Tintagel Conservation Management Plan 2014

TINTAGEL CASTLE
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

Tintagel Castle
Review of Conservation Management Plan
Report No: 3163.R02

2013
Nexus Heritage
Commercial-in-Confidence
Nexus Heritage Controlled Document – Commercial-in-Confidence
Report Number 3163.R02
Report Status Rev. 26/09/2013
Prepared by: Gerry Wait Date: 26/09/13
Checked by: Anthony Martin / Gerry Wait Date: 16/10/2013
Approved by: Win Scutt Date: 22/09/14
Revision Record
Revision No.
English Heritage
29 Queen Square,
Bristol,
BS1 4ND
3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

2013 2
CONTENTS:
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 4
2. UNDERSTANDING THE PROPERTY ......................................................................................................... 10
3. PREVIOUS RESEARCH, FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND PRIMARY SOURCES ................................. 31
4. ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................................................. 36
5. MANAGEMENT ISSUES .............................................................................................................................. 67
6. INTERPRETATION PLAN BY ANGHARAD BRADING........................................................................... 82
7. POLICIES ........................................................................................................................................................ 83
8. SPECIFIC POLICIES ...................................................................................................................................... 87
9. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ........................................................................................................................ 102
10. Action Plan for 2014-2019............................................................................................................................ 107
11. RESEARCH AGENDA................................................................................................................................. 111
12. BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................................................... 113
13. FIGURES....................................................................................................................................................... 116

2013 1
HIC JACET ARTHURUS
REX QUONDAM REXQUE FUTURUS
Arthur is gone … Tristram in Careol
Sleeps, with a broken sword – And Yseult sleeps Beside him, where the Westering Waters roll
Over drowned Lyonesse to the outer deeps.
Lancelot is fallen … The ardent helms that shone

So knightly and the splintered lances rust
In the anonymous mould of Avalon:
Gawain and Gareth and Galahad – all are dust!
Where do the vanes and towers of Camelot

And tall Tintagel crumble? Where do those tragic
Lovers and their bright eyed ladies rot?
We cannot tell, for lost is Merlin’s magic.
And Guinevere – Call her not back again

Lest she betray the loveliness time lent
A name that blends the rapture and the pain
Linked in the lonely nightingale’s lament.
Nor pry too deeply, lest you should discover

The bower of Astolat a smokey hut
Of mud and wattle – find the knightliest lover
A braggart, and his lilymaid a slut;
And all that coloured tale a tapestry

Woven by poets. As the spider’s skeins
Are spun of its own substance, so have they
Embroidered empty legend – What remains?
This: That when Rome fell, like a writhen oak

That age had sapped and cankered at the root,
Resistant, from her topmost bough there broke
The miracle of one unwithering shoot.
Which was the spirit of Britain – that certain men

Uncouth, untutored, of our island brood
Loved freedom better than their lives; and when
The tempest crashed around them, rose and stood
And charged into the storm’s black heart, with sword

Lifted, or lance in rest, and rode there, helmed
With a strange majesty that the heathen horde
Remembered after all were overwhelmed;
And made of them a legend, to their chief,

Arthur, Ambrosius – no man knows his name –
Granting a gallantry beyond belief,
And to his knights imperishable fame.
They were so few … We know not in what manner

Or where or when they fell – whether they went
Riding into the dark under the Christ’s banner
Or died beneath the blood-red dragon of Gwent.

2013 2
But this we know; That when the Saxon rout
Swept over them, the sun no longer shone
On Britain, and the last lights flickered out;
And men in darkness murmured: Arthur is gone …
FRANCIS BRETT YOUNG

2013 3
1. INTRODUCTION
Tintagel Castle, on the north coast of Cornwall, is a site of great interest for many reasons. It contains, among its
attractions, an unusual Castle of the 12th century, a mysterious, largely unknown settlement and trading site of
the 6th-7th centuries AD, remains of 18-19th century coastal cliff slate quarrying, spectacular volcanic and
tectonic geological formations, classic rock slope landforms, rare coastal flora and seabirds, all set on a dramatic
Atlantic cliff-girt peninsula. If these points of interest were not enough, Tintagel has also been associated with
King Arthur and Merlin since Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his History of the Kings of Britain in 1136.
Although this link is a literary device, there are older historical links with Mark and Tristan, also legendary
Kings of Cornwall, which may date back 500 years earlier. Today, these literary and semi-legendary associations
(not necessarily without a factual basis) are an integral element of the history of Tintagel, to the extent that they
have influenced the historic development of the site and are a far more powerful attraction for many visitors than
the events that we currently believe to have occurred at the site.
‘Tintagel’, as it is used in this report, is shorthand for the valley and headland (with part of the castle and the
Norman church of St Materiana) between Tintagel village and the peninsula (or ‘island’) that contains the
remainder of the castle and earlier sites. The site is located at NGR SX049089. More strictly, this plan focuses
on the area of English Heritage stewardship, comprising the island and adjacent parts of the valley and headland,
as identified in Figure 2.
1.1. The Scope of the Plan

English Heritage (EH) has commissioned Nexus Heritage to undertake a review of the CMP for Tintagel Castle
completed by a Gifford Heritage team in 2001 – that team was led by G Wait . As a separate commission
Cornwall Historic Environment Service will carry out an archaeological appraisal through desk-based
assessment and possibly limited excavation of one or more of the so-called ‘Dark Age’ buildings on the island.
EH will expect both groups to work closely together, sharing information and ideas as appropriate. Nexus has
treated EH ideas for the site, for the long term in strictest confidence, and EH provided any outline designs or
written proposals as background information..
The agreed Review Report takes 2 forms.
• First, a clean readable textual report (illustrated with pictures or line drawings) with tracked-changes
‘accepted’ and turned-off, delivered as a pdf.
• Second, a version in MS Word with all tracked-changes in place – so that the original could be read as well
as changes and additions in 2013 by Nexus, EH internal consultees, and any external consultees EH
nominate.
Win Scutt (project manager for EH) & Gerry Wait (for Nexus) agreed an approach to the update of the 2001
Conservation Plan. This is based upon a delivery of the 2 reports described above, representing a focussed
revision of the existing CMP. It was agreed that it would be a much better use of the time, given a completion
date of 30 September and the budgetary limitations. More importantly, this approach will preserve the original
document as an under-lying strata of text, so that new knowledge or interpretations, new ways of thinking, and
new questions are presented, but allowing earlier strata to be re-examined by the more curious reader.
The review followed the process below:
1. EH acquired a complete digital version of the 2001 CMP from Ramboll (07/08/2013)
2. GW Site visit – 22-24 July
3. GW Amended and edited the digital version – main text only, excluding appendices - using tracked
changes, to update CMP to 2013. New images inserted within Word
4. A complete new section on Assessing Significance to bring the new CMP into line with Conservation
Principles
5. Update on historical research – what has been done since the CMP was completed and how does this
affect overall understanding of significance or of vulnerabilities
6. What has changed on site since 2005
7. A Review of the 2005 Action Plan. What has been done, not done, shouldn’t have been done, should
have been done etc.
2013 4
8. 2013 Recommendations – a prioritised list of recommended work, tasks
9. 2013 Implementation Plan based upon the 2013 Recommendations, once agreed by the EH Client Team
10. Addendum Bibliography and References
11. Creation of full draft, using tracked-changes in MS Word for EH and other consultees to use for
comment and suggested amendments IS PROGRAMMED FOR THE END OF SEPTEMBER 2013
12. Final consolidation of comments and amendments to create final Nexus CMP to EH Thereafter Nexus
will produce the Final Nexus ‘ report and thereafter the report becomes EH responsibility, and EH may
of course edit and amend as it thinks best.
This aim can be defined as a series of objectives that are specifically linked to the requirements of the plan as
identified in the English Heritage brief:
• Identify and explain why the site – and its various component elements and setting – are significant
• Guidance on day-to-day operation of the property
• Recommendations for the creation of a research framework, including future excavation, and for strategic
management changes
• A baseline from which to evaluate the impact of new, specific proposals or developments
• Indicate how that significance is vulnerable to change or damage
• Set out the management interests of all the involved ‘stakeholder’ organisations
• Devise a set of policies for managing and developing the site, by English Heritage, insofar as possible in
harmony with all the stakeholders, without prejudicing its significance
• Full consultation with the stakeholders and consideration is given to their concerns and interests
• Prepare an implementation plan, detailing priorities and actions
Throughout the remainder of this document text in black Times New Roman is from the 2001 CMP, while red
text in Roboto font represents the Nexus Heritage updates and revisions. New linking text has been added to try
and simplify the transitions from original 2001 reporting and comments, recommendations and actions
considered appropriate as of autumn 2013 for implementation 2014-2019.
Conservation Plan Implementation 2001 – 2013
Conservation Plans are normally intended for implementation and a thorough review after a set period of time.
At Tintagel Castle this review was delayed until 12 years, but what is important is that is undertaken. The review
makes clear that the original Conservation Plan was adopted and that many of the actions that were thought
necessary or valuable in 2001 were acted upon and achieved during the 10+ years of implementation. An
additional subset of the 2001 actions was overtaken by other events, and/or changes in conservation philosophy
and policy, and in 2013 are no longer relevant or necessary.
It is therefore clear that English Heritage were assiduous – and successful - in their work to implement the works
thought appropriate at the time, and equally, demonstrates consistent best-practice management by
commissioning this 2013 review.

2013 5
1.2. Existing Statutory Protections
The remains of Tintagel Castle and the ‘island’ are protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument under the terms
of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.
In addition, the entire property lies within the Tintagel Cliffs Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI),
designated by Natural England. The site is also a candidate Special Area of Conservation under the EU Habitats
Directive.
The site also falls within an Area of Great Historic Value as designated within the Cornwall Council Structure
Plan.
Two public rights-of-way traverse parts of the site: the North Cornwall Coast Path, and the track that leads from
Tintagel village to Tintagel Haven.
1.3. Current Ownerships
The majority of the land that is considered in this report is owned freehold by the Duchy of Cornwall but is
within the care and management of English Heritage under a Memorandum of Understanding between the two
parties (see attached plan to be used as figure 2 ). The majority of the trackway and the café and seven acres of
surrounding land are owned freehold by The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England
(English Heritage). Neighbouring landowners include the Duchy of Cornwall, the National Trust and King
Arthur’s Castle Hotel.
The ownerships and statutory protections are illustrated on Figure 1.

2013 6
Figure 1 English Heritage land-ownership and the scheduled areas
2013 7
1.4. The Limitations of the Study
From the outset, it has been assumed that the preparation of this Plan would not involve research in depth.
Rather, its objectives have been to highlight and explain issues in principle, and indeed, to identify factors which
will need detailed examination prior to the time of policy implementation. Sufficient work has been done to
compile the Archive Schedule, which details further available sources. However, new information has been
generated, and is to be found in the text and gazetteer below (see Appendix 1 Gazetteer of Sites). Systematic
research and further programmes of study/excavation are also suggested (see Policies section below).
Limited time and budget mean this cannot be construed as a thorough and detailed revision. Therefore this is an
edited and amended version of the existing CMP. Whilst a detailed revision might be desirable it is neither
deliverable within the time frame, nor affordable with respect to the indicated budget allowance, and EH and
Nexus agreed to restrict work to what is achievable within the project allocations.
1.5. The Consultation Process

The Conservation Plan has incorporated a thorough process of consultation, in which all the ‘stakeholder’
organisations and individuals have been involved. The following individuals and organisations have been
involved to date:
• English Heritage (individuals include: Tim Steene, Ian Morrison, Diane Herrod, Gerald Bird, Dennis James,
Gary Stone, Alan Endacott, Liz Allison, Tim Johnston, Vanessa Straker, Ian Ashby, Amanda Feather, Rob
Orton)
• English Nature
• Cornwall County Council (N Johnson, County Archaeologist)
• North Cornwall District Council (Charlie David)
• National Trust (Simon Ford)
• Duchy of Cornwall (Roger Halliday)
• Prof. Charles Thomas
• King Arthur’s Castle Hotel (J Mappin)
• Mrs R Harrison (café owner-operator) This has since been acquired by English Heritage
• Tintagel Parish Council (G Reynolds, J Stratton, D Cooke, M Francis)
• Mr Parsons (Worthy Vale; The Arthurian Centre, Camelford)
• The Royal Cornwall Museum
• Cornwall Archaeological Unit (Anne Reynolds)
• Glasgow University (Prof C Morris, Rachel Harry)
• National Monuments Record
• British Museum
The Nexus draft review was reviewed, and where appropriate commented upon by the following parties (font an
colour denote their input below:
A. Elizabeth Allison BSc M.R.I.C.S., Estates Surveyor – West
B. Gary Stone, Health and Safety Coordinator, National Collections: Estates Unit
C. Veryan Heal, Principal Inspector of Ancient Monuments
D. Win Scutt, Assistant Properties Curator – CMP Project Manager for English Heritage
E. Harriet Attwood, Education Manager (SW)
F. Jacky Nowakowski of Cornwall Historic Environment Services (no comments received)

2013 8
The Gifford team included:
Dr C J Phillpotts – research and synthesis
Dr G A Wait – synthesis, assessing significance, and project management
Mr K Whittaker – synthesis and policies
Mr R Fewtrell – conservation engineering
Dr M Cooper – geotechnical engineer
Dr J Charman – engineering geologist
Mr D Stevens – photography
Prof C Thomas – academic advisor and consultant.
Mr T J Strickland – Project Director, editor
Nexus Heritage review conducted by Dr Gerry Wait
The Structure of the Conservation Plan Report

The Structure of this report follows the model originated by James Semple Kerr and replicated in the English
Heritage Brief. The first section (see Section 2) endeavours to reach a useful Understanding of the Property
from a variety of viewpoints. That chapter is followed by of the sources of our knowledge (see Section 3) – this
is a departure from Kerr’s format utilised to make explicit the sources and their reliability, a consideration more
important on a site such as Tintagel than might be the case for a single standing structure. There follows an
Assessment of Significance (see Section 4), considering in turn the very many ways that Tintagel is significant.
The penultimate Section is a concise description of the Management Issues (see Section 5) that arise from a
realisation of the Significance – overall and of particular elements – of the site. This section attempts to avoid
being prescriptive in favour of more simply stating the issues. The final section develops a series of Policies (see
Sections 6 and 7) for the management – in the widest sense – of the site, designed to enhance and conserve the
significant aspects of the site commensurate with the need to resolve the conflict between visitor management
access issues versus the conservation of an immensely important archaeological resource.
A set of maps and plans is provided between Sections 2 and 3, and a large collection of photographs is included
between Sections 4 and 5.
Kerr’s basic structure is still widely used, and has been updated in a revised Burra Charter by ICOMOS. This
review does not attempt a re-structuring with the exception of a considerably amended chapter on Assessing
Significance, to bring this revision into line with the seminal English Heritage publication Conservation
Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable management of the Historic Environment (EH 2008).

2013 9
2. UNDERSTANDING THE PROPERTY
2.1. Coastal Landforms and Tintagel
2.1.1. Geology
The complex geology (see also Section 4.2.2 and Appendix 4) of North Cornwall influences local landform and
consequently local landscape character. The narrow elongated coastal belt of North Cornwall includes a gentle
northward-sloping plateau, which meets the coast at Tintagel. Lower Carboniferous igneous structures, intruded
into Devonian sediments, which have been subject to later structural deformity and metamorphosis, underlie this
plateau. Together these factors govern the height of the cliffs, and, through differential erosion, the shape of the
cliff-forms. Special characteristics of the Tintagel coast are:
• Rampart-like cliff line which results from low-angled cleavage
• High buttress cliffs formed by the resistant Devonian slates
• Vertical cliffs, 90m high, and steep-sided narrow valleys result from open vertical joints
The differential rock strength and variations in structure also influence the formation of rock-coast features of
the Atlantic cliffs at Tintagel, such as caves, geos, arches and stacks.
2.1.2. Ecology
Tintagel Island and the northern part of the valley are included within the Tintagel Cliffs Site of Special
Scientific Interest. This designation is based on the presence of maritime grassland and maritime heathland,
which together support a rich diversity of flora and a number of rare plant species (see also Section 4.2.3 and
Appendix 3). The study area is also included in the candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) Tintagel-
Marsland-Clovelly Coast (under Annexe 1 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)).
The nationally scarce species that have been recorded at Tintagel include Lanceolate Spleenwort; Golden
Samphire, and Autumn Squill.
Most of the maritime grasslands present comprise dense growths of Thrift and Creeping Fescue on ledges and
the edges of cliffs. Due to the cessation of grazing in recent years the quality of the coastal grassland swards has
declined, with reduction in species diversity.
The dominant grassland on the site has much less Thrift with a dense, matted sward of Creeping Fescue and Meadow
Softgrass that is often up to 18cm deep. This is the typical community of the higher parts of ungrazed coastal slopes. This
grassland community ranges from species poor tussock grassland on the unburned section of the island plateau,
to rich flowery grassland with much Kidney Vetch, Wild Carrot and Sea Campion on coastal slopes and the area
that was burned in a serious grass fire in 1983. The fire appears to have been quite beneficial (from an
ecological perspective) in removing the accumulated dense litter. Archaeologically the fire was disastrous – the
burnt turf contained much archaeological material now lost.
2.2. Towards a Sequence of Interpretations

The archaeological site of Tintagel Castle and its environs have been interpreted in a number of ways in the past,
in a shifting sequence of interpretations that continues to the present. To a degree, this sequence illustrates
changing perceptions of the past over the last 500 years, and in particular in the 20th century. All the
interpretations continue to influence current perceptions of the monument.
The archaeological sites, which comprise Tintagel Castle and its environs, include a little understood 6th-7th
century settlement. This site is often seen as important to regional identity. Tintagel is regarded as a high status
location within the 6th century kingdom of Dumnonia (Cornwall along with parts of Devon and Somerset), which
had links to eastern Mediterranean trade. This Kingdom was associated with a Celtic renaissance after the
cessation of direct Roman imperial government in the early 5th century, and was perhaps connected to Celtic
resistance to Germanic immigrant invaders in the 5th and 6th centuries. However, other elements of the site, such
as the medieval castle, are the product of a shifting sequence of interpretations, which is a special characteristic
of Tintagel. In particular it illustrates changing perceptions of the past, reflecting a critical stage in British and
2013 10
European political and cultural history (by-products of the western movement of peoples and ideas into Europe
and the UK). Furthermore, local socio-economic processes have resulted in features (such as the field-systems,
the ship-loading platforms, and aspects of the former slate industry) that are distinctive and relevant to the local
community.
Tintagel therefore embodies a dynamic fusion of Cornish, British and European ideas and identities. This
amalgam, of tangible remains and literature, contributes to an inspirational quality that is unique to Tintagel, and
needs to be central to the considerations of this Conservation Plan. This statement seems as true in 2013 as it
was in 2001, and arguably could be better expressed on site (more details below)
In the following discussion, the individual elements of Tintagel are referenced in parentheses to entries in the
gazetteer (Appendix 1) and on Figures 4.11.
2.2.1. Angevin Arthurian Romances
In 1136-38 Geoffrey of Monmouth connected Arthur, a semi-legendary folk hero known from Cornwall,
Brittany, Devon, Wales and Scotland, with the dramatic coastal setting and fragmentary remains of earlier
defences at Tintagel. Twenty years later the Norman poet Robert Wace, drawing on the Breton oral tradition,
expanded Geoffrey’s work in Roman de Brut, which he wrote for and dedicated to Eleanor of Aquitane, who had
recently married Henry Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, (and shortly to become Henry II of England) patron of both
Geoffrey and Wace. Eleanor and her children, especially her daughter Marie de Champagne, further promoted
the new romances of Arthur and his knights as popular entertainment in the French-speaking courts, which
transformed Arthur from Celtic chief to the epitome of French and English medieval chivalry (Doel, Doel and
Lloyd 1998, 105).
This is the first layer of interpretation to have been laid upon the site of Tintagel, before the construction of the
medieval castle had even commenced.
2.2.2. Antiquarians of the 15th to 20th Centuries
The Castle was visited by a series of antiquarian writers in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, and their writings
coloured the perception of the monument until the early part of the 20th century. These form a second layer of
interpretation. William Worcestre visited in 1478, and John Leland in 1530, the latter under a commission to
collect historical evidence of Arthur, to support Plantagenet and Tudor claims of direct descent, which historians
had begun to question.
Descriptions of the castle were also included in Hollinshed’s Chronicals, and Camden’s Britannia in the late 16th
century, the histories of the county of Cornwall by Richard Carew in 1602, and of the hundred of Trigg by John
Maclean in 1868-79. Views of the castle were drawn by Norden, Borlase, Buck in 1734, Thomas Kerrick and
Samuel Lysons, and also to accompany Sir Richard Grenville’s report on the Castle in 1583.
All of these writers drew attention to the decay of the castle, and mentioned features such as the tunnel, the
bridge access from the headland to the island, and the landing place at the Iron Gate (Halliday 1953, 191-2;
Maclean 1879, 196). The same features appeared in the drawn views and the attached notes.
The antiquarian writers described the monument as a Castle of the earls and dukes of Cornwall. These writers
also repeated the story of Arthur’s conception at Tintagel from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum
Britannie. The monument was consequently identified as King Arthur’s Castle from Hollinshed onwards. By the
17th century this attribution was appearing in government documents, such as the Parliamentary Survey of 1650,
in which the site is called “King Arthur’s Island” and “King Arthur’s Castle alias Tintagel Castle” (PRO
E317/CORN/45), and on maps, beginning with Joel Gascoyne’s map of Cornwall in 1699.
Above all, Tennyson’s Idylls of the King – and in particular his ‘The Coming of Arthur’ linked the highly
romanticised ideals of Arthur (as then understood and admired), with Tintagel; what Tennyson refers to as the
‘Kingdom of Cameliard’ (Tennyson 1859).
This interpretation of the site culminated in the work of the Rev Richard Byrn Kinsman, vicar of Tintagel, in the
second half of the 19th century. He improved the access route from the headland to the island in 1852, and built
the archway and wall comprising the present South Curtain Wall of the Inner Ward. He persuaded Prince Albert
to revive the office of constable of the castle for him, and appeared on official occasions in scarlet and gold robes
to symbolise his office. The Richards family of the borough mill in the valley acted as the local guides to show
visitors around the site. Their last representative was Florence Nightingale Richards, described by a
contemporary as “A short dark woman, a throwback to the ancient British type”. She had a particular delight in
2013 11
showing visitors King Arthur’s Footprint, and telling the story of how he crossed the sea to the Church in one
stride. She lived in the cottage on the site of the English Heritage shop. She was retained as custodian when the
Ministry of Works took over the stewardship of the castle from the Duchy of Cornwall in 1930. It was then
estimated that she was 75 years old and that she had spent the greater part of her life showing people over the
castle (Duxbury and Williams 1979, 13-14; Thomas 1993, 29; PRO WORK14/859).
2.2.3. Ralegh Radford 1930s to 1980s
The site was taken into the Stewardship of the Ministry of Works in 1930. Following this a new interpretation of
the site as a Celtic monastery remained dominant for the next fifty years (a third layer of interpretation). This
view was developed principally by C A Ralegh Radford, inspired by the work of Charles Peers at Whitby, and
by the quite casual suggestions of Jenner in a lecture given at Tintagel during the annual excursion of the Royal
Institute of Cornwall in 1926 (Jenner 1927, 190-3). Radford put his ideas into practice in the excavations he
conducted on the site in the 1930s and 1950s (described below), and his limited publications of these
interventions.
In Radford’s interpretation the groups of structures he called Sites A to H (see Figures 5, 8, and Photographs 51
to 65) constituted a Celtic monastery that flourished from the 5th to the 8th centuries. This monastery was
associated with the post-Roman pottery that he identified as imported from the Mediterranean, and he therefore
thought it derived from a continental or Mediterranean prototype. He distinguished four structural phases within
the lifetime of the monastery, principally on the structural evidence from Site A. He assumed that the monastic
church was on the site of the medieval Chapel (Site 28). He viewed the Great Ditch as the vallum monasterii,
and the various Sites serving particular functions within the monastery. Site A (No 18 in gazetteer) was the guest
house for the pilgrims visiting the shrine; Site F (Site 21) was the library, school and scriptorium; Site D (Site
40) was the agricultural centre, with a corn-drying oven; and Sites B, C and G (Sites 9, 3, 22) were the living
quarters of the monks, with a communal refectory and sweat houses. The cells were believed to have housed
from 30 to 100 monks.
This putative monastery was, in Radford’s interpretation, succeeded, after an interval of desertion, by the
medieval castle, started by the Norman Earl Reginald in the 1130s (including the construction of the Hall and the
recutting of the Great Ditch), and expanded by Earl Richard in the 1230s (Radford 1939, 6; Radford 1942, 26-
34; Radford 1962, 8-9; Radford and Swanton 1975, 18-20). This interpretation was continued by Leslie Alcock
in his Arthur’s Britain (1971).
Radford’s interpretation of the site is still sometimes presented as current (e.g. Canner 1982, reprinted 1992, 5,
11-12; Whetter 1998, 248). In any case it was sustained by the reconstructions carried out by the Ministry of
Works, which may not be an authentic representation of the site. Consequently, mixed impressions and mis-
understandings continued to be presented.
2.2.4. Charles Thomas 1980s to present
Doubts about the Radford interpretation began to be expressed in the 1970s (Burrow 1974; Pearce 1978, 79-80).
It was suggested that the site in the post-Roman period was secular rather than monastic in character and that
Radford’s excavated hut-groups were mostly medieval. Studies of medieval literary texts by Oliver Padel
suggested that the castle had been consistently regarded as the site of a royal court for the rulers of Cornwall
(Padel 1981 and 1984). The new interpretation (the fourth layer of interpretation) has been most fully developed
by Professor Charles Thomas in the 1980s and 1990s. It was given new impetus by the revelation of the presence
of many more hut groups on the island following a grass fire in 1983 (Thomas and Fowler 1985).
The Thomas interpretation sees a phase of late Roman occupation on the site of unknown character, which he
called Period I (numbered as Phase 2 below). This was based on the presence of 3rd- and 4th century pottery,
especially concentrated at Site A (Site 18). It may have been the statio of Durocornovio (see below), with a
fiscal function related to tin production (Thomas 1988, 427, 429).
This was succeeded after a brief interval by a high status secular settlement of the 5th and 6th centuries, linked to
the imported Mediterranean pottery of these centuries (called Period II, numbered as Phase 3 below). The
settlement was limited to the south by the digging of the defensive Great Ditch (Site 9) along a geological fault;
and linked to a Christian religious centre in what became the Churchyard (Sites 5, 6), where members of the
ruling elite were buried in cist graves under mounds. King Arthur’s Footprint may have served as a royal
inauguration place, with a view across the sea to this ancestral burial ground.

