[1] View from Carrow Bridge looking east

[2] View from Carrow Bridge looking north east

[3] Detail of east side

[4] Detail of south side at the base

[5] East side

[6] Detail of concrete stitch on the east side

[7] North side, looking up

[8] View from the north-west

[9] West side

[10] Detail of blocked ground-floor west loop

[11] Detail of fallen flintwork facing south-west

[12] Detail of interior walling, looking east

[13] Detail of southern quoins of western recess

[14] Arrow loop F2

[15] Putlog hole PL1

[16] Arrow loop F3 and putlog hole PL2

[17] Arrow loop F4

[18] Arrow loop F4 from above

[19] Putlog hole PL3

[20] Staircase F5

[21] Detail of staircase F5 vault

[22] Detail of staircase F5 steps

[23] Putlog hole PL4

[24] Northern first floor elevation

[25] First floor western recess

[25A] Polygonal projections, north side

[25B] Detail of eastern loop jamb

[26] Detail from the Sanctuary Map of 1541

[27] Detail from Thomas Cleer's Plan, 1696

[28] Detail from John Kirkpatrick's Prospect of Norwich, 1723

[29] Detail from Samuel King's Plan, 1766

[30] Detail from Anthony Hochstetter's Plan, 1789

[31] Detail from Millard and Manning's Plan, 1830

[32] Detail from the 1885 O.S. Plan

[33]John Carter's View of 1783

[34] J.S. Cotman's 1800 view from the east

[35] Robert Dixon's engraving of before 1815 from the east

[36] John Thirtle's 1803 watercolour from the west

[37] Obadiah Short's image from the west

[38]James Stark's 1832 view from the south-east

[39] J.S. Cotman's 1841 drawing from the west

[40] J.J. Cotman's 1874 watercolour from the south-west

[41] Photograph of the 1870s from the south-west

[42] Late C19 photograph by Mason & Co. from the west

[43] 1910 photograph from the Collins Report

[44] George Plunkett's photograph of February 1934 from the east

[45] George Plunkett's photograph of August 1955 from the west

The Devil's Tower (Eastern Boom Tower)

Description of the Historic Fabric

Exterior

The tower is circular and measures 6.05 m in external diameter and 8.2 m high at its highest point on the north side, and has an internal diameter of 3.58 m north-south and 4.175 east-west (into the west recess) at ground level. On the west side, where the collapse of 1833 took place the lowest point above the ground is 1.96 m. The ground slopes considerably from north to south, and the drop is more pronounced on the eastern side, leaving the north rim of the tower 2.12 m above the mean high water level, and the ground immediately above the riverbank at 1.11 m. On the western side the same measurements are 1.41 m and 1.1 m respectively. This slope is much more pronounced than appears from the 1930s photographs by George Plunkett, and is probably a result of emparkment in the early 1970s.

The tower is more or less cylindrical all the way up, but at low water proves to have a battered base to the south matching that of the western or windlass tower on the south bank of the river[2]. It is likely that the batter extends all the way round the structure but that even in the late 19th century sufficient landfill had taken place for it to be buried even then. The stone is almost all of cut but not squared or knapped flints and in the most unrestored areas is barely coursed at all, following the same pattern on the interior of the drum, and the rule appears to be that the more regular the coursing then the more rebuilding has taken place. An example of this appears along the top to the south of the fissure in the east side[3]. Almost all of the surface has been repointed at various periods, most noticeably after the 1910 Collins Report and in 1954 following the Ministry of Works report, and a cement mortar has been used on both occasions.

All but one of the ground-floor openings have been blocked with flint to match the surrounding walling so that the surface finish is indistinguishable, although in the case of the eastern loop (where the concrete stitch is) the blocked area is still apparent[3]. On the south side the mortar of the base has been eroded by action of river wash, and from this point the description will proceed anti-clockwise with reference to the few features that appear[4]. The east side [5] is of fairly consistently coursed flints and there are large areas of cement pointing up to the concrete stitch where the east loop once was (the stitch was introduced in 1954 and is 820 x 135 mm in size and its lower edge is 1.288 m above the present ground level)[6]. Moving round to the north-east quadrant there are three putlog holes visible, not quite in vertical alignment. The lintel brick of the lower one is 3.75 m above the ground and the two upper ones are separated by 1.4 m, which is roughly the standard distance for Norwich city walls. This leaves room for two further scaffolding lifts, or five in all up to the medieval parapet.

