The Early Norman Castles of the British Isles.

by Ella Sophia Armitage

York ([Fig. 39]).—William the Conqueror built two castles at York, and the mottes of both these castles remain, one underneath Clifford’s Tower, the keep of York Castle, the other, on the south side of the Ouse, still bearing the name of the Baile Hill, or the Old Baile.[795] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle implies, though it does not directly state, that both these castles were built in 1068, on the occasion of William’s first visit to York. The more detailed narrative of Ordericus shows that one was built in 1068, and the other at the beginning of 1069, on William’s second visit.[796] Both were destroyed in September 1069, when the English and Danes captured York, and both were rebuilt before Christmas of the same year, when William held his triumphant Christmas feast at York.

This speedy erection, destruction, and re-erection is enough to prove that the castles of William in York were, like most other Norman castles, hills of earth with buildings and stockades of wood, especially as we find these hills of earth still remaining on the known sites of the castles. And we may be quite sure that the Norman masonry, which Mr Freeman pictures as so eagerly destroyed by the English, never existed.[797] But the obstinate tendency of the human mind to make things out older than they are has led to these earthen hills being assigned to Britons, Romans, Saxons, Danes, anybody rather than Normans. A single passage of William of Malmesbury, in which he refers to the castrum which the Danes had built at York in the reign of Athelstan, is the sole vestige of basis for the theory that the motte of Clifford’s Tower is of Danish origin.[798] The other theories have absolutely no foundation but conjecture. If Malmesbury was quoting from some older source which is now lost, it is extremely probable that the word castrum which he copied, did not mean a castle in our sense of the word at all, but was a translation of the word burh, which almost certainly referred to a vallum or wall constructed round the Danish suburb outside the walls of York. Such a suburb there was, for there in 1055 stood the Danish church of St Olave, in which Earl Siward was buried, and the suburb was long known as the Earlsburgh or Earl’s Burh, probably because it contained the residence of the Danish earls of Northumbria.[799] This suburb was not anywhere near Clifford’s Tower, but in quite a different part of the city. To prove that both the mottes were on entirely new sites, we have the assurance of Domesday Book that out of the seven shires or wards into which the city was divided, one was laid waste for the castles; so that there was clearly a great destruction of houses to make room for the new castles.[800]

York Castle and Baile Hill.
(From a plan by P. Chassereau, 1750.)

Fig. 39.

What has been assumed above receives striking confirmation from excavations made recently (1903) in the motte of Clifford’s Tower. At the depth of 13 feet were found remains of a wooden structure, surmounted by a quantity of charred wood.[801] Now the accounts of the destruction of the castles in 1069 do not tell us that they were burned, but thrown down and broken to pieces.[802] But the keep which was restored by William, and on the repair of which Henry II. spent 15l. in 1172,[803] was burnt down in the frightful massacre of the Jews at York Castle in 1190.[804] The excavations disclosed the interesting fact that this castle stood on a lower motte than the present one, and that when the burnt keep was replaced by a new one the motte was raised to its present height, “an outer crust of firmer and more clayey material being made round the older summit, and a lighter material placed inside this crater to bring it up to the necessary level.” This restoration must have taken place in the third year of Richard I., when 28l. was spent “on the work of the castle.”[805] This small sum shows that the new keep also was of wood; and remains of timber work were in fact found on the top of the motte during the excavations, though unfortunately they were not sufficiently followed up to determine whether they belonged to a wooden tower or to a platform intended to consolidate the motte.[806] It is extremely likely that this third keep was blown down by the high wind of 1228, when 2s. was paid “for collecting the timber of York Castle blown down by the wind.”[807] In its place arose the present keep, one of the most remarkable achievements of the reign of Henry III.[808] The old ground-plan of the square Norman keep was now abandoned, and replaced by a quatrefoil. The work occupied thirteen years, from the 30th to the 43rd Henry III., and the total sum expended was 1927l. 8s. 7d., equal to about 40,000l. of our money. This remarkable fact has slumbered in the unpublished Pipe Rolls for 700 years, never having been unearthed by any of the numerous historians of York.

The keep was probably the first work in stone at York Castle, and for a long time it was probably the only defensive masonry. The banks certainly had only a wooden stockade in the early part of Henry III.’s reign, as timber from the forest of Galtres was ordered for the repair of breaches in the palicium in 1225.[809] As late as Edward II.’s reign there was a pelum, or stockade, round the keep, on top of a murus, which was undoubtedly an earthen bank.[810] At present the keep occupies the whole top of the motte except a small chemin de ronde, but the fact so frequently alluded to in the writs, that a stockade ran round the keep, proves that a small courtyard existed there formerly, as was usually the case with important keeps. Another writ of Edward II.’s reign shows that the motte was liable to injury from the floods of the River Fosse,[811] and probably its size has thus been reduced.

The present bailey of York Castle does not follow the lines of the original one, but is an enlargement made in 1825. A plan made in 1750, and reproduced here, shows that the motte was surrounded by its own ditch, which is now filled up, and that the bailey, around which a branch of the Fosse was carried, was of the very common bean-shaped form; it was about 3 acres in extent. The motte and bailey were both considerably outside what is believed to have been the Anglo-Saxon rampart of York,[812] but the motte was so placed as to overlook the city.

The value of the city of York, in spite of the sieges and sacks which it had undergone, and in spite of there being 540 houses “so empty that they pay nothing at all,” had risen at the date of the Survey from 53l. in King Edward’s time to 100l. in King William’s.[813] This extraordinary rise in value can only be attributed to increased trade and increased exactions, the former being promoted by the greater security given to the roads by the castles, the latter due to the tolls on the high-roads and waterways, which belonged to the king, and the various “customs” belonging to the castles, which, though new, were henceforth equally part of his rights.

The Baile Hill, York ([Fig. 39]).—There can be no doubt whatever that this still existing motte was the site of one of William’s castles at York, and it is even probable that it was the older of the two, as Mr Cooper conjectures from its position on the south side of the river.[814] The castle bore the name of the Old Baile at least as early as the 14th century, perhaps even in the 12th.[815] In 1326 a dispute arose between the citizens of York and Archbishop William de Melton as to which of them ought to repair the wall around the Old Baile. The mayor alleged that the district was under the express jurisdiction of the archbishop, exempt from that of the city; the archbishop pleaded that it stood within the ditches of the city.[816] The meaning of this dispute can only be understood in the light of facts which have recently been unearthed by the industry and observation of Mr T. P. Cooper, of York.[817] The Old Baile, like so many of William’s castles, originally stood outside the ramparts of the city. The original Roman walls of York (it is believed) enclosed only a small space on the eastern shore of the Ouse, and before the Norman Conquest the city had far outgrown these bounds, and therefore had been enlarged in Anglo-Saxon times. It appears that the Micklegate suburb was then for the first time enclosed with a wall, and as this district is spoken of in Domesday Book as “the shire of the archbishop,” it was evidently under his jurisdiction. At a later period this wall was buried in an earthen bank, which probably carried a palisade on top, until the palisade was replaced by stone walls in the reign of Henry III.[818]