2013 12
Within the settlement Thomas has suggested certain zones of activity: the elite core of the settlement at Site A
and a terraced area now below the Inner Ward; housing for royal followers along the north-eastern slope of the
island at Sites B, F and G; a port at the Iron Gate, with storage rooms on the terraces above at Sites B and C;
turf-walled bivouacs for the royal war-band in the Burnt Area; a look-out at the Upper Ward (Site 11) protected
by a curving wall; stabling in the Lower Ward (Site 48). Occupation was probably seasonal, and the power of the
itinerant rulers was probably based on the control of trade or the collection of tribute and food-renders (Thomas
1982, 19; Thomas 1988a, 427, 429; Thomas 1988c, 8-12; Olson 1989, 44; Thomas 1990, 14; Thomas 1993, 86-
98; Campbell 1996, 89). After the demise of the settlement in the early 7th century, the site remained deserted
for several centuries.
The Chapel was built before the 11th century, based on one of the post-Roman buildings (Period III, numbered as
Phase 4 below). It was probably constructed on the initiative of the Priory of St Petroc in Bodmin, which owned
the site in the late Saxon period. The Church was also begun in this period, at first as a stone structure in the
north-west part of the present Churchyard, succeeded by the present Church in c1100 (Thomas 1982, 18;
Thomas 1988, 428).
Earl Richard first built the castle in the 1230s, including the Hall and all three Wards (Period IV, numbered as
Phase 5 below; Thomas omits Earl Reginald from his schema). His builders probably lived in the rectangular
stone huts on the island, accounting for most of the stone structures excavated there by Radford. Despite the
effort of construction, the castle was never of any military importance, but should rather be regarded as a folly
(Thomas 1982, 17-18; Thomas 1988a, 428; Thomas 1988c, 8; Thomas 1993, 75, 119).
From the 15th century onwards, the castle entered a long period of neglect and decay (Period V, numbered as
Phase 6 below) (Thomas 1988, 428). This is a provisional interpretation, which is still current.
2.2.5. Kenneth Dark 1980s
In the 1980s Kenneth Dark proposed a re-phasing of the site on the basis of Radford’s excavation records, and
analogies from other rural sites in Cornwall and Devon. He postulated continuous occupation from the 5th to the
8th centuries; a high-status fortified secular site at first, aceramic at later stages when it became a farm
(corresponding to Radford’s periods 1 and 2 at Site A). Period 3 was seen as a pre-12th century farm and period 4
as an intra-mural village contemporary with the castle, dating to the twelfth century or later (Dark 1985, 8, 11,
14-17). This interpretation has not found general acceptance.
2.2.6. Recent Work 1980s and 1990s
The Condition Survey (commissioned in 1995, with management proposals) has resulted in a continuing
programme of works, primarily responding to real erosion threats, aimed at reducing the health and safety risks
to visitors and improving visitor facilities. Consequently the work has involved a series of physical and visual
impacts on the archaeological remains and historic fabric.
More important has been the Glasgow University Archaeological Research Division (GUARD) work on the site
and CAU investigations of the Churchyard in the late 1980s and 1990s. These have explored the interaction
between Radford’s field interventions and Thomas’s interpretation. It has helped clarify the nature and extent of
the work of the former, and placed new excavation results within the framework suggested by the latter (Harry
1999, 18) (the fifth layer of interpretation).
This recent fieldwork serves as a useful preparation for the next stage in the interpretation of the site, which is
central to any long-term strategy in keeping with the historic character.
2.2.7. A New Understanding
English Heritage is faced with the difficult task of Stewardship of a site with a long-term dynamic evolution.
Past societies have built upon the site in accord with their perception of their own past (the levels of
interpretation above), and via Arthur, a past that may never have been real. This mix of history and myth has
made Tintagel as much a cultural icon as an historical site. It is paradoxical that the Conservation Plan, in
accordance with conventional practice, should be based on an understanding of the historic significance of the
site. What is now clear is that the special historic characteristic of the property is its potential to be perceived in
various, often contrasting, ways and its inspirational quality.
This paradoxical dynamic is much more appropriately expressed in the revised EH guidebook Tintagel Castle
(EH 2010) than in previous guides, and visitors who read the guide will be better informed than previous
generations.
2013 13
It must also be recognised that Tintagel has been adopted by a very vocal and active minority seeking greater
regional autonomy – choosing to see Tintagel as a symbol of a past when Cornwall was more independent.
Rather than considering a period of ‘independence’, it may well be more appropriate to look at the Post-Roman
period from a different aspect. It seems likely that the Post-Roman inhabitants were clinging to the vestiges of a
Christian and Roman identity in the face of aggressive pagan Saxon expansion. A further aspect of this idealised
past was a trade network linking Britain to the Mediterranean world. In sum, rather than promoting themselves
as independent, they were preserving the belief that they were in some way still connected to, and formed a part
of, the Roman ‘civilised’ world.
Furthermore, there is increasing pressure from many who sense a need for a new “understanding”. A wide range
of interpretations continues to influence current perceptions of the monument and affect its management.
The need to respond to the role of Tintagel as a cultural icon, as an element in the continuing redefinition of
Cornish, British and English identities, and to various forms of spirituality of greater or lesser orthodoxy, is a
continuing issue. The many competing interpretations of Tintagel may be balanced through a programme of
investigation and a critically reviewed process of interpretation and presentation. This should consider cultural
concerns beyond the historic fabric and orthodox interpretations.
However, taking an effective lead may generate greater influence and success for Tintagel, particularly if this
generates wider public support for English Heritage through more localised decision-making.
The aim should be to set standards of quality, in conservation and presentation that ensure that English Heritage
is openly seen to act in accord with public interest. This public interest should be defined according to the
diverse contemporary social, cultural, and ethical significance of the property (see Policies PP3 and 4, LD4).
In essence, the challenge set by this Conservation Plan is for a new, dynamic management approach. This should
be based on the many understandings of the site, and a respect for the special inspirational quality or character of
the place. It should reduce wherever possible physical intrusions whilst expanding intellectual and physical
access. The new guidebook is a good first step, but has not so far been supported by any other forms of on-site
interpretation.
Specific policies prioritise improvements in the quality of conservation and education activities, which needs to
be supported by new research (Policy Arch2). Local economic benefits may be derived if this has an effect on
the time spent by visitors at Tintagel and the surrounding district.
Complementary policies will seek to scale back some aspects of the intrusive treatment that has occurred over
the past 60 years, and promote improvements and facilities within the village where possible. In regional terms
this policy framework will be aligned to strategic initiatives for economic and social regeneration, aided by
inward investment from European and national sources.
Research Frameworks since 2001
Two significant academic publications have been completed since the 2001 Plan was produced. The first is the
South West Archaeological Research Framework (SWARF) which identifies background knowledge and
knowledge-gaps about the prehistory and history of the south western region, and sets research priorities for
future works. This contains much material directly relevant to Tintagel Castle.
The second major publication is the National Heritage Protection Plan (NHPP) The National Heritage
Protection Plan is a major strategy that identifies those parts of England’s Heritage that matter to people most
and are at greatest risk – and then concentrates efforts on saving them. Aimed at English Heritage and many
other heritage sector organisations, as 'effectively the business plan for the historic environment’, the National
Heritage Protection Plan comprises a framework for heritage protection built around a clear set of priorities
Site Investigations after 2001TV Programme ‘Extreme Archaeology’ 2003
Small-scale excavations were carried out on Tintagel Island in September 2003 for Mentorn Productions. Trench
1 was situated across the scar of the cliff fall that had occurred in 1918 (above). A structure and artificial terrace
(the lowest terrace of three) were revealed, all the artefacts associated with this feature dating from the fifth or
sixth centuries AD. Trench 2 was located on the southern terrace, west of the Inner Ward, within the corner of a
rectangular earthwork located by the RCHME survey of 1985. The excavation revealed the corner of a
rectangular stone-built structure with several courses of walling still surviving to a height of at least 0.40m and
with at least two packed clay floors linked to artefacts of the post-Roman period (Thorpe 2004).

2013 14
Tintagel Visitor Facilities Watching Brief 2004.
This was a watching brief during an extension to the existing visitor facilities. Four areas of excavation were
recorded around the existing building. A number of layers of made ground were recorded. The work found that
the area was built up with material cut back from the hill-slope and lain down to create a platform for the
building and dressing area associated with the 19th century dressing and storage of slate before its shipment from
Tintagel Haven. Amongst the made layers were a number of re-deposited sherds of amphorae dated to the 5th
and 6th centuries AD (Dudley 2004).
Watching brief along the path to the Iron Gate 2006

A watching brief was carried out in February 2006 on the east side of Tintagel Island when work was undertaken
to replace a line of fencing between the Iron Gate and the Inner Ward of the castle. Seven artificial terraces cut
into the hillside were identified along the line of the pathway, of which three (terraces 2, 3, and 4) were
previously unknown. Evidence for structures of probable post-Roman date built on the terraces was noted on
terrace 2 and terrace 4, and 42 sherds of post-Roman imported Mediterranean pottery were recovered. An
original route between the Iron Gate and the southern end of the island discovered during this work appeared
likely to be of pre-Medieval date (Thorpe 2007).
Excavation in advance of works adjacent to the Inner Ward information hut 2007
A watching brief was carried out during ground lowering activities in front of the information hut on the east
side of Tintagel Island in 2007. A further three artificial terraces cut into the hillside were identified, the
information hut being sited on the largest, the others being on the hill-slope above it. The form of the building
evidence recorded on the lowest terrace was consistent with a post-Roman date and similar in form to that extant
at Sites F, B and C. Sixty-seven sherds of post-Roman imported Mediterranean pottery were recovered from this
site (Thorpe 2008).
2.3. The History of the Landscape Setting based on Current Information

Tintagel Castle cannot be understood without an appreciation of the changes in the tenure and layout of the land
in Tintagel Parish, and the economic setting implied by the land-use patterns of all periods (see Figure 3).
2.3.1. The Prehistoric Periods (Phase 1)
In the vicinity of Tintagel (see Figures 3) there is a Bronze Age barrow at SX 0489 8804 to the east of the Youth
Hostel, which has been spread by the plough. Ploughed-out stones are piled up around it. Nearby, just to the west
of the Youth Hostel at SX 0471 8813 there is a horizontal slate rock with three distinct cup-marks. It is similar in
form to King Arthur’s Cups and Saucers on the island, which can be seen from this point. Both sets of markings
could be Bronze Age in date (Sharpe 1990, 32-3; SMR nos 29850, 23036). It is of course possible that these are
natural in origin, caused by swirling gravel around in the depressions driven by the eddying effect of the wind.
They could even be modern creations, carved by visitors.
Further south along the coast was a group of seven barrows at Treligga Common in the south-west corner of
Tintagel Parish, investigated by Croft Andrew during the Second World War. Some of them proved to be natural
features, but others contained artefacts. Two were associated with cup-marked stones (SMR no 23040).
There is another barrow at Condolden or Godolghan Barrow, four kilometres south-east of the castle at SX 0904
8717. This was partly excavated in the 19th century and is probably Bronze Age in date (SMR no 23077; SAM
no 299). A barrow also lay at Menadue SX 0742 8687, but is now covered with spoil from a nearby farm (SMR
no 23064).
Two rock-carvings of circular mazes in the Rocky Valley at SX 0727 8935 are ostensibly Bronze Age in date,
but given their location and condition are more likely to be recent fakes (SMR no 23113; SAM no 553).
Along the coast to the north-east of the castle there is an Iron Age promontory fort at Willapark SX 0629 8962
(SMR no 23117).
Two and half kilometres to the south-east of the castle is the circular enclosure of Trenale Bury at SX 0734 8760.
This has a single bank and ditch with a diameter of 80 metres, and is probably Iron Age in date (Maclean 1879,
189-90; SMR no 23078). Another sub-oval enclosure at Cardew SX 0972 8832 was probably an Iron Age or
Romano-British ‘round’ (SMR no 23052). There are other possible ‘rounds’ at Higher Penpethy SX 0894 8645
(SMR no 23063), and represented by a crop-mark at Trewennick SX 0843 8780 (SMR no 23045).
2013 15
2.3.2. The Roman Period (Phase 2 = Thomas Period I)
There are two Roman milestones in the area, one of the reign of Gallus and Volusian (251-253) at the
Churchyard (where it formerly formed one side of the lych-gate); and one of the reign of Licinius (308-324) at
Trevethy two kilometres to the east. These are thought to have been on a road from Exeter (Isca) to Padstow,
perhaps associated with tin exploitation, with Tintagel as a statio (Pearce 1978, 41; Todd 1987, 218;
Nowakowski and Thomas 1990, 1; Thomas 1993, 84-5). A Gallus milestone was erected at the nadir of Roman
fortunes empire-wide - it is interesting that roadworks were undertaken here at that time, and probably signifies
considerable Roman interests were present in the locality.
This suggests that north-east Cornwall was a partly Romanised area, in which the Imperial monopoly of tin
production operated. It is not known how the Romano-British population may have organised the landscape.
2.3.3. The Post-Roman Period (Phase 3 = Thomas Period II)
Tintagel lay within the kingdom of Dumnonia in the 6th century, and its history is little known. It may also have
lain within a smaller political unit or sub-kingdom, perhaps called Tricurius (still trying to preserve
‘Romanitas’). In one or both of these it must have been an important political and economic focus.
An important element of the landscape (see Figures 5) was the religious focus provided by the ovoid enclosure
or lann on the site of the Churchyard. Llan in Welsh is a church and a place associated with holiness – i.e. a
saint. Such saints and churches were explicitly linked to efforts to preserve a degree of Romanitas. This contains
cist-graves and grave mounds dating from the 5th century onwards, and was perhaps the burial-place of the
Christian rulers of Tintagel. An entrance on the north side links it via a hollow-way to the site of the castle. An
unenclosed cemetery appears to have lain around it (Thomas 1988a, 427, 430; Thomas 1989b, 83, 89;
Nowakowski and Thomas 1990, 2, 9-26; Thomas 1993, 15, 103, 105; Thomas 1994, 206, 208n33, 295-6, 318).
Interpreting its role is crucial to an understanding of the monument during this phase.
The topography and land-use of the area in this period will remain poorly understood, until environmental and
landscape studies are undertaken (see Policy Arch2).
2.3.4. The Late Pre-Conquest Period (Phase 4 = Thomas Period III)
A silver penny of Alfred the Great is reported to have been found on the island, but its provenance is uncertain
(Thomas 1993, 115). A mid-Saxon sherd of dark red vessel glass has been found on Site C (Harry et al 1999).
Tenurial changes and the expansion of agriculture were brought into east Cornwall by English influence in the
10th century (Thomas 1993, 15). King Athelstan of England set up a bishopric for Cornwall at Saint German’s in
931, bringing the end to the rule of the Celtic Cornish church by local abbots, and subjecting it to more central
control (Canner 1982, 8). Tintagel may have been a Minster church, with a parochia covering a wide area,
founded in the 10th or early 11th century, in the earlier religious enclosure built by St Petroc’s monastery at
Bodmin. The present cruciform church building (Site 33), dedicated to St Materiana, was begun c1100, and
incorporated an element of the earlier structure at its north-east corner. Its mother-church is at Minster,
containing the shrine of St Materiana. It is linked to the site of the castle by the alignment of its north doorway,
although its construction-date precedes that of the castle (Canner 1982, 10; Thomas 1988a, 428, 431; Thomas
1989b, 79; Thomas 1993, 15, 19-22, 107-10; Thomas 1994, 306, 324n4 SMR no 23093).
St Materiana was one of the numerous Celtic saints to Christianise Cornwall – with the better known St Petroc,
St Piran, and St Samson. Materiana is apparently linked to this locality, with her bones enshrined at Minster
throughout the Middle Ages, but nothing factual is known about her life. It is usually believed (after Baring
Gould) that Materiana was of South Welsh origin, as daughter of Gwrthvyr the Blessed, wife of Ynyr King of
Gwent, and thus great-aunt of St David of Wales. An alternative derivation is to get Materiana from an early
documented version Mertheriana, which in turn comes from merther (for the Greek martyrion meaning a shrine
to a saint). In this reading, the saint’s name was ‘Iana’ - who is otherwise unknown!
There are several late-Saxon or early-medieval stone crosses in the district (see Figures 3). In front of the
Wharncliffe Hotel in the village is an 11th century cross, raised by Aelriat, which formerly stood at Trevillet
(Longdon 1906, 423; Armstrong 1935, 10-11; Thomas 1993, 15, 113; SMR no 23095, Scheduled Monument no
85). There is another cross in the parish at Fenterleigh SX0716 8832 (SMR no 23091).

2013 16
2.3.5. The Medieval Period (Phase 5 = Thomas Period IV)
At the time of the Domesday Book survey of 1086, Tintagel was part of the manor of Botcinii (Bossiney) (SMR
no 23126; see Figures 3 and 6). Also in the area of the parish was the manor of Tretdeno (Treknow) (SMR no
23151). The Count of Mortain, who also held manors at Treberbet (Trebarwith, SMR no 23145) and Tregrebi
(Genver SMR no 23135) held these two manors from the monastery of St Petroc at Bodmin. On Bossiney
manor, a population of seven households operated a plough, had 30 acres of pasture, and had oxen, cattle and
sheep (Thorn 1979, 4.13).
A ring-work Castle was built at Bossiney in the late 11th century (SMR no 23092; SAM no 83). Others were
built nearby at Boscastle and Castle Garth (Thomas 1993, 15, 116).
By the 1160s the manor was sub-infeudated (let to sub tenants holding land by military service) to the Hornicote
family. This family had taken the name de Tintaioel by 1207, probably because the work of Geoffrey of
Monmouth had made the place-name famous. Richard Earl of Cornwall bought the manor and the island from
Gervase de Tintaioel in exchange for other lands in the 1230s. In 1233 the island of Tintagel and the Castle of
Richard (implying construction had already begun) were transferred, with access through the manor of Bossiney;
in 1236 the whole manor of Bossiney followed, and Richard also bought the manor of Trenewith (Treknow?)
and adjacent lands from the Prior of Bodmin. These transactions were probably forced exchanges in which the
sellers had no choice (Canner 1982, 13; Padel 1988, 62-4; Page 2000, 23; PRO E36/57 ff17v, 44v).
Richard, the brother of King Henry III, acquired the earldom of Cornwall by several stages of endowment in
1225-1231, including its lucrative tin-mines (Denholm-Young 1947, 4, 9, 13, 21). Later in his career, after losing
control of Tintagel and Launceston for a short time in 1265, he consolidated his position in Cornwall by
acquiring the castles of Restormel in 1268 and Trematon in 1270, again by forced purchases (Page 2000, 31-2).
He gave Tintagel Church to Fontrevault Abbey, the burial-place of his mother and grandfather (Jenner 1927,
193; Canner 1982, 15).
Earl Richard also invested in Tintagel by promoting it as a borough, granting it a charter at some time before
1256 (Denholm-Young 1947, 134n6). The main street (Fore Street) was probably laid out for development at
this time, with narrow burgage-plots stretching back from the street to the borough boundary (Thomas 1993,
100). This boundary is still traceable on the 19th century Tithe Map. The inhabitants in 1327 included William
Mercator (the merchant) and a family called Gascoyn (perhaps from Gascony), suggesting that trade had become
established. In 1338 there were 93 burgesses (Canner 1982, 19; SMR nos 23087, 23144, 23157). The chapel of
St Denys had been built in the main street by 1400, to supplement the parish church (Armstrong 1935, 11;
Canner 1982, 27; SMR no 23097).
Apart from the Borough, the pattern of settlement in the parish remained dispersed, with the parish church lying
in the centre of a scattered group of hamlets along the coastal strip (Thomas 1993, 19). These included Genver,
called Tregrebi in Domesday Book (SMR no 23135); Trevillet (SMR no 23158); Trevethy, where there was a
chapel (SMR nos 23112, 23155); Halgabron (SMR no 23137); Bossiney (SMR no 23126); Trevillick (SMR no
23159); Treven (SMR no 23156); Treknow (SMR no 23151); Trewarmett (SMR no 23160); Trebarwith, called
Treberbet in Domesday Book, where some medieval houses survive (SMR nos 23042, 23145); and Trecarne
(SMR no 23147). Individual farmsteads lay further inland.
Fishing boats operating from the Haven must always have made a major contribution to the local economy.
Boats landing there paid a tax of 2/- per annum to the earls and dukes of Cornwall as lords of the manor. In the
late 13th century and the first-half of the 14th century there were between five and seven boats each year.
However, from 1351/2 onwards, after the Black Death, there were only two or three. In 1466/7 there were none
(Maclean 1879, 268, 270; Canner 1982, 111; DOC rolls 6, 20, 59; PRO SC6/818/4, 5 and 9; E389/62). Boats
also brought timber to the castle to make repairs in 1307 (Maclean 1879, 269).
There were slate quarries on the land of Tintagel manor in the early 14th century. In 1382/3, 2000 stone-tiles
were bought at a local quarry for repairs to the castle roofs. These roofing-slates were sometimes called
hellyngstones. In 1466/7 there were quarries at Godollan, Lanterdan and Treknow, and a new one on the cliffs
called Karvagler. The Lanterdan quarry was also mentioned in 1493 (Hatcher 1970, 35; Canner 1982, 18, 34;
DOC roll 59; PRO E101/461/12 m5d).
There is a large potential for the analysis of the medieval landscape of Tintagel, and the way it was organised for
agriculture. The basis of this analysis is the later map evidence, including the Tithe Map of 1842 (PRO
IR30/6/187, another copy at CRO), the early editions of the Ordnance Survey maps and some other 19th century

2013 17
maps held at the CRO. There is also relevant information in the Cornwall SMR, which can traced in the field
boundaries of the maps (e.g. Site 34 in gazetteer and Figure 6). The accounts and surveys held at the PRO and
the Duchy of Cornwall Office for the late medieval and post-medieval periods form the raw material for the
landscape analysis. There are copies of some of the PRO documents at the CRO, where there are also some
relevant later deeds. All these manuscript materials are listed in full in the Archive Schedule (Appendix 5). For
the purposes of the Conservation Plan, the Tithe Map and the SMR entries have been utilised, and the
manuscript material has been sampled. Full coverage of the listed manuscript resources will require a much more
extensive research programme.
The features currently known in the parish reflect the form of the medieval landscape setting of the castle. The
curving fields on the Trecarne lands to the north of the Churchyard are suggestive of medieval ploughing
(Canner 1982, 13; SMR no 23062). A boundary bank runs from the Churchyard to the cliffs SX 0502 8845 to
SX 0483 8840 (Sharpe 1990, 31; SMR no 4149). On the headland to the east of the castle, terraced fields
underlie the golf course of the King Arthur Castle Hotel (Thomas 1993, 10). Extensive areas of medieval field
systems are thought to survive to the north of Tintagel and Bossiney (SMR nos 23114-16). There are others
associated with Trevalga to the east (SMR no 23056), and Trewarmett to the south (SMR no 23057).
The agriculture of Tintagel manor was served by three water-mills grinding corn (Maclean 1879, 268, 270;
Hatcher 1970, 90). One of these was the Borough Mill in the valley, on the road leading to the castle, first
mentioned in 1286 (Canner 1982, 74; SMR no 23105). Mills were repaired in the manor in the 1370s and 1460s
(Hatcher 1970, 165; DOC roll 59; PRO SC6/818/5 m6; SC6/821/11). Other mills lay along the stream at
Halgabron (SMR no 23084), Trevillet Mill (SMR no 23081), and Rocky Valley (SMR no 23080); and at
Treknow (SMR no 23073) and Trewarmett (SMR no 23072).
Between the 1390s and the 1450s the Duchy farmed out the manor of Tintagel (Hatcher 1970, 138, 159; Canner
1982, 29; see the chronological gap in the list of accounts held at the Duchy of Cornwall Office in the Archive
Schedule).
2.3.6. The Post-Medieval Period (Phase 6 = Thomas Period V)
The same local economic activities continued from the late medieval period into the early- modern centuries,
with hardly any change.
Fishing probably continued to be important until the 20th century (Todd Gray 1990, 57, from PRO
SP16/33/70(i)).
Quarrying for slate was the main source of local employment in the 19th century. In the late 19th and early 20th
centuries there were at least nine main quarries along the cliffs (see Figure 7) from Glebe Cliff westwards to
Trebarwith Strand, together with five smaller trial-quarries (SMR nos 42575-80, 42583-5). Both sea-cliff and
open-working quarries were represented. Near the Churchyard the quarries included Gillow at SX 0491 8855
(SMR 42575), and Long Grass at SX 0475 8827 (SMR 42577). Gillow had closed by 1884; Long Grass
continued working until 1937. Both transported their slates via Tintagel Haven (Canner 1982, 86; Sharpe 1990,
6, 9-12, 27). Quarries further south used Port William (SMR no 23022). There were other slate quarries inland in
the southern part of the parish at the Prince of Wales SX 0730 8620 (SMR no 42582), and Bowithick (SMR no
42586). Beds of greenstone outcropping across the northern part of the parish were also quarried for building-
stone (Maclean 1879, 187).
Leases to mine galena (silver-lead ore) on the island were granted by the Duchy of Cornwall in 1806, 1853 and
the 1870s. An adit-mine (Site 66) was driven into the base of the island beneath the Inner Ward, and beyond
Merlin’s Cave. A wooden gangway across the mouth of the Cave gave access into the mine. The offices and
workshops were in the building, which is now a café (Site 69) (Canner 1982, 86; Thomas 1993, 27; SMR no
42581).
Animal husbandry was probably the main agricultural activity in the immediate vicinity of the castle. The
grassland of the Island beyond the Inner Ward was leased out for grazing sheep from the 13th to the 20th
centuries. Sheep were probably also grazed along the sides of the Valley, where a sheep shelter survives and the
pastures are divided by a stone wall, running from east to west up the Valley side opposite the Mill. The tithe
map and apportionment of 1841-2 list fields on the valley sides and island as waste or arable; however, they
cannot have been ploughed because of the steep and rocky nature of the terrain. The fields on the plateau above
the valley were mostly arable, however (PRO IR29/6/187; IR30/6/87). The acreage returns of 1801 show that

2013 18
barley (209¾), wheat (148¾), oats (80½) and potatoes (14¼ acres) were grown in the parish (PRO HO67/10
f125).
2.4. Interrogative Themes at Tintagel

The current interpretation of the site is provisional. Each of the major phases presents questions, which future
research will continue to address. At present the site could be characterised as “not understood”; until the 1980s,
it could be described as “misunderstood”.
Each phase is described below. Each site is also described in the Gazetteer in Phase-order by its component
elements. The principal questions (denoted by text in italics) regarding the interpretation of each phase are also
discussed. These should be incorporated into a detailed research framework (Policy Arch2) and Research
Agenda (Section 9). The sequence of phases described below and in the gazetteer, has been distinguished as
follows:
Phase 1 Prehistoric Periods
Phase 2 Roman Period
Phase 3 Post-Roman Period
Phase 4 Late Saxon Period
Phase 4.1 10th century
Phase 5 Medieval Period
Phase 6 Post-Medieval Centuries
Phase 6.4 1800-1930
Phase 7 Ministry of Works and English Heritage Stewardship
Phase 8 Condition Survey of 1995 and Site Management
2.4.1. The Prehistoric Periods (Phase 1)

Artefacts found in residual contexts represent the prehistoric periods of the site; no certain prehistoric features or
structures have yet been excavated on the site. These artefacts include a flint blade from Site C (Brady et al
1999, 17).
Was there any prehistoric occupation on the site? The Thomas interpretation does not include a prehistoric
phase (Thomas 1993, 13), but it is not clear that a sufficient proportion of the site has been excavated to test this
assertion. This question seems still to be apposite.
Could the Great Ditch be prehistoric? The position of the ditch in relation to the headland and the island is
reminiscent of the form of promontory forts in Cornwall, particularly that at Trevelgue, near Newquay, which
has also produced sherds of imported post-Roman pottery (Pearce 1978, 80). However, the trenches excavated
across the ditch by Radford and GUARD suggest that it is a post-Roman feature, and this seems to have been
generally accepted.