The top putlog is to the left (clockwise) of four courses of 14th century brick laid as stretchers plus an upper course of headers, tapering away to the west, and these probably represent consolidation in 1910 reusing the bricks which survived from the northern bartizan corbel course [7]. The north loop serving the upper chamber has been eroded to a wide irregular rectangle 950 mm high and 300 mm wide and there is a second concrete stitch of 1954 in two pieces. Below this point all of the wall has been repointed in the 1950s down to 1.7 m above ground level and extending clockwise as far as the eastern fissure and anti-clockwise to 400 mm short of the blocked western ground-floor loop. It also extends upwards as far as the very much eroded putlog hole facing north-west under the rebuilt and consolidated parapet [8].

The western loop has been allowed to retain its brick and stone lintels quoins, and is 782 mm high and 390 mm wide. The 14th century bricks used are 218 x 50 mm and the four stones 135 x 100 mm approximately, and the lower edge is 700 mm above the ground. It has been blocked with nine pieces of cut flint arranged vertically [9-10]. The only deviation from the appearance of the surviving masonry between the archive photographs available and 2005 is a jagged hole facing south-west 460 mm (lower rim) above the revetment of the river bank: it is roughly 760 mm in diameter and at its deepest point is 530 mm deep [11]. The area is visible in George Plunkett's 1934 photograph [44] and in a pre-1938 image as a white mark suggesting that between 1910 (Collins Report photograph [43]) and the 1930s a hole had appeared, possibly as a result of a collision, was subsequently repaired and has since fallen away again. Above it to the right is what appears to be another putlog hole, but it is dressed on all four edges with brick and at 2 m above the ground level is too high for that purpose. It might be a foothold to allow easier access to the entrance doorway, which we know was in this position half way between the inner floor level and the first- floor level.

Interior

Ground Floor

The internal plan at ground-floor level has a keyhole shape, formed by a splayed recess to the west, which considerably reduces the thickness of the walls on that side. The walls are of whole and cut random flints with bricks at irregular intervals, laid in beds of lime mortar with only the most rudimentary attempt at coursing [12]. Large areas have been given a cement pointing, most of which dates from the early 1950s when consolidation work was carried out. There are four principal features: the western recess with its arrow loop, the southern staircase and two further blocked arrow loops.

The western recess (Feature F1) is marked by pale brick southern and northern quoins dating to the later 14th century, suggesting that the recess was only formed at that date [13]. The northern quoins are considerably eroded and next to them is an intact splayed arrow loop facing west which was blocked from the exterior in the 19th century [14]. It is dressed in the arch and its south jamb with late 14th century brick flush with the face of the recess, demonstrating that the recess is an original feature, and it is noticeable that the recess west wall is constructed of smaller flints than the remainder of the interior and they are mostly of cut flints. The dimensions of the recess at ground level are 764 mm deep by 2.240 m wide between the brick quoins, and it rises to the full height of the surviving wall at this point. There is no evidence to prove or disprove that the recess also extended through the upper chamber, but the thinning of the drum wall required for its construction may have been a contributing factor in the 1833 collapse of this section.

Working clockwise is a putlog hole [15] 760 mm from the north jamb of the recess (PL1), the top of its lintel brick only 563 mm above the present ground level, suggesting that the level of the ground has risen with fallen debris and soil by 867 mm from the point it had been during construction, but this may have been deliberate backfilling to raise the floor of the lower chamber above the water table . F3 is another arched and brick-dressed splayed arrow loop facing north, again blocked from the exterior above a second putlog hole (PL2) which is 482 mm above the ground level [12 & 16]. F4 is a third arched and splayed arrow loop, like the others blocked at an unknown date from the exterior [17 & 18]. The brick facing of the jambs is intact but the arch is very decayed and there is a large split in the masonry above this point which was stabilised in 1954 by a reinforced concrete stitch visible from the exterior. A third putlog hole (PL3) lies between here and the staircase and is 400 mm above the ground level [19].

