35 Canonbury Street
Berkeley, Glos
GL13 9BE
Tel 01453 511526
Mr Charles Parry
County Archaeologist
Gloucestershire County Council
Gloucester, GL
12th May 2014
Dear Sir,
Land at Rear of Canonbury Street, Berkeley
My wife and I have lived at the above address since December 1999. The property looks out over the
field where it is said a mediaeval hollow way has been discovered. I have seen a copy of your letter
dated 21.3.14 to Darryl Rogers at Stroud District Council and also a copy of the report by Cotswold
Archaeology. I am also in touch with a Mr A Iddles who was born here and spent his early years here
in the 1930’s.
My wife and I are friends of Berkeley Castle and have taken a keen interest in its history and the
archaeology around it. I have long believed that the gun battery used in the siege of the castle during
the civil war was located in the depression right here in front of our cottages. All the evidence
appears to point to that being so.
Cotswold Archaeology have not attempted to prove their theory that the “hollow way” discovered in
field 3 extended either in a southerly direction or a northerly direction and “appeared to lead toward
Berkeley Castle from the north and northeast”.
From the evidence produced it seems likely that the “hollow way” was dug out, rather than formed
naturally over a number of centuries. At the time of the civil war, as recorded in David Tandy’s book,
if 1000 men (or thereabouts) had assembled prior to battle, this would have been an ideal location.
We do not know how long this took, but by all accounts, could have spread over several years. It
would have been necessary to dig out a defensive position, referred to by Fosbroke as a “mortar
redoubt” and commanding an excellent view of the castle at that time. This could also account for the
stone consolidation layer in its base and the drainage ditches, for it is well known locally that these
fields are served by springs and aquifers.
Cotswold Archaeology state that no evidence of a possible civil war mortar/cannon emplacement was
found in the centre field (field 2) but the pond where it is said to have been located now lies beneath
the bungalow at number 18 Hillcrest, where the purchaser himself was obliged to spend in the region
of £50,000 for subsequent underpinning. No finds of archaeological significance came from any of
the bole holes at the time (see relevant detail attached). However, it is surprising that Cotswold
Archaeology did not connect this “hollow way” to the story.
I have now again heard from Mr Iddles returning to me an enlarged plan of the proposed development
site on which he has indicated a number of features he remembers from his childhood. As in the case
of number 18 Hillcrest, part of the pond was filled in before building the bungalow, the ground of
which still becomes marshy in prolonged rain. The pressure of groundwater caused the lining of a
more recently constructed swimming pool to cave in. The part of the pool (indicated in green) in the
field, described as part of the “hollow way” still collects water in prolonged rain.
Mr Iddles remembers the “pond” and the “trench” being entirely separate. Figures 3 and 4
accompanying the archaeology report show a substantial widening of the “hollow way” after the
easterly branch, but the continuation to the edge of the field is only assumed. Also, there is no
evidence that the bank leading down to the road at this point is a manmade construction. I am not an
archaeologist but have taken a keen interest in the subject for a number of years, and I am only
writing this letter because I believe that there are other possible explanations for the archaeology that
need to be considered.
Yours faithfully,
Brian Butcher
Cc Darryl Rogers, Stroud District Council
David Tandy, Newport, Berkeley