2013 19
2.4.2. Roman Phase (Phase 2)
The late Roman phase on the site is represented by assemblages of Romano-British pottery of the 3rd and 4th
centuries found on the Island, especially at Sites A and C (Sites 3 and 18). These assemblages are possibly
related to the earliest structures on Site A, and certainly to structures found on the Lower Terrace of Site C. Most
of the sherds are of local manufacture, but some are from further afield.
This raises the question – was there earlier Roman occupation in the area? If there was, what was its nature
and purpose? What was the impact of Rome in the area?
What was the nature of the settlement? In the excavations of the 1990s 3rd and 4th century pottery has been
found at Site C, and also structures of this period on the Lower Terrace of Site C (Harry et al 1999). This is the
first definite evidence to be found of occupation at this period; it is not yet clear what the extent or function of
this occupation was.
What was its political and economic role in the region? When did direct Roman imperial activities cease?
When, and by what means, did Christianity arrive?
All of these questions remain unanswered in 2013 and could form the basis for future research.
2.4.3. Post Roman Phase (Phase 3)
The immediately post-Roman Settlement on the site conceivably comprises Sites A to H, the Burnt Area, the
South Terrace, the Iron Gate, the Terraces below the Lower Ward, the Great Ditch and the Buried Building by
the access road. The phasing of most of the structures in these groups is unknown, and therefore the proportion
of them which dates to the post-Roman phase is still speculative.
Was the settlement seasonal or permanent? The Radford and Dark interpretations have assumed that occupation
was permanent, despite the harshness of the winter conditions on site. The Thomas interpretation prefers to see
the settlement as seasonally occupied by a ruler and his entourage, supported by food-renders from the
surrounding district (Thomas 1994, 214). Such environmental evidence as is available at present tends to support
this idea (see above).
Further questions occur. Was it a seat of local or royal power? How was it zoned? How did it relate to trade
and tribute collection, and imported pottery and exported tin?
What exactly are, and why do the post Roman imports appear here? What is the source of the inspiration for the
Arthurian connections?
All of these questions remain unanswered in 2013 and could form the basis for future research.
2.4.4. The Medieval Castle (Phase 5)
The existing medieval castle consists of the Upper, Lower and Inner Wards (Sites 11, 48, 51), and the Iron Gate,
all built by Earl Richard in the 1230s. It re-used the post-Roman Great Ditch and added the Little Ditch to the
Lower Ward. Documentary sources inform us of a bridge that spanned the gap between the Lower and Inner
Wards later in the 13th century (the repairs cost 4/ 2 ½d in Edward I’s reign PRO SC6/816/9 m2). The medieval
features on the island, and an unknown number of the structures of the settlement there, formed subordinate
parts.
Was Tintagel a castle of prestige, built to impress by Richard Earl of Cornwall and based on his knowledge of
Arthurian legends (Thomas 1993, 17-18)? All of these questions remain unanswered in 2013 and could form the
basis for future research.
Certain elements of the castle appear to represent episodes in the Tristan and Iseult story. The garden, which is
in an unusual location and known to have existed in the 13th century, may have been made to represent the
garden where the lovers met. The cliff-top chapel (Site 28) was already in existence, and may have been taken to
represent the location of Tristan’s escape by his great leap. The surviving 5th and 6th century wall of the Upper
Ward and the Great Ditch may also have been adapted to represent King Mark’s Castle, or the Castle of Duke
Gorlois, as described by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his story of the conception of Arthur. Earl Richard may
therefore have been creating a literary landscape (Rose 1994, 176-7).
It is possible that the castle was constructed in a deliberately archaic architectural style to appear as “old”, and
therefore authentically Arthurian. Certainly there appears to have been no attempt to make use of round towers
or gatehouse flanking-towers, elements of castle design that were well-established by the 1230s. Can any of
2013 20
these ‘old’ features be identified and explained? (Our observations on-site suggest that this is not easily achieved
– too many phases of repair and repointing intervene – still true in 2013, so this remains an open question).
Earl Richard linked the Plantagenets with a glorious British past by the construction of the Castle linking the
Arthurian romances and myths, and the archaeological remains. Within this link the question of the reality of the
historic Arthur’s career was irrelevant. His association with Tintagel had been established as part of a 12th and
13th century literary and cultural fusion, and now it was given expression in stone.
If Tintagel was built primarily as a castle to enhance the Plantagenet’s prestige by links to Arthur, it might be
expected that Richard and his successors as earls and dukes would have used the castle as a place of residence.
Earl Richard visited Cornwall in 1229, 1238, 1240, 1249, 1252 and 1259. In 1265 he raised an army in Cornwall
and led it to the battle of Lewes (Denholm-Young 1947, 40, 72-3, 125; Page 2000, 25). He may have visited
Tintagel at these times, but there is no evidence that he did so. In 1245 he sheltered his nephew, the Welsh rebel
Dafydd ap Llywelyn, in the castle (Padel 1988, 64).
Edward the Black Prince, Duke of Cornwall, visited Cornwall in 1354 and 1363. The castle was repaired on
these occasions, but it is not known if the Prince came to Tintagel (Canner 1982, 18; Thomas 1993, 117).
In building a castle on the high cliffs of Tintagel, Earl Richard may have had in mind the precedents of the
castles built by his family in France, rather than examples in England. Henry II’s Castle of Chinon (much more
sophisticated than Tintagel) is built on a long rocky outcrop overlooking the River Vienne, and consists of a
series of three distinct castles linked by bridges. The innovative castle of Earl Richard’s uncle and namesake
Richard Coeur de Lion at Chateau Gaillard is built on a rocky promontory overlooking the River Seine. Bridges
linked its three wards across moats. However, unlike Tintagel, these were fortifications of real strategic
importance, which included defensive elements that were fully up-to-date. Tintagel Castle could perhaps also be
compared to Gorey or Mont Orgueil Castle, built on a rocky promontory on the east coast of Jersey. King John,
Earl Richard’s father, probably constructed this initially but the first major construction programme was carried
out in the later 1220s by his half-brother, King Henry III. The form of the early structures is unknown, but the
castle was entered by a bridge later in the 13th century, and later comprised three wards and a keep. There are
also some resemblances between Tintagel and some of the Rhineland castles that Earl Richard may have seen
later in his career.
The most impressive façade of the castle may well have been the south side of the Inner Ward, all of which has
fallen into the sea and the isthmus over a period of centuries. It would have comprised the south gable end of the
Great Hall, and perhaps also an inner gatehouse and a two-storey tower.
For most of the time the castle appears to have been kept on a care-and-maintenance basis (quite normal for that
period), and lay almost empty. In 1291 Edmund Earl of Cornwall appointed a Constable, a Chaplain, a door-
keeper and a watchman (Wilkinson 1871, 230; PRO SC6/816/9 m1). In 1305, 1315-17 and 1322/3 the wages of
the Constable, the door-keeper and the chaplain were paid, and minor repairs were undertaken (Maclean 1879,
269-70; PRO E389/62).
In the survey of 1337, when the Black Prince’s officers took possession of the castle and manor of Tintagel, the
chambers over the two gateways and the stable for eight horses were in disrepair, and the bakehouse was ruined.
The timberwork of the Great Hall had been taken down on the orders of John, Earl of Cornwall, and put into
storage. A chamber for the constable with a kitchen, a cellar and the chapel were also mentioned (PRO E120/1
mm5, 29d).
The Black Prince carried out extensive repairs in 1343 (PRO E101/461/11). A tower was re-roofed with stones
and lead; this was apparently adjacent to the Gatehouse in the Upper Ward. For this job, lime was brought by
packhorses from Padstow, lead was brought from Devon, and tin for the solder came from Bodmin. Fifty horses
brought fuel from the park at Hellisburi to smelt the lead, which was cast in sand on the site. Bolts and hinges
were also fitted to the outer doors (the Gatehouse), the windows of the High Chamber and the Cellar, and the
door towards Sanctum Hulanum (probably the gate in the North Curtain Wall of the Inner Ward, leading to the
chapel). A small building was constructed next to the kitchen to serve as a salsary.
The survey of 1345/6 informs us that the newly re-roofed tower near the outer gate was of two storeys and had a
chimney. A similar tower was “beyond the inner gate” and had two chimneys. The chapel, the Little Hall with
adjacent service buildings of pantry, buttery and kitchen, and a stable for eight horses were also mentioned as in
a good state of repair (translation at PRO WORK14/859, original source not traced). It appears that the hall had
been reconstructed on a smaller scale, although this seems to conflict with the documentary account of 1305 that

2013 21
refers to magnam aulam et parvam (‘the Great Hall and the small one’ Maclean 1879, 269). These accounts of
the 1340s suggest that there were more structures in the castle than can presently be identified.
In 1361 the Black Prince’s council ordered the provisioning of his castles of Tintagel, Restormel, Launceston
and Trematon (Maclean 1879, 198). In 1369 there were only a Constable and a porter at the castle, together with
a store of wheat, wine and salt (BL Harley Roll E7). The government of the Black Prince’s son Richard II in the
1380s made further investment. In 1382/3 repairs were made to roofs and a garrison of four men-at-arms and
four archers stayed in the castle for four weeks of the summer. In 1383/4 further repairs to the roofs were made,
using lead and tin brought from Lostwithiel. Five men-at-arms stayed for five weeks (PRO E101/461/12 mm3, 4,
5d).
King Charles VI of France, who assembled large invasion fleets in the Flemish ports, threatened England with
invasion in 1385 and 1386. Richard II’s government reacted by taking a number of measures for coastal defence.
Amongst these, repairs were made to Tintagel Castle and a garrison of four men-at-arms was installed for six
weeks in the summer of 1385. The following year the repair and supply of the castles of Trematon and Tintagel
was ordered, including the placing of cannon and other artillery there. Extensive repairs were made to the walls
and buildings of the castle, including the renewal of the wooden bridge between the Lower and Inner Wards.
This must have been a very substantial undertaking, requiring ten carpenters working for 24 days, using timber
brought from the woods at Restormel and 300 spiknails. A garrison of 24 men-at-arms and 10 archers was
present for four weeks in the summer, supplied with wine, corn and salt from Plymouth. Repairs to the roofs
continued into the spring of 1388 (PRO E101/461/12 mm1, 2; SC6/813/7 m7; 813/8 mm14-16). Although the
castle may have defended little, it would have been difficult to dislodge any French or Castilian force that
occupied it.
By the 1390s and in the 15th century, the garrison appears to have been reduced again to a Constable and a
Chaplain. In the 1380s and 1390s it was used occasionally as a political prison. The castle was becoming ruined
by the late 15th century, but minor repairs continued until 1502 (Maclean 1879, 201-3; Radford 1939, 5; Canner
1982, 21, 28-9, 33; Thomas 1993, 117; DOC roll 59).
2.4.5. Post-Medieval Landscape Setting (Phases 5 and 6)
This does not appear to have been investigated in any systematic way.
In 1583, when there was a threat of invasion by the Spanish, Sir Richard Grenville inspected the castle, drew up
a picture-plan, and made recommendations for its defence (PRO SP12/164 no 62, printed at Wilkinson 1871,
233-4). He suggested adding two bastions to the Iron Gate wall, and the construction of two emplacements at the
north end of the Island. These emplacements appear to have been built (Sites 67, 68), one being regarded by
Radford as part of Site D, and the other lying on the sea-ward slope to its north-east (Thomas 1993, 52).
Was Tintagel a castle of coastal defence, as used by Richard II in 1385-6 and Sir Richard Grenville in 1583?
Most of the Island was used for sheep grazing and rabbit warrens from the 13th century to c1930.
This period is neither irrelevant nor unimportant; it has simply not figured in any previous research frameworks
and the best summary remains that in Thomas (1993).This remains true in 2013.
2.4.6. Ministry of Works/English Heritage Stewardship (Phase 7)
The Duchy of Cornwall, which has owned the site since the fourteenth century, placed it under the Stewardship
of the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Works in 1930. The Duchy first commissioned a survey from the
Ministry in August 1928, following the exposure of foundations on the Island by the action of wind and rain, and
by a grass-fire.
The Duchy carried out improvement works on the entrance paths before the commencement of the Stewardship,
and afterwards works continued by the Ministry, and also by the Parish Council (without permission). The
Ministry’s workmen carried out extensive works to the remains of the monument in the 1930s. The walls of the
castle were consolidated, the three Wards were cleared of debris, and new turf was laid. All the stonewall
foundations outside of the Inner Ward on the Island, and within the Upper Ward are partly reconstructions of the
1930s, following Radford’s excavations. Clearance of the interiors of the buildings, the wall reconstructions and
the re-establishment of ancient path lines were carried out according to his directions (PRO WORK14/859, 860,
861).

2013 22
During the course of preparing this Plan, the standing structure was studied in some detail, and it seems
impossible at present to visually identify which elements are original (i.e. medieval) – there have been too many
phases of modification, and repair/repointing by Radford and subsequently. However, one possibly useful way
forward is to undertake a close comparison of the surviving site photographs by Radford with similar views
today, by means of which it may be possible to identify the remains as Radford found them in the 1930s. A
programme of further study and investigation is merited here (see Policy Arch2). In 2013 there is no information
whether this has been carried out.
The extent of the refurbishment work done in the 1930s, the 1950s, and later (including the consolidation of
Radford’s excavated sites) would repay further investigation.
This process of improvement works continued into the 1990s, with programmes of paving and path-laying, the
maintenance hut built here in 1990 (Bailey, Sharpe & Thorpe 1993,49) and the extension to the English Heritage
Visitor Centre.
2.4.7. Phase 8 – Condition Survey of 1995 and Site Management
The process of improvement works has continued since 1995. These works have included the programme of
paving and path laying new way-marking signs, the construction of the steps behind the Inner Ward, and the
extension to the English Heritage Shop.
2.5. Tintagel’s Role in Literature and the Arts

The archaeological and historical importance of Tintagel cannot be separated from the accretion of legendary
associations that have accumulated around it. Both the legends and the drama of the natural setting have inspired
prose, poetry, painting and music from the medieval period to the present day.
The literature has significant cultural merit in its own right. It can be an elusive, yet crucial, source of
information in piecing together the cultural landscape and historic narrative, especially for the post-Roman
phase.
Despite the justifiable academic caution expressed in the following discussion, it must be remembered that there
is little doubt that there was an ‘Arthur’ - or possibly several people whose exploits have become conflated into
one heroic figure of ‘Arthur’. This historical person/people was the source of the legends.
2.5.1. The Mark and Tristan Stories
The Mark and Tristan stories appear to have been based on Cornish folklore current in the early medieval period.
They consistently place the court of the ruler of Cornwall at Tintagel (Padel 1981, 70-1; Todd 1987, 263). They
exemplify the theme of divine love in the courtly literature of the high medieval period.
Earl Richard’s building works at Tintagel may have deliberately reinforced the connections with the Tristan and
Iseult story, particularly at the Garden and the Chapel (see above).
2.5.2. St Petroc and the Children of Brychan
In Cornwall there is a notable pattern of churches, chapels and natural landmark features that are associated with
late Celtic saints, many apparently originating from the households of minor principalities in South Wales. One
example of this pattern is St Petroc, the patron saint of Cornwall.
Thomas (1993, 109) has suggested that the pre-Norman parish church at Tintagel (Site 33) was founded by the
monastery of St Petroc at Bodmin, and shared the same dedication until the new Norman church was built as a
daughter foundation of St Materiana of Minster. Furthermore, the chapel on Tintagel Island (Site 28) is dedicated
to St Juliot (Sanguiland in Domesday Book) who may be the Julliana referred to in the list of 24 children of
Brychan recorded by William of Worcester in 1478 (Doble 1924).
Other parish churches of north Cornwall and Devon have patrons who also feature on this list of the Children of
Brychan. The most notable of these is Nectan, who is associated with the isolated and picturesque waterfall in
the Rocky Valley near Tintagel. Stories surrounding both Brychan and Nectan, like many of the Celtic
missionaries, are semi-legendary. Brychan was a fifth century prince who founded the kingdom of Brycheniog
(Brecon) and returned to his wife after a 24 year absence to subsequently father a child for each year he was
away. Nectan, his eldest son, picked up and carried his head to a well after he was slain by robbers.

2013 23
The names of these semi-legendary saints connect local churches and landmarks, such as wells and waterfalls, to
folk tales, which have a distinctive regional character. These often link pre-Christian and Christian literary
themes and devices, and allude to the movement of people and ideas between the post-Roman kingdoms of the
western British Isles.
This, of course, is the original Celtic Christian church, and not the post-Augustine competitor. This is clearly, in
part, also the same historical context as the real ‘Arthur’ – whoever he was. The survival of Celtic Christianity
was also a symbol of indigenous resistance to the ‘English’ – and the survival of Romanitas.
2.5.3. Geoffrey of Monmouth and his Successors
The writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth were the origin of most of the later growth of the Arthurian associations
around Tintagel. However there is an independent strand of tradition in early Welsh literature. His Historia
Regum Britanniae was written in about 1136-39. Geoffrey had apparently visited Tintagel, and had seen the
Great Ditch, some of the post-Roman remains, and perhaps a defensive wall on the site of the Upper Ward
(Thomas 1988a, 430-1). He claimed to be drawing on earlier texts (circumstantial evidence supports this) and
was probably aware of Cornish folklore regarding Tintagel, as above. He transferred the story of Arthur’s
conception to this dramatic and renowned location, and referred to it as an oppidum (Jenner 1927, 196).
Twenty years later the Norman poet Robert Wace introduced the Round Table to the story. At Marie de
Champagne’s court at Troyes in northern France, the poet Chrétien de Troyes (1135-83) produced a number of
Arthurian commissions, introducing the tales of the individual knights and the quest for the Holy Grail. These
mark an important stage in the development of medieval popular literature, by introducing the concept of courtly
love from Arab and Moorish (Ummayad, Abbasid, Almoravid) literature. This also echoed the Celtic love tale of
Tristan and Iseult. Wolfram von Eschebach’s Parzifal and other Grail cycle stories followed these developments
in the early 13th century.
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s story of Arthur’s conception and birth was repeated in the 12th century French
Romance of Merlin, and in the Grail Romance Percival le Gallois (Radford 1939, 10, 12). In Percival le Gallois
Arthur, Lancelot and Gawain, riding incogniti, arrive at the castle of Tintagel, where the ground around has
collapsed into an abyss; they are told the story of Arthur’s conception by the priest in the Chapel.
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s attempt to create a concept of Britain based on classical myths and Celtic tales, rapidly
became a focus of an Anglo-French cultural identity. The patronage of the Angevins resulted in the story of the
British hero Arthur developing, under the influence of the literary traditions of Celtic Europe and Asia (via the
Crusades and the Spanish Reconquista) to establish distinctive, inspirational codes of martial and courtly
behaviour. This provided a setting for the political and dynastic ambitions of the Angevins and Plantagenets.
The crusades of Richard Coeur de Lion are also a part of this Frankish-Norman milieu. The loss of their
northern French possessions in 1204 impelled a new focus on the British aspects of the dynasty’s cultural
context.
A group of canons of Laon visited south-west England in 1113, in search of funds to rebuild their cathedral. As
they journeyed from Exeter to Bodmin they were told that they were entering Terra Arturi, and were shown
features called Arthur’s Chair and Arthur’s Oven. Their servants became involved in a quarrel at Bodmin about
whether Arthur was still alive or not (Elliott-Binns 1955, 261-2, 412-13; Radford and Swanton 1975, 15). These
events took place before Geoffrey of Monmouth tethered these Arthurian associations to Tintagel.
The popularity of the stories told by Geoffrey of Monmouth probably prompted Robert de Hornicote to change
his name to de Tintaioel by 1207, and inspired Earl Richard of Cornwall to build a castle of prestige at the
reputed site of the court of his illustrious predecessors (Thomas 1982, 21; Padel 1988, 61-2; Thomas 1993, 25;
Thomas 1994, 213-14).
2.5.4. Romantic and Pre-Raphaelite Representations
The French Romantic poetry entailed mythic and religious elements – above all else the Holy Grail and the
Fisher King. This addition in turn incorporated Arthur in to a European-wide literary movement that would
reappear with Sir Thomas de Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur (ca. 1400), and was utilised by Henry VIII to
legitimise his authority. In Thomas de Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur, Lancelot frees the castle and village of
Tintagel from two giants; the castle and the village are at the end of a long bridge (Jenner 1927, 198). These
topographic details are reminiscent of the 16th century descriptions of the castle. Henry VIII sent the antiquarian
John Leland on his journeys around England with the explicit instruction to collect evidence of Arthur’s
existence.
2013 24
The ruins of Tintagel and their spectacular natural setting drew the attention of the topographical illustrators of
the 17th and 18th centuries. Samuel and Nathaniel Buck made engravings of the castle in 1728 (published by
Norden in 1734), and Samuel Lysons produced an engraving later in the century. J M W Turner made an
engraving of the castle in 1819.
The re-publishing of Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur in the early 19th century sparked a renewed interest in
Arthurian literature among the Pre-Raphaelites later in the century. Alfred Lord Tennyson published his The
Lady of Shalott and the Idylls of the King using Geoffrey of Monmouth, Layamon’s English translation and Lady
Charlotte Guest’s The Mabinogion as sources. From about 1850 the Pre-Raphaelites produced a long series of
illustrations derived from Tennyson’s writings. In 1893-4, J M Dent published an edition of Malory with 21
full-page illustrations by Aubrey Beardsley, effectively transforming Arthur into a folk-hero and not one
restricted to either the intelligentsia or Wales/Cornwall.
Robert Hunt noted that in eastern Cornwall rock markings and geological peculiarities were often named after
Arthur, whereas in western Cornwall they were usually ascribed to giants. In 1863 he could find no stories of
Arthur at Camelford or Tintagel, not even from the man who had charge of the castle ruins (Hunt 1871, 303).
The poet Swinburne wrote a description of Tintagel. Tintagel’s literary associations drew Charles Dickens and
W M Thackeray to visit the castle in 1842. In Alfred Tennyson’s Morte d’Arthur of 1842, Arthur is found as a
naked child on the sands of Dundagil. Tennyson went on to publish Idylls of the King in 1859. He visited
Tintagel in 1848, 1860 and 1887. R S Hawker’s Quest of the Sangraal followed Tennyson’s work in 1864. R S
Hawker, Wilkie Collins and others wrote stories about the nearby St Nectan’s Chapel (SMR 23083). Thomas
Hardy visited Tintagel in 1872 and 1922, and sketched the castle. On the latter occasion he drew an imaginary
reconstruction as a setting for his poetical play Queen of Cornwall, published in 1923 (Canner 1982, 79, 82).
Francis Brett-Young published his poem ‘Hic Iacet Arthurus Rex Quondam Rexque Futurus’ in The Island
Between the Wars (see foreword).
TS Eliot published The Waste Land in 1922 which included the themes of the Grail Castle and the Fisher King,
drawn from the medieval French Romance tradition.
Between 1938 and 1940 T H White published four novels – The Sword in the Stone (later to be animated by
Disney), The Queen of Air and Darkness, The Ill-made Knight, and The Candle in the Wind – later combined
into the modern classic The Once and Future King. These are all based upon Malory. In 1963 Rosemary
Sutcliffe wrote The Sword at Sunset, which for the first time in centuries restored the Arthurian story to a more
appropriate historical context and used earlier sources – e.g. Nennius. Following in the same tradition was Mary
Stewart’s novels The Crystal Cave, The Hollow Hills, The Last Enchantment, and The Wicked Day (1970-1984).
More recent fictional accounts include Marion Bradley’s feminist The Mists of Avalon (1982) and more works
by Stephen Lawhead and Bernard Cornwell.
2.5.5. Musical Representations
Edward Elgar composed part of his second symphony while staying at King Arthur’s Castle Hotel in Tintagel
during the First World War. Arnold Bax wrote his orchestral tone poem Tintagel in 1917-19, having stayed for
six weeks in Tintagel with Harriet Cohen in August and September 1917. It opens with a lush romantic theme
evocative of calm seas on a sunny Cornish day, interrupted by increasingly violent music to suggest the waves
crashing over Tintagel’s cliffs and the legends of Tristan and Arthur, before returning to calm again.
In a modern jazz context, John Surman issued his CD Road to St Ives in 1990, consisting of a series of
improvisations inspired by Cornish places. The longest piece is entitled ‘Tintagel’.
2.5.6. Modern Mystical Interpretations
If the identified works can be considered ‘mainstream’ literature, then since the 1960s there has developed an
immense and extremely varied body of literature of Celtic/Arthurian esoterica. Much is only peripherally linked
to anything truly Celtic, much less demonstrably ‘Arthurian’ (e.g. The Celtic Book of the Dead – inspired by the
legitimate Tibetan Book?). These bear little or no connection to Tintagel. This body of literature, diffuse as it is,
nonetheless attracts a substantial number of visitors to Tintagel, as one of the better documented places linked to
Arthur. Many visitors also view this literature - the legends of Arthur - as a part of the experience of Tintagel.
Arguably these visitors are less interested in seeing or understanding any particular site or structure in the
monument than they are in experiencing the atmosphere of Tintagel. They also represent a large potential
audience who could be educated about the more historical/archaeological basis to the myths of Arthur.

