The Early Castles of Gwynedd

The Early Castles of Gwynedd Looking at the early Norman history of North Wales we have the fact that Robert Rhuddlan in 1086 had been paying the king £40 per year for North Wales, in the same manner as Rhys ap Tewdwr paid £40 for South Wales. Although this has been argued as ‘a speculative grant’ by the king, there can really be no doubt that such men would not pay such enormous sums per annum for nothing but a vague promise. Certainly the historical and archaeological evidence (what there is of it) supports Robert’s overlordship of North Wales from the late 1070s until his death in 1093. Similarly Rhys ap Tewdwr had begun his rule in Deheubarth after 1078 and continued until his death some months before Robert in 1093. Both men are liable to have been paying the Crown their money rent for their Welsh fees during this period. Figure 1, Aber castle from the south-east. The probable line of the bailey ditch and rampart begins between the two trees and rises up to the motte behind the central tree. The recent excavations took place on the bailey roughly between the motte and the house, centre-left. The archaeological demonstration for Robert Rhuddlan being in North Wales comes from the evidence of castle remains - in this case low-lying Norman motte and baileys (Fig.10). If we look for mottes commanding river crossings - the traditional early Norman form of castle - we find ‘eleventh century’ Norman castles that we have historical evidence for at Rhuddlan (Fig.11), Degannwy (Fig.12, a reused Welsh hill site commanding the Afon Conwy and not a real motte at all), Aberlleiniog (Fig.13, a massive mound of uncertain provenance) and Caernarfon (an alleged motte that Victorian excavation proved to be the remains of a lime kiln turfed over and not a motte at all). To this list can be added a second group for which we have no historical evidence, but where physical remains and geography make a Norman identification likely. These are Aber (possibly referred to as Bangor in 1094), Nefyn, Dolbenmaen (Fig.14), Dinas Emrys (Fig.15, again not a real motte), Dolwyddelan I (Fig.16) and Pentre Isaf (Fig.17), near Llangernyw. To this group can be added Tomen y Mur (Fig.18) which is a high lying site, in this case being a reused Roman fort that carries a motte on its summit. King Henry I (1100-35) was certainly here in 1114 1 and William II (1087-1100) may have visited in 1098. In short, all of Gwynedd and the western Perfeddwlad were encompassed by Norman mottes which substantiate the historical evidence for Norman occupation as is seen at the time of the Domesday Book. If we look at castles that are likely to be Welsh foundations we get some interesting comparisons. There is evidence before 1200 of Welsh occupied ‘Norman’ fortresses at Rhuddlan (Fig.11), Degannwy (Fig.12), Dinas Emrys (Fig.15) and Caernarfon, while new Welsh fortresses had been built in the west at Cymer (Fig.19), Cynfal, Deudraeth, Garn Fadryn (Fig.20) and possibly Tal y Cafn (Fig.21) and Pentrefoelas. Beyond this we are in the world of historical speculation. What we can state with certainty is that Aber motte and bailey castle shows no resemblance to the two Welsh built castles of Deudraeth and Garn Fadryn (Fig.20). Both these are masonry structures lying on rocky crags and ostensibly founded in the 1180s. The site at Caernarfon is apparently gone, while both Rhuddlan (Fig.11, Twthill) and Degannwy (Fig.12) have no certain remains from this period. It is a fair supposition that Rhuddlan Twthill never received stone components, while even its existence as a castle is suspect judging from the remains. Cymer (Fig.19) was a small motte on a promontory and was destroyed in 1116. The site has a stone built 18th century house upon it. Whether this lies on 12th century castle foundations is impossible to say without excavation. Cynfal was a motte surrounded by a rock cut ditch and surmounted by a wooden tower that was burned down in 1147. Tal y Cafn (Fig.21) and Pentrefoelas were both apparently abarrant motte and bailey castles occupied and possibly built by Dafydd ab Owain (d.1203) and destroyed in the late 12th C by his nephews. The main sites without indications of masonry defences in the supposed Welsh group of castles are Aberlleiniog (Fig.13), Nefyn and Rhuddlan (Fig.11, Twthill). However, Aberlleiniog has a folly on its summit which may disguise or obliterate any early structure, Nefyn is an alleged motte which has not been excavated, but has been mutilated almost to the point of extinction, while Rhuddlan Twthill has not been excavated and the sandy mound looks an unlikely structure to have held up a wooden keep. The pre-Edwardian castle of Caernarfon is unknown, while Leland stated in the 1530s that the old castle had fallen into the Seiont saltwater haven. The identification of its site as being underneath the current Edwardian structure is therefore at best debatable and based on no evidence, historical or archaeological - especially when excavation and clearances make it reasonably certain that Flint, Conway and Beaumaris were all built on virgin sites. Of the masonry Norman castles Degannwy (Fig.12) is so ruined that nothing can usefully be said apart from the round turret and wall to the north are reckoned, without evidence, to be Welsh, but could just as easily be Norman. A round