Buckerell Knap, Buckerell

Description

Buckerell Knap and Bushey Knap were thought by Hutchinson and his fellow antiquarian, N.S. Heineken, to have been barrows and the whole ridge fortified by artificial scarping. In June 1859 Hutchinson drew his first plan and his description was followed by J.C. Wall in 1906, but it differs from the details recorded by Heineken at the same time. In 1871 he made an amended plan for his History of Sidmouth, but in 1882 published a plan in agreement with Heineken's original description. In this description Buckerell Knap is said to have at its north end a large oval mound 200 feet in diameter; a rhomboidal mound 130 feet in diameter, trenched all round, to the south of it; and a ditch south of that across the whole width of the narrowest part of the ridge. The mound on Bushy Knap was 230 feet in diameter and 13 feet high. All the mounds have been excavated at their centres. In the middle of the field to the north of Buckerell Knap they found in 1874 some stones which might have been another barrow and, on the west side of the ridge, some prominent banks above a scythe-stone quarry. Described by Kirwan as being five large bell-barrows.
The only artificial works on Buckerell Knap are certain very slight banks and ditches of uncertain purpose, though some are probably field banks. There is nothing here to suggest a camp and any scarping has been due to natural causes (Ralegh-Radford).
There is no evidence of antiquity on Buckerell Knap or Bushey Knap and any scarping may be associated with quarrying at ST 13200104 and surface quarrying along the ridge. The mound at Buckerell Knap, apparently natural, has two ditches south of it 30.0m in length which are probably old boundary ditches. (F1 NVQ 27-NOV-53). (PastScape)

The positioning of a motte and bailey atop Buckerell Knap has all the defensive requirements of an early post-conquest setting dealing with the Southwest uprisings of 1067-9, building implemented by Ralph de Pomeroy. (Hawken 2004-7)

Comments

These earthworks on a wooded hilltop have be examined numerous times by eye, but not otherwise, by numerous people with numerous interpretations. Very experienced field archaeologist Norman Quinnell rejected these as an antiquity. David King, who made a point of visiting and survey all castle sites, rejected this as a castle site. Leading academic castelologist Bob Higham also rejected this as a castle. Hawken is unknown to Gatehouse and the title ('two previously unreport motte and baileys') of the unpublished report given in the Devon HER is not suggestive of the most rigorous of papers (since the site has previously been identified). Pending scientific investigation and dating evidence the site may remain uncertain but the isolated location is not typical of a medieval castle and is certainly not the sort of place where a group of mounted knights dealing with the 1067-9 uprising would camp up (as what they would require was a safe enclosure for their equipment and horses, not a high look out point. N.B. the strong enclosure at Hembury was only a mile away).