More information : (NY 7995 6080) Staward Peel (G.T.) (Remains of) (1)
The site of the pele is an almost impregnable promontory. Probably built in the 14thc. (3), it was approached by a gatehouse (part of which is all that survives) at the narrowest part of the ridge, and was defended on the NW side by a prominent ditch. It is not clear whether a second ditch, cut across the 'neck' a hundred yards short of the gatehouse, is part of the same defensive scheme, or the sole remaining feature of a small promontory fort into which the pele was inserted. Remains of a wall at the west end of the promontory appear to be of a later date.
Incorporated in the masonry of the gatehouse are numerous Ro. stones, which formerly included an inscribed altar (now at NY 8121 6027 NY 86 SW 2). The inference that a shrine existed prior to the pele is supported in some measure by a document of AD 1271, in which the place-name is written "Staworthe", which may be interpreted as "Stone enclosure".
Scheduled. (2-4)
There is no trace of a tower. Remains of the gatehouse, at NY 8002 6076, consist of a fragment of rubble-core walling approximately 5m. high. (See GP AO56/353/7). The wall, at NY 7996 6080, is obviously later, but it cannot be dated by visual inspection, and insufficient survives to say whether it represents the remains of a building, or a curtain wall. (See GP AO56/353/6). Neither ditch has any I.A. affinity, and both appear to be part of
the medieval defences. No ground evidence for a shrine exists beyond the reused material. Surveyed at 1:2500. (5)
NY 800 607 A fragment of walling 100 yds.S. of the peel is probably a bastle. It stands 10 feet high, 6 feet long, and has walls 4.5 feet thick with dressed quoins and random rubble walling. This contrasts with the well-squared and coursed masonry of the pele, which argues against this being an outwork of the pele.(Type-site NY 88 SE 14) (6)
Staward Peel is spectacularly sited on a high, narrow promontory thrusting out from the east side of the Allen valley. The Peel is unapproachable from the north and can only be reached with considerable difficulty from the south. The approach along the nose of the promontory from the west is easier but only from the east could the peel be approached by wheeled vehicles. The promontory is now heavily wooded but would be a prominent landmark if it were free of vegetation.
The approach from the east is barred by a substantial ditch at NY8013 6071, up to 2m deep, crossed by a narrow causeway. The ditch extends to the top of vertical cliffs on either side and is backed by a bank which, though it appears to be a relatively slight feature, is built or revetted with stone. Beyond the ditch are some further slight earthworks and the promontory reaches its narrowest point at NY 8005 6075, the top being only 2.5m wide. This neck extends for about 40m and at its western end is a rise. At the top of this rise, at NY 8001 6076, is a stone structure, the north part of which is now surviving as a fragment 5m high but only 3m long, composed largely of re-used stone, some certainly of Roman workmanship. A Roman altar incorporated near the top fell in 1947-8 and was subsequently removed to Low Staward Manor. This structure, which is relatively crudely built, was free-standing and not part of a building (Authorities (2), (5) and (6) are misleading on this point); it was possibly an ornamental gateway. Its date of construction is unknown but it may be later than the Peel (despite Authority (5)).
To the west of this structure is a flat space and beyond this, at NY7995 6079, lies the Peel itself. Three walls, or parts thereof, remain standing to a maximum height of 3.5m. The tower is built of surprisingly fine squared masonry and measures 25.3m by at least 16.5m externally and was therefore large by comparison with other peels. The tower shows every sign of having been deliberately dismantled; the walls have been taken down to an almost uniform level except on the east, more accessible, side which has been completely robbed, and there is no tumbled stone on the site. This demolition had taken place before 1856 (7a). Beyond the tower the slope has been strengthened by a large ditch, up to 3.4m deep, at NY 7995 6082. A detailed description and discussion, with further references, accompanies the 1:500 plan of 1992. (7)
A pele consisting of a timber blockhouse and palisade was built on the site in 1316 by Antony de Lucy of Langley.. Lucy stationed 15 men-at-arms and 15 hobilars here. In 1326 Edward II annexed the western fringe of Lucy's liberty, including Staward. Noting the defensible nature of the site, he asked for tenders to demolish the pele and build a larger defendable complex. Thomas de Featherstonehaugh, keeper of Tynedale offered to build the fortification for only £100, and in only four months, provided he could have all the timber free. In a letter to the king, which recognised that he had neither the funds nor the time to complete the job, Thomas indicates that he is building a full scale castle. Edward's answer does not survive, but Thomas was granted the extra funds and time to complete the work. The site passed to Queen Phillippa and then to Edmund, Duke of York. He rented it to Hexham Priory in 1385 until the Dissoution. The site was then recovered by the Crown until 1603, when it passed to the earl of Dunbar.
Dodds argues that Featherstone's construction was a full-scale castle because:
a) the letter to Edward II indicates that it was a substantial project;
b) towers were built for knights and squires, monarchs demanded castles;
c) a plan of 1759 exists showing the ruins at that time. These indicate a gatehouse, curtain wall and a keep-like feature. (8)
Listed by Cathcart King. (9)
The ditches and structures described above were not identified on photography available to the Hadrian's Wall NMP project because the area is heavily wooded. (10) |