Stainborough Castle - a mystery, the original Stainborough Hall, and the Gun Room
On a recent visit to the gardens at Stainborough, I looked at the new signboard by the structure which is sometimes called Stainborough Castle. The board says that there has never been a castle on that site. Strictly speaking that may be correct, but there is evidence that a military structure of some sort was there - whether it was a castle or not.
Long before the Wentworth family took up residence in Stainborough there is an established record of two local men having played bowls within sight of the fortress ruins. The report was written in Elizabethan times as a court record, the men having been punished for their action. That they were punished suggests that the area on which they played bowls was held in some kind of regard. More on this later when the reference is to hand.
There is at least one maybe two formal archaeological study reports written by South Yorkshire archaeologists employed by local authorities which state that their has been a fortification of some sort on the hilltop in pre-Roman days. Those records are held in archives managed by the South Yorkshire archaeology services.
Humphries (1982) wrote what is held by some to be the definitive account of historical matters on the Stainborough-Wentworth estate, and states that the remains on top of the hill were of a fortress built by the Hallstadt people who originated in the area now known as southern Germany, in the time nowadays often called The Iron Age, and claims the site was afterwards occupied by a succession of parties including Romans and Anglo-Saxons. In her publication she labels the site 'Stainborough Camp' and 'The Danish Camp', the latter being a reference to 'Viking' occupation.
According to local documentary sources, during the English Civil War the site was used as a place to muster and train soldiers. A number of different prominent local leaders were involved in those activities.
Thomas Wentworth, the first of that name to reside at Stainborough, had built the structure now known as a 'folly' on the site. He was a distinguished soldier and I would suggest unlikely to radically alter the previous remains, but more likely to place his gothic castle folly on top of what was already there.
He and his son William left the line of the original public road to the site undisturbed and landscaped over part of it. In doing so he was greatly inconvenienced, which hardly seems commensurate with an inclination to destroy whatever was present on the hilltop at the time of his building work.
Humphries claims that the folly was the second gothic building of its type in the land, if not the first.
Last year I came across a written account of something that happened to the materials from which the fort was built. It said that a Mr Bower, stonemason to Lord Strafford, was building the castellated battlements around the area of the fort, and that fearing that he would 'run out of stone' sought the permission of Lord Strafford to use some stone from the ruins of the old fortress. It further said that the request was granted. If it is correct then the 'old castle' is perhaps still there, although in a different form to that which we might expect. Unfortunately I did not photocopy the document in which the entry was made - but I have now begun to search for it, and hope to find it once more.
Stainborough Hall
According to the Humphries the original hall is possibly plainly visible in illustrations of the estate made between 1708 and 1727. It is suggested as being located almost exactly where the teaching block 'on stilts' is now. Humphries suggests that an opportunity was missed to conduct an archaeological examination of the site at the time the teaching block was built. I have reason to doubt some of that. It seems likely that the building known as Stainborough Hall was there, but I imagine that the reason for putting the building 'on stilts' may have been to preserve the remains and that a 'dig' now might be profitable.
Part of my reason for doubting the suggestion by Humphries is that the nearby 'ice house' was said by her to have been filled with rubble when it was discovered accidentally in the 1960's. In contrast to that I have read an archaeologist's report of the ice house indicating that they were actually inside it after the accidental damage occurred. The archaeologist in question is no longer available to give testimony, but is an expert of high repute.
The Gun Room
Humphries also gives an opinion of the 'Gun Room' suggesting that it may at some time have been a bath house, claiming to have been inside a long time ago and seen what may have been a tiled tub area designed to deal with water. The name Gun Room was not used until the Victorian era and the building precedes that in age.
For my part, unless someone can show me otherwise I choose to think of it as a building used by the architect and master masons during the major building work of creating the first of the new wings attached to the old Cutler House, and would expect to dind inside it evidence of a 'masons floor' similar to the one at York Minster.
Finally on another matter - the artistic representations of the house and grounds referred to above, also include images of the original drive from the Cutler House to the edge of Stainborough Lowe Wood which is about where Steeple Lodge is now. Clearly the line of the road or avenue is not the same as the drive which is running from Steeple Lodge to the big house now, but is maybe 50 yards away. The current drive is however aligned with the Home Farm, the big house, and Steeple Lodge - which were all built long after the Cutler House. On the basis of the drawings the road would have been where the lower part of the field is now. Bruce Wentworth had his Curling Facility in the same location, and the Dutch Barn was also built on the line of the avenue. Did the builders of the latter two things know something not known now?
This post has also been put on the Stainborough Chronicle blog and the Dodworth Chronicle blog.
