the initial military invasion and conquest of a region the
Normans would have needed to gain effective control of, and mastery over, terrain,
territory, lines of transport, communication and supply, and their potential adversaries the
native population; and to those ends they constructed castles. By 1086, there were at least
50 castles in England for which documentation survives, and many more were
constructed without record. Castlehill at Fordhall Farm is an example of such an
undocumented castle. According to research by Stuart Prior, 80% of known Norman
castles in Shropshire were of military function, with 20% acting as political leverage (i.e.
as visible show of force). Whether Castlehill acted in a military or political role will be
addressed later in this chapter, amongst other castle roles.
5
Subjugation period – During this period the invader attempts to consolidate and secure
his position, whilst forcibly suppressing and subjugating the invaded. The Normans
gained effective control over pre-Norman political and administrative units (such as
hundreds and estates), including existing towns and villages. In doing this they also
controlled trade and commerce, all by the use of castles which acted as a base of
operations. The castle would control all transport routes and food/material production
around its immediate area. With the linkage of several castles spaced apart at regular
intervals of 15 to 30 miles the Normans could control all supplies going in and out of
settlements.
Colonisation period – In this next period the invader settles down, assumes control, and
establishes a new home for himself. The challenges the Normans faced in the territories
that they occupied was to consolidate control over existing trade and commerce, and to
encourage new trade. However, they also had to continue to protect themselves with
adequate security without letting this security adversely affect the economy. Many of the
castles became bastions for commercial enterprise, with fairs and markets often being
forced to relocate to an area within the bounds of the castle – allowing the castle’s owner
to control and tax such enterprise. From the late eleventh century onwards, urban
development and urban castles rapidly became symbiotically related. Purpose built ‘New
Towns’ or ‘Boroughs’ were constructed adjacent to the existing castles, and large
numbers of the population moved into them.
The Domesday book and Castlehill-
Some of Castlehill's history can be gleaned from historical literary records, such as the
Domesday book of 1086. The Domesday book, a land register compiled for
administrative purposes in the aftermath of the Conquest, provides a detailed picture of
most of England. The Domesday Book allowed for the first time an approximate
estimation of England’s population to be made, which was proposed as around two
million people. As many as one tenth of these people lived in towns, but the majority
lived in the rural landscape, with 13,418 named villages and 268,984 recorded
individuals. In order to gain control of pre-Norman political and administrative units, the
Normans, in some instances, divided up old estates and formed new ones from the
constituent parts. Castlehill appears to have stood within the land of Longford, which at
the time of the Domesday survey was a member of the extensive manor of Hodnet. It is
interesting to note that Hodnet, which lies roughly 5 miles south of Castlehill, also has a
Norman motte and bailey castle within its vicinity. Fordhall Farm is not mentioned within
the Domesday Book and appears to have existed independently since at least the twelfth
century according to other historical records.
6
Structure Function:
As discussed earlier, 80% of castles in Shropshire were used for military purposes, with
the remaining 20% constructed for political influence. However, other functions were
also identified by Stuart Prior, including social and economical. Therefore, the structural
function of Castlehill needs to be examined in relation to these four areas of use: Military,
Political, Social and Economic.
Military function-
If the settlement at Castlehill was chosen as a military role it would be sited according to
strategic and tactically important considerations. Stuart Prior identified these as:
Strategic considerations- ‘A reason, or reasons, for a fortress, or castle, to exist’, which
may include one or more of the following:
• to control and protect a border, or border area;
• to command lines of communication and supply, particularly river crossings,
road, defiles or passes;
• to dominate a locality or region of perceived value – such as a commercial centre,
rich agricultural land, or a resource-producing area.
Tactical considerations-
• Defensibility: this is enhanced by the presence of natural obstacles, such as steep
slopes, cliffs, rivers, marshes or shorelines. Where such features are not available,
they may be provided by the construction of ditches or moats.
• Security: the site should not be overlooked, particularly by higher ground, or be
within the range of currently available missile weapons and artillery, and ideally
should provide good visibility, hence a common preference for dominating areas
of higher ground.
• Accessibility: while it is essential to exclude hostile forces, it is also important to
ensure relatively easy access for friendly troops and supplies, and, in case of
emergency, an escape route. Ready access to potable water is also vitally
important.
• Practicality: there are a number of practical considerations that any military
engineer needs to take into account when constructing fortifications. These
include ready access to suitable construction materials, firm foundations upon
which to build, a reliable water supply and the selection of a well-drained,
‘healthy’, site.
(Stuart Prior, 2006)
Castlehill was strategically important because it gave the ability to control movement
along the River Tern, across its river crossing, and the medieval route-way (now the
A53). It also had influence over the local rich agricultural land, and local commercial
centres (i.e. Little Drayton and Great Drayton). It was tactically important as it was
highly defensible on its eastern flank by the River Tern and its steep incline to the south
7
and east. Where natural defence was lacking, an embankment and ditch were constructed
to the northern flank where a gentle slope rises to meet Castlehill. Further improvements
to defensibility were made by building upon the southern, northern and eastern ridges to
form ramparts. Castlehill has commanding views of the Tern valley and the land to the
west. Access to the site was from the western rim, where the gentle slope from the north
allows easy access whilst giving the ramparts 2.5 - 3m height advantage. The proximity
to the River Tern would have provided potable water supply and possibly waterborne
transport, though its current size suggests it did not have capacity for large vessels.
According to the 1914 Field Service Pocket Book of the British Army the appropriate
distance separating fortresses is somewhere between 16 and 30 miles apart, based upon a
ride lasting four hours. Fortifications would be able to overlap their spheres of influence
to reinforce their resilience in a hostile environment. This tactic is military in essence, but
it is also beneficial for logistics and communication between friendly forces. The nearest
local examples similar to Castlehill have been found in nearby Hodnet, aptly called
Hodnet Motte and Bailey Castle. Such proximity suggests a cooperation of military
efforts around the large settlement of modern day Market Drayton.
Political-
Castles were used by the Normans for political purposes, as a show of force for
diplomatic coercion. The castle was a powerful psychological device which was utilised
in areas of high population, such as towns. Towns are an important consideration in any
military campaign. As towns are heavily populated, they pose a potential threat to an
invader, whilst their rich resources and provisions can be used to supply an army. The
Normans gained control of towns in one of two ways. They either erected castles at
carefully selected, tactically significant sites inside existing town boundaries- as at
Lincoln, York and Winchester – or they erected castles at carefully selected, strategically
significant sites in the countryside surrounding a town – e.g. in Somerset, Bath and
Ilchester. Castles were constructed at locations that enabled the castle garrisons to easily
observe, and thus govern, the actions and movement of the towns’ inhabitants. Villages
also pose a comparable threat, and were generally dealt with in a similar fashion; castles
were erected close to, abutting, or even partly over them.