The clockwise circuit of the tower brings the staircase (F5), and there has been a great deal of repointing in 1954 between the loop and the staircase [20]. The staircase has dark mid 14th century bricks to the east and west jambs and must have been an open staircase, set under a helical brick half vault and with the back wall lined with whole flints and with bricks predominantly set as headers [21]. The opening varies in width due to erosion of the west jamb but at tread No. 3 is 766 mm wide, and from the same point to the springing of the brick stairwell arch is 1.915 m. The bricks themselves are very irregular in size at 50 x 120-135 x 190-215 mm. The lower four treads are reasonably intact with little sign of wear and are laid as bricks on edge and have flat bricks and flints as risers [22]. Tread No. 5 is decayed, most of tread No. 6 remains and there is a fragment only of tread No. 7. The staircase turns anti-clockwise and would have emerged at the upper chamber facing west having described a three-quarters turn. Three treads rise on average by 740 mm, and the floor of the upper chamber, where it can be identified, is 3.878 m above the present floor level, suggesting that there were sixteen steps in all.

Clockwise from the staircase is a fourth putlog hole, 590 mm above the ground [23], and then the western recess is reached. The putlog holes and the quoins of the western recess are lined with a very pale 14th century brick, the arrow loops have red brick and the staircase treads are of a very dark red brick, suggesting that three separate clamps were used in the construction. There are four further putlog holes at 1.82 m above the ground, and all have triangular brick heads as if they were intended to double as lamp niches, or have been adapted for that purpose. One is between the loop F4 and the staircase, another is in the western recess 1 m anticlockwise from the recess loop, a third is in the eroded upper south jamb of the recess, and the fourth is between loops F3 and F4, with a bird's nest in it [18].

First Floor

Only the northern half of the first-floor walling remains standing and is very difficult to interpret . It must have had a fireplace, but there is no visible evidence for one, and the only archive evidence comes from Carter's 1783 engraving which ppears to show a chimney flue emerging from the fallen south-east bartizan turret, or close to it [33]. The staircase almost certainly rose to the roof within the same bartizan, but probably turned in a clockwise rotation at this level, for reasons discussed below. The triangular or canted projecting brick or brick-dressed projections are of mysterious function, although they probably relate to the northern bartizan turret.

The walls have a great deal more 14th century red brick than the lower chamber, laid in an irregular bond [24]. Beginning at the west end of the remains is a brick-lined recess about 600 mm deep extending up to the top of the wall, the sides of which are splayed [25]. The base of it is also laid with brick where it sits on the rougher flint walling of the lower stage, and at the floor level is a socket for a timber joist. Working clockwise is a triangular brick and flint projection pierced by the northern splayed loop which is again arched and completely lined with brick [25A]. This opening has not been blocked. Under it is a second socket for a floor joist, and there is a corresponding socket in the south wall, although it is too decayed to be sure. However the floor joists certainly ran north-south. About 250 mm below the springing of the window arch, to its west, is a piece of timber protruding diagonally from the wall, but no reasonable explanation of this is possible. Above the window opening and just below the top of the wall is a square socket for a floor joist for the flat roof, and there is another one at the extreme south end of the standing wall to the east. This is above the remains of the north brick jamb of the otherwise destroyed splayed loop which is prominent in archive photographs taken from the west [25B]. Between these two points is a canted flint projection with brick quoins and dressings.

