Archaeological excavation of Castle Market

[cuttsie 1,090]

Its a pit that only a miniscule percentage of people use. And most of them will be dead of old age with the next few years.

 

There is a lovely new market down the moor. embrace the change

So will you.

[Guest]

I have been to the Castle Market exibition today and read all the comments from old time Sheffielders who are in despair at the closing of the Castle Market.

 

All the piles of rubble ,brass buttons, rusty nails,dog cat and pig bones that may or may not be found when the beardies start digging their trenches will never make up for the loss of Sheffields most historic trading area.

 

The Castle Market which we are about to lose is a much more important building than any castle has ever been in the history of Sheffield ,it is a building that is on or near a site that has been traded on for a thousand years and is much loved by proper Sheffielders of a certain age.

 

So to all the so called Sheffield historians enjoy your digging by word or shovel as you along with our caring council are responsable for the loss of Sheffields most historical area ,an area that even today when I visited was alive with every day living history.

 

Please don't be sad, although I am an archaeologist I am also a historian and when I heard they were closing the market and rebuilding on the moor, it saddened me also. As you point out the site has been home to a market place for centuries. It is part of our heritage. It could do with cleaning up a bit as could the surrounding area however, the market was fine where it was.

Had they of left the market at castle market then the castle ruins could still have been studied and access could still have been organised for those interested. It is not the archaeologists, historians or university that have proposed the closing of the market, so please don't blame us and by the way we are not all beardies. Had the market stayed in situ, the archaeology department would never have proposed a dig. But given that the council were relocating it anyway the arch dept wanted to take the opportunity to excavate before developers took over. Buildings are not bulldozed for the purpose of an archaeological excavation. In cases like this excavation only takes place if the land is being redeveloped anyway. So even if we werent excavating they would be closing the castle market anyway. Historians also have had nothing to do with the decision to close castle market. Archaeologists and historians are NOT responsible for this.

As for the market being much more valuable a building than the castle...this is not strictly true given that the markets grew up around the castle. So the trading centre was only there because of the castle. Had the castle been somewhere else, the markets would have been somewhere else. There would have been a market area situated near the castle simply because of the castle and if not within castle grounds then close by. Archaeologists preserve history, prehistory and associated buildings.

There is a lot more to this discipline than coins, pot sherds, bones and rusty nails.:-)

[anywebsite 10]

I think the castle market building & several others around there need to be knocked down. The Co-op is still a good building, it should be kept & used, it's probably the best looking building in the area.

 

I can't see the council's plan of turning whatever is left of the castle into some kind of tourist attraction ever working. Maybe have an open air market there instead?

Edited October 22, 2013 by anywebsite

[Guest]

This building? http://goo.gl/maps/5QnzK

 

There's nothing wrong with it, it's a good building, it should be used. Looks much better than a hole in the ground.

 

There's little left of the castle, it's not worth destroying good buildings for. There isn't a whole castle waiting to be dug up you know, at best they might find some foundations along with some rusty old coins & buttons.

 

There's Manor Lodge if you want to see some old ruins, they're in a much better state than any remnants of the Castle, but nobody cares, is it even open to visitors?

 

The building has been neglected and has been unappreciated. The hole in the ground would not remain a hole, please read the full story via previous posts on this thread.

As for what remains of the castle...again read previous posts on this thread.

Manor lodge and the castle are two seperate sites and manor lodge does not explain nor replace the history and value of the castle. It is not just about seeing old ruins and yes people do care and yes it is open.

 

---------- Post added 22-10-2013 at 23:20 ----------

 

Anyway, back to Manor Lodge...

 

 

 

http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/research/impact/stories/fca/17

 

9 years ago? How long do they plan to take? Surely this project should be finished before demolishing the centre of town? Maybe the University should stop talking rubbish.