Social-
A Norman castle has a social function when its presence affects the social fabric of an
area. As mention earlier, the Normans appear to have divided up the original native
estates and formed their own to gain political and administrative control. At a central
location inside each newly created estate, a castle was constructed. The castle essentially
became the new ‘central place’ in the landscape, the focus around which the entire local
community was forced to revolve. Examples of this can be seen in Somerset, where the
castle at Stogursey replaced the former royal estate at nearby Cannington.
Economic-
As mentioned earlier, many castles encouraged commercial enterprise with fairs and
markets. In this way, the Normans gained economic control, whilst encouraging new
8
trade within their sphere of influence. No evidence of trade and commerce has yet been
found in relation to Castlehill. It is unlikely that markets and fairs were held at Castlehill,
but it may have acted as storage for economic activities within the local area.
In summary:
Within this chapter it has been established that there is little academic literature
concerning Castlehill. The 2001 English Heritage report and map give the most recent
official documentation of the site, however it does not precisely date the site beyond late
Anglo-Saxon period to the late 12th century. The Norman Conquest can be divided into
three periods: initial conquest period, subjugation period, and colonisation period.
Norman castles can also be divided into a variety of functions, including military,
political, social and economic roles. In assigning Castlehill a conquest period and
function it may be possible to refine its dating.
The next chapter examines the project survey, where the methodology and results of
which will be presented.
9
The Project Survey
Introduction:
The survey of Castlehill at Fordhall Farm
took place over a four day weekend in
August 2009. A team of five people had the
task of surveying the English Heritage
earthwork, covering an area roughly
200m2. The site is partially wooded and
highly undulating, with the River Tern to
the east, woods to the north, and pasture to
the south and west. (Please refer to the
Project Photographs in the appendix for
pictures of the site). With the kind financial
support from the Robert Kiln Charitable
Trust it was possible to hire professional
surveying equipment. All five members of
the project were volunteers, with no prior
experience of surveying except James
Goodhind, the project organiser. This
section of the report aims to describe the
topographic survey conducted at Fordhall
Farm, looking at the methodology and the
survey results.
Surveying research:
Research into surveying equipment and archaeological surveying was paramount for a
successful survey of the site. As such, appropriate books and online training websites
were consulted with regards to surveying equipment and landscape archaeology.
Invaluable help also came from Michael Fradley who had already undertaken research
into Castlehill's past and landscape archaeology. A preliminary visit to Fordhall Farm in
January 2009 was also useful to assess the scope of the survey and to plan appropriate
team numbers and adequate equipment. The surveying was originally to be completed
using a Smart Rover, which used Global Positioning Satellites to map the site. However,
this was thought inappropriate due to the heavy tree cover which might render the Smart
Rover unusable in large areas of the site. Also, it was feared that the Smart Rover would
be too technically advanced to be used by all of the team. Instead, two Total Stations
were used, as they were relatively easy to operate and could allow two teams to gather
data simultaneously.
James Goodhind using the theodolite
10
Prism mounted on pole
Total Stations and control stations - Some basic surveying theory:
The Total Station consists of several pieces
of equipment: electronic theodolite, prism,
pole and tripod. The theodolite is an
electronic surveying instrument that
combines both angle and distance-
measuring capabilities in a single unit. This
piece of electrical and optical equipment
would be set upon a tripod and taken onto a
site for surveying, as shown in the
photograph to the right. The theodolite
works in unison with a prism which is
secured to the top of a pole. Whilst the
theodolite is stationary, the prism is moved
to wherever needs to be surveyed. The
theodolite sends a beam of infrared to the
prism and measures the time it takes to
bounce back, thereby calculating the
distance. The prism position is further
identified by measuring the vertical and
horizontal angle of its location from the
theodolite. The theodolite then uses
trigonometry to convert the distance and
angles into three dimensional coordinates.
The Total Station equipment is limited by
its visual range, it cannot function if the
prism is not within sight of the theodolite.
Due to this fact the theodolite has an
optical scope which the surveyor views
through to accurately align a cross-hair
with the prism. If the prism is not visible
due to a drop in elevation, the pole upon
which it is mounted to can be extended for
increased visibility. However, to survey an
entire site the Total Station equipment may
need to be set up in several locations to
visually access every part of a site.
At Castlehill, due to the lie of the land, it is not possible to view everything from a single
point. Due to this fact, the survey used several locations, each of which were called
control stations. A control station is simply a fixed location of known coordinates from
which to survey an area. When moving to a new control station the coordinates and
orientation must be entered into the theodolite. Precisely inputting this data ensures all
Total Station set up with Amber and
Laurence in distance
11
Rough map of site with control stations
coordinates from all control stations correspond to each other correctly. By using all
gathered coordinates it is possible to create accurate diagrams of an area, though the
detail of the diagram is dependent on the number of coordinates recorded.
Within surveying there are typically two types of data recorded: control points and detail
points. Control points are coordinates recorded which relate to the major features of a
survey, for example the edge of a road or the corner of a building. In this survey an
example of a control point would be the top of the defensive rim. Detail points are
coordinates taken to demonstrate the more intricate details of a site's topography. This
survey aimed to record both control and detail points.
This survey can be termed a divorced survey, where the coordinates recorded would not
correspond to real map coordinates. However, enough coordinates of permanent
structures were recorded to enable it to be tied into official maps at a later stage if
required.
Methodology:
The methodology of the survey evolved from the surveying research conducted, the time
limitation of the project weekend, and the team's familiarity with the surveying
equipment. For a full account of the methodology used during the survey please consult
Survey Methodology- Day by day outline within the appendix.
Control station locations-
The locations of the control stations during the survey are demonstrated in the rough map
of the site shown below.
12
Eastern side of site with
River Tern in view
Originally only five control stations were planned, with each assigned a letter ranging
from A to E. During the survey additional control stations were created, namely control
stations AC, R and Z. The control stations A to E were part of the original survey plan to
divide the site into four quadrants which could be surveyed systematically for control and
detail points. However, the additional control stations were required where a clear line of
sight for the Total Station equipment was not possible. Control station AC denoted a
point halfway between A and C, R was used as a reference point, and Z was created to
gather coordinates from the eastern flank of the site.
Locating control stations-
All control stations were marked on the ground with a wooden stake, each of which had a
cross on its top to denote the exact station position. Each theodolite relied on a second
optical sight which aligned to a point on the ground, in this scenario the cross. In marking
the cross, the Total Station equipment was set up on the exact same location each time it
was moved between control stations. Fluorescent cardboard was also attached to aid
locating each wooden peg over the weekend.