keep and hall of the 1240s were excavated at the other end of the crag to this. Dolbenmaen motte (Fig.14) looks as if it once supported a stone keep, while Aber castle motte most certainly did. Both have fragments of wall core protruding from the motte tops. Dolwyddelan I (Fig.16, Tomen castell) and Dinas Emrys (Fig.15) both have traces of rectangular towers on their summits and both most likely date to the tenure of Robert Rhuddlan and Earl Hugh of Chester in the period before 1094 - although there is an unlikely chance that both are Welsh built post 1100. The motte at Tomen y Mur (Fig.18) contains much good quality probably Roman stonework and it is highly possible that this once consisted of a Norman stone building that has collapsed. A similar ‘motte’ made of a collapsed tower exists at the Welsh built Prysor (Fig.22). The excavated rectangular tower at Dinas Emrys (Fig.15) was previously thought to have been a motte, which again shows the dangers of judging a site without excavation. The motte at 2 Pentre Isaf (Fig.17) is heavily overgrown although there are some slight indications that stonework once crowned this feature. The fragments of wall core projecting from the periphery of the summit of Aber motte towards the south and west, makes it all but certain that there was originally a small shell keep or large round tower here. There is a tradition grown up that Normans did not build round towers. This is simply a theory and unproven in scientific terms. The Romans had round towers as too did the Anglo Saxons and Normans. However, it was certainly less usual for the Normans to build round towers, but that does not exclude them from constructing the masonry on the mottes at Aber (Fig.3) and Dolbenmaen (Fig.14). Indeed it is far from certain that such structures were round and not small polygonal shell keeps of a common early variety. That the bailey of Aber is virtually obliterated may suggest that it has been demolished in antiquity. Certainly its position to the north is quite demonstrable where no housing has been built upon the site. To sum up, there seems little doubt from the current evidence that Aber motte and bailey castle on the valley bottom started life as a Norman motte and bailey castle built in the decade before 1086. It was then destroyed during the uprising of 1094 when all the castles of Gwynedd succumbed, the fall of some of which are described in great detail in the History of Gruffydd ap Cynan. The castle then seems to have lain abandoned. It has then been claimed that after a hundred years a mansion was built next to the motte and that this was the palace of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth (d.1240). This claim has to be examined against the evidence of what the excavations revealed and what the documentary evidence actually states. Figure 2, The ground plan of Aber castle showing the positioning of the structures uncovered by the recent excavations. The motte was almost certainly surrounded by a ditch, of which traces remain to the east, while the line of the bailey to the west is suggested by hatching. Clearly there is no room for the ancillary buildings needed for a rectangular llys. Compare with Fig.8, 3 Aber Motte and Bailey Castle It is difficult to precisely date any medieval structure, with or without archaeological or documentary evidence. This is because it is difficult to be sure what structures documents refer to and even what exactly archaeological evidence actually signifies. This is as true for castles as for llysoedd. In each case it is still a matter of weighing possibilities and deciding likelihoods - despite what ‘experts’ may say to bolster their own claims. However, this does not mean that such dating should not be attempted, merely that it should not be set in stone, especially while much of the evidence is yet to be evaluated. Figure 3, The motte from the north showing part of the 2010 excavation in the bailey. At Aber we have a still partially ditched motte roughly 120 feet in diameter and a little over twenty feet high. Such mottes literally abound throughout the British Isles. The summit is approximately fifty feet in diameter and shows clear signs of once having supported either a small shell keep or large, probably round, tower. The motte was almost certainly surrounded by a ditch as was common practice. This is most noticeable to the south, although the drop in height to the houses on the site of the bailey now marks its position elsewhere. The motte appears to have been surrounded by an eye-shaped bailey approximately 550 feet north to south by 350 feet east to west at its maximum extent (Fig.2). This bailey itself would appear to have been divided roughly in half. The dividing ditch survives mostly to the south, while to the north it may be discernable in the aerial photograph (Fig.4). Most of the bailey defences to the north and west have been obliterated by later houses, but the distinct drop in height strongly suggests the line of the northern bailey. The bailey defences to the south and east have also been largely erased, possibly by ploughing, but more likely by the deliberate destruction of the rampart which was probably used to fill the ditch. Such complete slighting of the site should make us very careful of the modern suggestion that this was the site of the hall complex of the later princes of Wales. 