Documentary Evidence

The first murage grant of 1297 allowing the construction of the city walls, gates and towers under essentially compulsory purchase measures ran for seven years, and was renewed in 1305 for four more years. Then either there was a break in the works or the city found themselves in funds independent of the grant, but that is highly unlikely, and only in 1317 was a third murage grant permitted, for three years, and in 1337 came the last, for four years, coinciding with the extensive building Richard Spynk was engaged in on the northern part of the defences. This led Blomefield to the view that the circuit was virtually complete by 1319-20 . It appears however that the walls ended with the Conesford Gate, and neither the river extension nor the east boom tower had been constructed, and it is possible that the tower on the east side of the river (the Devil's Tower) was not at first contemplated, but a disagreement with the Borough of Great Yarmouth changed the circumstances. The benefactor was Richard Spynk, whose charter of 1343 remarks that 'Also, to name the costs of the said Richard, between the gate of Coselany and the river was a low and ill conditioned place to work at, and the community would only assign to the said place £13 of costs, and the said Richard took to himself the money of the community and had the work done at his order, which cost quite 50 marks or more' . Apart from the Boom Tower wall Spynk spent a great deal of money fitting up the other various towers and gates, improving them, and supplying military equipment, particularly espringolds (slings for boulders). He also 'took of the Bailiffs and Commonality of the said city one hundred pounds sterling, and with that made further improvements 'and a tower situated by the river on the east side, and two great chains of good Spanish iron (i.e. steel, probably from Seville) across the river with the machines wound by a windlass in the tower on the west'. This would all suggest that the Boom Tower wall and the Devil's Tower were added only between 1328 and 1343, but the west tower was completed by c. 1320 .

Almost certainly a wall must have been intended from the west tower to Conesford Gate from the start, although it was not immediately built, but the decision to improve toll-collecting by the provision of a second tower appears to have arisen only after a six-year dispute with Great Yarmouth. In 1327 Yarmouth felt that it had a right to tax Norwich-bound vessels, just as Norwich taxed those in the opposite direction under a writ of Henry II. Under that writ the city collected tolls at a rate of 4d for a 'ship of bulk' and 2d for others but by the 1320s had to pay the crown a fee farm rent of 108 pounds per annum for the privilege, out of which they made a profit, which Yarmouth felt they should have. On 10 April 1333 Edward III settled the matter in Norwich's favour and immediately the question arose of literally cementing this confirmation into place by constructing the east tower to allow a chain, later in the 14th century a timber boom, to be extended across the Wensum . The keeper of the boom resided in the west tower, and unless a certificate of payment of the toll was presented declined to allow vessels passage.

In 1345 a tax was levied, called the 'Fossage', to raise money to maintain the walls and ditches following the agreement of 1344 by which the community agreed to keep the walls and ditches in repair following Richard Spynk's benefaction . Essentially it forbade the hanging of cloths on the walls to dry, the presence of livestock in the ditches, and allowed for the election each year of a warden to survey the walls. Also 'no man...shall commit nuisance in the arches of the walls or on the perambulation near the walls'. This agreement is unlikely to have had any effect on the Devil's Tower, which was tucked away on marshy meadow land outside the city boundary, with no houses or tenements close to it.

On the last page of the Book of Customs for 1377 is an account of the numbers of battlements on each section of the fortifications, recounted by Blomefield: 'On the dungeon tower are 12 battlements. On the tower and wall to Conesford Gate are 26, and on that gate 14' . By this time the chain had been temporarily replaced by a timber boom. A survey of the walls was undertaken in 1385 and repairs made, and in the following year they were again fortified after the French threatened another sack of Portsmouth and Southampton, and the city ditches were widened. Fitch (p. xi-xii) translated the Roll of 1386 which named the wardens of all the gates and chief towers of the city:

Conesford Ward

Wardens: Richard Drewe and John Bray

The wardens of the Dungeon Tower, to make the dungeon and the roof the same in good condition, both within and without, and to make the staging.

Wardens: Geoffrey de Bixton, Henry de Wytton, William Blakomore, Robert Wryght, William Maryot and Thos. Wryght's Wife

The wardens of the Gates of Conesford shall make all the defects there, and the roof of the same, good and sufficient, and also the walls, both within and without, with casting and pinning, as may be required unto the next tower, and shall make the staging.

