1

Figure 1, Aber castle from the south-east. The probable line of the bailey ditch and rampartbegins between the two trees and rises up to the motte behind the central tree. The recentexcavations took place on the bailey roughly between the motte and the house, centre-left.

The Early Castles of GwyneddLooking at the early Norman history of North Wales we have the fact that Robert Rhuddlan in1086 had been paying the king £40 per year for North Wales, in the same manner as Rhys apTewdwr paid £40 for South Wales. Although this has been argued as ‘a speculative grant’ bythe king, there can really be no doubt that such men would not pay such enormous sums perannum 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 untilhis death in 1093. Similarly Rhys ap Tewdwr had begun his rule in Deheubarth after 1078and continued until his death some months before Robert in 1093. Both men are liable tohave been paying the Crown their money rent for their Welsh fees during this period.

The archaeological demonstration for Robert Rhuddlan being in North Wales comesfrom 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 Normanform of castle - we find ‘eleventh century’ Norman castles that we have historical evidencefor at Rhuddlan (Fig.11), Degannwy (Fig.12, a reused Welsh hill site commanding the AfonConwy and not a real motte at all), Aberlleiniog (Fig.13, a massive mound of uncertainprovenance) and Caernarfon (an alleged motte that Victorian excavation proved to be theremains of a lime kiln turfed over and not a motte at all). To this list can be added a secondgroup for which we have no historical evidence, but where physical remains and geographymake a Norman identification likely. These are Aber (possibly referred to as Bangor in1094), 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 beadded Tomen y Mur (Fig.18) which is a high lying site, in this case being a reused Romanfort that carries a motte on its summit. King Henry I (1100-35) was certainly here in 1114

2

and William II (1087-1100) may have visited in 1098. In short, all of Gwynedd and thewestern Perfeddwlad were encompassed by Norman mottes which substantiate the historicalevidence 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 interestingcomparisons. There is evidence before 1200 of Welsh occupied ‘Norman’ fortresses atRhuddlan (Fig.11), Degannwy (Fig.12), Dinas Emrys (Fig.15) and Caernarfon, while newWelsh fortresses had been built in the west at Cymer (Fig.19), Cynfal, Deudraeth, GarnFadryn (Fig.20) and possibly Tal y Cafn (Fig.21) and Pentrefoelas. Beyond this we are in theworld of historical speculation. What we can state with certainty is that Aber motte andbailey castle shows no resemblance to the two Welsh built castles of Deudraeth and GarnFadryn (Fig.20). Both these are masonry structures lying on rocky crags and ostensiblyfounded 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 fairsupposition that Rhuddlan Twthill never received stone components, while even its existenceas a castle is suspect judging from the remains. Cymer (Fig.19) was a small motte on apromontory 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 thatwas burned down in 1147. Tal y Cafn (Fig.21) and Pentrefoelas were both apparentlyabarrant 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 groupof 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 thepoint of extinction, while Rhuddlan Twthill has not been excavated and the sandy moundlooks an unlikely structure to have held up a wooden keep. The pre-Edwardian castle ofCaernarfon is unknown, while Leland stated in the 1530s that the old castle had fallen into theSeiont saltwater haven. The identification of its site as being underneath the currentEdwardian structure is therefore at best debatable and based on no evidence, historical orarchaeological - especially when excavation and clearances make it reasonably certain thatFlint, Conway and Beaumaris were all built on virgin sites.

