Archaeology

Before the conservation work began on the stone fort, and the construction of the new paths, bridges and boardwalks at the site, the project archaeologist, Tim Morgan, carried out a programme of archaeological investigation.  The purpose of this was to examine and record the archaeological remains within the parts of the Scheduled Area that would be affected by the proposed works, and to ensure that the construction of the new features would not unduly damage them.  It also provided a good opportunity to try to uncover more about the history of the site.

View of Aberlleiniog Castle, circa 1930. © Crown Copyright: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historial Monuments of Wales.

1) The eleventh century, Norman-built motte and bailey castle

Aberlleiniog shares similarities with many other motte and bailey castles in Wales and on the Wales/England border, and its form and location close to the sea, and, perhaps, a tidal river (the Lleiniog) are typical characteristics. The motte and the moat are contemporary with one another, and these features were formed by the excavated earth from the moat being piled up centrally to form the motte. As to be expected in such a case, calculations revealed that the volume of excavated material from the moat is equal to that of the motte.  Excavation prior to the construction of the new timber moat bridge revealed the moat’s original profile only 2.5ft (0.8m) below the level of the existing moat floor.

It is interesting to note that Aberlleiniog may have formed a model for at least one motte and bailey castle in the Isle of Man.  Cronk Howe Mooar was built by Norwegian King Magnus Barefoot, who defeated Norman forces at Aberlleiniog in the 1094 ‘Battle of the Anglesey Sound’. Magnus may indeed have used Anglesey timber with which to build his motte and bailey castles in the Isle of Man. The Brut y Tywysogion (in English ‘Chronicle of the Princes’ , one of the most important primary sources for Welsh history) records Magnus as coming for a second time to Anglesey in 1102 ‘felling for himself some trees for timber he returned to Man.  And there he built himself three castles and…filled Man with his men’.

Metalware

A fragment of lead shot was found, which is thought to be a musket ball.  Several other pieces of scrap lead were found in the same location, and close by.  What is significant, is that a number of the lead pieces were found in the shape of a cylinder, and are possibly casting waste from the manufacture of lead objects that had been gathered together for re-melting and casting.  The casting of shot close to its place of use was common in times of conflict, and this may be the origin of this waste lead material.  The vessel in which they were gathered may have been perishable, which could explain why they were found in a cylindrical shape.  No other evidence was found, however, to corroborate this.

Other finds included square-shank nails, an iron cartridge case, a copper-alloy button, and a William III (King William of Orange) halfpenny coin.

The halfpenny is made of copper-alloy, and was recovered from the spoil of the west tower. 
The date on the coin is 1701.

The button is decorated on one side with ring and dot motifs around the perimeter. 
Other markings are present, but are obscured by corrosion.

One of the features of the castle that may be contemporary with the refortification of the castle during the Civil War, is the low, drystone revetment wall. This defines the area of the interior of the fort, and is still clearly visible in places. Excavations revealed evidence of an apparent second interior wall, situated between the revetment wall and the external curtain wall.

3) The addition of the stone fort

The stone fort appears to have been built sometime between 1701 and 1770.  The top of the motte was significantly modified at this time, and material from the outer edges probably provided the infill for the (then) four towers and wall-walk.  Only three towers remain today, and it seems that the east tower was lost sometime after Richard Fenton’s (a poet and topographical writer) visit in 1805.  It is not clear exactly what happened to the east tower.  There is evidence to suggest that it was demolished, and the stone used to build a later field wall encircling the moat.  Excavations revealed the presence of trapped motte material at the base of the towers and probably the wall-walk. 

It is possible that the construction of the towers, curtain walls and entrance mirrored the arrangement of the earlier, internal stone revetment wall.  The buttresses were constructed after the towers and the curtain walls, and were necessary to counteract the slumping of the walls due to the internal pressure of volume of material making up the wall-walk.  The south tower was found to consist of no more than three ‘courses’, and there is no indication that it ever extended above present ground level.  This begs the question, was the fort ever completed, or was it built as a romantic ruin, or ‘folly’?

The remains of the foundations of the east tower.	View of part of the internal wall-walk.

The north tower.

4) Repairs and partial reconstruction after 1770 From the mid nineteenth century onwards, it appears that various repairs were made to the fort.  In several places, the buttresses had separated from the curtain walls, and attempts had been made to reconnect them.  The interior was used as a garden, and the north tower was converted into a summer house.  Its turrets were rebuilt, partly of brick, and it acquired a slate tiled roof and glazed windows.  The walls were rendered, a screed floor was laid and a sturdy doorway fitted.

A large stone trough or chest in the west tower was, at one time, thought to be a gun emplacement.  However, it is almost certainly contemporary with the nineteenth century, recreational use of the fort.  It holds clear impressions of a lid, an iron loop or clasp and fixings for hinges.  It is hollow inside, and is drained by a short section of lead pipe.  A hole was discovered in the middle of the south tower, that would once have held a timber flagpole.  There was no trace of the pole itself, however. One of the features of the north west wall had previously been described as a ‘sally port’ (an entrance allowing troops to make sorties without compromising the defensive integrity of the fortification) and a ‘garderobe’ – or toilet!  The evidence suggests, however, that it was a purely decorative addition to the fort!

Other archaeological features in the vicinity

An earthen mound on Lleiniog foreshore could be contemporary with Aberlleiniog motte and bailey castle.  It could have provided an initial point of defence at the landing point leading up to the castle, or have acted as a navigational marker to indicate the mouth of the river Lleiniog.  This feature is privately owned and there is no public access to it. 

A ‘hollow way’ links the castle to the sea at Lleiniog beach.  This may once have been the main route to access the castle.  It enters the Scheduled Area at the west bailey ditch (a new timber bridge now crosses this ditch).  The southern part of the hollow way is privately owned and is not accessible to the public.

There are the remains of a weir, or a stone packhorse bridge, at the bridge that crosses the river Lleiniog.

The remains of what could be a clinker-built boat were discovered in the wet meadow to the south of the castle.

Up to now, it has not been possible to trace the remains of the entrance to the fort from the bailey.