In 1392 the king granted property to the Corporation in return for 100 pounds a year, the profits to be used 'to repair the city walls, towers and ditches, and for any other works', and in 1399 the walls and ditches were again put in order . In 1403 the continuing drain on the city's resources for the maintenance of the fortifications led to a writ from the king allowing the corporation to appropriate waste ground for the repair of the walls and gates and in 1437 further annual inspections were ordered by Henry VI . This measure was followed by the 'Agistmentation of the walls' in 1451, another survey of the condition of the circuit and orders for repairs:

'South Conesford: they [the wardens] shall repare the toure in the medewes and the toure by the water syde and so forth with the walls and Conesford Yates and the next toure un to the mydde space of the walles toward Blak toure'

At the bailiffs assembly on 8 April 1457 Richard Brown and others, executors of the will of Ralph Segrym...'proposed to spend 200 marks of the goods of the said Ralph upon the repair of the walls of the city'.

A minor earthquake on 28 December 1480 damaged buildings and the walls and gates were repaired again, in 1522 three watchmen were installed in Conesford gate because of fear of French invasion, and in the summer of 1549 the imminent revolt by Robert Kett caused the authorities to provide new locks and keys to the gates and towers . On 12 July 1625 the city received an order to clean out the ditches and repair the towers and gates in a futile attempt to keep the plague from entering the city, although again this would not have directly affected the Devil's Tower. Six pest houses were set up close to the Black Tower for those victims who could not be controlled and their bodies were buried in 'the graveyard of St. Peter at Conesford Gate'. The Civil War caused further works to the fortifications and £250 was granted by parliament for the purpose including new chains for the Boom Towers, and finally in 1726 the Tonnage Act regularised the collection of tolls:

'Since the walls gates, bridges staithes and roads were in a very ruinous condition...schedule of tolls on all goods brought up river higher than Thorpe Hall, the money raised to go to the upkeep of the above fabrics'.

The only description of the Devil's Tower of any length was written by James Stark in 1832, and published with an engraving two years later . He makes a number of interesting comments, mentioning that guards were stationed within it, but this was unnecessary once civil disturbances in England effectively ceased after the Civil War. The chains linking the two towers had apparently been permanently replaced by a timber boom, which was removed to another site and eventually 'it has lately been restored at a short distance lower down the river, near the new bridge at Carrow, and is placed under the superintendence of the collector of the tonnage duties'.

'It [the tower] was surmounted by three small turrets, slightly projecting over the battlements, so that the warder or sentinel might command from them the different windings of the river...[and] their remains heighten the picturesque appearance of this interesting relic of ancient times... The only entrance to it was by a narrow door, placed on that side [the river side] within the boom and fronting obliquely up the stream. Although the old door-way can now be entered from the shore, still it is evident that it was originally designed to be accessible only by water.'

Stark speculates that the ground on the east side of the river was so marshy in the 14th century as to provide a defence in its own right, and the doorway was reached from a boat because there was no convenient bridge, and without one the only way of 'communicating with the tower [was] by a long, circuitous and unprotected route' . He notes also that the aperture through which the chain-boom passes in both the towers was in 1832 'about five feet above the ordinary height of the waters.'

In footnote c Stark tells us that:

'Since the above was written, a large segment of the Devil's Tower on its western side has fallen, carrying with it one of the three turrets and destroying the door-way. The wide chasm in its wall presents a very ruinous appearance, and the natural course of decay will now probably be very much accelerated.'

Known Damage, Alterations and Repairs to the Devil's Tower

Apart from the general periodic repairs to the circuit, which have been itemised above, the following are all the specific references to the King Street wall and the boom towers.

1386 The earliest known repairs come in 1386, when the order was made to repair the roof and walls of the Devil's Tower, work which would involve the erection of scaffolding, and repair the wall between Conesford Gate and the next tower, also with scaffolding. This may mean either the wall up the hill to the Lower Tower or down to the western boom tower.