On a recent visit to the gardens at Stainborough, I looked at the new signboard by the structure which is sometimes called Stainborough Castle. The board says that there has never been a castle on that site. Strictly speaking that may be correct, but there is evidence that a military structure of some sort was there - whether it was a castle or not.
Long before the Wentworth family took up residence in Stainborough there is an established record of two local men having played bowls within sight of the fortress ruins. The report was written in Elizabethan times as a court record, the men having been punished for their action. That they were punished suggests that the area on which they played bowls was held in some kind of regard. More on this later when the reference is to hand.
There is at least one maybe two formal archaeological study reports written by South Yorkshire archaeologists employed by local authorities which state that their has been a fortification of some sort on the hilltop in pre-Roman days. Those records are held in archives managed by the South Yorkshire archaeology services.
Humphries (1982) wrote what is held by some to be the definitive account of historical matters on the Stainborough-Wentworth estate, and states that the remains on top of the hill were of a fortress built by the Hallstadt people who originated in the area now known as southern Germany, in the time nowadays often called The Iron Age, and claims the site was afterwards occupied by a succession of parties including Romans and Anglo-Saxons. In her publication she labels the site 'Stainborough Camp' and 'The Danish Camp', the latter being a reference to 'Viking' occupation.
According to local documentary sources, during the English Civil War the site was used as a place to muster and train soldiers. A number of different prominent local leaders were involved in those activities.
Thomas Wentworth, the first of that name to reside at Stainborough, had built the structure now known as a 'folly' on the site. He was a distinguished soldier and I would suggest unlikely to radically alter the previous remains, but more likely to place his gothic castle folly on top of what was already there.
He and his son William left the line of the original public road to the site undisturbed and landscaped over part of it. In doing so he was greatly inconvenienced, which hardly seems commensurate with an inclination to destroy whatever was present on the hilltop at the time of his building work.
Humphries claims that the folly was the second gothic building of its type in the land, if not the first.
Last year I came across a written account of something that happened to the materials from which the fort was built. It said that a Mr Bower, stonemason to Lord Strafford, was building the castellated battlements around the area of the fort, and that fearing that he would 'run out of stone' sought the permission of Lord Strafford to use some stone from the ruins of the old fortress. It further said that the request was granted. If it is correct then the 'old castle' is perhaps still there, although in a different form to that which we might expect. Unfortunately I did not photocopy the document in which the entry was made - but I have now begun to search for it, and hope to find it once more.
Stainborough Hall
According to the Humphries the original hall is possibly plainly visible in illustrations of the estate made between 1708 and 1727. It is suggested as being located almost exactly where the teaching block 'on stilts' is now. Humphries suggests that an opportunity was missed to conduct an archaeological examination of the site at the time the teaching block was built. I have reason to doubt some of that. It seems likely that the building known as Stainborough Hall was there, but I imagine that the reason for putting the building 'on stilts' may have been to preserve the remains and that a 'dig' now might be profitable.
Part of my reason for doubting the suggestion by Humphries is that the nearby 'ice house' was said by her to have been filled with rubble when it was discovered accidentally in the 1960's. In contrast to that I have read an archaeologist's report of the ice house indicating that they were actually inside it after the accidental damage occurred. The archaeologist in question is no longer available to give testimony, but is an expert of high repute.
The Gun Room
Humphries also gives an opinion of the 'Gun Room' suggesting that it may at some time have been a bath house, claiming to have been inside a long time ago and seen what may have been a tiled tub area designed to deal with water. The name Gun Room was not used until the Victorian era and the building precedes that in age.
For my part, unless someone can show me otherwise I choose to think of it as a building used by the architect and master masons during the major building work of creating the first of the new wings attached to the old Cutler House, and would expect to dind inside it evidence of a 'masons floor' similar to the one at York Minster.
Finally on another matter - the artistic representations of the house and grounds referred to above, also include images of the original drive from the Cutler House to the edge of Stainborough Lowe Wood which is about where Steeple Lodge is now. Clearly the line of the road or avenue is not the same as the drive which is running from Steeple Lodge to the big house now, but is maybe 50 yards away. The current drive is however aligned with the Home Farm, the big house, and Steeple Lodge - which were all built long after the Cutler House. On the basis of the drawings the road would have been where the lower part of the field is now. Bruce Wentworth had his Curling Facility in the same location, and the Dutch Barn was also built on the line of the avenue. Did the builders of the latter two things know something not known now?
This post has also been put on the Stainborough Chronicle blog and the Dodworth Chronicle blog.