Of the masonry Norman castles Degannwy (Fig.12) is so ruined that nothing canusefully be said apart from the round turret and wall to the north are reckoned, withoutevidence, to be Welsh, but could just as easily be Norman. A round keep and hall of the1240s were excavated at the other end of the crag to this. Dolbenmaen motte (Fig.14) looksas if it once supported a stone keep, while Aber castle motte most certainly did. Both havefragments of wall core protruding from the motte tops. Dolwyddelan I (Fig.16, Tomencastell) and Dinas Emrys (Fig.15) both have traces of rectangular towers on their summits andboth most likely date to the tenure of Robert Rhuddlan and Earl Hugh of Chester in the periodbefore 1094 - although there is an unlikely chance that both are Welsh built post 1100. Themotte at Tomen y Mur (Fig.18) contains much good quality probably Roman stonework andit is highly possible that this once consisted of a Norman stone building that has collapsed. Asimilar ‘motte’ made of a collapsed tower exists at the Welsh built Prysor (Fig.22). Theexcavated rectangular tower at Dinas Emrys (Fig.15) was previously thought to have been amotte, which again shows the dangers of judging a site without excavation. The motte at

3

Figure 2, The ground plan of Aber castle showing thepositioning of the structures uncovered by the recentexcavations. The motte was almost certainly surroundedby a ditch, of which traces remain to the east, while theline of the bailey to the west is suggested by hatching. Clearly there is no room for the ancillary buildingsneeded for a rectangular llys. Compare with Fig.8,

Pentre Isaf (Fig.17) is heavily overgrown although there are some slight indications thatstonework once crowned this feature.

The fragments of wall core projecting from the periphery of the summit of Aber mottetowards the south and west, makes it all but certain that there was originally a small shellkeep or large round tower here. There is a tradition grown up that Normans did not buildround towers. This is simply a theory and unproven in scientific terms. The Romans hadround towers as too did the Anglo Saxons and Normans. However, it was certainly less usualfor the Normans to build round towers, but that does not exclude them from constructing themasonry on the mottes at Aber (Fig.3) and Dolbenmaen (Fig.14). Indeed it is far from certainthat such structures were round and not small polygonal shell keeps of a common earlyvariety. That the bailey of Aber is virtually obliterated may suggest that it has beendemolished in antiquity. Certainly its position to the north is quite demonstrable where nohousing has been built upon the site.

To sum up, there seemslittle doubt from the currentevidence that Aber motte andbailey castle on the valley bottomstarted life as a Norman motteand bailey castle built in thedecade before 1086. It was thendestroyed during the uprising of1094 when all the castles ofGwynedd succumbed, the fall ofsome of which are described ingreat detail in the History ofGruffydd ap Cynan. The castlethen seems to have lainabandoned. It has then beenclaimed that after a hundred yearsa mansion was built next to themotte and that this was the palaceof Llywelyn ab Iorwerth (d.1240). This claim has to be examinedagainst the evidence of what theexcavations revealed and what thedocumentary evidence actuallystates.

Aber Motte and Bailey CastleIt is difficult to precisely date anymedieval structure, with orwithout archaeological ordocumentary evidence. This isbecause it is difficult to be surewhat structures documents referto and even what exactlyarchaeological evidence actually

4

Figure 3, The motte from the north showing part of the 2010 excavation in the bailey.

signifies. This is as true for castles as for llysoedd. In each case it is still a matter ofweighing possibilities and deciding likelihoods - despite what ‘experts’ may say to bolstertheir 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 beevaluated.

At Aber we have a still partially ditched motte roughly 120 feet in diameter and a littleover twenty feet high. Such mottes literally abound throughout the British Isles. The summitis approximately fifty feet in diameter and shows clear signs of once having supported eithera small shell keep or large, probably round, tower. The motte was almost certainlysurrounded by a ditch as was common practice. This is most noticeable to the south, althoughthe 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 feetnorth to south by 350 feet east to west at its maximum extent (Fig.2). This bailey itself wouldappear 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 baileydefences to the north and west have been obliterated by later houses, but the distinct drop inheight strongly suggests the line of the northern bailey. The bailey defences to the south andeast have also been largely erased, possibly by ploughing, but more likely by the deliberatedestruction of the rampart which was probably used to fill the ditch. Such complete slightingof the site should make us very careful of the modern suggestion that this was the site of thehall complex of the later princes of Wales.