The first control station to be created was station E in the middle of the earthwork
interior. Station R was created upon the western rim of the site to allow a clear line of
sight west which was not possible from station E. Station AC was then created, using the
Total Station to measure 100m west of station E. It was then possible to measure 100m
north and south of station AC, placing wooden stakes to mark stations A and C.
It quickly became apparent that it would not be
possible to locate station B as there was not a
clear line of sight from stations A, AC, C, E, or
R. The amount of time it took to locate and set
up the tripod and theodolite on these locations
was also underestimated. Station B was meant
to be located across the River Tern in an
adjacent field, and permission was granted
from the landowner to gain access. However,
due to time constraints stations D and Z were
created, but station B was not.
Originally the plan was to measure an exact
survey area of 200m2, but once the survey
began the problem of poor visibility due to
heavy vegetation became apparent. Station D
was not placed exactly 200m east of station C,
but rather it was placed where it had greatest
visibility of the site's south-eastern flank.
Station Z was created on the eastern rim of the
earthwork to survey the eastern flank.
13
Linking control stations-
Station AC was used as the primary control station from which to measure all other
control stations. A theodolite was set up upon this location and used to measure the
coordinates of the other control stations. Using the back-site function on the theodolite
terminal, the coordinates calculated from any control station would correlate back to the
primary control station (AC). Station R was used to test the robustness of the back-site
function by measuring the coordinates of AC from R. Assuming the back-site function
was correct, the coordinates of AC according to R would be the same as the initial
nominal coordinates entered when AC was set up.
Station AC used a distant telegraph pole roughly to the north as its orientation point (i.e.
zero degrees). When using the back-site function the orientation of each control station
was calculated by entering the coordinates of the nearest control station and aiming
directly at its location (with the use of the prism). As each control station is aligned
according to the primary control station, it did not matter which station was used for the
back-site function, as long as the function was used correctly.
Recording coordinates-
During the survey coordinates were calculated by the Total Station equipment and written
into notebooks. Two notebooks were used as the survey used two sets of surveying
equipment. Each theodolite had an integrated memory to store the survey coordinates, but
the hire company advised against using it considering the low level of expertise within
the team. A close level of communication was maintained between the operator of the
theodolite and the operator of the prism by use of two-way radios.
The site was surveyed in a systematic fashion, though not in a quadrant by quadrant
pattern as originally planned. Instead, the survey was divided according to the fencing of
the fields and the earthwork. In doing so it was easier to identify which areas had been
surveyed and which had not. Each collection of coordinates were recorded as separate
data sets within the notebooks. If problems occurred with coordinate accuracy, each data
set could be examined as separate entities rather than one large mass of data. Coordinates
were recorded in a grid like fashion, with spacings of 6-8 metres in open areas and
considerable less in undulating areas of the site to accurately portray subtle changes in
topography. Coordinates were recorded until the prism was no longer visible from the
theodolite, either due to distance, change in elevation, or vegetation density. There was
some overlapping of coordinates between data sets to test the accuracy of the survey.
Should one data set show different coordinates for the same area covered by another data
set it would be identified and rectified.
14
Scatter graph of survey data sets
Results:
A total of 433 coordinates were recorded which comprised of 5 data sets, all of which can
be found within the appendix Survey Data. During the survey weekend each data set was
transcribed into a computer spreadsheet program (Microsoft Excel) and tested using the
scatter graph shown below:
In this scatter graph each colour icon corresponds to a different data set. By
amalgamating all data sets on the same scatter graph any errors in either the x or y axis
can be identified. Due to the way the survey was conducted, this scatter graph is
orientated to the north, meaning that the diagram could act as a very simple map of the
area. The southern field can be seen as blue boxes, the western field are orange diamonds,
and so on. From the graph it is evident that the north-eastern quadrant of the site has very
few data points. This was due to time limitations on data collection and the heavy
vegetation cover, which inhibited the Total Station’s visual range
South field
South west flank
Interior east rim
East side
Interior of site
South east corner
North w oods
South field
50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000 350.000
0.000
50.000
100.000
150.000
200.000
250.000
15
Contour diagram of survey site with imposed survey data
2D and 3D diagrams of the survey site:
In order to visualise the results of the survey help was sought from an American company
called Golden Software who specialised in mapping and contouring software. With the
data from the survey it was possible to generate a variety of diagrams, 2D and 3D, to
visualise the site using specialised software called Surfer 9.
The diagram below shows the contours of the site, with each data point assigned a
different colour circle for different elevations. In this diagram purple data points are
lowest and red are highest. This diagram simply aims to display the contours of the area
in relation to the data collected.
16
Contour diagram of survey site
This next diagram aims to visualise the site without the overlay of survey coordinates to
allow clearer topographic interpretation. However, it should be noted that this diagram is
not intended as an exact replication of the site because it does not include the River Tern
and only a limited number of data points were collected for the north east quadrant. The
north east quadrant is therefore poorly portrayed, and may be considered inaccurate.
Despite this, the diagram gives a good overview of the topography, demonstrating the
main areas of elevation and the general lay of the land.
17
The diagram immediately below shows a 3D representation of the site and the
surrounding area, with all scales measured in metres. The diagram at the bottom of the
page shows the same 3D model with a height exaggeration of 1:2½. In both diagrams the
area is viewed from the south east, with higher elevations shown in progressively lighter
colours. It must be noted that the elevation shown in the diagrams are an estimated height
above sea level according to local OS maps. With the shadowing of the diagram it is
easier to identify the prominent features of the site, namely the defences of the fort. The
north east quadrant appears jagged due to the lack of survey data. However, despite this
minor discrepancy, these 3D diagrams provide an invaluable means of achieving a
greater understanding of the site in relation to the immediate area.
3D diagram of survey site
3D diagram of survey site with
height exaggeration
18
The diagram below shows the site from the south west with a height exaggeration of
1:2½. The diagram is zoomed in to view the interior of the fort whilst demonstrating the
defensive outer rim. Without the height exaggeration the individual features of the site
are not so readily seen. What can be appreciated from this diagram is the difference in
elevation between the northern and southern approaches to the site. It is clear from this
diagram that the northern flank does not have the same defensive capacity as the southern
flank. With this in mind, it therefore seems logical why an additional bank and ditch
defensive structure was built along the northern flank to bolster this weak point.
Statistics:
Please refer to Statistics from survey and English Heritage report in the appendix for
statistics about the site size and dimensions.