2013 25
There are three main strands to the current mystical interpretations of the place Tintagel. The first assumes the
reality of a historic Arthur and his connection with the castle or its preceding settlement. The second views
Tintagel as part of a mystic landscape designed to reflect astrological patterns. The third regards Tintagel as a
focus for the study of ancient spiritual mysteries. These strands are not mutually exclusive, but combine within a
web of esoteric thought which led Broadhurst (1992, 18) to write: “the attraction of Tintagel is unashamedly
mystical”
In the first strand the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth is regarded as second in importance only to the Bible, and
the very extent of its influence as evidence of its essential truth (Broadhurst 1992, 44-5). This strand includes the
Order of the Fellowship of the Knights of the Round Table, based at King Arthur’s Halls of Chivalry (see
below). Its literature states categorically that Tintagel is the birthplace of King Arthur, who ruled South Wales,
Cornwall and Brittany, and that his last battle was fought at Camelford (The Book of the Order… 1-2). Other
local authors followed the same line, and suggested that the Round Table was at the castle (Dickinson 1947, 7-
11, 21).
This strand of thought is probably present in the majority of the visitors to Tintagel, many of whom expect to see
King Arthur’s Castle, and the place where the exploits of Arthur and his knights centred on the Round Table. For
some the chapel is where the wounded Arthur was taken after the battle of Camlann.
In the second strand, Arthurian sites including Tintagel are seen as ancient centres of power and ritual,
accumulators or amplifiers of natural energy. Elements of the mystery are deliberately obscure, encoded in the
landscape, to protect them from the minds of the profane, but are nevertheless revealed by the writers of popular
books. There is thought to be a Round Table in the landscape, centred on Stowe’s Pound Hill, and stretching
from Tintagel to Fowey and Plymouth, with other ancient sites located on an inner circle. Its centre-line through
Tintagel aligns with the rising sun at midwinter solstice and the setting sun at midsummer solstice at latitude 50’
30”. It therefore represents the zenith and nadir of the reign of the Sun King (personified as King Arthur on
earth) and controls power in the land (Broadhurst 21-2, 66, 114-19, 125, figs 121, 122). The mystic Wellesley
Tudor Pole saw Tintagel as one of a chain of pilgrimage sites associated with St Michael, the Christian
equivalent of the Sun King (Broadhurst 1992, 191).
An exercise in dowsing has traced a “male current” and a “female current” flowing through the village, the
Castle and the Island into the sea, linking together all the significant points, ancient and modern. There are
particularly strong “energy centres” at the West Chambers, directly over Merlin’s Cave, and in the Tunnel
(Broadhurst 1992, 164-172).
In the third strand the truth of the existence of a historical Arthur is largely irrelevant. “Arthur” can be symbolic
of a higher level of consciousness present in all of us, as “the King within” (Broadhurst 1992, 21, 48). The
important elements of the site tend to be those with uncertain archaeological explanations. Arthur’s Cups and
Saucers (Site 2) may be for the purpose of “scrying”, focussing on a shiny surface to enter magical realms. The
tunnel may have been a deliberately excavated winding passage with male and female entrances, leading to a
sacred pool, and it is likely to be symbolic of renewal, or a place for the contemplation of the earth mysteries.
Merlin’s Cave is also seen as important for provoking visions and revelations (Seddon 1990, 4-5, 166;
Broadhurst 1992, 129, 131, 149).
This strand has its most developed form in the work of Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Anthroposophy, and his
followers. He visited the castle in August 1924 and gave a lecture from the rocks, pointing out the places where
Arthur and his knights lived and worked. “Arthur” was the title of successive leaders of a spiritual mystery-
school, a focus of wisdom, art and religion, supposedly founded in c1100 BC and moving to Wales in the 6th
century AD. Merlin was a priest of the Hibernian mysteries, whose teaching was promoted at Tintagel.
Steiner viewed Arthur and the knights as figures who studied ‘super sensible’ realms, communicating with
higher beings and drawing spiritual energies down to the earth. Their task was to transfer the secrets of the
Egyptian-Chaldean age into the Christian era, secrets concerned with the forces of the zodiac and the planets,
which ensured that Michael (St Michael) retained his dominion over cosmic intelligence (Seddon 1990, 17-19,
110, 115, 120, 187; Broadhurst 1992, 155-7).
2.5.7. Modern Archaeological and Historical Research

Leslie Alcock followed leads in John Leland’s Itinerary and excavated (1966-70) at South Cadbury, revealing a
prehistoric hillfort re-used by an Arthurian period noble (By South Cadbury that is Camelot, 1967; Arthur’s
2013 26
Britain – History and Archaeology 367-634, 1971). Among Alcock’s contemporaries, John Morris wrote his
erudite and immensely wide-ranging The Age of Arthur (1977), and Geoffrey Ashe The Discovery of Arthur
(1985). At Tintagel, it is the work of Prof. Charles Thomas, which is of overwhelming importance (already
summarised in section 2.2.4 above).
2.6. Ecological Interest
The cliffs of Tintagel provide breeding-grounds for sea-birds, and environments for lizards and butterflies.
Lichens, rock samphire and wild garlic grow in pockets in the rocks (Sharpe 1990, 33; see above Section 2.1.2
and details in Section 5.6 and Appendix 3 below).
The Nature Conservancy Council designated the area called Tintagel Cliffs as an SSSI in 1951 and re-notified
the site under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act in 1988. This area stretches from Boscastle to Dennis
Point; most of the English Heritage Stewardship area lies within it.
2.7. Tourism Issues

2.7.1. The Natural Setting
Many of the visitors to Tintagel are drawn by the drama of its landscape setting “Blue seas crash against high
dark jagged cliffs redolent of unspoilt nature” (Thomas 1988a, 421). Tintagel stands out as particularly beautiful
even amongst the acknowledged beauty of the North Cornwall coastline.
2.7.2. The National Trust

One of the National Trust’s earliest acquisitions was at Barras Nose, on the headland to the east of the castle, in
1895 (Thomas 1993, 31). It also acquired Glebe Cliff adjacent to the Churchyard in 1930. The National Trust
property now extends south-westwards to Trebarwith Cove. It commissioned a survey of the slate quarries of
this coast from the Cornwall Archaeological Unit in 1990 (Sharpe 1990). The National Trust’s property, The Old
Post Office in Tintagel village is also a popular attraction. The National Trust was consulted during the
preparation of this plan and comments received are incorporated into Chapter 5 Management Issues.
2.7.3. North Cornwall Coast Path

The North Cornwall Coast Path crosses Glebe Cliff and the English Heritage Stewardship area to the south of the
castle. It is used both by serious long-distance walkers and visitors venturing only short distances from their cars
parked on Glebe Cliff or Trebarwith Strand (Sharpe 1990, 34).
2.7.4. King Arthur’s Castle Hotel

The architect Sylvanus Trevail built King Arthur’s Castle Hotel in 1895-9, on the headland to the east of the
castle, for William Taylor. An attached golf course was also constructed. In 1903 the Hotel was allowed to run
underground water pipes down to Tintagel Cove. The café opposite the English Heritage Visitor Centre was a
tearoom belonging to the hotel in the 1930s (PRO WORK 14/859 and 861).
The Hotel was purchased by Mr J Mappin and renamed Camelot Castle. It is apparently to undergo some
refurbishment with, according to Mr Mappin, a considerable investment. Its future use may affect the setting of
the castle and the visitor profile of the area. The hotel remains in operation in 2013.
2.7.5. King Arthur’s Hall of Chivalry

The retired custard millionaire and local benefactor Frederick T Glasscock, founded the Fellowship of the Round
Table and built King Arthur’s Hall of Chivalry in 1933 to house the Fellowship’s meetings. It was constructed of
varieties of Cornish granite. The stained-glass windows by Veronica Whall are the most notable feature
(Armstrong 1935, 22; Whitaker 1990, 313-14).
2.7.6. The Impact of Tourism on the Local Area

Tourism has been a major factor in the local Cornish economy for many years. A peak in visitor numbers was
reached in the 1970s when up to 1.5 million visitors reached Tintagel village each year (cf Phoenix Designs
report 1995). This placed tourism as the mainstay of the local economy – and so it remains. Visitor numbers
2013 27
have declined steadily since that peak leading to a downward spiral of economic and environmental decline. The
causes of the decline are probably many and not completely understood. It may be argued that an unplanned
proliferation of themed shops and a decline in the quality and condition of the buildings and facilities within the
village have damaged Tintagel’s image and thus limited its ability to attract new visitors. The socio-economic
characterisation of visitors to Tintagel Castle is markedly different to that visiting the village, which may mean
that the village and castle appeal to different parts of the tourism spectrum. If so, it would clearly be to the
advantage of both to target a wider range of visitors. Another change in tourism since the 1970s is the steady
decline of visitors staying overnight, replaced by day-visitors. Day-trippers make a smaller contribution to the
local economy.
The National Trust’s report ‘Valuing our Environment’ demonstrated that in Cornwall:
• 81% of all holiday trips to Cornwall are motivated by the rural landscape
• 3 million holiday trips are motivated by conserved landscape
• a total of 20,900 full time equivalent jobs are supported by landscape motivated trips to Cornwall.
The decline in domestic tourism is well evidenced in the change of domestic holidays (i.e. a growth of overseas
package holidays), the diversification of leisure activities (e.g. shopping) and far greater competition for
discretionary spending.
The Tintagel Parish Council was also consulted during the Plan preparation, and their concerns are noted here
and in sections 5.3 and 5.4 below.
2.7.7. Visitor Surveys

English Heritage and the village were well aware of the importance of tourism to the local economy, and of the
changes in visitor numbers. In response a series of surveys and studies were undertaken, including:
• The Economic Regeneration of Tintagel by Phoenix Design (1995)
• Tintagel Interpretation Project (Atlantic Consultants 1997)
• Tintagel Visitor Behaviour Research (Tourism Associates 1997)
• Tintagel Enhancement and Regeneration Project (Atlantic Consultants 1998)
These in turn have led directly to the Tintagel Regeneration Forum, coordinated by North Cornwall District
Council, which is seeking funding under Objective 1 of the European Union. This is an integrated proposal for
improvements to both the village and the Stewardship site. This work has been superseded by events in the
intervening years.
Reflecting its popular appeal as the perceived birthplace of Arthur, visitors to Tintagel represent a wide social
and economic background, including many people who do not commonly visit historic sites. Tintagel therefore
has the capacity to play a major role in national strategies for expanding access to the historic environment.
However, this has to be assessed against the potential for visitor capacity.
During the summer season visitor numbers of approximately 2,000 per week are achieved just after Easter, and
an increase to a peak of approximately 14,000 per week during the second week in August. During the winter the
figures average approximately 200 per week. At current levels the peak periods can be managed, but any further
growth, as found when 19,000 people visited the property to experience the eclipse in 1999, is not sustainable
due to erosion and crowding. The main constraint is access, especially onto the Island, but there is also a serious
reduction in the quality of the visitor experience, inadequate level of toilet facilities and greater conservation
impact. The maximum visitor capacity is therefore taken at 12,000-14,000/week during the seasonal peak, but
there remains considerable scope for increasing figures outside the current peak periods and throughout much of
the year. Another alternative would be to consider temporary measures to reduce visitor numbers to allow the
site to recover.
Visitor income (from retail sales alone) for 1998/1999 was £194,000 and for 1999/2000 increased to £219,000.
This was generated through membership, admission and retail. Running costs at Tintagel are low, but
maintenance costs are high and the revenue from Tintagel also contributes to the cost of conserving low and non-
income generating properties throughout the region (cf. Section 4.2.8 below).
2013 28
2.8. Footpaths
A brief discussion of the footpaths on the site is also needed in order to fully understand the site. Few of these
have any historic authenticity. (The numbering used here follows that in the 1995 Condition Survey for ease of
cross-referencing). Footpath 1 (the track) is probably the historic route down the valley to the castle, the haven
and the mineral/slate workings and to the Haven. Its origin is unknown, but it may well be medieval. Footpath 4
is the footpath that follows the holloway between the Lower Ward and the church/churchyard. There is
circumstantial evidence that this originated in the late Pre-Conquest Period, or even to the preceding post-Roman
period. Footpath 32 is also a holloway and may well be medieval in origin. The remainder are all likely to be
relatively recent additions to the landscape. A brief summary is presented below (refer to the gazetteer); for
more detail see Landscape Condition Survey (Caroe 1995) and all are depicted on Figure 85. It should be noted
that some of the paths tend to be more obvious in some years (and seasons) than others, depending upon visitor
usage.
Footpath Comments
1 Main track from village. Medieval origin? Gravel surfaced. Very heavy wear/use.
2 Zig-zag footpath from Visitor Centre to Lower Ward. Gravel. Worn and rutted in paces through heavy use (one
of two main routes). Timber risers.
3 Lower path on west side of valley, branches from 1 above Mill. Dirt and gravel. Considerable wear/use.
4 Holloway (late Pre-Conquest origin) from Church to Lower Ward. Gravel, natural stone and earth with stiles.
Considerable wear.
5 Short Footpath linking 2, 3, 32 and 4 into and through the Lower Ward. Mainly gravel, with pitched slate in
ward, where usage is heaviest.
6 The steps from Lower Ward down to FP7 and Bridge. Very steep, but sound. Stopping points might be helpful.
7 Continuation of FP1 beyond Visitor Centre and around Headland to the Bridge. Concrete span – condition?
Gravel surface, very heavy wear, giving way to natural rock.
8 Bridge and Footpath up to Inner Ward. Largely slabbed or worn bedrock. Narrow and steep but pleasant.
9 Footpath from Inner Ward down to Iron Gate. Very narrow, gravelled but very rutted through rain washout,
occasional slate or timber risers.
10 Footpath from Inner ward to Site F (no. 21). Gravel, level wide.
11 Footpath from Site F to Site B. (site 19). Gravel and dirt surface, some natural stone slabs.
12 Path from site F to Plateau. Surface varies – gravel, timber steps, slate risers, and natural slate slabs.
13 Path from site B to Path 12. Largely of flat natural slate slabs.
14 Path from Site B (19) to Site C (20). Natural stone surface, low usage.
15 Path from Site C to Plateau near north end of Site D (40). Now very faint. Very uneven – discourage use?
16 Path along eastern edge of Plateau, from top of path 12 to Site D (40). Dirt, or turf. Localised wear/erosion,
especially near spring.
17 Path from Site D (40) back to garden (56). Faint, turf little worn.

2013 29
18 Path along north edge of Plateau from site D (40) to the Tunnel (39). Localised severe erosion around Tunnel.
Largely dirt/worn turf.
19 Path from mid-way point of path 18 back to Garden (56). Not visible summer 2000.
20 Path from junction 18/19 towards well and southern escarpment. Not visible summer 2000.
21 Path from Tunnel to north-eastern headland. Localised erosion near Tunnel (39), and large areas of exposed
bedrock near headland. Otherwise turf.
22 + 23 Path from north-eastern headland back to Well in centre of plateau, via the new pump-house. Largely turf or
worn exposed dirt/bedrock.
24 Faint broad path from 22/23 to southern escarpment and King Arthur’s Footprint (2) and the Cups and Saucers
(1). Largely turf, but as this area was burned in the 1983 grass-fire, the turf is shallow though shows good
species diversity.
25 Path from 24 eastwards to Site A (18). Description as above.
26 Path from Well (38) to Site A (18). Largely turf and little worn in summer 2000.
27 Path from Well (38) to Garden (56) and footpath junction 12/16. Well and locally severely worn turf/dirt.
The junction of paths 12, 16, 27, 29, 30 could use a low-level sign (?) or even benches considering level of
wear/use
28 Path from Garden to Site A – not visible summer 2000
29 Path from junction 12/16 and 27 to western side of Site A (18). Well- worn turf.
30 Eastern variant parallel with 29. Not very worn in 2000
31 Path from Site A (18) south and downhill to Inner Ward. Locally very worn, some lengths gravelled, some
pitched slate steps and slate risers to gravel steps.

2013 30
3. PREVIOUS RESEARCH, FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND
PRIMARY SOURCES
3.1. Previous Research and Investigations
There has been a number of excavations at Tintagel Castle and Tintagel Churchyard over the last 150 years (see
Figure 8). However, these field interventions have still only excavated a small fraction of the total area of the
monument. Rather less attention has been paid to historical research.
3.1.1. Rev Wilkinson 1855
J J Wilkinson excavated on the Island inside the Chapel in 1855. He uncovered the altar and some slate-lined
graves, and found slots for the screen in the walls and some pieces of moulded stone. His work was published
only as a brief note some years later (Wilkinson 1871, 229).
3.1.2. Rev Arundell 1942
E D Arundell was the vicar of Tintagel, and excavated in the Church and Churchyard in 1942. He explored the
interior of Mound C, uncovering parts of mound-graves and slate-lined cist-graves, and re-erected a granite pillar
that had fallen nearby. The work was recorded by the photographs of a visiting archaeologist, and apparently in
“Fragmentary Notes”, whose whereabouts are now unknown. His work was re-excavated by the Cornwall
Archaeological Unit in 1990 (Canner 1982, 117; Nowakowski and Thomas 1990, 3; Thomas 1993, 65).
3.1.3. Ralegh Radford 1933-57
Radford excavated on the site on the behalf of the Ministry of Works in 1933, 1934 and 1936, to prepare the site
for visitors. Works to consolidate the walls discovered continued until 1938-9. The actual work of excavation
was undertaken by locally employed quarrymen, under intermittent direction from Radford. His method was to
dig a series of trial-trenches first, followed by total clearance around the structures discovered. The results were
recorded on plans and sections drawn on graph paper by the Ministry’s architectural draftsman J. A. Wright, who
often visited the site when the excavation season had finished. The drawings were later worked up into scaled
plans to form the basis of publication drawings (NMR: PRO WORK31/1865-74). There were also site
notebooks. The pottery and the other finds recovered were only selectively marked, the choice falling on those
stratified pieces regarded as important for dating purposes (Thomas 1988, 424-5; O’Mahoney 1988, 68; Thomas
1993, 57).
Radford began with Site A (see Figure 8 and 51 -53), the only area fully explored by the time of his “Interim
Report” of 1935. He went on to dig Sites B to G (see Figures 54-65), the medieval Garden, the Tunnel and the
Iron Gate, and he was aware that other areas would produce similar results on excavation (Radford 1935, 401,
404, 414; Radford 1942, 27; PRO WORK 14/859 and 860).
At Site C Radford emptied the interior of the buildings and excavated down to bedrock to the west of them
(Harry et al 1999). In September 1937 Radford proposed to do one week’s work on site in July 1938, leaving
enough directions for Medland, the foreman, to continue work for the next twelve months (PRO WORK14/860).
Radford’s workmen also cleared the three wards of the castle of collapsed debris, although no excavation below
ground level appears to have taken place. Consolidation of walls followed here too (Thomas 1993, 58). By 1937
the castle wards were cleared and well-trodden (see photograph in the castle archive).
Radford returned to Tintagel in 1957 and dug trenches in the area of the Great Ditch (see Figure 10). The
positions of Radford’s trenches have now been plotted with a reasonable degree of accuracy from the Wright
drawings (see Figure 8), and GUARD has investigated his methodology on site. His investigations can now be
incorporated in any new work on the site and used as a basis for analysis (Harry 1999, 22, 24; Harry et al 1999).
Radford’s interpretations are discussed in Section 2.2.3.
3.1.4. Central Excavation Unit 1981-85
The Central Excavation Unit has undertaken only minor excavations on the site. There was a small trench near
the south-west corner of the Hall in the Inner Ward in 1981 (Thomas 1988b, 50 fig 19), and four 1m2 trenches
dug in advance of boreholes in the Upper Ward in 1985 (McAvoy 1985).
2013 31
3.1.5. Cornwall Archaeological Unit 1985-99
The Cornwall Archaeological Unit has undertaken several programmes of excavation and recording in advance
of building and maintenance work within the property in guardianship. These have included a watching brief on
the Burnt Area when it was raked in advance of re-seeding in 1985; four trenches in the Lower Ward in 1986 in
advance of wall stabilisation and drainage works; wall recording and analysis in the Inner Ward (including the
soakaway trench) and the Chapel in 1988, before repointing and maintenance; two trenches before the
construction of the steps behind the Inner Ward in 1989; the recording of the cliff section below the Hall in
1994; an evaluation and watching brief when the English Heritage Visitor Centre was extended in 1994-5; and
small trenches in advance of the paving works and wall consolidation in the three Wards and Site A, an
evaluation of the “new buildings” above Site C, and small trenches before way-marking works in 1998-9.
In addition, the Unit undertook two programmes of excavation in the Churchyard (see Figures 19-23) with the
Institute of Cornish Studies in 1990 and 1991, with the sponsorship of Mobil North Sea. This included Mound C
and the surrounding area, Mound E and a trench straddling the boundary between the old and new churchyards.
The interior of the Church was surveyed in 1999. Recording also took place at the Borough Mill (Figures 13-15)
in the Valley in 1996.
3.1.6. Glasgow University Archaeological Research Division 1990-99
Several seasons of excavation work have been undertaken on the site in the 1990s by Glasgow
University and latterly by GUARD in 1999. These commenced with evaluation trenches on the Lower Terrace of
Site C in 1990, broadened into an area excavation in 1993-4; and trenches on the Middle and Upper Terraces of
Site C to re-investigate Radford’s work here, and to cover surviving areas of archaeological deposits which he
had left behind. Other analysis of the Wright drawings and fieldwork were undertaken to determine the position
of all the trenches Radford had dug. His work was further re-investigated by GUARD in and around the Great
Ditch, Little Ditch, and Lower Ward Site T in 1998. In addition, recording work was undertaken when the lower
part of the steps behind the Inner ward were built adjacent to Site F and a small maintenance hut was built in
1990.
The GUARD work has produced the first definite evidence for late-Roman and post-Roman structures on the
Island and the first radiocarbon dates for the site. It has also included the first programme of environmental
sampling on the site (Harry and Morris 1997, 125).
More recent work has been undertaken by the Cornwall Heritage Environment Services team, notes of which are
presented below.
3.1.7. Historical Studies
J Hatcher has written broader studies of medieval Cornwall in 1970, based on manuscript sources in the Public
Record Office and the Duchy of Cornwall Office (Hatcher 1970). These have included some mentions of
Tintagel parish and manor.
The Reverend A C Canner, vicar of Tintagel, produced a very competent parochial history in 1982. This drew on
secondary material and readily available printed primary material, beside a good deal of local knowledge
(Canner 1982).
No historical study focussed on the primary sources for Tintagel parish has been undertaken.
3.2. Categories of Evidence

Some types of evidence, which derive from Tintagel, are crucial for the interpretation of the site against a wider
background, and have also assumed an intrinsic importance.
3.2.1. Environmental Evidence
Environmental samples only began to be collected systematically at Tintagel in the GUARD excavations of the
1990s. This botanical and faunal material is a rare survival of environmental evidence from 5th and 6th century
Britain. The samples contribute to the interpretation of the site at this period, suggesting that crops were grown
inland and transported to the Island for final processing. Burnt bone from the Lower Terrace of Site C suggests
that human cremation may have taken place on the Island (Straker 1989; Harry and Morris 1997, 99, 101, 108,
125; Harry 1999, 18; Brady et al 1999, 12, 54; Harry et al 1999). Environmental evidence from this period is

