Page 65 - John Barber's Oakham Castle and its archaeology

Notes

1. For detailed description and earlier references, see:
(a) Margaret Wood, Arch. J. xcii (1936), 201-3;
(b) C A Ralegh Radford, Arch. J. cxii (1956), 181-4.
I must thank Mr Ralegh Radford for permission to see this before publication, and for his valuable criticisms of a draft of this report.

2. VCH, Rutland, i. 218.

3 Now under investigation by Mr J L Barber. Med. Arch. i (1957), 157 and ii (1958).

4. For plan, see VCH, Rutland, i. 115.

5. Op. cit., 182-3.

6. Ibid.

7. Shown by stippling in Fig. 1. All depths were calculated after c. 2ft of humus and modern rubbish had been removed from the site.

8. For a discussion on Stamford ware, see G C Dunning in Dark-Age Britain: Studies presented to E T Leeds (ed. D B Harden), 228-31, and J G
Hurst, Proc. Cambridge Antiq. Soc., li (1957), 37-65. For a full review of St Neots ware, see J G Hurst, Proc. C.A.S. xlix (1955), 43-70.

9. For this information I am indebted to Mr G E Glazier, of the Bedford County Library, whose father had lived in one of the houses. Towards the
south edge of the moat was a concentration of ironstone which was probably a pit-filling.

10. Ant. J. xvi (1936), 402.

11. Hurst (1955), 51.

12. I am indebted to Mr M W Barley, MA, FSA, for advice on the character and date of this structure.

13. Section C-D was cut at a doorway through the curtain wall constructed when a house existed there. The disturbance meant that no satisfactory
relationship of wall and rampart could be determined at this point. Elsewhere, the wall appeared to rest directly on the rampart. It was
impossible to check this, however, as further excavation would have endangered both wall and excavators.

14. A proportion of one: six compared to one: three at Alstoe Mount.

15. Three: ten compared to one: ten.

16. For the probable source of clays used, see G C Dunning, in Dark-Age Britain, 229·

17. Ant. J. xvi (1936), 396-411.

18. Ibid., Fig. 3.8 (one example from old ground surface (1953); 7 (two examples from rampart (1953); 2 (one example from (2b) of rampart); 3
(one example from (2b) of rampart).

19. Hurst (1957), Fig. 2, 21-6.

20. Dunning, Ant. J., loc. cit., 26.

21. For a complete example from Stamford, ibid., Fig. 6.16.

22. Dunning, in K M Kenyon, Excavations at the Jewry Wall Site, Leicester, 226, and Fig. 59.5 and 59.6.

23. Ibid., Fig. 61.2.

24. Dunning, Ant. J., loc. cit., Fig. 4.30.

25. Hurst (1957), 54-7.

26. Hurst (1955), Fig.4, and p. 53. Ascribed to not much earlier than the eleventh century. Nos. 4 and 5 are similar to a large specimen from
Cambridge, ibid., Fig.4.12.

27. Ibid., Fig. 7, 4 and 5.

28. H M Hodges, Transactions Thoroton Soc. lvii (1954), 29, Fig. 4.2.

29. This ware has a Midland distribution centred on Northamptonshire, see Rackham, Medieval English Pottery, Pl. i. 68, and G C Dunning, Jewry
Wall, 243-4.

30. Similar to a jug from Thurgarton, Hodges, loc. cit. (Fig. 5, II), and sherds from the Parliament Street kilns, Nottingham, in the Campion
Collection, at the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery.

31. I am indebted to Professor F H Garner, Department of Chemical Engineering, Birmingham University, for the identification of these sherds.
This and following sections owe much to the analyses of post-medieval wares in ‘Excavations at St Benedict’s Gates, Norwich, 1951 and
1953’ by J G Hurst and J Golson, Norfolk Archaeology, xxx (1955), 1-112.

32. Ibid., Fig. 17.4.

33. Ant. J. xxxi (1951), 174-5.

34. See a valuable note by Mr I Noel-Hume in Norfolk Archaeology, loc. cit., 62-4.

35. I have included this ware in this section, rather than treat it separately, as it was normally associated with the other two wares.

36. Ibid., Fig. 18.4.

37. Ibid., 62, and Fig. 21.8.

38. Ibid., Fig. 21.1 (in red ware, as Group 2).

39. Ibid., 76-82. It also supports the view there expressed that this pottery ‘may fall into local groups which to a large extent exclude each other’.

40. Ibid., 101.

41. Four similar unused specimens, 8.5in long, were found unstratified.

42. Compare Guildhall Museum Catalogue, Pl. LXXXIII, 16. Sixteenth century.

43. Ibid., Pl. LXXXIV, 4. Same date.

44. Archaeological News Letter, v (1955), 243-50.

45. For an important discussion on these subjects, see G C Dunning, Jewry Wall, 230-32, and Figs. 64-5.

46. See Freda Derrick, ‘Stone Building in Stamford (7). The World and Collyweston’ in Illustrated Carpenter and Builder, 16 Feb. 1951.

47. For an account of flint implements found in Rutland, see VCH, i. 82-4.

48. Acknowledgement is made to Mr L Bilton, MSc, FLS, FRES, Keeper of the Department of Natural History, Birmingham Museum and Art
Gallery, for advice on this section.
63