1451 The Agistmentation of 1451 specifically refers to the repair of both boom towers and the walls up to Conesford Gate, but does not specify what was required.

1642 In 1642 during the Civil War, parliament paid for the repair of walls and for new chains for the boom towers.

1833 In 1833 the Devil's Tower (the eastern boom tower) lost one of its three turrets and much of the western side of the wall which destroyed the entrance doorway and a drawing by John Sell Cotman of 1841 shows the resulting appearance [39].

1910 Collins recommends cement coping for the top of the Devil's Tower walls, and notes that this has already been applied to the top of the west tower.

1940 The large fissure in the west side of the wall was considerably enlarged when the south and south-east section of the wall fell into the Wensum, taking with it the stretch of staircase between the first-floor chamber and the roof and the south-east bartizan turret.

1953 The Ministry of Works in their report into the city walls in October 1953 makes the following observation:
1 'The eastern tower was partly demolished early in the last war and the resultant wall-top was rendered in cement in a most unpleasant manner. The walls are fractured and two reinforced concrete stitches are required in the core of the masonry of the East Tower. After careful removal of the modern cement capping, the wall-tops require to be properly consolidated including the exposed corework in the broken ends. There is some growth to be removed from the facework which requires to be re-pointed and consolidated in parts. The interior of the towers should be cleaned out to their original floor level and surrounding vegetation removed'. The work appears to have included rebuilding the north edge of the west gap.

1970 The Wood report commented that both towers suffered from vegetation, and that the west tower had a chicken coop built into a loop embrasure (since removed).

Archaeological Finds

None

Evidence from Maps and Images

Maps

The Sanctuary Map of 1541 differs from most early pictorial maps by showing the city wall from the river to the Black tower from the inside rather than from the south, and clearly shows that both the lengths east of Conesford Gate and from the Lower Tower to the Black Tower rise up steep hills, and also the wall walk and crenellations [26]. It does not give an impression of the Devil's Tower at all, but instead the note that here is 'the tower without on the meadowes'. Presumably the tower did not qualify as a sanctuary.

Thomas Cleer's 1696 representation of this section of the city walls is from the south, and he does not show the Devil's Tower either [27], but the Prospect of the Cittie of Norwich by John Kirkpatrick, published in 1723, is taken from Mousehold Heath in the east, and indicates both boom towers standing to their full two storeys and crenellated [28]. The Devil's Tower is as stylised as the rest of the towers and gates, but is shown standing to its full height with three tall crenellated turrets, but no battlements between them. Kirkpatrick wrote in 1721 that it was 'ye round, triple turreted tower' . The extremely good condition in which the walls and towers apparently were in the 1720s is confirmed by Ceilia Fiennes who wrote in 1698 that 'the Citty is walled round full of towers, except on the river side which serves for the wall; they seeme the best in repaire of any walled citty I know, tho' in places there are little breaches, but the carving and battlements and towers looks well'.

Samuel King in his map of 1766 shows the two boom towers as nearly flat objects and little may be gained from it apart from the fact that in 1766 there was no other building in the meadows on the east side of the river [29]. The first reliable map of the city was surveyed by Anthony Hochstetter and published in 1789, and indicates a simple circular structure again with no other buildings for company [30]. The first modern map surveyed with optical instruments is Millard and Manning's plan of 1830, and this concurs in showing the tower as a circular blob without any detail, as if the structure was still intact [31]. Morant's map of 1873 concurs with this. The 1885 O.S. map (surveyed in 1883) is the first to show the curious internal plan of the tower, with its distinctive keyhole shape, and thereafter all plans and maps reveal the same detail [32].

Drawn or Painted Images

Apart from Kirkpatrick's Prospect of Norwich of 1723, already mentioned above, the first available image is the engraving of John Carter's 1783 view of the boom towers from the north-west, published by John Britton as the frontispiece to his 1847 article [33]. The Devil's Tower is shown to its full height of two storeys plus a deep parapet storey, from which three projecting circular bartizan turrets rise yet higher. These have four crenellations each, while the sections of main parapet between the turrets have four crenellations each, which accounts for the 12 described in 1377. The bartizans are set to the north, the south-west and south-east, and it is the last which appears to carry a chimney flue. Two cruciform loops are shown, similar to those built into the Cow Tower in 1389-90, so must be an alteration of about that time.