*1 Coflein, NPRN 95692

5

Figure 4, Aber motte and bailey from the air. The motte is in the centre and the extent of thebailey is probably marked by the line of trees to the right of it.

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. Thereare many problems with this identification and it would appear - certainly no evidence hasbeen advanced that any proper historical research has been undertaken and certainly noneworthy of the name has been published - that this assertion has been made without adequatehistorical research or taking llys and castle sites in context.

The building alleged to be a royal llys was uncovered twice, once in 1993 and once in2010. This structure was initially claimed to be approximately 37 feet east to west by 26 feetnorth to south internally, with walls some 2½ feet thick. Projecting chambers, each abouttwenty feet by thirty feet, have been claimed by the excavators as additions built on both sides

*2 Ty’n y Mwd, Aber, Archaeological Excavation [GAT 1092], Interim Report No.86. These findings have been somewhat modified inview of the 2010 excavation. See footnote 3.

*3 www.eryri-npa.gov.uk/_data/assets/pdf_file/0003/301692/Aber-Dig-Report.pdf

6

of ‘the hall’*2. It is therefore necessary to examine the remains to see if they justify such aninterpretation.

The aerial photographs of the dig site - and a short personal inspection - wouldsuggest the site has a complex history which archaeology shows continued into the nineteenthcentury. From the excavation reports we can judge that we are not yet anywhere near to fullyunderstanding 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 canbe summed up in the last government published report*3. These contain many claims, but nohistorical research, while the few solid facts that they do contain are used in juxtapositionwith 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 placenames, antiquarian writers, local tradition and interpretation...’. Such misrepresentation ofthe facts from original thirteenth and fourteenth century documentation does no real favoursto history and is an abomination from a government sponsored body. However, using thisfinal ‘preliminary report’ as a basis for what has been uncovered in the castle bailey, it ispossible to make the following observations. The south-western corner of a later ‘masonrybuilding’ 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 doorwayof their hall of the princes. If this was a doorway - of which there seems no evidence - thenwhy was a later building apparently ‘of the fourteenth century’ built into it? What was thislater ‘building’ that shows evidence of metal working going on within it? Was it a buildingor a simple corral wall around an industrial complex approximately 60 feet by 50, built afterthe demolition of the alleged hall. Further, why is there no historical evidence of this changeof use of the site of a royal palace into an industrial complex as has been uncovered byexcavation, 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, ismentioned as a functioning estate down to 1417 and is still being granted by the Crown assuch as late as 1485 and Pen y Bryn is mentioned as the capital messuage of the estate of theThomas family during the sixteenth century.

Of the claimed ‘hall’ itself, understanding its north-eastern section is even moreproblematic 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 thenorth-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 itabuts onto the primary chamber wall. The rest of the so called ‘north wing’ appears to beillusory, but more will be said of this later.

*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 noway connected with the structure uncovered south of the motte in 1993. Such modern misnaming of ancient sites is a practice best avoidedand certainly should not be found in allegedly factually government reports.

7

Figure 5, The Aber excavation showing the industrial complexto the right behind the foreground trees and the ‘hall’ to the left. The ‘northern curtain’ is just visible to the far left before theman.

Two entrances havebeen claimed into the ‘hallhouse’. The first, to theeast, is less than three feetwide and consists of asimple break in the wallwithout a doorstep. As thisis overshadowed by theclaimed ‘wing’ to the southand a later wall whichabuts to the north, itprobably was an entranceof a very poor kind. Itwould also appear to havebeen covered by anoutbuilding or porchjudging by the remains. This is hardly the greatporchless ceremonialentrance which appears on the imaginative reconstruction of the surprisingly misnamed ‘Ty’ny Mwd’ hall*4. The second ‘entrance’ to the west, which we have already examined above, iseven 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 abandonedprimary building. If the building was occupied and of a high status it would not have beenpierced by such a lowly structure.