In summary:
The survey of Castlehill included surveying an area of roughly 200 m2 by a team of five
people using two Total Stations. Total Stations were erected at key locations around the
site to record topographic data. A total of 433 data points were recorded over the
weekend, culminating in the generation of 2D and 3D diagrams of the site. The north-
eastern quadrant of the site had limited survey data due to limitations in time and physical
access. However, the majority of the site is visually represented within the diagrams, with
clear demonstration of the surviving castle defences.
The findings of the survey and the background literature research is analysed within the
next chapter, the discussion.
3D diagram of survey site with height
exaggeration zoomed on western flank
19
Discussion:
Introduction:
In this chapter the results of the survey and the literature review will be discussed along
with comment on the survey methodology. The survey results will be compared to the
English Heritage report of the site, comparing the accuracy and visual demonstration of
various site features. The quality of the survey will be examined, exploring the reasoning
behind the survey methodology and the possible errors which may have affected the
quality of the survey results. The 3D diagrams created from the survey data will also be
examined for their usefulness and accuracy in portraying Castlehill. With regards to the
background literature research, the history of Castlehill will be explored, along with the
function and demise of the settlement over the course of the Norman occupation.
The survey:
The results from the survey consist of 3D diagrams, contour diagrams, and statistics of
the Castlehill site. The most useful of these are the contour diagrams, showing the site
with and without the survey data (shown below).
The topographical position of Castlehill and its immediate surrounding area is clearly
demonstrated within these two diagrams. The diagram on the right shows the number and
location of survey data points in each part of the survey area, indicating areas of high and
low survey detail. The diagram on the left displays the contrast in contours around the
site. However, the site does not depict the north eastern flank adequately due to lack of
survey data.
20
The Survey and the English Heritage report-
When comparing the results of the survey with the most recent English Heritage report
the majority of the site features can be identified. Castlehill is indeed D shaped, two
ramparts are visible to the north and the south, with the southern rampart being
considerably smaller than the northern one. The south eastern rampart, or 'lookout
platform', is also visible although detail is sparse. The rampart to the north west and its
adjacent ditch running along the north border of the site is clearly seen. The location of
the bailey on the north western corner of the site, identified as 'a slight ridge' in the
official report, is not easily visualised. Although the contour diagram displaying the
survey data does demonstrate the specific area in high detail (in comparison to other areas
of the site), the scale of the map does not accommodate for the small changes in
elevation. The limited survey data in the north eastern quadrant does not portray the true
topography of the site. However, the few coordinates that were recorded allow the
contour map to demonstrate the steep north eastern side of the bailey, namely the 'bluff
formed by the river' as stated in the report. The report also states that the defences for the
south and north western sides of the bailey are no longer visible, but may still exist in the
archaeological record. This survey found no signs of defences in the fields around these
areas. A geophysics survey may be useful to demonstrate buried defences and structures.
Survey quality-
When surveying a site such as this the surveyor would normally use Total Stations for the
control points (the major topographic features) and then proceed to use tapes and
measures to record the detail points (discreet topographic changes). In this way it is
possible to achieve a higher quality survey. However, because of the time constraints of
the project the site was surveyed only by Total Stations. The quality of a survey is
dependent on a variety of factors, errors being a key one. Human error is the greatest
source of error, where it is man, and not machine, which is at fault. By using professional
Total Stations for surveying the challenge was to reduce the scope for error during human
involvement. Therefore, the training of the volunteers and testing of the surveying
techniques was paramount before survey data was recorded. Once survey data was
collected it was transferred to a computer spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel) and tested for
errors. This was done at the end of each day so that if there were any errors they would be
identified before the start of the next surveying session. In this way the survey quality
was maintained at a high level.
The detail of the survey is relatively
high for the small number of survey
coordinates recorded. For example, in
the 3D diagram shown to the right it
is possible to clearly identify the
steps leading into the site interior.
21
Errors-
Errors were reduced through training and the use of professional surveying equipment.
However, the following factors may have contributed to potential errors during the course
of the project:
Equipment inaccuracy- All surveying equipment have scope for error, including
professional equipment. Equipment inaccuracy includes the inherent errors that
occur during measurements, whether due to electronic or physical limitations.
Total Station user error- Assigning the wrong coordinates into the total station,
incorrect orientation, and inaccurate levelling are some of the human errors which
would have seriously affected survey results.
Prism position- The Total Station records the coordinates of the prism. Errors can
occur when the prism is not directly overhead the area being surveyed, as the pole
which it is mounted was prone to swaying in the wind. The person holding the
pole/prism reduces the scope for error by using a bubble level upon the pole,
ensuring the pole remains vertical.
Insufficient survey data- Where there were too few survey coordinates recorded
for a section of the site, resulting in lack of diagram detail.
3D Survey maps-
Currently the site of Castlehill is overgrown with trees, ferns, brambles, and other
vegetation. The 3D diagrams from this project are useful in visualising the site before
vegetation regained control after Norman occupation. However, to successfully visualise
the detail of the site it was necessary to exaggerate the vertical component of the survey
data. Subtle features can be seen more readily, contrasts in height can be identified, and
the defences of the castle are very much apparent. The relative accuracy of the 3D
diagrams are subject to the number of survey coordinates that were collected during the
survey. Although it is clear that the north eastern quadrant is lacking in detail due to a
deficit in survey data, the general topography of the site is demonstrated. What would be
useful in future updated versions of these diagrams (including both 3D and contour
diagrams) is the inclusion of the River Tern and a more detailed visualisation of the north
east quadrant.
22
Literature research analysis:
From the research it was noted that there was little record of Castlehill in academic
literature. As a result, subsequent research was divided between Norman history and
castle function, both topics of which helped to provide context to Castlehill’s origins. It is
difficult to accurately date Castlehill, the English Heritage gives a range of 1066 AD –
1499 AD, which is clearly a broad expanse of time. Therefore the literature research
intended to give a breakdown of the different periods of Norman Conquest which could
help in dating Castlehill more precisely. There is also the question of why Castlehill was
in existence and what purpose it served. The functions of Norman castles were examined
and compared to the specific circumstances of Castlehill.
History-
The Norman Conquest can be divided into three periods: initial conquest period,
subjugation period, and colonisation period. To place Castlehill into one of these periods
would considerably reduce the date range that has been currently assigned by the English
Heritage. The following discussion of the three periods of conquest in relation to
Castlehill's particular circumstances aims to refine this date range.
Initial conquest period-
It is unlikely that Castlehill is part of the initial conquest period, the small size and
relatively isolated location from major centres of population suggests that it was not a
staging post for attack. However, the natural defences at Castlehill would have provided a
very effective stronghold with little modification required. One would assume that upon
entering an area the Normans would have conquered the largest settlement, the regional
capital. The conquest of the surrounding smaller settlements would be secondary, as these
would pose a lesser threat and hold fewer financial and resource incentives. The nearest
settlement to Castlehill is Market Drayton which was separated into Great Drayton and
Little Drayton at the time of the 1086 Domesday Book. The location of Castlehill to
Little and Great Drayton and the nearby medieval route-way, roughly preserved as the
modern day A53, suggests that the four were historically linked. However, the small size
of Little and Great Drayton suggests that the Normans would not have considered them a
priority during initial conquest, therefore Castlehill is most probably not from the same
period.