2013 32
rare, and therefore these collections, and samples to be recovered by future fieldwork, are of national
importance.
3.2.2. Post-Roman Pottery
There is more imported Mediterranean pottery of various types of the 5th and 6th centuries found at Tintagel than
at all the other sites in Britain put together (but it seems that Bantham in Devon may be considered as either a
similar site or perhaps as a down-the-line exchange point (C Thorpe pers comm.), but 7th century types are not
represented. This simple fact requires continued enquiry – we do not understand the questions – why here? In
what context? Who was involved? Amphorae sherds of types Bi, Bii, Biv and Bv are found on the Island and in
the Churchyard; they are thought to have contained wine and olive-oil. African Red Slip Ware and Phocaean
Red Slip Ware from Asia Minor are also found; these are high-quality tableware imports (Thomas 1982, 21-5;
Thomas 1988a, 429; Thomas 1988c, 8; Fulford 1989, 1-5; Thomas 1990, 1-16; Nowakowski and Thomas 1990,
5, 13; Williams and Carreras 1995, 240-1, 251). These pottery assemblages are of international importance.
The smaller assemblage of glassware found repeats a similar temporal pattern (Pearce 1978, 39).The requirement
to explain the presence of this material is fundamental to the interpretation of the site in the post-Roman period,
and the dating of its abandonment. It is thought that it must have arrived via sea-borne trade from the Byzantine
Empire, and that the rulers who occupied Tintagel must have controlled the Cornish end of this trade (Campbell
1996, 86, 88).
A return trade of Cornish tin and Mendip lead is generally assumed. The trading vessels would therefore have
continued from Tintagel into the Bristol Channel, where smaller assemblages of their pottery reached Cadbury-
Congresbury and Dinas Powys. This may imply a measure of political control over the production of lead and tin
(Thomas 1988a, 429; Thomas 1988c, 13, 19; Fulford 1989, 4; Thomas 1993, 94; Campbell 1996, 88-9), or
merely the operation of supply on demand. In addition there is some evidence of contemporary metal-working in
bronze at Tintagel, on Site T and near Site C (Thomas 1993, 95; Brady et al 1999, 26). However, no tin-streams
are known to have been worked in the vicinity of Tintagel from the Iron Age to the early medieval period. Tin
does not seem to have been produced on Tintagel manor in the medieval period, as no tin-toll receipts are noted
in the accounts, unlike most other Duchy of Cornwall manors (Hatcher 1970, 190; Thomas 1988c, 15 fig 2).
3.2.3. Medieval Pottery
Medieval pottery types from Cornwall and elsewhere in the south-west are represented in the assemblages
recovered by Radford’s excavations and more recent fieldwork. Only a few vessels of the 11th and 12th centuries
are represented; most of the sherds date to the 13th to 16th centuries (O’Mahoney 1988, 67). Such material is not
always correctly identified, and never plentiful anywhere. These assemblages are rare for the south-western
region, and so have a regional significance.
3.2.4. The Artognou Slate
The Artognou slate is one of a number of incised slates which have been recovered from the castle and the
Churchyard. They are marked with a variety of religious symbols, pictures of ships and men, patterns and games
(Radford 1935, 416; Thorpe 1988, 69-78).
The Artognou slate was found re-used as a drain cover on the Middle Terrace of Site C, in a post-Roman context.
It provides evidence for a society literate in Latin, still influenced by Roman models in the 5th and 6th centuries,
with connections to Ireland and Brittany, and looking back on something they had lost (e.g. Romanitas). It is
therefore of international importance (Harry 1999, 17).
Widespread publicity following its discovery, linked it to the legendary Arthur. This misinterpretation therefore
takes its place in the mythical framework of Tintagel. For example, it is presented in a prefatory note to the third
edition of Broadhurst’s Tintagel and the Arthurian Mythos as a Latinised form of Arthur, and proof of his
connection with Tintagel (Broadhurst 1999).
3.2.5. Place-Names
The site of Tintagel Castle can be feasibly identified with several early place-names. Discounting earlier
suggestions, which have been abandoned or superseded, the following possibilities are now current:
Durocornovio: this appears in the Ravenna Cosmography, and is important for the interpretation of the late
Roman phase of the site in its landscape setting. It was a statio on a road running west from Isca (Exeter),

2013 33
possibly to Padstow. It may therefore relate to the Roman milestones from the area (see above) (Thomas 1988,
429; Thomas 1993, 84; Thomas 1994, 209, 219n6).
Cair Draitou: this name appears in the list of 28 cities of Britain recorded by Nennius, and may have been
applied to the site in the post-Roman period (Thomas 1994, 49n23).
Din-tagell: discounting previous derivations of the name of Tintagel as 12th-century Norman-French, it is now
thought to derive from this Cornish phrase, meaning the fortification on the constriction of land. This is only
known to have been current from the twelfth century (Thomas 1982, 21; Thomas 1988c, 9). The name for the
seaward side of the Island was Black Head, translated back into Cornish as Pen Du (Halliday 1953, 192; Thomas
1988, 421; Thomas 1993, 34).
The name Tintagel originally applied only to the site itself. The village was called Trevena until the early 20th
century (Thomas 1993, 9).
Place-names from the district around Tintagel may also have a bearing on the interpretation of the political
setting of the site in the post-Roman period. Henlis (old court, now Helstone) and Lesnewth (new court) suggest
successive royal residences of a Dark Age political unit of Tricurius, later represented by the Hundreds of Trigg
and Lesnewth. Tintagel may also have been a seasonal residence in this grouping (Canner 1982, 6).
3.3. Source Material

3.3.1. Excavation Archives (see Appendix: Archive Schedule for details)
Royal Cornwall Museum/Royal Institution of Cornwall
By agreement with the Duchy of Cornwall, all Tintagel finds are deposited here. The collections here comprise
most of the finds from the interventions on the monument, including the 1918 cliff-fall; material from the
Radford, CEU and CAU excavations; the incised slates from the Island; and pottery formerly held by the British
Museum and the Department of the Environment. They will ultimately include the finds and paper archive of all
the GUARD projects of the 1990s on the site.
Radford’s finds inventories and site notebooks are also held here.
Cornwall Archaeological Unit
At its offices in Truro, the CAU currently holds the finds and paper archives of the Churchyard excavations of
1990-1, and its more recent interventions in the castle, awaiting transfer to the RIC. It also holds the archive of
the slate quarry survey of 1990 (Sharpe 1990, 39).
Glasgow University
Finds and paper archive of recent Glasgow University and GUARD excavations are currently held by GUARD.
A Comprehensive Research Archive Report (CRAR) has been produced and a copy will go to the NMR. A copy
of the CRAR will also go with all other archival material and artefacts to the Royal Cornwall Museum in due
course.
National Monuments Record
Wright drawings of Radford excavations.
Copies of GUARD excavation reports on Site C 1990-4, and Sites C and T 1999.
British Museum, Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities
Some post-Roman and medieval pottery sherds from Sites A and C, deposited by Radford in 1949. The bulk of
this has now been transferred to the RIC. Some of what remains is on display.
Society of Antiquaries
Radford’s papers, including plans and photographs.
3.3.2. Primary Documents (see Appendix: Archive Schedule for details)
Cornwall Record Office
Contains postcards, sale catalogues, local deeds, Duchy of Cornwall papers, mining, and quarry papers.

2013 34
British Library
Holds views of castle from the 16th century onwards.
Public Record Office
Contains Ministry of Works files relating to the Guardianship of the property, and excavation and consolidation
work in the 1930s (WORK14); and plans of these excavations (WORK31). Other information may become
available as other classes of documents are released to the public, which are currently closed under a 30-year
rule.
Duchy of Cornwall Office
Holds medieval and post-medieval accounts and surveys.

2013 35
4. ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The assessment of significance undertaken in 2000-2001 - and as presented below - was structured according to
Kerr’s model, and within the constraints of that structure largely holds good (but see some comments, inserted
on the basis of hindsight and a further 12 years of writing conservation plans by the reviewer).
However, the 2008 publication of Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable
management of the Historic Environment by English Heritage introduced a new structure and lexicon for
understanding and assessing the significance of places in the historic environment.
In order to present an Assessment of significance, suitable for the period 2013 onwards, a new structure has been
inserted here. Simple copy-paste of text sections has been used where 2001 text is appropriate, with new sections
added.
EH’s approach to the protection and management of the historic environment will be informed by six principles,
identified as:
1. The historic environment is a shared resource
2. Everyone should be able to participate in sustaining the historic environment
3. Understanding the significance of places is vital
4. Significant places should be managed to sustain their values
5. Decisions about change must be reasonable, transparent and consistent
6. Documenting and learning from decisions is essential.
One of the foundations of the Conservation Principles is understanding heritage values and assessing
significance, to enable an authoritative statement of significance to be made, and to allow for the effects of
changes to be properly evaluated. The Conservation Principles sets out a ‘family’ of four heritage values and
provides an extended explanation of assessing heritage significance. The explanation of the four basic values is
replicated below as each ‘value’ is discussed in turn.
The Conservation Principles (2008) considers two main aspects:
• Who values the place, and why they do so. This includes heritage professionals (including historians,
archaeologists, conservation professionals, curators and site staff), other interested professionals (such as
nature conservation bodies, rights of way partnerships and local authority bodies), interested non-
professionals, casual visitors, and local people. This information is in part derived from the consultation
process
• What is the heritage value of the place. This looks at temporal and spatial aspects of the site, relating
them to the narrative presented above, and then considers the relative importance of the heritage values
which have been identified – both in terms of the fabric of the site itself, and its historical associations, its
linked collections and objects, its immediate landscape setting and context, and its broader association
with other related sites.
The Statement of Significance considers four ‘values’ for each of the groups of people who value Tintagel
Castle; together the four constitute the heritage value of the place.
• Evidential value. Derived from the potential of the place to yield evidence about past human activity,
evidential value also considers the particularly rich historical resource associated with Tintagel.
• Historical value. Derived from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be
connected through a place to the present, historical value at Tintagel is primarily associative. Thus, being
‘at the place where something momentous happened can increase and intensify understanding through
linking historical accounts of events with the place where they happened’ (English Heritage 2008, 28).
However the very powerful historical associations at Tintagel need to be tempered against the authenticity
of the associated material remains.

2013 36
• Aesthetic value. Derived from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a
place, the aesthetic value of Tintagel lies in the broader setting – and in the interplay between the ‘natural’
setting and the built heritage assets and the historical or mythic relationships that they embody.
• Communal value. Derived from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it
figures in their collective experience or memory, communal value at Tintagel is an important
consideration due to the site’s significant role in genuinely important moments in English history, as well
as a persistent mythic association with Arthur. Thus the social value, as part of national identity, is an
important consideration; and to some extent spiritual value, due to its role in the King Arthur myths.
Although this Statement of Significance deals with the site as a whole, reference should also be made to the
Gazetteer, in which the significance of individual Heritage Assets are assessed.
General Statement – the Site Overall
It is important that an effort is made to assess the overall significance of the monument of Tintagel within the
care and management of EH. This must be a subjective summation of the topics considered in more detail in the
following sections.
Our summation is that Tintagel is a site of international significance. This is based on the dramatic setting of the
north Cornish coastline that continues to influence archaeological, historic, artistic, architectural, and literary
works. Some of these cultural works are successive revisions of poorly understood events during the period of
the post-Roman Celtic settlement. This process occurs over a period of 1500 years, within a Cornish, British and
European cultural framework, which has expanded throughout the 20th century to achieve global significance.
Tintagel, as a monument and a place, can be used to assert or reinforce a wide range of contrasting and
sometimes conflicting cultural concepts, ideas, identities and interests, such as:
• The international significance of the site in the post-Roman (Dark Age) period
• The international significance of the site to Plantagenet and Angevin attempts to form an Anglo-Franco
cultural identity
• The international significance of some aspects of the ecology of the site, and
• The role of Tintagel in popular British mythology as the place most closely linked to King Arthur’s birth
Other aspects of the site – e.g. much of the ecology, the castle and medieval remains, the geology, its role in
literature and art - would all place Tintagel as a nationally important site.
Assessment of Cultural Significance
The principal findings of the review of Understanding, and the Assessment of Significance of the property are:
Values and Beliefs
The inspirational quality of the property gives rise to many interpretations, understandings, and beliefs
concerning cultural identity and spirituality
Aesthetics, Design and Creativity
The predominant aesthetic is the wild coastal character, highlighted and enhanced by the castle ruins. A
secondary but significant aspect is the juxtaposition of the medieval castle and the vernacular remains of the
local post-medieval slate industry and agriculture. There are significant, understated and undervalued, visual and
historic links between the island, the parish church, and between the castle, the valley and the village (see Policy
MA2.2).
National and Local Cultural Diversity
A Cornish “Celtic” identity emerged during the 5th and 6th centuries, not yet fully understood, as a part of the
development of small-scale socio-political units in Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England. Many of the units
formed in this period survive today as counties or regions with some sense of unity distinct from the modern
states. This emerging cultural entity was closely linked to events and trends in the Mediterranean world via trade,
and Tintagel was a prime node in this sharing of cultural values and trends.

2013 37
A Common Identity
Post-Norman conquest cultural and political fusion involved a new European literary genre and device, inspired
by Tintagel’s associations with the 5th century semi-legendary Figures of Arthur and Mark. This includes the
internationally important standing remains, which are vulnerable to coastal erosion and cliff failure.
Knowledge
The property represents an intricate connection between landscape, history, and artistic development, especially
in the field of European literature.
Evidential value
Evidential value ‘derives from the physical or genetic lines that have been inherited from the past’ (English
Heritage 2008, 28). There is very considerable evidential value at Tintagel, deriving both from the buildings and
the buried archaeology.
Amongst the buildings are the confusing (and possibly misleading) low walls of the sub-Roman or Dark Age
settlement, the medieval castle of Richard of Cornwall of three once-conjoined wards now split into mainland
and island wards are of at least national significance and arguably internationally important. The more
fragmentary post-Medieval remains are less important but nonetheless have a story to tell.
The buried archaeological remains span the later prehistoric periods, a poorly understood Roman presence in the
vicinity, the fascinating and still poorly understood Dark Age settlement, and the medieval castle and its
associated deposits. The buried archaeology is indisputably internationally important.
The excavated, archive and historical documentary evidence pertaining to Tintagel is voluminous, scattered, and
not well indexed (outside the summary in the 2001 CMP) but is nonetheless of national importance for both the
evidence of Tintagel’s past that it contains, and also as an evidence-base for understanding developments in
archaeological and historical analysis and interpretation.
In the main, the summary prepared in 2000-2001 remains largely true in 2013 and is reproduced below:
Archaeological and Historical Significance
Prehistoric and Roman Remains (Phases 1 and 2)
The nature of any prehistoric occupation at Tintagel is currently unknown (see 2.3.1). The cup-marks at King
Arthur’s Chair (the ‘Cups and Saucers’ Site 2, Figure 69; assuming they are authentic) point to connections with
the Bronze Age barrow groups further down the coast at Trevillick and Treligga Common. The site is
comparable in location to the Iron Age promontory forts at Trevelgue and Willapark. If the prehistoric phases at
Tintagel were better understood, this would by extension contribute to the understanding of the Bronze Age and
Iron Age in Cornwall, and these phases are therefore of regional importance (C).
There was clearly occupation of the site and the surrounding area in the late Roman period (see 2.3.2), but its
character is unknown. It represents part of the evidence for the Romanisation of north-east Cornwall, and was
probably connected to a road running west from Isca (Exeter) and the imperial control of the tin trade. As an
economic and territorial component of the Roman imperial presence in Britain, this phase is of national
importance (B).
Post-Roman Period (Phase 3)
The post-Roman period of the 5th and 6th centuries is represented at Tintagel by both the Settlement and the
enclosure on the site of the churchyard, the two linked by a hollow-way. The Settlement comprises Sites A to H,
the Burnt Area structures and the Iron Gate natural wharf on the island, the terraces below the Lower Ward and
the putative buried building by the road on the Headland (see 2.2.3; 3.1.3; C Thomas pers. comm. and Figures 5
and 51 to 65). All this was defended by the Great Ditch and the curving bastion-wall on the Upper Ward crag,
and entered through a narrow passage on the site of the medieval Gatehouse. Within the churchyard enclosure
there are a series of mounds, some of which have proved on excavation to contain high-status graves of this
period – presumably these people were somehow linked to Tintagel. A large assemblage of artefacts recovered
by excavation also represents this phase.
The whole Tintagel complex contained a high status secular settlement and religious (or at least mortuary) centre
of the 5th and 6th centuries, on the best current interpretation by Charles Thomas. It is still not clear which of the
2013 38
hut-groups of the Settlement belong to this phase, and which are later structures of the medieval period. This
5th–6th century settlement may have been a royal court for the rulers of Dumnonia, or of a smaller political unit,
seasonally occupied for the collection of tribute and food-renders. The site is therefore comparable in size and
political weight to other excavated strongholds of the Dark Age at Cadbury-Congresbury, and South Cadbury,
and had a higher status than the local aristocratic centre at Dinas Powys. Whereas all these sites have produced
pottery imported from the Mediterranean region at this period, more of this pottery has been discovered at
Tintagel than in all the other sites in Britain put together (see 3.2.2, 3.2.4). Therefore it had a unique status or
function at this time, a role for which its overseas connections were a vital (if poorly understood) component.
Once again, we are confronting the strangeness of Tintagel, which eludes modern logical understanding. If
people were exchanging something in pottery containers, for tin/lead/copper, what is it they were exchanging?
And why do the pots remain at Tintagel? Are there other places like Tintagel, which we don’t know about yet
(like perhaps St Michael’s Mount)? If so, where should we be looking, and what is the rationale for the
locations?
Tintagel was clearly an important political centre in the poorly understood period after the withdrawal of Roman
imperial power from Britain, and of national importance. However, this regional power-base was supported in
part by long-distance trade with the eastern Mediterranean region, importing pottery and goods contained in
amphorae, probably in exchange for tin and lead. This trade suggests that economic relationships with parts of
the former Roman Byzantium Empire continued after the collapse of its political authority. The 5th and 6th-
century settlement is a key to comprehending the Dumnonian polity, with its links between the eastern
Mediterranean (via Visigothic Spain) and the widespread Celtic renaissance. Or is this renaissance really a
preserving of Romanitas; following the withdrawal of direct imperial government in the early 5th century, and its
role in the Celtic resistance to Germanic invaders.
The presence of well-stratified sequences of both structures and artefacts of this period is a rarity, and to have
that survival combined with the wealth of evidence for European trade and the emergence of complex political
entities is extremely unusual. On this basis, the post-Roman period (including artefacts and environmental
remains) at Tintagel is therefore of international importance (A).
Late Pre-Conquest Period (Phase 4)
The Chapel on the Island (Figure 6, site 44) built in the 11th century, and the Church on the Headland, the
present church (Site 33 see 2.3.4) of c1100-1140 succeeding a structure that may be 10th century in date,
represent this period at Tintagel. Also, a few artefacts of this period have been found on the Island. Within the
landscape setting there is a number of late Saxon or early medieval crosses.
The Church and the Chapel are rare survivals of ecclesiastical structures from this period. Furthermore they are
linked into one complex by the alignment of the north door of the Church and Holloway (Site 7). They suggest a
continuing interest in the site – for reasons not presently understood.
The remains of the late Pre-Conquest period at Tintagel are nationally rare, and here have an additional and
highly unusual group value, and are therefore judged to be of national significance (B).
Medieval Period (Phase 5)
The medieval period and its sub-phases are represented at Tintagel by the castle and by surviving elements in the
surrounding landscape of the parish and borough. The castle (Site 57) comprises the Inner, Upper and Lower
Wards (Sites 11, 48, 51) with their fortifications and internal structures, the Iron Gate walls (Site 55), and some
subsidiary medieval features on the island, including the chapel, tunnel and the garden (Sites 26, 56) (see Figures
66, 70). An uncertain number of the hut-groups of the settlement may belong to the medieval period, probably
including all of Site D (Site 40, Figure 62). Pottery and other artefacts of the period derived from Cornwall,
Devon and Somerset have been found at various locations on the site. Within the landscape setting, field
boundaries (Site 34) and the original Borough Mill structure (Site 46, Figure 13-15) belong to this period.
The castle belonged to the Earldom of Cornwall and later, the Duchy of Cornwall, which still owns the site. It
was one of four castles belonging to Earl Richard and his successors in Cornwall. Earl Richard clearly intended
it to be connected to the borough he founded at Tintagel/Bossiney. It was used in the 14th and 16th centuries for
coastal defence.
As a component of the political framework of the Duchy of Cornwall and of the national system of coastal
defence in the medieval period, the castle is of national importance (B).

2013 39
The architecture of Tintagel Castle (see 2.4.4) is composed of elements common to medieval castles in Britain,
such as curtain-walls, a hall, chambers and a gatehouse, all constructed in the local slate, formerly with facings
of local greenstone. In this sense it is not remarkable. It is not unusual in its design or layout, or for its degree of
preservation. It may, however, have been built in a deliberately archaic style, in order to appear “old”. In this
sense it is probably unique. In its original conception, the design of Earl Richard’s castle may be more
comparable with French examples such as Chinon or Chateau Gaillard, rather than with English fortifications.
The castle is notable for the way in which its walls cling to the contours of the cliffs. What were probably the
most impressive elements of the original castle, such as the south façade of the Inner Ward and the south gable
of the Hall, the towers and the inner gatehouse, have been lost to coastal cliff erosion. But in their ruined state
the remaining walls extend and enhance the drama of the natural setting. Architecturally the Castle is judged to
be of regional significance (C).
The main interest of the medieval castle of Tintagel is the choice of the site for its construction. In its original
conception it probably did not serve a military purpose. It is more likely one of a small number of castles built
for propaganda purposes rather than military service. Its use for coastal defence was secondary and later. The
paramount military and administrative role in the earldom of Cornwall was filled by Launceston Castle. It
appears that Earl Richard of Cornwall built Tintagel Castle in the 1230s primarily to enhance his prestige by
establishing a stronghold at the place linked in legend to his illustrious predecessors King Mark and King Arthur.
This legendary connection had been established over the previous century by the works of Geoffrey of
Monmouth and his successors.
Earl Richard’s construction of a castle of prestige at Tintagel in the 1230s, at the reputed site of the court of his
legendary predecessors, is comparable to Edward I’s and Edward III’s interests in visiting Glastonbury and
South Cadbury in 1278 and 1331 (Shenton 1999), and in the building work and foundation of the Order of the
Garter at Windsor by Edward III and his son the Black Prince, first duke of Cornwall. Tintagel’s purpose seems
to resemble the much later display castles, such as Bodiam in Sussex (c1385) and Raglan in Gwent (c1430). It
was apparently designed as a setting for the story of Tristan and Iseult, including the Garden (Site 56) where the
lovers met, and incorporating the pre-existing cliff-top Chapel from which Tristan escaped (Rose 1994, 176-7).
Other elements may have been adapted from the 5th and 6th century remains to represent Geoffrey of
Monmouth’s description of Tintagel. Tintagel Castle is therefore an expression of high medieval literature in
stone, and probably unique for its period. Its uniqueness and associations with this literature are therefore of
international significance (A).
The medieval pottery assemblages (see 3.2.3) derived from the site may be paralleled elsewhere at roughly
contemporary sites (e.g. Launceston) and are not intrinsically unusual; therefore they have a regional
significance (C).
Medieval agricultural features in the Valley, (see 2.3.3) such as the curving field boundaries and the antecedents
of the Borough Mill, are not particularly unusual. Other and better examples occur in Cornwall, and therefore
these are of regional or local significance (C/D).
The castle and borough of Tintagel were 13th-century seigneurial intrusions into a landscape pattern of dispersed
settlement, which had probably existed since the Iron Age. The traces of this impact on the landscape setting of
the monument in Tintagel Parish may be paralleled elsewhere in Britain and their occurrence here is of regional
significance (C).
The manuscript collections of the Cornwall Record Office, the British Library, the Public Record Office and the
Duchy of Cornwall potentially provide the basis for detailed study of the medieval castle and its landscape
setting in the medieval and post-medieval periods. Therefore they are of national significance (B).
Post-Medieval Remains (Phase 6)
The remains of this long period and its sub-phases at Tintagel are represented by the Armada defences on the
Island, various 19th-century repairs to the castle and its access routes, and industrial and agricultural structures in
the Valley and Haven (see Figures 46 – 50). Only limited examples of post-medieval pottery and artefacts have
been found on the site. During the latter part of this period a range of esoteric thought has developed from the
romantic and literary interests in the castle. This abstract development has had more resonance for Tintagel than
anything concrete, which happened on the site during this period.
The Armada defences (Site 67-68) are part of a much larger series of coastal defence systems in southwest
England, but are not well preserved or unusual in form. They are therefore of regional significance (C).
2013 40
Tintagel Haven (Site 41) was a port for the local Cornish slate-quarrying industry in the 19th century. The wharf
and winch positions (Site 71), here were used for this purpose. The Haven was also the working area for the
Galena Mine (Site 66, Figure 81) below the Island. Such remains were once widespread but are so no longer. As
representative remains of notable Cornish industries, these elements of the site are of regional significance (C).
The Borough Mill (Site 46) remained as a component in the local economy. There are also a small quarry, a
sheep shelter and boundary walls in the Valley (Site 64, 65, Figure 6, 7). Their remains may be paralleled at
many places in Cornwall and the West Country, and are therefore considered of local significance (D).
The post-medieval artefactual evidence is neither intrinsically unusual nor linked to particularly unusual events,
processes or people, and thus of only local importance (D).
Ministry of Works and English Heritage Stewardship (Phases 7 and 8)
This phase comprises the excavation work and interpretation of Ralegh Radford on the site of Tintagel in the
1930s and 1950s, and its subsequent presentation to the public by the Ministry of Works and English Heritage up
to the present (2.4.6-7; 3.1.1, 3.1.7).
The developments on the site in this period are illustrative of the academic and management approaches of these
official bodies to an archaeological site, as they reflected their preconceptions and preoccupations over the
period. This is of particular interest at Tintagel, as the presentation of the site was based on what has since been
established as a somewhat simplistic interpretation.
This phase at Tintagel is therefore of national significance (B).
Museum and Archive Collections
The size and composition of the assemblage of imported Mediterranean pottery of the 5th and 6th centuries
found at Tintagel is crucial to the interpretation of this phase, and of the character of the long-distance trade
which sustained the Settlement. It is therefore of international significance (A). The assemblage of glass and the
evidence of the Artognou slate point to the same connections, and are therefore of the same significance (A).
The environmental samples derived from the 5th and 6th century phase at Tintagel are a rare survival of such
evidence in Britain for this period. Its contribution to the understanding of this period therefore gives it a national
significance (B).
The excavation archives from Tintagel (both the finds and the paper archive) will eventually be concentrated at
the Royal Cornwall Museum in Truro, under the arrangement with the Duchy of Cornwall. The drafting of
catalogues to this collection is on-going. When they are completed, the collection will provide an important
resource for scholars and visitors from Cornwall, Britain and beyond. The collection will therefore have
international significance (A).
The National Monument Record holdings at Swindon provide the key to past interventions, and, with the plans
in the Public Record Office, contribute important evidence for the state of the site in the 1930s during Radford’s
work. The small amount of material held by the British Museum is important for purposes of comparison and
display. These collections are therefore of national significance (B).
The manuscript collections of the Cornwall Record Office, the British Library, the Public Record Office and the
Duchy of Cornwall potentially provide the basis for detailed study of the medieval castle and its landscape
setting in the medieval and post-medieval periods. Therefore they are of national significance (B).
Historical value
‘Historical value derives from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through
a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or associative’ (English Heritage 2008, 28). Tintagel is
inextricably linked to King Arthur, and as a consequence of this is tied into pan-European historical, literary and
artistic traditions as well as an astoundingly wide and durable stream of esoteric thinking.
More ‘historical’ are the reality behind this in the form of a Dark Age (or ‘Arthurian’) settlement, and the reality
of Richard of Cornwall and his seemingly conscious and deliberate harkening back to Arthur in the creation of
the castle at Tintagel in the form that he chose. Both are tied to a sense of regional identity and a sense of the
past greatness of the Cornish Kingdom, and hence to Cornish language and culture.