The Romantic Movement and the rise of the Norwich School of artists means that from 1800 there are several engravings, watercolours and oil paintings of the Devil's Tower, such was the picturesque nature of the building, isolated on the east bank of the river. With most of them there is a degree of artistic licence to be discounted. The first is J.S. Cotman's 1800 view from the east, looking upstream [34]. There is little detail apart from the three bartizan turrets, but he does show that the crenellations between the north and the south-east turret are already in a decayed condition, and probably those on the west side as well. Robert Dixon's engraving of before 1815 (the date of his death) corresponds but he indicates the corbelling under the bartizans, a cruciform loop at first-floor level facing east, a window embrasure to the south-east which must light the staircase, and a general air of decay [35]. John Thirtle's 1803 watercolour is from the west and should show the narrow entrance doorway five feet above the river and looking obliquely upstream, as described by James Stark in 1832, but it does not [36]. The degree of projection of the bartizans is evident, perhaps some 400 mm, and the south-west one has two window openings, one above the other. Thirtle's c. 1809 nocturnal scene from the south-east is basically the same as Dixon's and his view of 1827 from further downstream adds little.

Obadiah Short produced a view from the north-west in 1831 and like the earlier pictures has the tower standing on empty marshy ground overhanging the river to a greater extent than it does now [37]. There is no sign of the two windows in the south-west bartizan but the entrance doorway is indicated as an irregular narrow fissure which has developed into a split extending to the ground. Its height corresponds with Stark's description, and it must therefore have opened into the ground floor of the tower not the first floor, but at a height and orientation which would have afforded a degree of protection from attack. It is situated at the extreme south end of the western internal recess, which may therefore have housed a curving timber staircase dropping roughly two metres to the floor and which was itself lit through a loop at its northern end. At that end of the recess Short indicates a further nasty vertical split in the masonry and an upper wide crack extends down from the crenellations between the north and the south-west bartizans to meet the stone arrow loop in the first-floor chamber. The whole of the west wall between these cracks was to fall out in 1833. James Stark's 1832 view is from the south-east and only tells us that the loop to the east, anti-clockwise from the brick staircase had an external brick trim, that the south-east bartizan had one loop and that the two visible bartizans had lower corbelling in four registers [38].

The most difficult drawing is J.S. Cotman's of 1841 from the west [39]. Not only have the two surviving bartizans become meaningless blobs of masonry, but he indicates that the collapse of the western side ran right to the ground. Today however the wall on this side is 2.25 m high at its lowest point, but it is extremely unlikely to have been rebuilt with an uneven top and in roughly pointed flintwork, and certainly not with a blocked-up putlog hole in this area. There would have been two obvious reasons for a rebuild (to consolidate the remainder of the tower and to prevent access, especially as the brick staircase still rises from the ground floor), but it would appear likely that Cotman was indulging his imagination. J.J. Cotman's 1874 watercolour from the south-west shows the tower standing a metre or more from the consolidated river bank, and the breach in the walls beginning only from the present level [40].

All of these images give us some information: the tower was a full two storeys with a battlemented parapet and three bartizan turrets, also crenellated, projecting about 400 mm on four registers of brick corbels. The main internal staircase rose under the south-east bartizan, and there were at intervals on both storeys stone-faced arrow loops and at least two cruciform gun ports, probably added in the 1390s.

Photographs

The earliest photograph is of the 1870s [41] taken from nearly the same viewpoint as J.J. Cotman's 1874 view and confirms the existence of the arched loop facing east in the first-floor chamber, and also the brick-lined staircase well which carried the staircase up to the parapet, and it is perhaps possible to see the line of the parapet floor. The lower ten treads of the staircase from the ground floor survive today, with the treads curving in an anti-clockwise direction, but as the arch of the upper stair well is visible in the photograph, terminating just below the parapet floor level, the upper flight must have turned clockwise to emerge through an invisible opening in the inner face of the south-east bartizan.