Subjugation period-
Within the subjugation period the Normans consolidated and secured their position by
controlling trade, commerce, production and transport routes. Castlehill's proximity to the
medieval route-way and its position over the River Tern suggests that the site was an
important tool in controlling transport links in the area. This period therefore seems most
likely applicable for Castlehill. This interpretation is reinforced further as the name
Fordhall appears to derive from the 'de la Forde' or 'la Fourde' family mentioned in local
documents from the thirteenth century, where a settlement was based at a crossing point
over the River Tern (i.e. a fording). Castlehill would have exerted control over local
production and trade entering and leaving Little and Great Drayton through these
23
transport links. The proximity of other small Norman fortifications, for example at nearby
Hodnet, would have reinforced control of all transport around the local settlements. By
encircling small castles around larger settlements the Normans would have subjugated
the native population through obstructing their economy.
Colonisation period-
The following period, that of colonisation, involved building upon the mastery over trade,
commerce, production and transport routes to form new settlements around the castles,
creating a monopoly over the native economy. The most effective Norman castles not
only controlled the native economy but relocated it within their vicinity. Castlehill does
not have an adjacent 'New Town' or 'Borough', and it very probably did not host markets
or attract commerce within its defences. This implies that Castlehill was not effective
enough as a Norman fortification to develop into a centre of economic activity in its own
right. In light of this, it is unlikely Castlehill originates from the colonisation period.
Function-
Norman castle function was not a common topic within academic literature until The
Norman Art of War: A few well positioned castles by Stuart Prior (2006). He identified
several types of castle function: military, political, social and economical function. The
characteristics of each function were covered within the literature research.
The proximity of Castlehill to the nearby settlements of Great and Little Drayton could
signify a political influence. However, it does not directly abut either settlement, it is of
humble size and it would not have held a sizeable enough force to subdue such a
population. Therefore it is unlikely to have held a political role. Castlehill may have had
an economic function as it was constructed to control local native economy. However, it
very probably did not force trade and commerce within its vicinity due to its small size.
Therefore Castlehill’s function was not solely economical, however it certainly had a role
in subjugating native economy.
Castlehill did not change the social fabric by relocating or forming settlements within its
vicinity. However, it certainly did have a military influence in and around Little and
Great Drayton. The military function theory of Castlehill also supports the theory of
dating from the subjugation period. As a small, highly defensible fortress, Castlehill was
able to work in cooperation with other local Norman bastions to control local transport
routes and therefore economy. With their economy under Norman control, the inhabitants
of Little and Great Drayton would have offered little resistance to the foreign occupation.
Demise-
If indeed Castlehill originates from the subjugation period it seems likely that it was
decommissioned out of Norman use during the colonisation period. As Michael Fradley
puts it; what appears to be the case is that this settlement developed around a crossing of
24
the River Tern which was usurped by other crossing points over the river. The growth of
traffic on alternative routes either side of Fordhall may have left the castle settlement
remote and unsustainable in the long term. It would seem likely that this process was in
part attributable to the growth of Great Drayton and nearby Chesthill, and the activities of
Combermere Abbey, which influenced both economic and social development in the
area. At the same time wider political and economic developments may have also
contributed to the demise of the settlement at Fordhall. Having subjugated the local
populace, the Normans would have little further use for large numbers of small castles
that would be draining finite resources. With the demise of these small castles the
Normans were able to further consolidate the most successful castles in the colonisation
period.
It would be beneficial for future studies to research into the demise of other similar and
local Norman castles to ascertain whether the decline in castle use was systematic or a
gradual process according to castle influence (i.e. military, political, economical, or
social).
In summary:
In this chapter the success of the survey and the findings of the literature research have
been examined. From the project survey a highly detailed, but incomplete, diagram of
Castlehill verifies the findings of the 2001 English Heritage report. The inclusion of the
River Tern, more survey data from the north-eastern quadrant and increased survey detail
in future surveys will improve the quality of the 2D and 3D diagrams of the site. From
the literature research Castlehill appears to match the characteristics of a castle from the
subjugation period of the Norman Conquest, operating primarily with a military function
with an economic undertone. Its demise seems most likely to be during the colonisation
period, where the Normans consolidated their efforts in the most successful castles.
The following chapter is the conclusion of the report.
25
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the following statements can be made with regards to the project research
and survey:
• Castlehill, also known as Ringwork and Bailey Castle 390M west of Buntingsdale
Hall (Monument number: 33835), is a nationally rare Norman earthwork
monument.
• It is a highly defensible site, with steep sides and a commanding view over the
Tern valley which provided an ideal location for a Norman stronghold.
• It is dated as medieval, 1066 AD -1499 AD, with characteristics suggesting it was
used during the subjugation period of the Norman Conquest.
• Its function was primarily military, as it had a small garrison of highly mobile
Norman forces. However, as a castle of the subjugation period Castlehill would
have acted to secure native economic, social and political activities.
• The primary purpose of Castlehill was to control transport routes around Little
and Great Drayton, with particular control over the medieval route-way (now the
A53), a crossing over the River Tern (a ford), and the River Tern itself.
• There is evidence to suggest other small Norman castles in the local area, such as
at Hodnet, worked in conjunction with Castlehill to subdue the native population.
Castles encircling settlements controlled the native logistical movements in the
area, including materials, populace and currency.
• The demise of Castlehill was likely due to a decline in control over transport,
namely over the River Tern. Crossing to the east and/or west led to the loss of
strategic importance of Castlehill, and as such the settlement was eventually
abandoned.
• The survey covered the greater proportion of the site, however the north eastern
quadrant is lacking in detail. Despite this, the contour and 3D diagrams
demonstrate Castlehill well, with a close correlation to the 2001 English Heritage
report.
26
Recommendations for future study:
Literature review-
• Locate and map location of all local similar sites, populating the map with
settlements and transport routes at the time of the Norman Conquest.
• Research into the demise of local similar sites, investigating into whether the
abandonment of such sites were systematic or gradual over the course of Norman
Conquest.
• Research into the economic activities of the area at the time of the Norman
Conquest to determine the possible involvement of Castlehill.
Survey-
• Return to survey the north eastern quadrant of the site.
• Acquire further survey data of the site to increase the detail visible on the 3D and
contour diagrams.