The building claimed as the southern ‘wing’ of the ‘hall’ is 35 feet by 16 feetinternally. The foundations of this chamber are mostly intact, although much of the east wallhas gone. It appears to all be of one build except for a later external buttress added roughlyhalf way down the southern wall. That the eastern wall of the ‘hall’ penetrates the northernwall would suggest that it post dates this structure. However, it could just be a change inbuilding plan that happened virtually contemporaneously with the building of the ‘hall’. A‘bronze ring brooch... of thirteenth to fourteenth century date’ was recovered ‘from theinterface 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 soilbuilt up. It is hardly satisfactory dating material and if anything points to a pre fourteenthcentury date for the abandonment of this structure. If this assumption is correct, it shows thatthis could not have been the palace of the princes as these were still in occupation in thefifteenth century.

The northern part of the excavation site shows at least four or five phases and hasobviously had a more complex history than the two structures to the south, identified byGwynedd Archaeological Trust (GAT) as a hall and its later wing. This northern section isalso the best preserved part of the masonry and the thickest, with the wall approaching sixfeet thick. In front of the northernmost wall was a ditch which was not fully explored by the

8

Figure 6, The poor remains of the mortar set in the ‘north curtain’in Aber castle bailey with the cobbled floor of the ‘north wing’beyond.

excavators. This is a shame as it would appear to have been the ditch dividing the northernbailey from the southern one, which would make the northern wall of the excavated complexthe curtain wall of the southern bailey of the castle. This purported curtain wall would appearto have been rebuilt with a new, narrower wall topping the remains of the earlier one, ofwhich only the northern front can now be seen.

The northern‘wing’ of the allegedpalace seems more tohave been drawn withthe eye of faith ratherthan from evidence onthe ground and if thereis an eastern returnwall it would appear tobe west of the easternwall of the primarychamber. In otherwords this is hardly awing. Further eastfrom the northern‘wing’ are the remainsof what appears to be along narrow buildingwhich partiallyunderlies the secondary‘curtain wall’. Thisstructure, and the

claimed north ‘wing’ were all said to have been built with lime mortar. The rest of themasonry 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 alarge rectangular enclosure that has already been mentioned as its foundations have piercedand obliterated a portion of the west wall of the ‘hall’. This structure has slightly thickerwalls, that are not as well constructed as the walls of the south ‘wing’. It is approximately 55feet east to west by sixty feet north to south externally. Excavation shows that it contained atleast six pits as well as burnt soil. As such it would appear to have been an industrial sitewhich 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, inconnection with a planning application. They identified the foundations of a largebuilding in association with 13th and 14th century pottery and a decorated ring-broochof the same date. The building was a rectangular stone structure which appears tohave been divided internally into three sections with projecting wings at either end. However, the stone has been largely recycled elsewhere and so only the foundationsremained, and the northern limit of the building had been incorporated into a laterfield wall. The building had clearly been modified during its period of use, and hasbeen interpreted as a hall.

*5 Butler, L.A.S., ‘A Long Hut Group in the Aber Valley’, Caernarvonshire Historical Society XXIII [1962], 25-36.

9

Figure 7, The flimsy remains of the two buildings with the industrialcomplex clearly cutting into the 2½ feet thick, unmortared wall of thealleged hall. Note that for no obvious reason north is pointing down thepage instead of up on this GAT figure.

What we certainly have in the southern castle bailey are the remains of what is a series ofstructures quite unlike those excavated at Rhosyr llys and apparently unlike any of theremains 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 Aberbailey site was a debatable reconstruction plan of Penrhyn. The current walls all lie withinthe southern bailey of Aber castle, stand no more than a course or two high, and show no signof mortar other than poor leached remains seen to the north. What is left bears noresemblance to a ‘high status building’. It appears more like the jumble of buildings thatwould be expected in a castle bailey (Fig.7). It should also be noted that these remains areinferior to the possibly thirteenth to eighteenth century hafod buildings uncovered byexcavation in 1961*5. It is further quite clear that the poor quality of the remains is not solelydue to stone robbing. These structures were never of any great standing and probably wereonly one storey high, judging by the thinness of the walls and the paucity of the ‘mortar’.