The image taken by Mason & Co. in the late 19th century from the west provides more detail of the window embrasure and the stairwell, and there is also the remains of an arched window opening facing south, directly across the river [42]. Also of interest are projecting brick piers at the top of the tower on the south side which correspond to those which still survive against the north side, and must be designed to give additional support to the bartizan turrets. The next in the series is that taken for A.E. Collins' 1910 survey of the walls. Photo No. 3 is a view from the south and provides a good view of the Devil's Tower on the opposite bank of the river, and clearly shows the amount of damage sustained in the Second World War [43]. In c. 1910 all of the south side of the tower stood higher than the remaining crop of flintwork on the north side, and still had the corbelling for the south-east bartizan. Below that is a jagged hole which will have been the remains of the loop lighting the staircase, and there is a patch of rebuilt flintwork facing east which corresponds with the brick wall lining of the lower staircase well.

George Plunkett's photograph of February 1934 from the east is the first to confirm that there were two loops in that direction serving the upper chamber, and it is likely that they were repeated at regular intervals round the drum [44]. Four putlog holes are visible and a rectangular hole just to the right of the brick bartizan corbelling. Areas of incoherent flintwork testify to careless repointing. It is noticeable that the river bank is less well maintained than it had been either in the 1870s or in 1910. Plunkett's image from the west of May 1934 does not add anything to the others, but his photograph of August 1955 from the same angle is dramatically different, as the whole of the east and south sides of the tower have collapsed [45]. The photograph shows that a considerable amount of rebuilding has taken place to consolidate the north edge of the hole in the west side. The monument however has become overgrown and neglected, as has the riverside path.

Bibliography

Ayers, Brian, Norwich, English Heritage/Batsford, 1994 Ayers, Brian, Smith, Robert and Tillyard, Margot,The Cow Tower, Norwich: a Detailed Survey and Partial Reinterpretation, Medieval Archaeology, Vol. 32, 1988, p. 184-207
Blomefield, F.B., An Essay towards the Topographical History of Norfolk, 11 vols., 1805-10
Britton, John, On Ancient Gate-houses, Castellated, Domestic and ecclesiastical, with particular reference to those in the City of Norwich, Archaeological Institute, 1847
Day, Michael, John Bolton's Cinder Oven: An eighteenth century industrial re-use of a medieval tower, Industrial Archaeology Review, Vol. VI, 3, Autumn 1982, p. 235-240
Fitch, Robert, Views of the Gates of Norwich, Norwich, 1861
Hudson, W. and Tingey, J.C., The Records of the City of Norwich, 2 Vols., Norwich, 1906-10
Kent, Peter, Fortifications of East Anglia, Lavenham, 1988
Kirkpatrick, John, Prospect of the Citie of Norwich from the north-east, 1723
Mackley, David, Norwich Tramways, Midhurst, 2000
Meeres, Frank, A History of Norwich, Chichester, 1998
Moore, Andrew, Exhibition catalogue of John Sell Cotman, Norwich Museums Service, 1982
Morris, C. (ed.), The Illustrated Journals of Celia Fiennes, Stroud, 1995
Ninham, Henry, Remnants of Antiquity in Norwich, Norwich, 1845 (copy at NRO N/MC 23/3)
Pevsner, N. and Wilson, B., Norfolk 1: Norwich and North-East, Penguin Books, 1997
Pound, John, Tudor and Stuart Norwich, Phillimore, 1988
Rawcliffe, C. & Wilson, R., Medieval Norwich, London, 2004
Rawcliffe, C. & Wilson, R., Norwich since 1550, London, 2004
Sillett, James, Views of the Churches, Chapels and other Public Edifices in the City of Norwich, Norwich, 1828
Stark, John, Scenery of the Rivers of Norfolk, Norwich, 1834
Turner, Hilary L., Town Defenses in England and wales, London, 1970