• Create 3D and contour diagrams demonstrating the site defences and bailey with
greater divisions in elevation to visualise subtle changes in topography.
• Add the River Tern to diagrams.
• Add annotation to diagrams, outlining site defences, entrances and other site
features.
• Possibly record the locations of trees to aid in updating conservation records.
Once again a big thank you to all those people who helped with this project.
The project team and the Fordhall Farm ‘Weekend Workers’ volunteers
27
Bibliography:
Bibliography:
Belmont University motte and bailey castle diagram. Internet website:
http://campus.belmont.edu/honors/122OnlineText/text11.html
Bowden, M. (Ed.) (1999) Unravelling the Landscape. Tempus Publishing Ltd: Stroud.
Creighton, O. H. (2002). Castle and Landscapes. Continuum: London.
English Heritage report (2001). RINGWORK AND BAILEY CASTLE 390M WEST OF
BUNTINGSDALE HALL, monument number 33835.
Fradley, M. (2006) Monastic enterprise in town and countryside: two case studies from
north-east Shropshire. Landscape History (Vol 28)
General Staff, War Office. (1914). Field Service Pocket Book. H.M. Stationary Office:
London.
Prior, S. (2006). The Norman Art of War: A few well positioned castles Tempus
Publishing Ltd : Stroud.
Jackson, M. (1988). The Castles of Shropshire. Shropshire Books: Shrewsbury.
Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P. (2008). Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, Thames
& Hudson: London.
Rowley, N., & Rowley, S. V. (1967). Market Drayton: a study in social history
Shropshire libraries: Market Drayton.
28
Appendix:
Contents:
A. English Heritage Report 2001
B. Statistics from survey and English Heritage report
C. Survey Methodology- Day by day outline
D. Project photographs
E. Team diary
F. Survey data
G. Control station location data
29
A: English Heritage Report
This report was found online at Discovering Shropshire's History.
MONUMENT NUMBER: 33835
NAME : RINGWORK AND BAILEY CASTLE 390M WEST OF BUNTINGSDALE HALL
FILE REFERENCE: AA 91835/1
SCHEDULING CATEGORY: REVISED
PRENOTIFICATION DATE: 05/01/2001
DATE TO DEPT: 28/02/2001
SCHEDULING DATE: 09/03/2001
NOTIFICATION DATE: 23/03/2001
PREDECESSOR: SA275
SCALE OF CAPTURE: 1:10000
COUNTY: SHROPSHIRE COUNTY
LOCAL AUTHORITY: NORTH SHROPSHIRE DISTRICT
PARISH: MORETON SAY CP
MONUMENT DESCRIPTION
The monument includes the earthwork and buried remains of a ringwork and bailey castle
occupying an elevated position on a spur of land next to the steep north west valley side
of the River Tern. From this commanding location there are extensive views of the land
to the west and the Tern valley.
The ringwork is D-shaped, measuring approximately 30m by 34m internally, and is
defined by two ramparts, which are separated by an entrance passage 6m wide to the
west. The ringwork is defined on its north eastern side by the bluff created by the
adjacent river. The rampart on the southern/south western side is considerably smaller
than the one to the north west. It is about 8m wide and stands just less than 1m high,
becoming slightly broader and higher at its eastern end. Its defensive strength is
significantly enhanced by its position at the top of a steep slope, which has been
deliberately accentuated. Down the slope to the south east of this rampart, earth has been
deposited to form a level projecting lookout platform, measuring approximately 11m by
16m. The rampart defining the north western side of the ringwork is about 18m wide and
stands to a height of 2.5m. It is bounded on its northern side by a broad ditch, up to 19m
wide, which becomes narrower towards its southern end where it defines the northern
side of the entrance-way into the interior. To compensate for natural slope within the
ringwork the eastern part of the interior has been raised in order to create a level building
platform.
On the slight ridge to the north west of the ringwork, a bailey was constructed. Within
this enclosure a range of ancillary structures are likely to have been built, including
stores, stables and additional domestic accommodation. The north eastern side of the
bailey, which is about 45m long, is marked by the bluff formed by the river, which has
been partially steepened to increase its defensiveness. The defenses constructed to define
30
the north western and south western sides of the bailey are no longer visible at ground
level, but will survive as buried features.
All fence and gate posts, and stiles are excluded from the scheduling,
although the ground beneath them is included.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPORTANCE
Ringworks are medieval fortifications built and occupied from the late Anglo-Saxon
period to the late 12th century. They comprised a small defended area containing
buildings which was surrounded or partly surrounded by a substantial ditch and a bank
surmounted by a timber palisade or, rarely, a stone wall. Occasionally a more lightly
defended embanked enclosure, the bailey, adjoined the ringwork. Ringworks acted as
strongholds for military operations and in some cases as defended aristocratic or manorial
settlements.
They are rare nationally with only 200 recorded examples and less than 60 with baileys.
As such, and as one of a limited number and very restricted range of Anglo-Saxon and
Norman fortifications, ringworks are of particular
significance to our understanding of the period.
The ringwork and bailey castle 390m west of Buntingsdale Hall is a well- preserved
example of this class of monument. In Shropshire, ringworks are comparatively rare in
relation to other contemporary types of early Norman castle incorporating a mound, or
motte, on which buildings were constructed.
This castle is also unusual in that the associated bailey survives. Extensive remains of the
structures that stood within the ringwork and the bailey are expected to survive as buried
features which, together with associated artefacts and organic remains, will provide
valuable evidence about the activities and the lifestyle of the inhabitants of the castle.
Organic remains surviving within the buried ground surfaces under the raised interior of
the ringwork, and beneath the ramparts and within the ditches, will provide information
about the changes to the local environment and the use of the land before and after the
castle was constructed.
The monument remains a prominent feature within the landscape.
AREA SUFFIX ARCHAEOLOGICAL IDENTIFIERCLASS
PERIOD
----------- ------------------------------ ------
01 153460 RINGWORK AND BAILEY MEDIEVAL
31
B: Statistics from survey and English Heritage report:
From the survey conducted and the most recent English Heritage report (2001) the
following statistics can be gathered:
Interior dimensions 30m by 34m (D shaped)
Size of western entrance 6m
Southern rampart dimensions 8m wide, 1m high
South eastern 'look-out' rampart 11m-16m
North western rampart dimensions 18m wide, 2.5m high
Northern ditch 19m wide
North eastern side 45m
Highest point recorded in survey Northern rim
Lowest point recorded in survey River bank (eastern flank of site)
Greatest difference in height 16.33m
32
Rough map of site with control stations
C: Survey Methodology- Day by day outline
The methodology of surveying the site evolved over the course of the project weekend.