*6 The Black Prince’s Register, Part IV, 1351-65, England, 11.

10

Figure 8, A ground plan of the buildings uncovered atRhosyr. Such structures are clearly lacking at Abercastle. There is simply no room for them in the castlebailey when considering the three chambers (A, B &C) and gatehouse (D) cover less than a third of theknown Rhosyr llys site which is roughly 220' by 250'. Note all the llys sites known are rectangular like GarthCelyn and unlike the elliptical Aber castle bailey,Fig.2.

Apparently the potteryremains at Aber would suggest athirteenth to fourteenth centuryusage for the buildings. Yet againthe amount of pottery and coinsfound on such a small site isextraordinary, especially as royalsites were always well maintainedand kept scrupulously clean. Forexample, the fourteenth centurydetails for the cleaning of the royalcastle of Berkhamsted have survivedand it would seem unlikely thatother royal sites would have beenallowed to become so unkempt asthe alleged palace in the bailey ofAber castle is said to have been. Thus we find in 1351 the porter ofBerkhamsted castle was allowed allthe litter found within the castlebuildings whenever they werecleaned, which appeared to be ayearly business*6. Although massesof such minutia have not survivedfrom most habitations, thecleanliness of royal sites whenexcavated shows that suchagreements were widespread. Indeed, even the baronial castle ofHen Domen at Montgomery waskept so clean during its two hundredodd years of occupation that theexcavators were appalled by the lackof dateable evidence found. Thistherefore adds to the impression thatAber castle was not the royal houseused by Edward I and II and theirWelsh predecessors.

It is a shame that excavationdid not take place on the mottewhich would have shown if themasonry of the keep was similar to that uncovered in the bailey. If it had been we may havebeen able to tell if the whole structure had been revamped after its destruction in 1094 whenall the castles of Gwynedd were certainly destroyed. This might have told us a great deal

*7 The Work of the Gwynedd Archaeological Trust, 1994-95, 14.

11

Figure 9, The north ‘curtain wall’ from the motte topwith the ‘winged hall’ beyond to the right.

about the site and the dates of its occupation. A small dig upon the motte may well still showus the life span of the motte and bailey castle.

It has been asserted that the foundations uncovered in Aber castle bailey can be relatedto the rebuildings carried out for Prince Edward in the early fourteenth century and thatantiquarians often state that this was the site of the llys*7. Neither of these arguments stand upto 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 morethan sleeper walls for a wooden structure. Certainly to describe the foundations as theyappear as a mansion or royal hall seems rather grand and the reconstruction drawing of ‘thecastle’ 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 thepetty east entrance into the primary building has lost its porch, while the low foundationswhich have the appearance of sleeper walls have been imagined into a two storey structurewhich positively dwarfs the motte and ignores the industrial compound to the rear as well asthe wall and ditch between it and the motte.

It is worth noting thatAber castle motte and baileystands immediately west of thefast running Afon Aber, just at theplace where the river valleywidens out into the coastal plain. It therefore controls the rivercrossing and is in a lowlandposition. It should again beemphasised that it is a wellrecognised general principal thatWelsh castles tend to dominatethe highlands and Norman castlesthe lowlands, although both sideson occasions used the others’fortresses. It can therefore beseen that the remains uncoveredby excavation at this site are inaccordance with what has been found and is expected at other Norman sites, but they do notmeet with the criteria found at other llys sites, viz Rhosyr.