2013 41
Cultural and Literary/Artistic Traditions
The drama of Tintagel’s natural setting has inspired prose, poetry, painting and music from the medieval period
to the present day.
Tintagel has been mentioned in the Mark and Tristan stories from the 11th century onwards, and in Arthurian
tales from Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 1130s onwards. There had also been previous Arthurian associations
with east Cornwall. These collections of stories have been a major strand in literature from the medieval period
onwards, comparable in influence with the myths of classical heroes or the works of Shakespeare. The associated
literature is therefore of international significance (A). This includes:
• The Mark and Tristan stories in medieval Cornish folklore consistently place the court of the ruler of
Cornwall at Tintagel
• A group of canons of Laon, who visited southwest England in 1113 were told that they were entering Terra
Arturi, and were shown features called Arthur’s Chair and Arthur’s Oven (Elliott-Binns 1955, 261-2, 412-
13; Radford and Swanton 1975, 15)
• Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his History of the Kings of Britain in 1136 (2.5.3)
• J M W Turner made an engraving of the castle in 1819
• Tintagel’s literary associations drew Charles Dickens and W M Thackeray to visit the castle in 1842
• In Alfred Tennyson’s Le Morte d’Arthur of 1842, Arthur is found as a naked child on the sands of Dundagil.
Tennyson went on to publish Idylls of the King in 1859. He visited Tintagel in 1848, 1860 and 1887
• R S Hawker’s Quest of the Sangraal followed Tennyson’s work in 1864. Thomas Hardy visited Tintagel in
1872 and 1922, and sketched the castle. On the latter occasion he drew an imaginary reconstruction as a
setting for his poetical play Queen of Cornwall, published in 1923 (Canner 1982, 79, 82)
• In Thomas de Malory’s Morte d’Arthur, Lancelot frees the castle and village of Tintagel from two giants;
the castle and the village are at the end of a long bridge
Esoteric Thought
The archaeological and historical importance of Tintagel cannot be separated from the legendary associations
that have accumulated around it. For most of the medieval and post-medieval centuries, the main interest in the
Arthurian tales was in the developing stories of the individual Knights of the Round Table, and their search for
the Holy Grail. In the late 19th and 20th centuries, following the publication of Tennyson’s works, the interest
was concentrated more on the figure of Arthur and his exploits. There has been an accumulating interest in the
Arthurian associations of Tintagel Castle (2.5.4); and like other archaeological and historical fashions, the site
has been adopted into the range of esoteric thought that has developed over this period
For some people Tintagel is the actual site of King Arthur’s birth, residence and exploits. Visitors of this type
believe they are seeing the location of the Round Table in the castle, and the beach where Merlin walked in the
Haven. This strand of opinion has its most notable local representation in King Arthur’s Halls of Chivalry in
Tintagel village. The misinterpretation of the Artognou slate in the publicity following its discovery has taken a
recent place in the literature of this train of esoteric thought. These beliefs provide a link between the partly
excavated Settlement of the 5th and 6th centuries, which would have been contemporary with an historic Arthur,
and the castle remains of the medieval phases, which is what most visitors see and associate with Arthur.
It is entirely irrelevant to these opinions that there is no proven historic link between Arthur and Tintagel.
Although it may seem perverse to more mainstream academics, the lack of a demonstrable connection does not
lessen the significance of the site for esoteric thinkers. Should evidence of a link be required, the undisputed
presence of a high-status settlement contemporary with an historic Arthur (accepting that there was a historic
Arthur) provides all the connection that might be needed.
Others see Tintagel as part of a mystical landscape, connected to the movements of the heavens and the destinies
of people on earth. In this setting the Island is a centre of ancient ritual and power, crossed by solar alignments
and energy currents traceable by dowsing.
For others Tintagel is primarily a focus of spiritual power, in which the actual existence of Arthur is secondary.
The Island is seen as the venue for spiritual education and meditation, and features such as the Tunnel are
symbolic of renewal or places for contemplation. This strand of thought was developed most fully by Rudolf
Steiner and his followers.
2013 42
The public interest in the Arthurian associations of Tintagel cannot be ignored, and should be treated as one
aspect of the way this monument has been interpreted. In particular the Arthur myth represents the pan-Celtic
aspects of the place.
There are no geographical limits to these interests, which are therefore of international significance (A).
Aesthetic value
‘Aesthetic value derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place’
(English Heritage 2008, 30). Aesthetic value might be the result of intended design, or it may have come about
more or less fortuitously as a result of the evolution of a place over time. Tintagel as a whole has a high aesthetic
value.
It seems odd to start a discussion of aesthetics with Geology and Ecology, but this is appropriate because these
form the basis for the dramatic, wild, beautiful north Cornish Coast. This, independently of all things Arthurian
or even historical, attracts many hundreds of thousands of visitors to the region every year. The area around
Tintagel is not presently included within the North Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but does
demonstrate many if not most of the key features that merited designation elsewhere along that coastline.
The Landscape
Most of the length of the North Cornwall coast is considered to be of great landscape beauty and important for
recreation and leisure activities. Tintagel is an important element in this vista of coastal beauty.
The coastal setting of Tintagel is natural drama. The high cliffs of the Island look like a fortification built by
nature against the surrounding sea. The geological formation below the precarious position of the Upper Ward is
dramatic tension in rock. The acquisition of parts of the adjacent coastline by the National Trust from the 1890s
onwards (originally aimed at stopping the construction of the King Arthur’s Castle Hotel), and the attention of
visitors from around the world, recognise the national significance of this landscape (B). With approximately
800,000 visitor days per year (Tourism Associates 1997), Tintagel is a prominent and economically important
centre for recreation and leisure activities in Cornwall.
The Geology
The North Cornwall coastal plateau is geologically complex containing Lower Carboniferous igneous and
Devonian sedimentary rocks, which have been subject to later structural deformity. These factors create the
coastal cliffs. Characteristics of the Tintagel coast are:
• Coastal cliffs
• Steep-sided narrow valleys (geos)
• Rock-coast features such as caves, arches and stacks
This landscape has a profound influence on the cultural and literary significance of the site, and this relationship
defines a distinctive and dramatic aesthetic that is particular to North Cornwall.
The geology is one of the key reasons for the SAC status, and is much used by Universities as a destination for
field trips. Two areas are Geological Conservation Review sites. One of the most visited paces is the exposed
rock face below the Upper ward viewed from the Lower Ward. The geology is also important because it creates
hazards to public health and safety (Figure 86 and text Sections 5.2.3, 5.7 and 7.3), and to the long-term survival
of the site. The site’s geology forms a significant negative force, which will require concerted action in order to
minimise danger to the public and to ensure long-term survival of the site itself. The geology of the site may be
characterised as nationally significant (B).
The Ecology
The vegetation of Tintagel Castle was surveyed by Murphy & Tompsett (1993) and Murphy (1993) and Neil
Sanderson of EPR made additional observations in 2000 (see Figure 84 and text Section 5.6 and Appendix 3).
Much of Tintagel is included within the Tintagel Cliffs Site of Special Scientific Interest, based on the presence
of maritime grassland and maritime heathland. The study area is also included in the candidate Special Area of
2013 43
Conservation (cSAC) of the EC Habitats Directive. The following nationally scarce species have been recorded
at Tintagel:
• Lanceolate Spleenwort Asplenium obovatum
• Golden Samphire Inula crithmoides
• Autumn Squill Scilla autumnalis
Other species of nature conservation interest on the site include;
• Sea Storksbill Erodium maritimum
• Tree Mallow Lavatera arborea
• Rock Sea Lavender Limonium binervosum agg
The presence of these species, in this context, makes the site internationally significant (A).
Due to the cessation of grazing in the early 20th century, the quality of the coastal grassland swards of Thrift and
Creeping Fescue has declined with reduction in species diversity and therefore faunal diversity, with subsequent
serious archaeological implications (see Section 5.6 below). Simple exposure controls the coarse growth to some
extent, but of course does nothing to reduce the periodic vole plagues.
Invasive species including, Hottentot Fig on the southern cliff of the Island and Japanese Knotweed by the
stream, should be eradicated. The knotweed is being treated and this seems to have be succeeding as of July
2013, but the Hottentot Fig is still very much present on the cliff face above the steps upwards to the island
ward)
While trampling due to visitor pressure on the site has resulted in wide bare paths, large areas of coastal
grassland are inaccessible and therefore are not subject to such pressure.
Communal value
Communal value ‘derives from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it’ and is therefore perhaps
the most subjective of the four values discussed here (English Heritage 2008, 31). Communal value may be
commemorative, symbolic, social or spiritual.
Discussion of the communal values at Tintagel ineluctably return us to the mythic Arthur as well as, to a lesser
extent, a more historical Arthur-type personage, for these concepts are foundational to the enduring popularity of
Tintagel and to the role of Tintagel in a Cornish sense of history and identity.
The data upon which the discussion in the 2001 CMP study was based were still being quoted in 2013. It is
likely that what was true in the later 1990’s is no longer the case and in order to ground the management of the
site for the next decade in current evidence it would be wise to review and update some of those studies
Tourism
Tintagel castle and village are together an extremely significant tourist attraction, important not just locally or
regionally but nationally. If the number of overseas visitors was known accurately (and according to some
responses to consultation the numbers are large) then the significance may be more accurately assessed as
‘international’.
Table 1 The Tintagel Admissions Budget for 2013-14 is as follows:

Tintagel Admissions Budget 2013/14 Full Year
Site admissions adult 67330

Family Admissions 35371
Concession Admissions 14360
Joint Ticket Admissions 0
Site admissions - Child 6785
Event Pre-Paid Tickets 3

2013 44
Group Admissions 17252
Overseas Pass Admissions 6364
Special Access/Guided Tours 0
Regional Discount Cards 0
Member Paying Admissions 0
TOTAL PAYING 147465
Schools Admissions 10499.06

Member Admissions 22051
Other Free Admissions 7980
TOTAL NON PAYING 40530
TOTAL 187995
In 2012 English Heritage commissioned an updated Visitor Survey of Tintagel Castle. The following is a
summary of the findings of that survey.
The survey was conducted between 02/07/2012 and 19/09/2012, based upon 149 interviews conducted at
Tintagel Castle over 12 interviewing shifts; including 20 interviews conducted on event days, 129 on non-event
days
Tintagel Castle’s profile includes a large Child Pleasing segment (36% of visitors) with significant proportions
of Experience Seekers and Culture Seekers (28% each). This pattern was observed to be common amongst
‘castle sites and monuments’/
Figure 2 Tintagel Castle’s profile includes a large Child Pleasing segment
The proportion of parties with children visiting Tintagel Castle in 2012 was 46%, the highest of all the properties
surveyed. Compared to all other EH sites surveyed, Tintagel has a higher proportion of visitors aged 35-54.

2013 45
Figure 3 Tintagel Castle: proportion of parties with children
Tintagel Castle has low representation of BME visitors, in line with most other EH sites surveyed. Tintagel
Castle’s proportion of international visitors doubled to 19% in 2012.
Figure 4 Tintagel Castle has low representation of BME visitors

2013 46
In 2012 half (50%) of Tintagel’s visitors were on a day trip and almost half were on a longer holiday.
Figure 5 Tintagel’s visitors by day-trip versus holiday
Social Grade – By property

Compared to the English adult population, visitors to English Heritage sites are more affluent and this is also the
case at Tintagel - 76% of visitors are from the ABC1 social group. The proportion of visitors with a limiting
disability is 4%.
Figure 6 Tintagel visitors by social grouping

2013 47
Members visiting – By property
In 2012 only 14% of visitors to Tintagel were EH members – one of the lowest proportions among the EH sites
surveyed
Figure 7 Tintagel and membership among visitors
Repeat visits – By property

43% of visitors to Tintagel Castle were on a repeat visit. Given the low proportion of members visiting, this is
surprising as repeat visits are often driven by members
Figure 8 Tintagel – repeat visits

2013 48
Visiting retail and catering facilities
Over half of Tintagel Castle’s visitors went to the café in 2012 (55%). Slightly more went to the shop (57%).
Figure 9 Visitors use of cafe
Facilities used/Features visited

The castle ruins on the island are the most visited aspect of the site.
Figure 10 Visitors sue of facilities

2013 49
Visitor Experience TRI*M Index
The Visitor Experience TRI*M Index has been based on the answers given to the following 4 key questions:
1. Thinking about Tintagel Castle, how would you rate it overall as a place to visit?
2. Would you recommend Tintagel Castle as a place to visit to a friend or relative?
3. How likely would you be to make another visit to Tintagel Castle in the next few years?
4. How would you rate Tintagel Castle as a place to visit compared to other historical locations, landmarks
and heritage sites that you have visited elsewhere?
Visitor Experience TRI*M Index questions: The quality of the visitor experience is driven by strong overall
performance, a high propensity to recommend and a perceived competitive advantage. Tintagel Castle shows a
small rise on each of the four measures, which are now all slightly above the average for English Heritage.
Tintagel Castle’s 2012 score of 100 is 6 points higher than 2011. The overall TRI*M Index across all visitors at
the 21 EH properties surveyed is in line with the average for visitor destinations and other historic properties
where this approach has been used.
Tintagel Castle’s results for each TRI*M measure may be compared to other sites. At 4.9, it has the highest score
for likelihood to recommend. EH sites score well for recommendation, even those that have a lower TRI*M
index. Tintagel Castle has a high score for overall rating, and mid-range scores for revisit and competitive
advantage.
High level strengths
A11. Being in tranquil and beautiful surroundings
Medium level strengths
A10. Something different I can’t experience elsewhere
A04. The opportunity for me to learn new things
A01. Efficiency and knowledge of staff
A06. The friendliness and welcome given by staff throughout the visit
B01. The opportunity to explore at my own pace (e.g. reading panels, using audio tours etc.)
Low level strengths
A03. Special events that interest me
A05. The opportunity for children to learn new things
C03. The helpfulness and friendliness of staff at places to eat / drink
By Comparison, there were no high level weaknesses.
Medium level weaknesses included:
C01. The range of food & drinks for adults
D04. Value for money in shop(s)
C04. Value for money of food & drinks
And low-level weaknesses were:
A02. Overall value for money
A07. Information on arrival to help plan my visit
B02. Interactive things to do
E01. The quality of the toilets
C05. The range of food & drinks for families
Index
The overall TRI*M Index for Tintagel Castle is 100, six points above the EH estate average of 94. Tintagel
Castle showed improved scores for all the individual matrices, and at 4.9 it has the highest score of all sites for
likelihood to recommend.
Members vs. Non-members: The TRI*M Index at Tintagel Castle is virtually identical between Members and
non-Members which is unusual – in most sites Members consistently score higher than non-Members.
Satisfaction vs. Loyalty: Satisfaction is high but despite more than 40% of visitors being on a repeat visit,
likelihood to revisit is comparatively low.
2013 50
Driving Strengths: The key strength at Tintagel Castle is being in tranquil and beautiful surroundings.
Elements related to a ‘different’ or ‘new’ visitor experience are also seen as strengths.
Driving Weaknesses: The main issues at Tintagel are those related to the range of food and drink available and
value for money for food/drink and in the shop.
Most influential sources that generated interest by property
Prompts to interest vary substantially by site. For Tintagel Castle, the main sources are previous experience
(17%), word of mouth (13%) and a search engine (10%).
Visit Triggers – by property
Some sites stand out as being more associated with certain triggers. For Tintagel Castle the most common trigger
is being interested in the culture and history of this country (28% - the highest among all sites surveyed). Just
soaking up the atmosphere and being a famous or ‘must-see’ site are also important triggers for Tintagel Castle.
Catering facilities
In 2012 the average reported spend at Tintagel was around £10 per party. Average spend at Tintagel remains
steady – at £9.86 in 2011 and £9.85 in 2012.
Shop visits & purchases – by site
In 2012, the proportion of visitors visiting the shop at Tintagel Castle was 57% - similar to 2011. Of these,
around a third (32%) made a purchase. The average reported spend at the shops at Tintagel was around £14 per
party, although the small sample size means this result should be treated with caution.
Trip profile
Around half of visits to Tintagel Castle were day trips of varying distance. There was a very small proportion of
short breaks, and 47% of visitors were on a longer holiday. This represents a significant shift on the visitor
profile for 2011 which was dominated by visitors on a longer holiday.
Figure 11 Tintagel – trip profiles

Average time on site – by site
Tintagel Castle’s visitors stayed on site for around 2 ¼ hours in 2012. The variation between properties is quite
marked, from over four hours at Dover Castle to just under half an hour at Clifford’s Tower.
For purposes of comparison, in 2001 the following information was available:
Tintagel village attracts some 800,000 visitors per annum, and Tintagel Castle approximately 200,000 visitors.
These visitor numbers make the castle the largest revenue generating site in the South West region after
Stonehenge, the fourth most visited site in English Heritage’s properties nationally, and attracting the second
largest number of paying visitors. Tintagel is probably one of the most popular visitor attractions in Cornwall.
The English Tourist Board (now VisitBritain) estimated that visitors spend, on average, £9.42 per person per
2013 51
day, but Atlantic Consultants (1999, 20-21) have suggested a lower Figure of £5 per person per day as more
realistic in long-term estimates. It is clear that in simple financial terms the importance of the Tintagel ‘package’
is extremely significant. When viewed in the context of a region with high unemployment, failing agriculture,
and consequently a reliance on seasonally fluctuating tourism income, the role of the site as an income-generator
may assume a disproportionate importance in local eyes.
For English Heritage the financial implications are also important – the monument is a major attraction. Visitors
spend nearly £2.00 per person at Tintagel Castle, making the site a major revenue generator (English Heritage
accounts indicate Tintagel makes a financial surplus of circa £300,000 over operational costs; excluding capital
costs). This benefit is however off-set when compared against the majority of English Heritage properties that do
not generate any operating surplus (or any income at all) – thus Tintagel is critically important in supporting the
work of English Heritage at many other sites in Cornwall, including many of which are not in EH care.
Nonetheless, consultations with a number of other organisations make it clear that other viewpoints are also
important in assessing the tourism significance of Tintagel. Tintagel is one of the key attractions and therefore
Figures prominently in many marketing and promotional strategies. For North Cornwall District Council,
Tintagel is considered an important ‘draw’ and NCDC was therefore instrumental in the previous Tintagel
Enhancement and Regeneration Project which led to the new Visitor Centre in the village and to the present
Tintagel Regeneration Scheme seeking EC funding under Objective 1. Similarly, the Cornwall Tourism Board
(County Council supported), and Southwest Tourism (DCMS supported, with a 20 year tourism strategy) also
advertise Tintagel and see it as a major attraction.
The West Country Tourist Board’s (now superseded by the South West Tourism Alliance) strategy ‘Spreading
Success’ provided a strategic context for development. Among other objectives, are the need to reduce
seasonality, capitalise on the growing overseas market, and foster more positive and mutually beneficial
relationships between tourism and other aspects of the local economy. These same issues are also central to
North Cornwall District Council’s Tourism Service.
The National Trust maintains the Old Post Office in the village and also owns large portions of the coastal
landscape. Consultations suggest two points where interests may coincide. Perhaps more effort could be made
for promotional joint working and drawing together the attractions of Tintagel as a package. Second, the car park
near the Church is a NT provision and the access to the Castle, or at least a viewing point, for disabled visitors
from this point (admittedly a complex issue) could be arranged.
Tintagel attracts a relatively high percentage of overseas visitors and Tintagel will continue to feature as a focal
attraction as English Heritage continues to develop its overseas marketing activity.
Tintagel is also unusual in attracting a wider cross-section of the population than the ‘AB’ groups common to
most heritage attractions. The addition of C1s provides an unusually wide range of visitors, and commensurately,
a wide audience for presentation about the site, the past, and English Heritage as an organisation.
These numbers of visitors, and a demonstrable scope for increasing visitor numbers, makes Tintagel a nationally
important focal point or opportunity for heritage education and presentation to the general public. In summary,
Tintagel Castle is therefore nationally important as a tourist destination (B).
Education
Tintagel Castle offers huge educational opportunities for all, young and old. Tintagel is a resource for life-long
learning. For primary and secondary pupils the site can add to the national curriculum in history, local studies,
geography, English and art. The site would provide a valuable case study for management, marketing and
conservation issues for post 16 courses, such as Heritage Management or Leisure and Tourism.
English Heritage has an Education Service that provides free access to educational groups to all properties in its
care. The Education Service also provides resources to help education groups plan their visit to Tintagel.
Resources specifically for Tintagel include a double-sided A4 sheet (also available in French), a general tourism
fact-pack with a specific sheet for Tintagel. These are general educational materials sent to booked groups.
These include ‘How to plan successful visits’ and ‘Designing Activity Sheets’. Educational leaders can also
purchase educational materials like ‘Using Castle’ and a CD Rom on ‘Real Castle’. An online educational
booking system is now fully operational for Tintagel.

2013 52
The following analysis of educational visits to Tintagel has been prepared by English Heritage.
UK Education Visitors to Tintagel Castle
Education visitor numbers over last five years
The total number of education visitors dropped for the first time in five years in the 2012/2013 financial year.
Trends vary however between UK and overseas (OS) education visitors: the peak for UK visitors was in the
2010/2011 financial year with a continued decline in the subsequent two years, while the peak for OS visitors
was the following financial year 2011/2012.
A considerable decrease in the number of overseas education visitors in 2012/2013 resulted in the first drop in
total education visitor numbers to Tintagel in five years; although the number of UK visitors in 2012/2013 also
decreased, maintaining numbers would not have prevented the overall decrease in visitor numbers. The
proportion of UK education visitors to overseas education visitors to the site is consistently very small,
averaging only 13.4% and has been decreasing for the past three financial years.
12000
10000
8000
6000 Overseas visitors

UK visitors
4000
2000
0
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
Figure 12 Total number of education visitors per year over the last five financial years, showing the proportion
of UK to Overseas visitors.
Table 2 Total number of education visitors per year over the last five financial years, showing the numerical
breakdown of UK and Overseas visitors and the percentage of UK visitors.
Year Total visitors UK visitors OS visitors % UK visitors
2008/09 7939 1065 6874 13.4
2009/10 8323 1120 7203 13.5
2010/11 10278 1672 8606 16.3
2011/12 10834 1299 9535 12.0
2012/13 9565 1127 8438 11.8

2013 53
UK education visitors by month
The months of June, July and September consistently have the greatest number of UK education visitors. There
is a very obvious decline in the number of UK education visitors in December, January and February when the
site is only open on weekends.
Despite having only weekend and education-only Monday and Friday openings, the month of March maintained
UK education visitor numbers similar to the three consistently busiest months until this year when numbers fell
to match those of the months with weekend only opening hours; the decreases in March UK education visitor
numbers has been quite severe over the past three years, with drops of 40% and 75% between the years. The
month of November which has the same opening hours as March has very different UK education visitor
numbers and shows no pattern.
Although there is no change in hours between September and October there is a large drop in UK education
visitor numbers between the months; however, UK education visitor numbers for October have remained quite
consistent over the past three financial years.
The number of UK education visitors in April has been increasing while the number in May has been decreasing,
but combined the two months show only a very slight decreasing trend (total drop of 35 visitors) in UK
education visitor numbers over the past three financial years.
The month of August consistently has very few UK education visitors and as with other months of low
visitorship, there is no obvious trend or pattern in numbers.
400
350
300
250
2010/11
200
2011/12
150 2012/13
100
50
0
April May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Figure 13 Monthly numerical distribution of UK education visitors over the last three financial years.