Before the project weekend began a methodology was planned using the research
conducted on surveying theory and equipment. The planned methodology was ambitious
and, as it turned out, unfeasible. There was not enough time and there were limitations
and barriers to the survey (namely the dense vegetation and the River Tern). However the
basic plan was maintained, the site was divided into four quadrants and surveyed
systematically.
This is a day to day outline of events and activities that occurred over the weekend. It
outline is an account of what the project team did and how the survey data was collected.
The rough map of the site shown below aims to aid the reader in interpreting the actions
taken.
Friday:
• Arrived at Fordhall Farm.
• Went to local library in Market Drayton to gather information.
• Team walked to Castlehill for orientation and brief outline of site history.
• Team project brief back at Fordhall Farm volunteer hut (including project aims,
objectives, plan of weekend).
• Familiarisation with surveying equipment.
33
Saturday:
• Measured interior of Castlehill and roughly found centre, naming it control station
E, and pegged the location (marking a cross on the top with a pen for more
accurate alignment later on). N.B. Each Total Station has an additional scope on
the theodolite for aligning to a point on the ground. In this way, when packing
away equipment and setting up again it is easier to ensure the Total Station is set
up to the same location as before.
• Measured 15m west from station E, to the western rim of the site, and named it
station R for 'Reference' (pegging its point). From station R the land west of the
site was visible, making it viable as a surveying control station. Station R was
given nominal coordinate values of 100 North, 100 West, and 80 Height. These
nominal coordinate values ensured negative coordinates would not occur when
recording data.
• Measured 85m west of station R and pegged station AC (half-way between
hypothetical stations A and C). It was decided to survey an area roughly 200m by
200m, by measuring a total of 100m from the 'middle' of the site this 200m2
square would be created. The survey area was increased from 150m2 to 200m2
after re-examining the English Heritage OS map of the site.
• A theodolite was set up on station R and coordinates for station AC were
calculated and written down. Magnetic north was used for orientation, called
'zeroing'. Magnetic north was to be zero degrees from which all other control
stations were to measure off. The direction of 'zero degrees' would be known as
the zeroing point.
• The equipment and understanding of the surveying 'routine' was tested. This was
done by setting up a theodolite on point AC, inputting the coordinates according
to R and using the same zeroing point. However, when measuring the coordinates
of station R it was not 100N/100W/80H (the nominal coordinate values), the
northing value was incorrect by 15m.
• Sent communications to Michael Fradley, an expert in landscape archaeology, for
help.
• From station AC we measured and pegged stations A and C (100m north and
south of AC). Coordinates could not be recorded until the previous problem was
solved, however the equipment could still be used to measure distances and locate
the other control station locations.
• Disregarded magnetic north as zeroing point and used a distant telegraph pole
visible from station AC. Station AC was now to be used as the first control point
of the survey from which to measure all other control stations off. However,
forgot to give nominal coordinate values of 100N/100W/80H, and subsequently
used original coordinates according to station R (now obsolete).
• Half of the team surveyed the field west of the site using AC whilst the other half
set up the other Total Station on station C. Coordinates were recorded in a grid-
34
like fashion, every 6-8m. Fence lines were used to divide the site for surveying,
giving sets of data divided by field margins.
• Measured coordinates of station C from station AC.
• The 'back-site' function in the theodolite software was used to link station C and
AC together, giving coordinates that correctly correlated. This was achieved by
inputting the coordinates of C and AC, and recording the orientation of C
according to AC.
• Recorded coordinates of field south of site in grid-like fashion up to River Tern to
the east. Due to time constraints, fewer coordinates were taken where undulations
were deemed insurmountable.
• A handful of additional coordinates were recorded on top of Castlehill's western
rim from station C and AC to demonstrate the site outline. It was also an
opportunity to test the data collected, as an overlap of coordinates between data
sets would either vindicate the decision to change the zeroing point or disprove it.
• Entered data into Excel spreadsheet and allocated each data set (each individual
list of coordinates) a different icon on graph.
• Confirmed accuracy of surveying technique and planned remaining weekend.
Sunday:
• Surveyed woods north of Castlehill from station AC. Took coordinates from the
fence line encircling the woods (leading up to the site itself) to the edge of visible
range in a grid-like fashion.
• Set up theodolite on station R. Used back-site function to tie in readings from
station R with station AC.
• Recorded reference coordinates, angles and distances of three distant objects from
station AC to aid in locating station AC in the future (if need be),
• Set up Total Station on station C, using back-site function to orientate to AC.
• Surveyed site interior from R and surveyed south-west and south slope of site
from C.
• Created control station Z on the eastern rim of the site. Used station R in back-site
function.
• Surveyed interior of site from station Z (to view areas previously not visible) and
eastern slope of site.
• Created control station D east of station C. Positioned station D to gain maximum
visibility of south-east slope of site, major vegetation cover prevented an ideal
siting of 200m from station C. Used station C in back-site function.
• Surveyed south-eastern slope from station D as much as visibly possible, taking
coordinates as high as possible to 'join' with data sets taken from stations R and Z.
35
• Recorded longitude and latitude coordinates of stations R, Z, AC, and C.
Hammered pegs further into ground and left for possible future use. Took
photographs of key features (i.e. back-site).
• Entered and checked a selection of each data set to ensure back-site function had
been done correctly. Data appeared ok.
Monday:
• Entered remaining data into Excel spreadsheet to test and evaluate survey
progress, made initial graphs from data.
• Had team debrief, showing initial results and received feedback.
• Departed Fordhall Farm for home.
36
D: Team Diary
Each team member was asked to write about one day of the four day project. Minimal
direction was given as to content, but that it should reflect how they felt the day went.
Friday 14th August:
Today, after many months of anticipation, we left for Fordhall Farm! Happily, we
found a replacement for Kate- who's poorly- in the form of Amber and we gathered
together at the train station to begin our adventure!
Lisa, Laurence and I boarded our train, while Amber and James loaded up the car and
began their journey. It was a lovely train ride, following the -I think- Shropshire Union
Canal for some of the way, narrow boats and bridges, locks and beautiful scenery...
We waited for Amber at Wellington, enjoying a most civilized afternoon tea complete
with teacakes and crumpets! Amber arrived and we drive the short trip to arrive finally...
at Fordhall Farm! It was both amazing and strange, to actually be here, at this place I'd
read about, been inspired by -indeed am one of the landlords of!- for the last 3 years!
After buying a few supplies and collecting James from his researching at the library, we
returned to Fordhall and explored! Lisa made our mark outside the yurt with a beautiful
marigold she bought from the health food shop (we looked all over for an independent
shop to buy our supplies but couldn't find one and ended up in Morrisons, much to our
disappointment. When we spotted one on the way back to the car we had to buy
something, and Lisa's not one to resist a plant!).