 

Manor lodge is open, much work is finished but is always ongoing. Nobody is demolishing the centre of town. Please read full story and again this is NOT down to the university

[anywebsite 10]

The building has been neglected and has been unappreciated. The hole in the ground would not remain a hole, please read the full story via previous posts on this thread.

As for what remains of the castle...again read previous posts on this thread.

Manor lodge and the castle are two seperate sites and manor lodge does not explain nor replace the history and value of the castle. It is not just about seeing old ruins and yes people do care and yes it is open.

 

Last I heard the Co-op is a listed building, isn't it illegal not to keep it maintained?

 

It's the same old masterplan from 2005, we've heard it all before, it's never going to work & it'll be a huge hole in the ground for years. I don't have much confidence in the council doing it quickly, if at all.

[Guest]

They could open it to the public every day, it'd be a good start if they want to attract visitors. Clearly it's never going to be as popular as Chatsworth, but most of the time it's closed. I just found out it (is/was?) open for a few hours on Fridays & Saturdays. Every time I go past it's locked up & empty.

 

It is going to be opened six to seven days a week. There are events throughout the year. There is a visitors cente and exhibition and small cafe. Down the road there is a lovely eatery that caters during the day and evening too, also caters for parties. There is a small farm attached and this site is part of the manor lodge site.

Plenty of visitors last time I was there.

It is never locked up as it is accessible 24 hours, it is the guided tours on a Friday and Saturday,

[sheff71 10]

the Manor Lodge site is much improved now, we went to the open day there in September and it was really interesting - some volunteers hamming it up as Mary Queen of Scots and other historical figures of the day, guided tours, or just able to wander around as you wish... the visitor centre has plenty of information from the era, and there is some parking available - and the farm is close by too

[cuttsie 1,090]

HDCLARKE.

Hello and thank you for your informative post.

How ever you are wrong.

The Castle was built on an area that was already an important part of Sheffields emerging history.

This site was at the point where crossing of the Don and Sheaf was possible and where a bridge was eventialy built.

Itwas also on the edge of the Manor and the Lord of the Manor allowed local people to trade in sheep and other produce on this spot.

The Castle [and the official Market charter which local historians are fond of quoting] came much later.

 

Now I know that it is not the historians or the archaeoligists that are resposible for the Castle Markets demise ,that occulade rest firmly with the Town Hall and the Market managment who have allowed the Market to deteriate by not carrying out good and proper maintainance.

 

However getting back to the Sheffield historians [some beardies] they have not protested once about the simple fact that Sheffield is losing its most important historical trading area to a site that has no connection what so ever to Market trading.

 

The Castle Market its self is much more than a building it is the very centre of life as Sheffielders have known it for a thousand years and this cannot be replicated in a posh expensive shiny new one in the wrong area of Town.

 

If they [whoever they may be] had decided that we really did need a new Market [we don't] then it should have been in the historical Market area.

Edited October 23, 2013 by cuttsie

[dutch 68]

Good point cuttsie

 

It seems everything is about money these days, even excavation is all money based.

Only thing free now is breathing air and when the sky gets so polluted it needs treatment fresh air will cost money too.

[marcster 10]

Not so long age there was a lot of work being carried in the car park of the police headquarters and I noticed a few high ranking officers looking at what was going on. I asked the officers if any archaeologists had been on the land first and was told no and I was asked why I wanted to know. I pointed to a large pile of earth and rocks that had been dug up and pointed out that the rocks they are digging up are cut stones and way to big for any normal building and there is a good chance that they may be part of the Sheffield Castle and archaeologists should be called in to check the area out before anymore digging takes place. They agreed with me but told me that there would be far to much red tape involved and they don't have the time for that. And when I pointed out that impotent historical information could be lost forever they said that just tough.

[Ousetunes 10]

And when I pointed out that impotent historical information could be lost forever they said that just tough.

 

Don't think you meant to say that!

[Guest]

HDCLARKE.

Hello and thank you for your informative post.

How ever you are wrong.