4 Within the northern bailey excavation has uncovered a structure which has been ‘identified as the llys or princely court recorded here through the thirteenth century’*1. There are many problems with this identification and it would appear - certainly no evidence has been advanced that any proper historical research has been undertaken and certainly none worthy of the name has been published - that this assertion has been made without adequate historical research or taking llys and castle sites in context. Figure 4, Aber motte and bailey from the air. The motte is in the centre and the extent of the bailey is probably marked by the line of trees to the right of it. The building alleged to be a royal llys was uncovered twice, once in 1993 and once in 2010. This structure was initially claimed to be approximately 37 feet east to west by 26 feet north to south internally, with walls some 2½ feet thick. Projecting chambers, each about twenty feet by thirty feet, have been claimed by the excavators as additions built on both sides *1 Coflein, NPRN 95692 5 of ‘the hall’*2. It is therefore necessary to examine the remains to see if they justify such an interpretation. The aerial photographs of the dig site - and a short personal inspection - would suggest the site has a complex history which archaeology shows continued into the nineteenth century. From the excavation reports we can judge that we are not yet anywhere near to fully understanding the ‘modern’ history of the castle site after the Middle Ages. Firstly, a few things have to be said of the reports that have appeared and which can be summed up in the last government published report*3. These contain many claims, but no historical research, while the few solid facts that they do contain are used in juxtaposition with dubious identifications to ‘prove’ their cause. Such a report even resorts to ‘straw man’ arguments, viz: ‘Some believe that... Pen y Bryn... [was the llys] quoting evidence from place names, antiquarian writers, local tradition and interpretation...’. Such misrepresentation of the facts from original thirteenth and fourteenth century documentation does no real favours to history and is an abomination from a government sponsored body. However, using this final ‘preliminary report’ as a basis for what has been uncovered in the castle bailey, it is possible to make the following observations. The south-western corner of a later ‘masonry building’ has clearly penetrated the wall of the claimed long house of the Welsh princes (Fig.7). For some reason the excavators make this penetration out to be an original doorway of their hall of the princes. If this was a doorway - of which there seems no evidence - then why was a later building apparently ‘of the fourteenth century’ built into it? What was this later ‘building’ that shows evidence of metal working going on within it? Was it a building or a simple corral wall around an industrial complex approximately 60 feet by 50, built after the demolition of the alleged hall. Further, why is there no historical evidence of this change of use of the site of a royal palace into an industrial complex as has been uncovered by excavation, unless of course this is not the site referred to in any of the documentation? Remember that the capital messuage, or caput of Aber estate, as Garth Celyn was, is mentioned as a functioning estate down to 1417 and is still being granted by the Crown as such as late as 1485 and Pen y Bryn is mentioned as the capital messuage of the estate of the Thomas family during the sixteenth century. Of the claimed ‘hall’ itself, understanding its north-eastern section is even more problematic due to the denuded nature of the remains, which are even worse at this corner. The northern section of the primary building has been almost totally obliterated with the north-eastern corner totally lost. The junction of the north-west corner with the claimed ‘north wing’ is not clear, but the better quality mortar in the ‘wing’ wall would suggest that it abuts onto the primary chamber wall. The rest of the so called ‘north wing’ appears to be illusory, but more will be said of this later. *2 Ty’n y Mwd, Aber, Archaeological Excavation [GAT 1092], Interim Report No.86. These findings have been somewhat modified in view of the 2010 excavation. See footnote 3. *3 www.eryri-npa.gov.uk/_data/assets/pdf_file/0003/301692/Aber-Dig-Report.pdf 6 Two entrances have been claimed into the ‘hall house’. The first, to the east, is less than three feet wide and consists of a simple break in the wall without a doorstep. As this is overshadowed by the claimed ‘wing’ to the south and a later wall which abuts to the north, it probably was an entrance of a very poor kind. It would also appear to have Figure 5, The Aber excavation showing the industrial complex been covered by an to the right behind the foreground trees and the ‘hall’ to the left. outbuilding or porch The ‘northern curtain’ is just visible to the far left before the judging by the remains. man. This is hardly the great porchless ceremonial entrance which appears on the imaginative reconstruction of the surprisingly misnamed ‘Ty’n y Mwd’ hall*4. The second ‘entrance’ to the west, which we have already examined above, is even more imaginative. This is simply a gash carved through the wall