We felt we deserved a cuppa and Lisa had baked an amazing cake (as ever!), so we had
tea in the volunteer hut while James explained more about the project and the
equipment...
Then we went to the site! Past the compost loo, Gloucestershire Old Spot pig
(scratching on the post having a lovely time) and piglets (frolicking!), variety of chickens
and sheep... and into the field. Beautiful views... field and hills and trees and river -an
enormous mushroom!- and up to the site. James gave us a history lesson (vague
memories of school projects) while we walked up through the ferns to the top. It was
really peaceful, beautiful and incredible to consider its past...
So I'm now well fed (yummy takeaway) settled into our yurt, and sitting enjoying an
organic cider round a fire, with people getting to know each other, relaxing before a busy
37
day tomorrow! Feels great to be here, with new experiences ahead...savour this moment...
it's a great moment! Here's to our Fordhall adventure!
Rosemary Lewis
Saturday 15th August:
The morning was spent marking out the edges of the site and locating the control points
for where to start the survey. We split the group of five into two survey teams of two and
one person to make a short documentary video and take photos of the site and survey.
Photos were taken from the North, South, East and West to the interior and from the
centre of the site looking to the North, South, East and West. The site survey and farm
were videoed as a visual record of the event.
The two teams consisted of one person to operate the theodolite and one person to place
the prism. Two way radios were used to communicate between the teams. Team one
(Alfalfa – James and Rosemary) surveyed the bottom field up to the fence. Team two
(Fungi – Laurence and myself) surveyed the top field to the bottom fence and the fence
surrounding the keep.
Note: Work was being carried out by a separate team who were installing wooden steps
up to the site from the entrance gate.
Readings were taken in a grid pattern by each team at intervals of approx 10m using the
theodolites and prisms. The measurements taken were Eastings, Northings, and Height.
The results were then plotted on a graph using excel to show the coordinates.
During the morning, some of the team members also worked on the farm as volunteers,
removing ragwort from fields, installing a wicket fence/gate and helping with the
cooking.
Amber Watkin
Saturday 16th August:
It has been a busy day at Fordhall Farm and I've enjoyed every moment. The day was
split into two halves with a delicious lunch in between. I spent the morning helping out
on the volunteer tasks, as did the other eager people I travelled up with except James and
Amber. This left the afternoon for getting involved with James's archaeology project in
which I had to use a theodolite and take coordinate data.
My contribution to the volunteer work was in the field of ragwort! To save the cattle
from munching these poisonous plants we were assigned to uproot them. There were
around eight of us and we soon got to work pulling up the yellow scentless weeds. After
some experimentation I found the best technique to ensure effective removal of the plant
38
– root 'n' all – it is to tug from all directions slowly and steadily and eventually the plant
will give and come up with a satisfying squidge.
We continued all morning with a break. Unfortunately when Hannah called out for
George the friendly sheep he did not turn up. The cows in the adjacent field watched us
with intellect though. Got a lift in the back of Ben's truck!
Rosemary meanwhile helped create a ramp on the boardwalk project, Lisa worked on
making a bench, others constructed some steps and yet others finished on a new swinging
gate.
James and Amber began logging points in the castle site ready for the rest of us to join
them in the afternoon.
Lunch was a late one – 2pm – and we ate it outside the yurts. It was very tasty.
Charlotte gave a guided tour of the farm at 3pm which Amber joined. James and
Rosemary teamed up on station C, me and Lisa on station AC and we began
observations!
Many observations later, with a stop for tea, we agreed we were happy with the
quantity of data we had acquired. We took GPS readings of the stations and packed up
back to the farm. The volunteers had left and we now had the kitchen and yurts to
ourselves! The first thing we did when we got back was to get the kettle on!
A good days work and it has been a pleasure to help out on this unique and celebrated
farm, and an excellent team effort between the five of us on the English Heritage site.
Laurence Tondelier
Monday 17th August:
I awoke to blue sky and the sun shining through the skylight in the yurt. Another good
nights sleep after another satisfying day out in the open on the farm. It was our last
morning at Fordhall and although we had only arrived on Friday afternoon it seemed like
we had been there a lot longer.
On my way to use the compost loo I stopped off to see the morning activities which
included the Gloucestershire old spot pig feeding her hungry piglets. They were all
shuffling and snuffling around for the best spot! I also admired the very enthusiastic
cockerel who had been on cue every morning to wake us up.
39
After enjoying a rare chance to read in bed for a while I joined the others in the
'Volunteers hut' for some tea. James was already working away recording the data we had
collected yesterday. We thought we would ask Connie (Ben and Charlotte's mum) about
the bus times and ended up chatting for quite a while about some of the history of the
farm and also about the long struggle they have all been through. It was quite an insight!
I grabbed some breakfast after my wonderful hot shower in the old trailer. I sat in the
communal area in the sun on one of the huge benches that had been a product of one of
the previous volunteer weekends. We had sat around some great fires here getting to
know each other, watching the sun set and not forgetting eating some fantastic food!
Back to the yurt to squeeze all of our stuff into our backpacks. Then we had our last
meeting with James before leaving. Charlotte came to see us off and we all thanked each
other and agreed it had been an incredibly enjoyable and successful weekend all round!
After a quick purchase of some Shropshire honey and some of Ben's Old spot sausages
we said our goodbyes.
James and Amber left in the car and Rosemary, Laurence and I set off to wait for the
bus at the end of the drive. Before long we were leaving Fordhall behind but not without
lots of happy memories, new skills and new friendships.
Lisa Leach
40
E: Project Photographs
The following photographs aim to aid the reader in understanding the site and the survey.
Looking at the site from the exterior:
From the west
41
From the south
42
From the east
43
From the north
44
Looking at the site from the exterior:
Looking to the west
45
Looking to the south
46
Looking to the east
47
Looking to the north
48
F: Survey Data
49
50
51
Zeroing point reference photograph
G: Control station location data:
Global positioning satellite (GPS) coordinates were used to record the location of a
selection of control stations. The accuracy the GPS is 2-3 metres. Each control station
peg was left in the ground so that further surveying may be possible in the future. The
future surveyor need only find one peg to relocate the rest of the control points. Contact
James Goodhind through the FCLI if you wish to have more information.
Control station GPS coordinates
R 52o 53.336 N 2o 31.223 W
C 52o 53.285 N 2o 31.266 W
Z 52o 53.342 N 2o 31.194 W
AC 52o 53.336 N 2o 31.298 W
The telegraph pole used as the zeroing point from control station AC is shown in the
photograph shown below. The photograph is looking north towards Fordhall farm house
from the survey site.
52
