Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:37:51.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Adulterine Castle on Faringdon Clump, Berkshire (Second Report)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2012

E. T. Leeds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Investigation of this site in July 1935, reported in the Antiq. Journ. xvi, 165, was severely limited by time, and, since certain problems still remained unsolved, advantage was taken of the presence of the University Camp for Unemployed at Eynsham in July 1936 to endeavour to clear up some of these problems. For this purpose additional radial trenches were driven at various points of the compass and the ground immediately south of the tower was also examined. Although the weather was less favourable than in 1935, nevertheless a fair amount of work was done, resulting in an appreciable addition to our knowledge of the construction of the fortification.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , July 1937 , pp. 294 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 295 note 1 If this were so, it would throw some rather lurid light upon the exaggerative powers of the chronicler in the Gesta Stephani. The number of the ceteri inscii and of those qui primi habebantur who, by the time the attack reached the immediate outworks of the keep, were still confined within its narrow limits, must at least have been sufficiently numerous, if the stories of the richness of the ransoms are correct, to make the ceteri considerable dolts if they failed to realize what was afoot.

page 297 note 1 It seems necessary to emphasize here that the vasesfiguredin the first report (fig. 1) were selected from material found in Oxford itself to illustrate the types of certain of the vessels to which the imperfect material found at Faringdon must have belonged. This is actually stated in thefirstreport, but subsequent comments have led me to believe that the statement was not fully appreciated.