where the later, apparently industrial complex was cut through what therefore appears to be an abandoned primary building. If the building was occupied and of a high status it would not have been pierced by such a lowly structure. The building claimed as the southern ‘wing’ of the ‘hall’ is 35 feet by 16 feet internally. The foundations of this chamber are mostly intact, although much of the east wall has gone. It appears to all be of one build except for a later external buttress added roughly half way down the southern wall. That the eastern wall of the ‘hall’ penetrates the northern wall would suggest that it post dates this structure. However, it could just be a change in building plan that happened virtually contemporaneously with the building of the ‘hall’. A ‘bronze ring brooch... of thirteenth to fourteenth century date’ was recovered ‘from the interface of the old ground surface within the south wing of the building’. This would ‘suggest’ that the brooch was lost after the building was abandoned and before much soil built up. It is hardly satisfactory dating material and if anything points to a pre fourteenth century date for the abandonment of this structure. If this assumption is correct, it shows that this could not have been the palace of the princes as these were still in occupation in the fifteenth century. The northern part of the excavation site shows at least four or five phases and has obviously had a more complex history than the two structures to the south, identified by Gwynedd Archaeological Trust (GAT) as a hall and its later wing. This northern section is also the best preserved part of the masonry and the thickest, with the wall approaching six feet thick. In front of the northernmost wall was a ditch which was not fully explored by the *4 The Work of Gwynedd Archaeological Trust, 1994-95, 14. Ty’n y Mwd is the name of a modern house north of the motte and is in no way connected with the structure uncovered south of the motte in 1993. Such modern misnaming of ancient sites is a practice best avoided and certainly should not be found in allegedly factually government reports. 7 excavators. This is a shame as it would appear to have been the ditch dividing the northern bailey from the southern one, which would make the northern wall of the excavated complex the curtain wall of the southern bailey of the castle. This purported curtain wall would appear to have been rebuilt with a new, narrower wall topping the remains of the earlier one, of which only the northern front can now be seen. The northern ‘wing’ of the alleged palace seems more to have been drawn with the eye of faith rather than from evidence on the ground and if there is an eastern return wall it would appear to be west of the eastern wall of the primary chamber. In other words this is hardly a wing. Further east from the northern ‘wing’ are the remains of what appears to be a long narrow building Figure 6, The poor remains of the mortar set in the ‘north curtain’ which partially in Aber castle bailey with the cobbled floor of the ‘north wing’ underlies the secondary beyond. ‘curtain wall’. This structure, and the claimed north ‘wing’ were all said to have been built with lime mortar. The rest of the masonry uncovered was said to be clay or earth mortared walls. To the west of the southern half of the main excavated structures just described is a large rectangular enclosure that has already been mentioned as its foundations have pierced and obliterated a portion of the west wall of the ‘hall’. This structure has slightly thicker walls, that are not as well constructed as the walls of the south ‘wing’. It is approximately 55 feet east to west by sixty feet north to south externally. Excavation shows that it contained at least six pits as well as burnt soil. As such it would appear to have been an industrial site which postdates the ‘hall’ to the east which has been claimed by GAT as Llywelyn’s llys. The official government agency summary of the site is: Excavations took place in 1993, in the field adjacent to the motte of Pen y Mwd, in connection with a planning application. They identified the foundations of a large building in association with 13th and 14th century pottery and a decorated ring-brooch of the same date. The building was a rectangular stone structure which appears to have been divided internally into three sections with projecting wings at either end. However, the stone has been largely recycled elsewhere and so only the foundations remained, and the northern limit of the building had been incorporated into a later field wall. The building had clearly been modified during its period of use, and has been interpreted as a hall. 8 Figure 7, The flimsy remains of the two buildings with the industrial complex clearly cutting into the 2½ feet thick, unmortared wall of the alleged hall. Note that for no obvious reason north is pointing down the page instead of up on this GAT figure. What we certainly have in the southern castle bailey are the remains of what is a series of structures quite unlike those excavated at Rhosyr llys and apparently unlike any of the remains found at other houses of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Indeed the only ‘Caernarfonshire halls of the fourteenth century’ which looked even remotely like the Aber bailey site was a debatable