2013 54
Table 3 Monthly numbers of UK education visitors over the last three financial years.
Number of Number of Number of

visitors 2010/11 visitors 2011/12 visitors 2012/13
April 121 141 163
May 168 120 91
Jun 271 231 183
Jul 348 218 283
Aug 14 61 0
Sept 245 164 226
Oct 79 110 85
Nov 83 0 46
Dec 20 12 0
Jan 5 32 0
Feb 57 53 10
Mar 261 157 40
Total 1672 1299 1127

2013 55
UK education visitors by learning group classification
The greatest number of UK education visitors by a significant margin (average 15%) are in KS2 (ages 7-11
years). This is also the youngest age group forming a substantial percentage (defined as >5%) of UK education
visitors to the site; very few KS1 (ages 4-7 years) groups visit the site.
There is an obvious decreasing trend in the number of KS2, KS3, KS4 and HE/University group visitors; this
trend is apparent in all groups for which there were greater than 100 visitors in 2010/2011. Groups with less than
100 visitors in 2010/2011 show no obvious pattern in numbers.
The site attracts a large proportion of older UK education visitors, with KS4 upwards typically making up over
40% of the total numbers.
700
600
500
400
300 2010/11
200
100 2011/12
0 2012/13
Figure 14 The distribution of UK education visitors by learning group classification over the last three financial
years.
Table 4 The numerical and percentage breakdown of UK education visitors by learning group classification
over the last three financial years.
Key stage 2010/11 % 2011/12 % 2012/13 %
KS1 0 0.0 40 3.1 52 4.6
KS2 606 36.2 458 35.3 317 28.1
KS3 208 12.4 176 13.5 71 6.3
KS4 305 18.2 215 16.6 120 10.6
KS5/ FE 78 4.7 30 2.3 76 6.7
HE/University 293 17.5 234 18.0 214 19.0
Continuing Ed 48 2.9 32 2.5 157 13.9
Scouts 17 1.0 45 3.5 49 4.3
Family learning 0 0.0 0 0.0 45 4.0
Other 117 7.0 69 5.3 26 2.3
Total 1672 100.0 1299 100.0 1127 100.0

2013 56
Subjects studied by UK education visitors
History was by far the most popular subject studied, followed by English and Geography.
35
30
25
20
15
10
5 Number of groups
0
History
English
Geography
Design
Drama
Maths
Archaeology
Science
Heritage/ Tourism
Citizenship
Art
Other
Figure 15 Subjects studied by UK education groups in 2012/13.

Table 5 Subjects studied by UK education groups in 2012/13
KS1 KS2 KS3 KS4 KS5/FE HE/Uni Other Number of

Subject groups
History 2 7 3 5 5 3 9 33
English 2 7 3 5 5 3 9 13
Geography 2 6 3 5 4 3 9 11
Art 2 7 3 5 5 3 10 7
Heritage/ 2 6 3 5 4 3 9
Tourism 7
Archaeology 2 6 3 5 4 3 9 3
Design 2 4 1 4 4 1 8 3
Citizenship 2 3 1 3 4 1 8 2
Drama 2 7 3 5 4 3 9 2
Science 2 6 3 5 4 2 9 2
Maths 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 1
Other 2 7 3 5 4 2 9 1
Total 85

2013 57
Geographical spread of UK education visitors
The top three counties from which UK education visitors come are Cornwall, Devon and London/Greater
London. While overall numbers have decreased, this trend has remained constant for the past three financial
years.
The number of UK education visitors coming from London (approximately 150 yearly) has remained static over
the past three financial years, despite declines from the other two top counties. Other counties which have shown
very little change in the number of UK education visitors are Cambridgeshire, East Sussex, Somerset and
Wiltshire, though numbers from these counties are limited.
The greatest changes in UK education visitor numbers have occurred in the top two counties. In 2010/11 and
2011/12 the highest percentage of UK education visitors came from Cornwall (36.8% and 31.3% respectively);
however, in 2012/13 there was a large drop in this percentage to only 14.9%, behind the 26.7% from Devon.
• Visitors from Devon have remained constant over the last two years.
• The number of visitors from London/ Greater London has remained steady over the last three years.
700
600
500
400
300 2010/11
200
2011/12
100
0 2012/13
Figure 16 The distribution of UK education visitors by county over the last three financial years.
Education visitors 2013

Cambridgeshire
Cornwall
Devon
East Sussex
Figure 17 UK education visitors by county in 2012/13.

2013 58
Figure 18 Map showing spread of UK education visitors to Tintagel Castle over the last 3 years
(http://batchgeo.com/map/d6cd84b7c16ac44f4dbf6644b9209b2d).
Figure 19 Detail of Map 1 showing spread of UK education visitors from Cornwall and Devon.
In addition, English Heritage commissioned a study of overseas educational visitors to Tintagel, which is
summarised below.
English Heritage - Overseas school visitor research report: Prepared for Pippa Smith, English Heritage
Education Team Manager by FreshMinds 2013
The main objectives for the research were:
• To investigate the key motivations for overseas visitors when deciding on a visit to a site and their
needs during their time at the site
2013 59
• To identify whether visiting groups view their trip as a cultural experience or a language-learning
opportunity
• To identify if there are any additional needs of overseas groups that the Education team could support
During the fieldwork phase FreshMinds spoke to 20 overseas teachers who had visited one of the four sites in
the last two years. The sample used in the research was provided by the English Heritage team and comprised
overseas teachers who had previously visited one of the four sites with a school group. FreshMinds recruited for
the interviews by first sending an email to contacts provided in the sample. We had a strong response rate for
each site, with overseas visitors showing great enthusiasm to take part.
Key findings – Tintagel Castle
The need to practise English and provide a cultural experience for students were found to be key drivers for trips
to the UK. Overseas visitors have found that practising English and gaining a cultural experience mutually
support one another.
Overseas visitors to Tintagel have an appetite for content-rich resources which are designed to be accessible to
those who are learning to speak and read English. This would enable them to both practise their English and to
gain from the cultural experience of the site.
When visiting Tintagel Castle, groups tended to stay in and around Cornwall. They also shared a desire to learn
about King Arthur when visiting the site.
All overseas visitors to Tintagel commented on their desire for a warmer introduction to the site potentially in
the form of a guide.
The resources at Tintagel were found to be quite difficult for overseas students. Overseas visitors all
commented on the need for simpler material for their students. As with other sites, it was thought that whilst the
content was useful, the language needed to be more accessible for the level of English of their students.
When asked how they would improve the site, visitors recommended considering how students were introduced
to the site. Suggestions included heating the video introduction area and making it a more welcoming space or
providing a guide.
Some of the respondents commented on their need for a smoother introduction to the site, suggesting a guide or a
warmer introductory area.
Presentation
Provision for the interpretation of the site for older (adult) visitors is generally less explicitly educational and
more a function of presentation. The monument is markedly multi-cultural and multi-focal - this is contrary to
the too narrow focus on ‘Cornishness’ sometimes advocated by critics of recent management. Therefore, the
monument presents potential access, education, and presentational opportunities to a much wider section of the
population than many other monuments. However, this potential is not fully realised. The importance of Arthur,
in the eyes of many if not the majority of visitors, cannot be over-emphasised. This importance is not reflected
in the presentation of the site – the diversity of themes that make Tintagel so fascinating. The association with
Arthur, the factual late- and post-Roman presence, the medieval castle and its links to a legendary Arthur – are
not adequately presented on-site. The questions concerning the authenticity of the reconstructions of buildings’
walls by Radford on the sites on the island only adds to the confusion. However, the point is that the diversity of
themes is an unrivalled opportunity for educating/informing a wide cross-section of the visiting public.
The English Heritage Visitor Centre includes a small exhibition, sponsored in 1990 by Mobil North Sea. This
does not provide answers to the more common questions – particularly about Arthur – and is too small to do so
adequately. This is supplemented by a limited series of colour interpretation panels on-site – numbers have been
minimised to avoid intruding into the wild character.
Small-scale site activities such as guided tours, story-telling, living history, and a poet-in-residence have proven
popular and successful media for presentation.
Apart from brief site guides in French and German there are no provisions made for overseas visitors. Visitors
with limited mobility are also not well served, as there is no access to the site beyond the Visitor Centre. The
nature of the terrain makes any such access extremely difficult, but it would be possible to provide access for
visitors with limited mobility to the Lower Ward via the car park at the Church and the footpath linking that to
2013 60
the castle. However, physical access for the disabled will always be difficult and less than ideal. It may be a
more effective option to expand ‘intellectual access’ for the disabled and others via a radically upgraded
presentation in the Visitor Centre.
The post-medieval industrial sites in the valley are another instance of an under-used theme, and one that is
important to the local community. This, in association with the proposed Village Trail to and from the visitor
centre in the village being advanced by NCDC, presents another opportunity to connect with the wider public.
These are outside the monument in stewardship; but there is nonetheless an opportunity for English Heritage-led
action (Policy MA2).
Presentation of the natural – geological and ecological – interests of the monument is limited to a single panel.
This is of joint interest between English Heritage and Natural England and efforts to redress this is part of both
organisations’ remit (the National Trust has produced a good leaflet in this vein). More information could be
presented within the Inner Ward for the island (and thus avoid intrusive panels on the island plateau) (Policy
PP3, PP4).
Community Value
Residents of Tintagel village, curiously, undervalue Tintagel Castle, as distinct from the elements of Arthuriana
and esoterica that are so prominent in the village (this interpretation arises out of discussions with members of
Tintagel Parish Council and a variety of local shop-keepers). Of the approximately 800,000 visitors per annum
to the village, approximately 200,000 actually visit the castle (compare with the Phoenix Report 1995). The
chief attraction of Tintagel Castle to the local population would appear to be as a point of access to a beach
(small though the beach at Tintagel Haven may be).
This view ignores the centrality of the castle to the village: without the castle (whose raison d’etre arises from
Geoffrey of Monmouth and legends of Arthur) the village would have no attraction to differentiate it from any of
the other villages along the North Cornwall Coast. The monument is therefore of tremendous, if sometimes
unacknowledged, significance to the local community of Tintagel and to the wider community of North
Cornwall. The emphasis placed upon the cultural heritage, landscape and tourism in the North Cornwall Local
Plan, and in the Cornwall County Structure Plan is a clear recognition of this significance. These Plans both
encourage improvements to the quality of visitor attractions, particularly where these relate to a local heritage.
The NC Local Plan attaches specific priority to Tintagel village (upgrading the built environment whilst
sustaining the tourism economy and the integrity of the heritage assets) as an application of these general
principles.
Nonetheless, the loss of the steps down to the beach from the bottom of the access Track (FP1) has become
something of a cause celebre among the local community.
The local community also seems to have the impression that English Heritage profits from the financial success
of the monument. Whilst this is true, it does not consider the role that Tintagel makes in supporting the many
other English Heritage activities and sites in Cornwall. Further, the operational surplus does not include one-off
capital costs such as paving, steps, archaeological excavations etc.

2013 61
4.1. Definitions and Criteria for Significance
4.1.1. The Nature of Significance
The process of assessing cultural significance used in this study is derived from the ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of
Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter). Article 1.1 of the Burra Charter defines cultural significance as the
aesthetic, historic, scientific or social values for past, present or future generations. These were enumerated more as
examples than a prescriptive list, and J S Kerr has maintained that ‘questions of significance should be tailored to each
project after the assessor has analysed the . . . . evidence’.
Thus, significance at Tintagel has been considered on the following ten criteria:
Geology The importance of the site for geological remains
Ecology The importance of the site for the collections of plants and/or animals
Archaeological and Historical The importance of the place as evidence for understanding the past and for
Features understanding ourselves and the trends we experience today
Architectural The creative and technical architectural accomplishments
The importance of the site in the development of British artistic and

Cultural and Literary Traditions
literary traditions
The importance of the site in the development of British and European

Esoteric Thought
esoteric schools of thought
Tourism, Education, The potential of the site to act as a focal point for educational, leisure and
pleasure activities
and Presentation
Landscape The significance of the site/feature in the landscape
Museum and Archive The importance of the museum and archive collections to inform about the
Collections past and to serve as an educational resource (see above).
Community regard or value, and as a symbolic focus for Cornish regional

Community or Social Value
identity,
4.1.2. Degree of Significance

One of the key elements of a Conservation Plan is an assessment of how important each element of a site is in
terms of the criteria listed above. The means of doing so will be idiosyncratic to each site, but common to most
will be some form of relative hierarchy. The use of an elaborate system of scores is avoided here because it is
prone to misinterpretation by lending a false sense of precision to a subjective process. Instead a relative
hierarchy has been used, which helps to clarify the issues, but does not impose a numerical value. It is
recognised that assessing significance will always be a subjective process based upon current information. Our
current assessment of significance will undoubtedly change over the years – one reason for regularly reviewing
the plan.
The following six-rung ladder of significance has been adopted for Tintagel.
Sites or features of exceptional/international significance or which contain

A
elements with a significance beyond national boundaries
B Sites or features of considerable/national significance

2013 62
C Sites or features of some/regional significance
D Sites or features of limited/local significance
U Sites or features of unknown significance
N Site or feature of no significance
The area of the monument in guardianship was divided into a series of ‘sites’ or ‘features’ (see Figure 83). These
may be buildings (or parts of buildings); or archaeological sites; or sites or areas of ecological interest (Figure
84); or areas where geology presents a hazard to public health and safety (Figures 86 and 87); or other site
fixtures such as footpaths or current structures (Figure 85). These ‘sites/features’ are listed in Appendix 1 along
with a range of information and references to detailed data available. This summarises baseline information
available about each site.
In order to assess the significance of all the sites, each site or feature was scored from N to A on each of the ten
criteria listed above. It is possible within the GIS (Geographic Information System) to show only sites of one or
more degrees of significance for any particular criterion, or indeed in summary of all the criteria.
In parallel with this, the same basic set of sites or features was scored on a range of Management Issues,
including vulnerability to disturbance, danger to public health and safety, general condition, land-use, current
presentation etc. These were used as background for Sections 5 and 6 below.
The detailed statements on the arguments for the significance of the various elements of the Guardianship
Monument are to be found in the gazetteer entries. The significance is summarised below.
4.2. Summary of Significance of Sites and Features

Table 6 Presentation of Significance (see also gazetteer in Appendix 1).
Phase Site/Feature Site No Significance
Geology Sea Cliffs, Sea Stacks, Caves, Geos - SSSI B – National
Ecology Candidate Special Area of Conservation A - International

cSAC
Landscape AONB B – National
Phases 1 and 2: Kings Arthur’s Cups And Saucers 2

Prehistoric and
Roman King Arthur’s Footprint 26 C – Regional
Artefacts 4
Phase 3: Church Yard And Holloway 6,7

Post-Roman
Sites A To H 3,18-23,40
Burnt Area Structures 24,25
Iron Gate Natural Wharf 16,32 A – International
Terraces Below Lower Ward 14
Buried Building 8
Upper Ward Curtain Wall? 12

2013 63
Great Ditch 9,10
Artefacts 29
Environmental Remains 86 B – National
Archives A – International
Phase 4: Late Chapel 28

Saxon B – National
Church And Churchyard 33
Phase 5: Castle – Upper, Lower, Inner Wards 11,48,51

Medieval
Iron Gate Walls 55
Tunnel? 39 A – International
Garden 56
Site D? 40
Artefacts 45 C – Regional
Borough Mill 46
C/D – Local-regional
Field Boundaries 34
Phase 6: Post- Armada Defences

Medieval
C19 Repairs To castle
67,68 C – Regional
Industrial And Agricultural Remains In
Valley And Haven
Borough Mill, Quarry, Walls And Sheep

69,70,71,74 D – Local
Shelter
Esoteric Thought A – International
Artefacts 45 D – Local
Phase 7: Excavations By Ralegh Radford

Ministry of
Interpretation And Restoration/Creation Of B – National
Works and
English Heritage Past Structures
Phase 8: 1995 – Paving And Paths C/D – Local-regional

2000
Rock-Netting
Way-Marking And Signage
Steps Down From Lower Ward
Maintenance Hut
Extension To EH Visitor Centre
Footpaths

2013 64
Negative feature – risk significance = B-

Rock-faces Rock Slope 1
C
Figures 85 - 86 Rock Slope 2 Negative feature – risk significance = D

Rock Slope 3
C
Rock Slope 4 Negative feature – risk significance = C
Rock Slope 5b Negative feature – risk significance = B
Geology Rock Slope 6 Negative feature – risk significance = B
Rock Slope 7 Negative feature – risk significance = A
Rock Slope 8 Negative feature – risk significance = D
Negative feature – risk significance =

Rock Slope 10gen
D-U
Rock Slope 10o/h Negative feature – risk significance = B
Negative feature – risk significance =

Rock Slope 11
D-U
Rock Slope 12 Negative feature – risk significance = U
Rock Slope 13a Negative feature – risk significance = C
Rock Slope 13b Negative feature – risk significance = C
Rock Slope 14gen Negative feature – risk significance = D

Rock Slope 14crit
C
Negative feature – risk significance = C-

Rock Slope 15
D
Rock Slope 20 Negative feature – risk significance = C-

2013 65
D

Rock Slope 22
C

Rock Slope 23
D

Rock Slope 24
D
Ecology
Island And Headland Cliffs NC1-4, 6-7 B – National
Sites/zones
Figure 84 Island Site A NC4 B – National
Island Rocky Grassland NC8-10 B – National
Island Rocky Coastal Slopes NC12 B – National
Island Cliff NC11 B – National
Headland Castle Wards NC13-14 C – Regional
Island Cliffs NC 15- 21 C – Regional
Quarry NC22 C – Regional
Headland, Quarry And Erosion Restoration NC 22-23 C – Regional
Island, Chapel NC24 C – Regional
Headland Cliff NC25 C – Regional
Headland Grassland NC26 B – National
Inner Ward – Hottentot Fig NC27 Negative feature
Valley/Stream; Japanese Knotweed NC 28 Negative feature
Headland Sea Cliffs NC29 A – International
Headland Plateau NC30 A – International

2013 66
5. MANAGEMENT ISSUES
5.1. Management Issues and Policies
The principal findings of the review of Understanding and the Assessment of Significance of the property are:
• The fragility of the internationally important archaeological remains
• The vulnerability of the internationally important standing remains
• The many understandings and interpretations concerning cultural identity and spirituality
• The predominant aesthetic is the wild dramatic character, with a secondary aspect due to the juxtaposition of
high status medieval castle against the vernacular nature of the remains of the local post-medieval slate
industry and agriculture
• The visual and historic links between the island and the parish church and between the castle and the village;
and
• Insufficient information to fully understand many aspects of the property
These headline issues remains as true in 2013 as they were in 2001.
This Conservation Plan advocates:
• Devising conservation measures specific to the local conditions (Policies PP4 and LD2)
• Presentation linked to an education strategy (Policies PP3 and ED2)
• Further progress towards more localised management (subsidiarity), to ensure local interest is met within the
context of English Heritage’s Duty of Stewardship (Policy MA3)
The central issues are the need to recognise the potential for many understandings of Tintagel, and to respect the
special inspirational and local qualities of Tintagel. These qualities should be balanced with conservation, visitor,
community and management interests.
Site management will be better informed by the more clearly defined Understanding and Significance of the
property set out above. Nevertheless, many questions regarding the nature of the site are yet to be addressed. It is
important that these are identified and answered through time, as an integral and continual part of the
management process (Policy PP3). Not only are there many cultural implications arising from a better
understanding of Tintagel, but also this is essential if high standards of presentation and management are to be
achieved. For example, what is the justification in continuing to carry out costly maintenance of reconstructed
features if research shows that they lack historic credibility and present an inaccurate impression to visitors?
Accelerated rates of erosion may result from the effects of increased storminess as a part of climate change.
Improvements in conservation practices and remedial work would be achieved if conservation measures were
designed according to the special character and needs of the property (e.g. the use of rock dentistry
recommended in Appendix 4, see Section 5.7 and Policy LD1).
Recent management has been driven by; inter alia, the implications of substantial visitor numbers, the impact of
erosion on archaeological remains, and health and safety concerns. The scale and cumulative effect of these
works are increasingly creating a distinct character for the property. This could give rise to an effect that acts
against, rather than protects, the significance and character of the property. Further incremental changes could
leave visitors without a clear image of the site and its significance. Landscape design, including a reduction in
the use of signage, especially on the island, should be consistent with the wild character, where it should be
directly linked to nature conservation measures. Here and elsewhere, future maintenance programmes could
remedy the less sympathetic aspects of the work carried out over the past 60 years
New ways of expanding intellectual and physical access should be considered, including means of experiencing
the special qualities of the property from the mainland or the valley, rather than the more sensitive and less
accessible island. The current programme of proposed improvements offers a greater ‘return’ on the existing site
facilities, by improving access between the village, the Lower Ward and the Haven. Once the benefits of the
limited and small-scale potential for on-site improvements in visitor facilities have been realised (Policy PP1),
future improvements should be coordinated with North Cornwall District Council and the local community.
2013 67
In the medium to long term, the property could be managed to address the wider public interest and significance
of the property whilst also producing local economic and social benefits. Tintagel could be more than just part of
a day trip visitor attraction. High quality presentation, increased access to information and dedicated education
facilities, perhaps operated in partnership, could lead to beneficial changes in visitor patterns (Policies PP1, PP5
and ED1). Any significant effects on the range of services offered to visitors, or the duration of visits to Tintagel
and the surrounding district, could act as a catalyst for social and economic regeneration in the Tintagel district.
The development of a policy framework, integrated with regional strategies, could lead to financial support for
environmental improvements through European and national sources, for example, Objective 1.
Opportunities to achieve conservation, access and local social and economic benefits generally rely on a detailed
understanding of the local and site-specific issues. Greater co-ordination between various agencies and the local
community will be essential (Policy MA1). The leadership role of the Custodian post needs to be assessed and
the benefits of a change to a Site Manager considered.
5.2. Conservation
The primary purpose of bringing the monument into stewardship was to ensure that the remains – structural and
buried, ecological and geological – were conserved for the enjoyment and appreciation of future generations of
visitors. In this perspective, conservation does not mean ‘freezing the site in time’ but involves active
management as well as investigation and excavation.
5.2.1. Setting and Uses
Whilst the romantic aesthetic is generally understood and recognised, little is made of the contrast between the
castle and the later vernacular architecture. Greater attention could also be paid to the wider setting issue, which
suffers from the effect of property demarcation and the lack of a co-ordinated detailed policy framework.
Landscape design decisions have been consistent and appropriate for dealing with visitor management and health
and safety issues, but may have compromised the wild character. A more sensitive approach is particularly
important for the island, where a minimal approach is preferred. Although the conservation principles
underlining the approach are sound, the remaining programme of landscaping works put forward in the Caroe
Report (Caroe 1995) should be reviewed. The key issues of concern are those of design and materials. There
should be greater consistency in materials, especially for fencing (still the case in 2013 a mix of wooden paling,
bronze fencing, ground sockets, concrete sockets, etc.) Wooden fencing set in ground sockets would be preferred
(see Policy LD3.1). The potential for flexibility in design and materials is perhaps greater on the Headland, but
the special character of the island demands an informal but nevertheless rigorous use of natural local materials.
The historic authenticity of the Ministry of Works reconstructions should be more fully assessed before making
further decisions on presentation and future conservation or maintenance. Other factors that should be addressed
include:
• The siting of admissions huts that intrude upon visitor’s views (Policy LD3) (new admissions kiosk to Upper
Ward has been mentioned as a possible improvement for the short-term)
• The suitability of the pay-to-view telescope (removed by 2013)
• The need for sensitive design and materials in the construction of new facilities, especially the steps to The
Haven (Policies LD2.3 and LD3.3 (new wooden steps in characteristic ‘English Heritage Wood style’ have
been put in place and were proven very popular at the time of the site visit July 22-24 2013); and
• The extension to the Visitor Centre (effectively achieved) , and the unsightly mesh used to control rock falls
(still in place) (Policies PP1 and PP2)
The former slate industry, galena mining and remains of fishing and trade vessels are particularly relevant to the
history of the village community and are defining aspect of the valley and the Haven. Neglect of the vernacular
and industrial remains means that an important aspect of the historic significance is overlooked. This should be
reversed, and in so doing, could present the complete history of Tintagel, and safeguard this important
archaeological asset (Policies PP4.1 and PP6).
Environmental and presentational improvements that reflect the relationships between the island and the parish
church, and between the castle and the village, require a suitable policy context (see Policies MA 2.2 and 2.3).
Designation as a Conservation Area (MA 2.1) and the preparation of a detailed Statement of Special Historic

2013 68
Interest would provide such a context and offer a means of co-ordinating improvements through the activities of
the various local interests. No Conservation Area was designated for Tintagel, and changes in planning policies
in the interim years make this a less useful undertaking. English Heritage may also wish to encourage
conservation the industrial remains at the mouth of the valley overlooking the Haven (Policy MA2.3; this has
been largely achieved by 2013).
5.2.2. Buried Archaeological Remains

