Talk:Bourne, Lincolnshire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to places in the UK. If you wish to contribute you can visit the project page where there are resources & guidelines, to do lists and discussions. | |
| This article has been rated "start" on the Wikipedia Version 1.0 quality scale. | ||
|
On the project page you can find detailed guides on how to write about counties and settlements, as well as where to find statistics, references and other useful things. Additionally, the following have been identified as specific improvements this article needs:
|
||
- There is a tradition that Bourne once had a castle but the evidence is flimsy because it was not mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086 and is not recorded in subsequent documentation of castles built in England after the Norman Conquest. Hills and other undulations in the Wellhead Gardens, the town’s park, have been taken to indicate a battlemented fortification but there have been no serious attempts at excavation and recent digs that have claimed to have found evidence were little more than the laying of cables and drainage pipes. Historians in the early 20th century claimed that excavations in 1861 unearthed evidence of a castle but recent research has revealed that this was not a serious attempt at archaeology, merely a few men with shovels lifting off the top soil as a side or entertainment for the annual meeting of the Lincoln Diocesan Architectural Society whose members were anxious to see something but a flavour of the occasion can be gleaned by the fact that visitors were entertained by a brass band. The existence of a castle therefore relies on assumption and opinion instead of evidence and excavation. There may be stonework beneath the surface of the Wellhead Gardens but it is more likely to be that from dwellings and other buildings that comprised the settlement that sprang up around the source of water at St Peter's Pool rather than a battlemented fortification.
The above contentious nonsense has been inserted into the article.
The absence of any mention of Bourne castle in the Domesday Book is not at all surprising since it was not built until more than fifty years after the book was compiled. If it had been there in 1086, the castle would still not have been mentioned since the book was a database of sources of income so that the king would know where to go for money when he needed it. Castles were sinks of expenditure; the commissioners were not interested in them. The exception to this rule is in towns where there was a discrepancy between the numbers of town properties before and after the Conquest. In places like Lincoln and Stamford, the demolition required to make way for the castles is mentioned simply to explain the discrepancy.
The excavation made in 1860 of which the report was published in 1861 was done in the manner of such things at that time. The report includes what was for its time a good plan of what was found and of the castle site as it was at the time. The gate excavated was not demolished until about 1805 so there were a few people who could describe it. The site was described by Leland in the 1530s and by a man called Peek (Peak) in around 1500. The latter is quoted by Moore and by Marratt in their respective early nineteenth century books. It is all pretty well consistent with what is to be seen by way of earthworks today. The brass band had nothing to do with the excavation or report, merely to do with the visit of the Architectural Society to see the excavation while it was open.
The main archaeological information comes from a pipe trench which was observed by a professional archaeologist who drew a perfectly adequate section along it. That section gives a good deal of information such as the nature, thickness and position of the inner bailey curtain wall, clear indications of at least four phases and the width of the inner bailey moat. One somewhat surprising outcome of the excavation was a nearly complete absence of indication of pre-castle occupation of the site. However, another excavation did suggest some restricted occupation to one side of the central castle site before the time of the castle.
The castle has played a dominant part in determining the layout of the town. There is no room to doubt its presence in one form or another, from about 1140 to the nineteenth century. Even now, anyone who is not determined not to see them can hardly avoid seeing the signs in the form of parch marks, pools of water, ridges, hollows and the layout of open waterways: not least, in the way the town accommodates itself to the former castle.
I propose reversion. (RJP 21:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC))
There being no response to the above, the offending section has been removed. (RJP 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Incidents
Why has this section been added? The contributor is anonymous. The material is irrelevant and worthless, as it is no more than gossip, with no names, dates or references. It needs to be removed, and in no sooner than twenty-four hours I will do so. Sweetalkinguy 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
This section is now removed. Some pupils of Bourne Grammar School are so prolific at interfering with the "Bourne, Lincolnshire" entry that editing rights from the school computers are suspended by the Wikipedia powers that be. Sweetalkinguy 23:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Footnotes trouble
The notes section duplicated the references made to it. By taking out the reference which was in the info box, I have put it right but why, I don't know. I am storing the offending link here for any one who can, to put it right. [1] (RJP 11:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)) It now seems to have put itself right. (RJP 07:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Updating
The article is getting much-needed expert input.
I have reverted the headings in the Local Government section, principally because it stands out better in the table of Contents at the top of the article. I have also massaged what I wrote earlier in with the later additions so that there is more explanation there, without the reader having to look up another article. I have put in the bit about Coats of Arms because I have pictures of the current and South Kesteven Arms for inclusion.
I will beef up the section about the railways, as I have some pictures to add. I have other pictures. The Wikipedia format allows for a subsidiary page of illustrations, there is sufficient material to make it worthwhile.
The Wikipedia guidelines are useful in general terms, but should not be seen as a rigid straightjacket. The article will need some re-arranging and editing out of duplicated information. The objective is to apply the guidelines to the article and end up with a top rating. Compared to articles about other local settlements, we are well on the way.
Guy 01:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