The Castle was built on an area that was already an important part of Sheffields emerging history.

This site was at the point where crossing of the Don and Sheaf was possible and where a bridge was eventialy built.

Itwas also on the edge of the Manor and the Lord of the Manor allowed local people to trade in sheep and other produce on this spot.

The Castle [and the official Market charter which local historians are fond of quoting] came much later.

 

Now I know that it is not the historians or the archaeoligists that are resposible for the Castle Markets demise ,that occulade rest firmly with the Town Hall and the Market managment who have allowed the Market to deteriate by not carrying out good and proper maintainance.

 

However getting back to the Sheffield historians [some beardies] they have not protested once about the simple fact that Sheffield is losing its most important historical trading area to a site that has no connection what so ever to Market trading.

 

The Castle Market its self is much more than a building it is the very centre of life as Sheffielders have known it for a thousand years and this cannot be replicated in a posh expensive shiny new one in the wrong area of Town.

 

If they [whoever they may be] had decided that we really did need a new Market [we don't] then it should have been in the historical Market area.

 

Hi

The castle dates around 1270, but its origins are even older given that evidence has been found suggesting that there was an important Anglo Saxon settlement on this site. Castles tended to be built strategically and built on sites that had been previously occupied. Important Saxon constructions tended in turn to be built on sites that had been previously built on. Many of our important sites were first occupied in prehistory, such as Iron Age Hillforts. The Romans took over these sites, then the Saxons and then the Normans etc. Therefore, the Castle site predates 1270 by a long way and potentially there are thousands of years history waiting to be discovered. It is not just about the physical remains of the castle as a fortified 13th century construction. It has had some sort of construction/occupation for thousands of years.

Therefore, trading and commerce grew up around this area long before the manor or its lords.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2013 at 15:38 ----------

 

Hello Cuttsie

I don't think I explained myself very well in my original post to you. I am well aware that the site of the castle was already an important area and yes the local rivers are a factor in this and therefore the castle was built strategically which I have already mentioned. But in my much earlier posts I mentioned Sheffields prehistoy and thought that anybody reading this latest disscusion would have read previous posts. My point about commerce and trade growing up around the castle is correct in as much as trade etc grew up around this site in prehistory, Roman, Saxon periods. I was not stating that the market area was directly due to the 13th century construction more to the site itself. Although the area was important prior to the building of the construction that we know as the castle, it was important due to its previous occupation and prebious occupants occupied this area because off its strategic location which I have pointed out in previous posts. The market place is an important building but so is what is underneath as its occupational history is much older than a thousand years. I realise why the castle and previous constructions were built here, but instead of listing the reasons such as the accessibility for and over the rivers Don and Sheaf I just worded it as a strategic build which encompasses the river factors amongst others. I know my subjects and know I am not incorrect in this, but I obviously did not word it or explain myself clearly and for that I apologise. The hunting lodge on Manor parts of which still stands today was in existence from the 14-16 century. The manor house was built 1480 and used as such until 1708, from here on in it became an industrial hamlet until the early 20th century. The motte and bailey castle was built 1297. However, a hunting lodge may have been in existence in the 12th century prior to the building of the motte and bailey castle. As you pointed out the lord of the manor allowed local people to trade in sheep etc before the castle of 1270 was built. However, this was not the first Motte and bailey castle built on this site. The first motte and bailey castle was built within the first century after the 1066 invasion of the Normans. This was destroyed in the second Barons war in 1266. The second castle construction came in 1270. Therefore, the centres of trade etc allowed by the lords of the manor DID grow up around the castle as IT previously suggested. They grew up around the first castle, there were most probably areas of trade around the Anglo Saxon long house that stood on this same site and previous to that this site most probably had an important construction in the Roman period and chances are it was a site of occupation and trade in prehistory. These sites were in existence long before they were governed by any lord of the manor or indeed before these sites became manors.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Guest