reconstruction plan of Penrhyn. The current walls all lie within the southern bailey of Aber castle, stand no more than a course or two high, and show no sign of mortar other than poor leached remains seen to the north. What is left bears no resemblance to a ‘high status building’. It appears more like the jumble of buildings that would be expected in a castle bailey (Fig.7). It should also be noted that these remains are inferior to the possibly thirteenth to eighteenth century hafod buildings uncovered by excavation in 1961*5. It is further quite clear that the poor quality of the remains is not solely due to stone robbing. These structures were never of any great standing and probably were only one storey high, judging by the thinness of the walls and the paucity of the ‘mortar’. *5 Butler, L.A.S., ‘A Long Hut Group in the Aber Valley’, Caernarvonshire Historical Society XXIII [1962], 25-36. 9 Apparently the pottery remains at Aber would suggest a thirteenth to fourteenth century usage for the buildings. Yet again the amount of pottery and coins found on such a small site is extraordinary, especially as royal sites were always well maintained and kept scrupulously clean. For example, the fourteenth century details for the cleaning of the royal castle of Berkhamsted have survived and it would seem unlikely that other royal sites would have been allowed to become so unkempt as the alleged palace in the bailey of Aber castle is said to have been. Thus we find in 1351 the porter of Berkhamsted castle was allowed all the litter found within the castle buildings whenever they were cleaned, which appeared to be a yearly business*6. Although masses of such minutia have not survived from most habitations, the cleanliness of royal sites when excavated shows that such agreements were widespread. Indeed, even the baronial castle of Hen Domen at Montgomery was kept so clean during its two hundred Figure 8, A ground plan of the buildings uncovered at odd years of occupation that the Rhosyr. Such structures are clearly lacking at Aber excavators were appalled by the lack castle. There is simply no room for them in the castle of dateable evidence found. This bailey when considering the three chambers (A, B & therefore adds to the impression that C) and gatehouse (D) cover less than a third of the Aber castle was not the royal house known Rhosyr llys site which is roughly 220' by 250'. used by Edward I and II and their Note all the llys sites known are rectangular like Garth Welsh predecessors. Celyn and unlike the elliptical Aber castle bailey, It is a shame that excavation Fig.2. did not take place on the motte which would have shown if the masonry of the keep was similar to that uncovered in the bailey. If it had been we may have been able to tell if the whole structure had been revamped after its destruction in 1094 when all the castles of Gwynedd were certainly destroyed. This might have told us a great deal *6 The Black Prince’s Register, Part IV, 1351-65, England, 11. 10 about the site and the dates of its occupation. A small dig upon the motte may well still show us the life span of the motte and bailey castle. It has been asserted that the foundations uncovered in Aber castle bailey can be related to the rebuildings carried out for Prince Edward in the early fourteenth century and that antiquarians often state that this was the site of the llys*7. Neither of these arguments stand up to serious consideration. The best preserved part of the structure is to the north where one ‘wall’ has been overlain by several large river-worn boulders. The whole could be little more than sleeper walls for a wooden structure. Certainly to describe the foundations as they appear as a mansion or royal hall seems rather grand and the reconstruction drawing of ‘the castle’ as it was said to have been in the early fourteenth century is positively misleading, especially when compared to the one drawn for Rhosyr. In the reconstruction at Aber the petty east entrance into the primary building has lost its porch, while the low foundations which have the appearance of sleeper walls have been imagined into a two storey structure which positively dwarfs the motte and ignores the industrial compound to the rear as well as the wall and ditch between it and the motte. It is worth noting that Aber castle motte and bailey stands immediately west of the fast running Afon Aber, just at the place where the river valley widens out into the coastal plain. It therefore controls the river crossing and is in a lowland position. It should again be emphasised that it is a well recognised general principal that Welsh castles tend to dominate the highlands and Norman castles the lowlands, although both sides on occasions used the others’ Figure 9, The north ‘curtain wall’ from the motte top fortresses. It can therefore be with the ‘winged hall’ beyond to the right. seen that the remains uncovered by excavation at this site are in accordance with what has been found and is expected at other Norman sites, but they do not meet with the criteria found at other llys sites, viz Rhosyr. Conclusion The site, locally known as the Mwd - and not Ty’n y Mwd - a name fabricated from a nearby twentieth century house name and disingenuously translated to the castle site for the 1993 excavation report, GAT 1092 - appears a typical lowland Norman castle site. The buildings excavated in its southern bailey show no indication of a palatial residence, but of buildings that might be found in a castle together with a post military industrial complex. As a castle site Aber motte and bailey makes perfect sense - a fortress to garrison 20 or 30 troops as well as followers to command the crossing of the river and dominate Bangor - just 6 miles or an hour away by horseback at a brisk pace. It is a further 8 miles from Aber to Caernarfon - 15 *7 The Work of the Gwynedd Archaeological Trust, 1994-95, 14. 