ConclusionThe site, locally known as the Mwd - and not Ty’n y Mwd - a name fabricated from a nearbytwentieth century house name and disingenuously translated to the castle site for the 1993excavation report, GAT 1092 - appears a typical lowland Norman castle site. The buildingsexcavated in its southern bailey show no indication of a palatial residence, but of buildingsthat might be found in a castle together with a post military industrial complex. As a castlesite Aber motte and bailey makes perfect sense - a fortress to garrison 20 or 30 troops as wellas followers to command the crossing of the river and dominate Bangor - just 6 miles or anhour away by horseback at a brisk pace. It is a further 8 miles from Aber to Caernarfon - 15

12

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 dangerousmountain 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. Couldthen 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 theGwynedd royal family, married 3 times into the family of the Plantagenets of England andFrance, simply does not hold true. The small-scale building in the bailey, with an industrialcomplex that cuts through it[!], simply could not accommodate the royal family and courtofficers that we know existed and attended the Welsh princes. There would be the prince, hisprincess and the royal children, plus their numerous body attendants. There would be 24officers, 16 for the prince and 8 for the princess. The most important of these would be thecaptain of the household troops (who numbered 200 strong in 1258) and the royal priest - andwe know that there was an important free royal chapel at Garth Celyn llys because the kingmakes note of it in the fourteenth century - stewards, falconers, justices, grooms and thechamberlain. Plus all of these people would have had their own attendants. When Llywelynap Gruffydd paid a visit to the abbot of Basingwerk in the 1260s the abbot complained thatthe prince came with over 200 people. This is when he was on the move and not resident athis own primary llys when such a figure could be expected to be higher with children and fulltime servants as well as visiting uchelwyr. Aber castle bailey simply does not have room forsuch an entourage. The building in the bailey is claimed to be the royal Ty Hir mentioned infourteenth century documents. How can this be a long house when it is not long by anystretch of the imagination? However the masonry that can still be distinguished built into thehouse now known as Pen y Bryn is obviously a long building and therefore could beclassified as a Ty Hir. The bailey site has revealed no cut masonry - yet cut masonry has beenfound at Rhosyr and Pen y Bryn and highly decorative freestone masonry has been uncoveredat Degannwy, Criccieth and Castell y Bere. All there is on the castle bailey at Aber are riverboulders laid in clay, with part of what appears to be the fortress castle wall laid in a poorquality lime binder.

Finally there is the word Garth. This has been stated, solely when related to GarthCelyn, to mean enclosure. No such usage of the word is recorded in medieval Wales as aplacename. However Garth is commonly found throughout Wales and is universally appliedto a jutting spur coming out from a line of hills. Aber castle lies on no Garth. The house ofPen 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 hillabove Aber on the east side of the river as being Garth Celyn and the motte and bailey in thevalley on the west side of the river as being the late eleventh century ‘Norman’ castle, whosebailey was later used for industrial purposes.

Paul Martin Remfry 15 February 2016M.Phil, Aberystwyth

Ceidio, GwyneddAstudiaethau Castell Ymchwil a Cyhoeddi

13

Figure 10, Castles and llys sites mentioned in North-West Wales.

14

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.

15

Figure 13, The side of the mound thought to be the Aberlleiniog castlementioned in the 1090s.

Figure 14, Dolbenmaen motte from the south.

16

Figure 15, The wreck of the rectangular tower keep at Dinas Emrys afterexcavation.

Figure 16, The rocky crag with the turf covered remnants of a rectangulartower keep on the summit at Dolwyddelan I, from the base of the later castle.

17

Figure 17, The motte at Pentre Isaf near Llangernyw.

Figure 18, The rubble-filled motte at Tomen y Mur. Quite possibly this is simply acollapsed 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.

18

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 tothe right, was built in answer to Deudraeth by Rhodri ab Owain.

19

Figure 21, The motte at Tal y Cafn, commanding a crossing point of theAfon Conwy.

Figure 22, The alleged ‘motte’ at Prysor which is merely the collapsed ruinof a great tower.