Ms. Jamieson in writing her ‘Abstract’ states that her overall objective was to explore ‘the role of ancient monuments, natural places and existing systems of authority (pre-Norman) in the establishment of new centres of power’ (the Norman castle(s). Through her case study of Skipsea Castle she set out to consider ‘ways in which the natural and cultural landscape shaped the form and siting of the Norman fortress, and how this elite centre changed through time’. Also to use archaeological evidence to discover how the Castle influenced the surrounding settlement pattern.
Two terms from the above paragraph are particularly interesting, ‘cultural landscape’, I can sort of see what it means but it’s an effort to apply in an everyday sense. Secondly the idea of a physical and cultural site influencing the surrounding settlement pattern. This is an easier idea to apply elsewhere. Three other such examples that straightway come to mind are; bridging points over rivers (still a factor in the siting of development today e.g. Humber Bridge), pre-Reformation monastic sites and pre-historic religious/cultural sites.
To what extent was the siting of Norman castles, often on sites that had previously had cultural significance, a conscious policy to stimulate ‘integration and acculturation’. This is surely a fact mirrored elsewhere in History when an invading force establishes its significant sites not on previously undeveloped land but in capital cities for example, thereby the political overlordship of the incomer is immediately evident and, over time, more likely to be accepted.
Ms Jamieson defines Holderness as a ‘coherent district’ which geophysically it is as shown in the recent study of Humberside’s geology. In fact the remainder of her paragraph on the ‘coherent district’ could have been taken from our recent study – sadly it wasn’t.