11 miles being a reasonable distance to place between fortresses in a Norman zone of conquest Degannwy being only 8 miles from Aber as the crow flies, but including a dangerous mountain pass and treacherous crossing of the Afon Conwy which could add several miles. In short the earthworks and building traces are all that might be expected for a castle. Could then the ‘Norman’ castle have been converted into the palace or llys of the Welsh princes? The modern idea that the buildings excavated would have been a royal llys used by the Gwynedd royal family, married 3 times into the family of the Plantagenets of England and France, simply does not hold true. The small-scale building in the bailey, with an industrial complex that cuts through it[!], simply could not accommodate the royal family and court officers that we know existed and attended the Welsh princes. There would be the prince, his princess and the royal children, plus their numerous body attendants. There would be 24 officers, 16 for the prince and 8 for the princess. The most important of these would be the captain of the household troops (who numbered 200 strong in 1258) and the royal priest - and we know that there was an important free royal chapel at Garth Celyn llys because the king makes note of it in the fourteenth century - stewards, falconers, justices, grooms and the chamberlain. Plus all of these people would have had their own attendants. When Llywelyn ap Gruffydd paid a visit to the abbot of Basingwerk in the 1260s the abbot complained that the prince came with over 200 people. This is when he was on the move and not resident at his own primary llys when such a figure could be expected to be higher with children and full time servants as well as visiting uchelwyr. Aber castle bailey simply does not have room for such an entourage. The building in the bailey is claimed to be the royal Ty Hir mentioned in fourteenth century documents. How can this be a long house when it is not long by any stretch of the imagination? However the masonry that can still be distinguished built into the house now known as Pen y Bryn is obviously a long building and therefore could be classified as a Ty Hir. The bailey site has revealed no cut masonry - yet cut masonry has been found at Rhosyr and Pen y Bryn and highly decorative freestone masonry has been uncovered at Degannwy, Criccieth and Castell y Bere. All there is on the castle bailey at Aber are river boulders laid in clay, with part of what appears to be the fortress castle wall laid in a poor quality lime binder. Finally there is the word Garth. This has been stated, solely when related to Garth Celyn, to mean enclosure. No such usage of the word is recorded in medieval Wales as a placename. However Garth is commonly found throughout Wales and is universally applied to a jutting spur coming out from a line of hills. Aber castle lies on no Garth. The house of Pen y Bryn lies on just such a spur which is marked on the oldest tythe maps as Garth Celyn the projecting spur of Celyn. In short all the evidence points to the enclosure on the hill above Aber on the east side of the river as being Garth Celyn and the motte and bailey in the valley on the west side of the river as being the late eleventh century ‘Norman’ castle, whose bailey was later used for industrial purposes. Paul Martin Remfry M.Phil, Aberystwyth 15 February 2016 Ceidio, Gwynedd Astudiaethau Castell Ymchwil a Cyhoeddi 12 Figure 10, Castles and llys sites mentioned in North-West Wales. 13 Figure 11, The Twthill, claimed to be the first Rhuddlan castle motte. Figure 12, The twin crags that go to make up the site of Degannwy castle. Plainly neither is an artificial motte. 14 Figure 13, The side of the mound thought to be the Aberlleiniog castle mentioned in the 1090s. Figure 14, Dolbenmaen motte from the south. 15 Figure 15, The wreck of the rectangular tower keep at Dinas Emrys after excavation. Figure 16, The rocky crag with the turf covered remnants of a rectangular tower keep on the summit at Dolwyddelan I, from the base of the later castle. 16 Figure 17, The motte at Pentre Isaf near Llangernyw. Figure 18, The rubble-filled motte at Tomen y Mur. Quite possibly this is simply a collapsed tower. Excavation has proved that ‘the motte’ at Dinas Emrys was a tower. Further an early sketch shows Prysor ‘motte’ to have once been at tower. 17 Figure 19, The rubble-filled ‘motte’ at Cymer with the later house built on top of it. Figure 20, Garn Fadryn from the north. The castle, set on the higher ground to the right, was built in answer to Deudraeth by Rhodri ab Owain. 18 Figure 21, The motte at Tal y Cafn, commanding a crossing point of the Afon Conwy. Figure 22, The alleged ‘motte’ at Prysor which is merely the collapsed ruin of a great tower. 19