The archaeological remains at Tintagel are an internationally significant source of information on a period in
history, and a series of socio-cultural processes, of international interest. The primary purpose for the monument
being in Stewardship is to ensure that the remains are conserved for the appreciation and education of future
generations.
In particular the post-Roman and medieval archaeology has implications for regional, national and international
cultural identity. The history of relatively small scale investigations at Tintagel, especially those carried out by
GUARD and CAU during the last five years, has left an impression of a unique, very fragile and very rich
archaeological site, at least in terms of surviving stone-built structures and artefacts.
However, the quality of stratigraphy is highly variable and in some areas is absent, resulting in fully exposed
rock cut features. Elsewhere, the combination of terrace topography, erosion and faunal reworking (voles and
anthills) has destroyed contextual relationships. Very localised areas of complex stratigraphy do occur, but these
are mainly at the base of deeper sequences at the back of terraces, which have been protected by slumping.
Consequently distinguishing between the major phases of occupations, such as post-Roman and medieval stone
structures, is problematic.
Excavation has demonstrated the impoverished state of the surviving environmental material, but useful
information has emerged when sampling regimes have maximised recovery. These demonstrate, for example,
that crop remains represent consumption, not processing. A relatively sophisticated dating strategy, involving the
selection of charcoal from short-lived tree species from sealed contexts, has also managed to create a dating
scheme.
Given these circumstances, archaeological investigations would need to be relatively large scale in order to be
effective. Consequently such work would require very careful planning and resourcing. Such excavations could
be justified by a combination of:
• Imminent threat
• Pressing research objectives, and
• The need to establish sufficient information to fully understand the property for presentation and
management purposes
The ecological, geological and visitor dynamic at the property mean that archaeological remains are vulnerable
across the property (Policy LD2), especially on the island. Conventional passive conservation policies are not
wholly appropriate and an active and on-going programme of archaeological investigation would seem prudent
(Policy Arch2). There are a number of particular areas where the risk, research management and presentational
criteria are especially pertinent. These include the areas of the Inner and Upper Wards that may be vulnerable to
major rock collapse. In sum, the site contains unique and very fragile, archaeological remains. However,
insufficient information has been gathered to fully understand many aspects of the property.
5.2.3. Landscape/Natural Erosion
Erosion issues have been examined in detail in the 1995 Condition Survey, and do not merit a comprehensive
review. As previously described, the thin or non-existent soil cover on the more exposed areas on the island
means that archaeological remains are often particularly vulnerable to erosion, especially due to visitor impact.
A detailed review of the 1995 Condition Survey but is outside the scope of this review of the CMP.
However, the structural integrity of the geological rock formations and the masonry ruins has been re-examined
(see Section 5.2.4). Various short-medium term remediation measures have been identified during the review of
historic standing structures and the geological and geotechnical issues (considered below, Section 5.7). These
works include alternatives to the conservation works recommended by Babtie, which will be further considered
2013 69
alongside the current works within the implementation plan. In addition, both studies identify the potential for
major loss of historic and archaeological material due to the structural instability of the cliffs. This has particular
implications for the Upper and Lower Wards, and presents a question of conservation philosophy and site safety,
rather than a simple choice of appropriate remediation actions.
The Upper and Lower Wards of the Castle, at greatest risk from major rock fall, are among the most significant
features of the property, and have already been subject to historic collapse. The longer-term survival of these
parts of the Castle may be uncertain, although the use of rock anchors (see Section 7.2) could offer stability over
the next 70-100 years. Alternatively it may be appropriate to plan for the eventual loss of archaeological and
historic fabric and access to these vulnerable areas. It would be prudent as well as transparent for EH to have a
documented review of this longer-term threat and of the chosen management strategy or ‘managed’ retreat.
5.2.4. Upstanding Buildings and Structures
Following the Caroe Report (Caroe 1995), significant conservation resources have been made available for the
work on the upstanding structures. R Fewtrell of Gifford & Partners has undertaken a review of the condition of
the extant masonry structures, and sets out detailed notes on conditions in summer 2000 (Appendix 2).
The upstanding structures at Tintagel are dominated – in every sense – by the Castle Wards. These structures
have been the subject of a number of phases of repair and restoration, most recently as a consequence of the
Condition Survey of 1995 (Caroe 1995). Thus, they are structurally sound but will require on-going works in the
form of monitoring and repointing. Amongst the other structures, the low stonewalls of sites A to H are
relatively stable. They support relatively rare and valuable plant communities that also serve to bind together the
essentially dry-stone walls, and therefore the management imperative would be to maintain the plant ‘mats’ that
develop along the tops and sides of the walls. The two historic cottages in the valley should also be considered.
The first – now much altered – comprises the English Heritage Visitor Centre and is thus well maintained (the
extent of surviving historic fabric could be easily ascertained). The second – in private ownership – has been
recently refurbished internally and thus, whilst also much altered, is also sound – this has in the intervening years
been acquired by English Heritage and has been transformed into a café – in summer 2013 this seems to have
been a very successful management strategy.
The Castle Wards have also benefited from a series of paving works designed to mitigate visitor erosion. In
general flat Trevillet slates have been used to indicate the interiors of historic buildings, and pitched local slates
represent formerly exterior areas. These are effective in mitigating erosion, but despite the logic of the use of two
materials to distinguish historic uses (which is still not explained on site and continues to confuse visitors based
upon comments overheard by the reviewer, 23-07-13) the slates may be considered visually intrusive and
confusing to visitors. Future works might consider introducing changes in the materials used that provide a better
visual effect, more in keeping with the historic character of the site.
5.2.5. Museum Collections
The artefacts and other archives from Tintagel are a resource of international significance. Because of the
specific historic circumstances under which the various investigations occurred, the archives are currently
scattered among several museums and collections. These include the Royal Cornwall Museum/Royal Institution
of Cornwall, the Cornwall Archaeological Unit, Glasgow University, the National Monuments Record, the
British Museum, and others (see Archive Schedule in Appendix 5).
The variety of present locations for archives militates against effective use for research or curation. It would be
preferable for both artefacts and documents to be consolidated into one, or only a few depositories. The Royal
Cornwall Museum in Truro holds much material, is relatively close to Tintagel, has proper facilities for curation
and is therefore the preferable location of all or most archival material to be held. The Duchy of Cornwall,
which is the legal owner of portable antiquities found at the site, wishes all such archives to be lodged with the
Royal Cornwall Museum. This arrangement would secure the future of the artefacts within the public domain
and ensure professional standards of conservation, curation and presentation of the collection. Arrangements for
the local presentation of artefacts may be appropriate and should be discussed with the Royal Cornwall Museum
(see Policy Arch2.5).
5.3. Visitors
The primary English Heritage objective for Tintagel is to conserve the monument for the future – but the second
purpose is to present and interpret that monument for the benefit of the general public. Thus, philosophically,
2013 70
every effort should be made to maximise opportunities to present and interpret the monument and all its parts –
commensurate with its continued conservation. Public access, however, comes at the price of direct visitor
erosion and indirect environmental impacts. There is thus an inevitable potential for conflicts of interest between
conservation and access and these conflicts need to be reconciled.
5.3.1. Pressures and Opportunities
Tintagel is the fourth most popular English Heritage property, generates the second largest number of paying
visitors nationally and, after Stonehenge, is the largest revenue generator in the South West Region.
There are potential benefits in increasing visitor numbers within a strategy that achieves greater levels of social
inclusion and sustains the commercial returns that enable English Heritage to maintain conservation work at
Tintagel and other properties in Cornwall. However, to achieve this goal there is a need to raise standards of
visitor experience, through improved access and facilities, and the provision of more appealing and appropriate
attractions and services at the property, within the village and in the surrounding district.
This need serves to re-emphasise the need for greater partnership with the local authority and the local
community.
5.3.2. Access
Access to the property from the village has long been recognised as a problem:
• The surface of the track from the castle to the village (and similarly the zigzag path from the Visitor Centre to
the Lower Ward) is regularly washed away and needs replacing approximately five times a year. The main
cause is surface run-off during high rainfall, but the Land Rover can also cause an initial gully, which
becomes a focus of later erosion – This seems to be less of an issue in 2013 but the car park at the bottom is
unsightly and does not allow any intentionality in the visitors’ arrival at the site.
• A significant health and safety risk is posed by combined pedestrian and vehicular access near the junction of
lane and the High Street – these two points remains, but the alternative path along the valley and again near
the top have separated vehicular and pedestrian traffic at some of the more hazardous points.
• Limited access adversely affects collection and delivery services to other property owners
Plans to separate vehicular and pedestrian access from the village form part of the Tintagel Environmental
Improvements Scheme (TEIS) and were included in the present submission for European Union funding under
Objective 1, and has been partially achieved. Various options under consideration will need to resolve the
concerns of local landowners and other interests, but this is a major opportunity to reduce the risk of serious
accidents, to encourage more people to visit the castle and to reduce maintenance by providing a permanent hard
surface.
In addition to the access problem, the TEIS proposals include traffic calming, streetscape improvements and the
creation of a village square. English Heritage’s role in putting this proposal together for Objective 1 funding, as
part of a partnership with North Cornwall District Council and the local community, represents an important
opportunity to establish a process of co-operation that will be increasingly important if the visitor potential of the
site is to be met. This has been partially achieved.
Other access issues include inadequate facilities for delivering and storing materials on-site, especially for
equipment, paving and fencing materials required on the island. Also the level of visitor traffic is causing
localised path erosion and surface maintenance problems, particularly on the island.
The cliff line at Glebe Cliff is visually sensitive, and it would be inappropriate to promote general access from
the church. However, the National Trust, which owns this stretch of the coast, identified this location as one
potentially providing opportunities for disabled access to views of the castle and island. This suggestion should
be followed-up (Policy PP5) by more focussed discussions. This is, therefore, a significant amenity that can be
enjoyed by people who currently have restricted means of experiencing the site. Further consideration should be
given to improving access for the less able, by upgrading the upper path from the valley into the outer ward
(Policy PP5). This path has been improved by the use of steps (slate and wooden forms) and small stone-filled
wire gabions to form flat terraces across the more steeply sloped hillsides. However, there is a need for further
improvements even for fully able-bodied visitors, and the path falls considerably short of providing access for

2013 71
people with disabilities. This would at least enable access into the mainland castle remains, even if the prospect
of creating a suitable link to the island remains remote.
5.3.3. Visitor Amenities
During the last five years both English Heritage and various combinations of interests in the village have made a
number of efforts to identify what amenities visitors value most. Many of these amenities are outside the scope
of English Heritage actions, although even here English Heritage encouragement could make a difference. It
appears that only circa 20% of visitors to Tintagel village actually visit the castle, and this suggests that very
major efforts must be made to attract a greater percentage of visitors to make the extra journey down the track to
the castle.
There are at least three other elements that are under English Heritage control that would improve visitors’
amenities. Plans are currently in preparation for implementation (subject to funding) for:
• Beach steps - Achieved
• Shop improvements and new interpretation room – Achieved, and plans in hand for further internal
improvements
• Improved toilet facilities - Achieved
5.3.4. Presentation
There is a general perception that there are insufficient attractions at Tintagel to hold visitors. Particular concerns
include the lack of any on-site displays, limited interpretation facilities in the Visitor Centre, and limited on-site
interpretation (the reasoning here has been to limit visual intrusion, and more importantly to minimise damage to
the archaeology). Presentation of the site is a complex issue, particularly the need to differentiate between the
historic reality of the post-Roman settlement and trade, and the perception by visitors that this is the birthplace of
the legendary King Arthur.
Putting first-rate interpretation facilities onto site, and promoting the links between the landscape, history and
literary traditions might address these negative perceptions.
Future improvements might include:
• Improving visitor experience by further developing guided tours was considered but not implemented.
• Providing additional public site tours during excavation; and
• Using the historic slate industry to present the relationship between society and geology, and to highlight the
significance of the coastal geomorphology was not undertaken.
• Improving interpretation for visitors with special needs – was considered but not implemented.
There is no evidence in summer 2013 that efforts have been made to improve on-site presentation. The same
interpretative panels are present in the same places (and often looking a little shabby and weather-worn!).
Tintagel could also tell an important story regarding Cornish statehood. Site interpretation and presentation
should celebrate both local distinctiveness, and recognise Tintagel as an important part of an early British
kingdom (see Policies Arch2.1 and PP3.2). This might create a context that ameliorates some of the
contemporary cultural and political issues related to a regional Cornish identity.
5.4. Property Management

5.4.1. Organisation
English Heritage has recently strengthened its regional teams. This re-structuring provided an opportunity to
review site organisational structures, responsibilities and decision-making processes. A number of local
stakeholders wished to see greater local accountability. This led to the role of the Head Custodian as the front-
line point of contact, with emphasis on communication and developing local relationships with neighbours,
being changed to Property Manager and incorporating an outreach function.

2013 72
5.5. Education
English Heritage’s educational remit is particularly relevant in this context and forms the main consideration
from the community perspective.
Currently English Heritage organises various educational activities, including:
• Annual workshops occur at properties throughout the region on a rotational basis, promoting different aspects
of the Properties in Care. In 2006, as part of the national EH Discovery Visit programme for education
groups Key Stage 2-3 groups were offered an expert-led session, ‘Legends of King Arthur’
• English Heritage provides free site based and online materials and translations to a wide range of educational
groups At Tintagel Castle education groups have access to an online teacher’s kit in French and English as
well as a site based handling collection with objects and activities relating to the castle.
There could be major benefits in developing educational facilities at Tintagel. This plan has not included
sufficient research and analysis of the need, and provision of educational materials and therefore no attempt has
been made to develop an educational strategy. English Heritage should consider the benefits of such a strategy
(This will depend on future structure and strategy of education team- now subsumed within Marketing; see
Policy ED1.1: Has any revised educational strategy been devised for Tintagel?). Of all the areas of significance,
the castle is particularly important in relation to the education potential of the site. Tintagel’s link with the
emergence of a 12th century European literary genre and links to the legends of King Arthur demonstrate strong
cultural links with Europe, shown by the high numbers of overseas education groups. Furthermore, the historic
landscape, archaeological remains; literary associations and various archives associated with Tintagel offer a
wide range of multi-disciplinary educational opportunities. Primary historic data can be used to cover a range of
National Curriculum subject areas, from design to mathematics. In relation to broader definitions of education
and lifelong learning, Tintagel has the potential to contribute to other areas, especially as the effect of erosion
adds a dynamic drama to the site. These could include art, environmental studies, coastline studies, and
residential walking/hostelling.
cIt is not the place of the Conservation Plan to prepare a detailed education strategy, but a framework is required
(arguably still the case in 2013 – unless this has been done, or has been considered but not acted upon for valid
reasons - especially dependent upon strategy and capacity of new education team) and a number of key social
inclusion aims can be defined:
• Developing the quality of life – by creating a wide range of opportunities we will promote an inclusive and
wide-ranging approach to learning
• Stewardship of the environment – access to the property will provide opportunities to learn in, with and about
the environment, and its protection and conservation
• Promoting involvement, participation and partnership to create strong communities - promoting the
involvement of local educational groups and voluntary organisations will encourage a community focus and a
greater sense of citizenship
These aims link issues of education, access and inclusion, and give rise to clear objectives for presentation. From
these, structured actions can be defined. There would be considerable scope for widening the opportunities for
physical and intellectual access to the site’s resources and promoting more accessible and relevant themes, such
as the care of the site, and presenting the site through the viewpoint of famous people associated with Tintagel
(see Policies ED1 and PP3.1).
However, current facilities pose a constraint and there is a need to examine means of creating new opportunities
at the property. An immediate priority for developing the visitor facilities is the provision of a bag-store for
visiting educational groups (this was implemented but there was limited take-up, and the space is no longer used
for this purpose). In the longer term there is a potential for an information centre, perhaps at the site of the
former mill (this need has been met by the revised facilities at the base of the valley). In addition, emphasis
could be devoted to producing more teaching materials particularly for overseas groups to support educational
visits. The use of virtual reality, computer-generated walk-through models or audio technology could also
2013 73
improve ‘access’ to visitors with limited mobility – this has been largely achieved by 2013. Working in
partnership with educational organisations from the public, private and voluntary sectors may provide
opportunities for making better use of existing (and proposed) facilities.
5.6. Management Issues and Nature Conservation Interest at Tintagel

(This section not reviewed in detail 2013)
N Sanderson, EPR
5.6.1. Habitats
The definition of ‘Vegetated Sea Cliffs’ includes a wide range of typical maritime sea cliff NVC communities of
which the following have been recorded (see Appendix 3; Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC) at Tintagel:
MC1 Rock Samphire and Rock Sea Spurrey
MC5 Open Sea Cliffs with Sea Storksbill
MC6 Sea Beet, Sea Mayweed, Sea Mallow
MC8 Maritime Grassland, Thrift and Creeping fescue
MC9 Creeping Fescue and Meadow Softgrass
MC12 Bluebell and Yorkshire Fog
H7 Maritime Heath with Spring Squill
The locations of plant communities have been plotted simply on Figure 84. Reference should also be made to
Table 1 in Section 4.3 above.
5.6.2. Flora
The following nationally scarce species have been recorded at Tintagel:
• Lanceolate Spleenwort Asplenium obovatum
• Golden Samphire Inula crithmoides
• Autumn Squill Scilla autumnalis
Other species of nature conservation interest on the site include, Sea Storksbill Erodium maritimum; Tree
Mallow Lavatera arborea and Rock Sea Lavender Limonium binervosum agg.
Species which are likely to have become more scarce following cessation of grazing include: Heather Calluna
vulgaris; Bell Heather Erica cinerea; Spring squill Scilla verna; Betony Stachys officinalis.
5.6.3. Lower Plants
The harder rocks towards the north of the island provide more suitable habitat conditions for lichens and richer
communities are present. Soil growing lower plants are rare and confined to MC5 communities.
5.6.4. Fauna
Rare invertebrates have been recorded in the past. Grey Seal may use the sea caves. Breeding sea birds are not
thought to be significant at the site.
The cliffs of Tintagel provide breeding-grounds for sea-birds, and environments for lizards and butterflies.
Lichens, rock samphire and wild garlic grow in pockets in the rocks (Sharpe 1990, 33).

2013 74
5.6.5. Condition of Nature Conservation Interest at Tintagel
For the rock lichen communities, the rock crevice communities (MC1), the nutrient enriched cliff (MC6) and the
inaccessible stands of the grasslands (MC5 and MC8), assessing condition is relatively straightforward.
Assessment will consider whether the area is being maintained and the vegetation structure and composition is
not being adversely affected by extraneous factors.
The vast majority of the rock areas are in favourable condition. The exception is around the southern end of the
island where there is a colony of the invasive exotic Hottentot Fig Carpobrotus edulis and there has been past
concreting of the cliff.
The accessible areas of the coastal slope are more complex. The cessation of grazing has had a drastic effect on
these areas; short open grass and heath swards with a considerable diversity of species have been replaced with
very different swards. The swards are now dense thick swards of grasses, mainly of Creeping Fescue Festuca
rubra, with an incredibly deep sward of matted dead grass up to 18cm deep. Not only does this reduce plant
species diversity, and thereby faunal diversity, from invertebrates up to the now locally extinct Chough, there are
also serious archaeological implications. The dense dry mats of dead grass are a high fire hazard in dry weather
and the 1983 fire resulted in the loss of soil and associated archaeology. The thick swards also encourage vole
plagues that are also a threat to the archaeology of the site where the tunnelling voles disturb the archaeological
deposits. Neither of these problems is likely to have existed before the cessation of grazing.
There is a perceptual problem, in that abandoned coastal slopes are now so common in the south that the dense
matted condition of these communities is now regarded as normal by many naturalists. The NVC for instance
describes communities, especially Festuca-Holcus Maritime Grassland, which is largely an unnatural degraded
end-product community of the cessation of agricultural grazing and the absence of natural grazers such as wild
cattle. The condition of NVC communities alone is inadequate in assessing the condition of accessible coastal
slopes, as some NVC communities are in themselves indications of unfavourable condition.
The lack of grazing has led to the accessible coastal slopes at Tintagel to be in highly unfavourable condition,
although the 1983 fire has produced some better quality stands on the slopes not used by the public, by removing
the accumulated dead grass. These, however, will decline as dead grass accumulates in time.
Apart from this wholesale loss of quality there are also localised problems connected with visitor pressure and
management of the site. There have been localised losses of maritime grassland on the island plateau due to
trampling and losses due to the tipping of spoil just north of the Inner Ward.
In the valley, south of the SSSI, as well as the grasslands the Bracken stands are also in very poor condition due
to the lack of grazing. With grazing the bracken stands would become more open and richer in associated
species such as Violets and can support important invertebrate communities.
5.6.6. General Issues and Management
The public have no access to the majority of the SSSI, largely constrained by steep terrain. The major issue here,
as at most coastal cliffs in the area, is the declining and unfavourable condition produced by the lack of coastal
grazing.
On the mainland any restoration of grazing could be co-ordinated with the National Trust on the neighbouring
Glebe Cliffs. The National Trust has an active policy of restoring grazing to its many coastal slopes and has
recently restored grazing on the slopes to the north. If grazing were restored to Glebe Cliffs then grazing the
mainland at Tintagel would be relatively straightforward.
The island is much more problematic in terms of management. Access is difficult and huge numbers of the
people visit the site in summer. There is a large area of coastal slope that is in desperate need of management by
grazing. The promising solution that should be explored further is to winter graze the cliff slopes with a hardy
breed such as Soay sheep or Hebridean sheep. Grazing was begun during the winter months starting January
2013. With respect to the 2001 recommendations this management should remove the accumulated thatch of
dead grass and thereby remove the fire risk and reduce the likelihood of vole plagues as well as increasing sward
diversity. Winter grazing will favour the flowering of the more robust herbs and will probably be less
advantageous for low growing species. Nevertheless, conditions for the latter will be greatly improved. The re-
introduction of winter grazing should also introduce a host of attendant issues such as animal husbandry;
supplementary feeding and minerals, veterinary care and surface erosion (among others). This is clearly a

2013 75
complex issue and detailed consideration will be needed (see Policy CON5). It is understood that grazing is
considered to be a useful management strategy.
Mowing is not a practical alternative in the long term as it is the steep coastal slopes that require restoration.
However, mowing may be possible to the east of the plateau in the short term.
5.6.7. Specific Issues
The following more localised issues will need to be addressed if the nature conservation value of the site is to be
maintained or enhanced.
a) Invasive Species
The Hottentot Fig Carpobrotus edulis on the southern cliff of the island above the access path is a potentially
extremely serious problem and should be monitored and eradicated when possible.
The Japanese Knotweed Fallopia japonica by the stream has a high resistance to grazing and will require
herbicide treatment. Herbicide control would be essential.
b) Visitor Pressure
Two issues are involved with public access on the site, these being;
• Direct loss of maritime grassland to trampling and rock scaling; and
• Other treatment to make rock faces safe
Trampling is only currently significant on the plateau of the island. Elsewhere, path edges support high quality
open vegetation (MC5) and are one of the few areas where ground growing lower plants survives. On the island
visitors follow desire lines north and north-east across the island producing wide bare paths and trampled
viewing areas to the north and north west. Between the paths, areas which were left unburned in 1983 support
very poor quality tussocky (MC9) grassland, which is unaffected by trampling but is highly degraded by lack of
grazing. In the burned parts rocky areas are partly protected and support reasonable MC5 communities but
smoother surfaces are heavily trampled and have poor quality trampled grassland. The trampling requires
monitoring but does not appear likely to increase. If the area affected increases then some method of
constraining visitors to defined paths could be considered. However, this could involve very intrusive fencing
and would be highly controversial, as the visitors’ experience of the island would be seriously compromised. In
considering responses to this issue it should be borne in mind that there is a very large area of coastal grassland
on the steep slopes that is barely entered by the public. The emphasis should be on preventing further damage to
such areas.
Making rock faces safe should be carried out in ways that does not compromise the value of the crevice and
ledge communities (MC1, MC5 and MC8) and lower plant dominated rock communities (Ramalinetum
scopularis). Rock netting appears to have minimal effect on the cliff vegetation communities, unlike geo-mesh
which is quite damaging. In rock de-scaling care is required to avoid affecting Lanceolate Spleenwort
Asplenium obovatum populations in any way. Other species on which any effects should be minimised as far as
possible include Golden Samphire Inula crithmoides, Tree Mallow Lavatera arborea and Rock Sea Lavender
Limonium binervosum agg. Information gathered to date suggests that lower plant floras are rather limited in
areas closest to the public due to the friable nature of the rock close to the main faults but this requires
conformation.
Work should not be carried out during the bird nesting period (i.e. March to August, depending upon species
present).
5.6.8. Property Management and Archaeology
Losses of coastal grassland have occurred due to spoil tipping north of the Inner Ward. Maritime grassland
communities should replace the weedy vegetation here if at all possible. Simply strimming the tall weedy
vegetation may suffice but if not, capping or removal of the spoil will need to be considered.
In repairing erosion or re-vegetating archaeological excavations, areas where slopes allow natural regeneration
should be favoured for restoration. The re-colonising vegetation is more diverse and of greater value on a small
scale than the degraded ungrazed vegetation it replaces. As a result archaeological excavations are quite a
positive influence on the vegetation at present.
2013 76
Current methods of repairing low turf capped walls are clearly very effective and should be continued. Two
vascular plant species of interest, Lanceolate Spleenwort Asplenium obovatum and Rock Sea Lavender
Limonium binervosum agg., grow directly on walls and special care is required to conserve them. In general
herbaceous vegetation on the un-mortared walls should be retained as far as possible.
5.7. Management Issues and Geotechnical and Geological Considerations

– This section has not been reviewed in detail in 2013
M R Cooper, Gifford and Partners
The record of geotechnical conditions presented in Babtie Group’s Geotechnical Survey, Section 3 of Report B
was reviewed, and then extended by a site reconnaissance undertaken by John H Charman, Consulting
Engineering Geologist. On completion of this site reconnaissance Gifford and Partners’ geotechnical team
leader, Dr Mike Cooper, reviewed the findings on site. Mr Charman’s detailed report is presented below (see
Appendix 3), and the principal observations and interpretations derived from the review and report are set out
here.
The general area referencing used in the Babtie Group report has been retained. Four additional areas of interest
have been identified and added to the previous twenty-one areas. The locations of all the areas referred to in this
section are shown on Figure 86.
5.7.1. The Geology and its Significance
At Tintagel there are three main groups of rock that were all deposited between 300 and 350 million years ago.
These rocks originated from soft materials deposited in a shallow sea. The oldest rocks present are the Upper
Delabole Slates of the Upper Devonian Period. These Delabole Slates are generally light coloured, and are
followed by younger Lower Carboniferous dark slates and siltstones. The youngest rocks present are volcanic
agglomerates, originally a mixture of lavas and ash ejected from volcanoes into the shallow sea on top of the
previous deposits, still during the Lower Carboniferous period. Together the dark slates, siltstones and volcanics
make up the Tintagel Group.
The geological structure though is much more complicated. Tens of millions of years after they were deposited
the originally soft seabed deposits were turned into slates by heat and pressure from subsequent tectonic
movements and the rocks were lifted above sea level. These enormously powerful events produced local
bending (folding) and splitting (fracturing) of the rocks, and often rocks either side of a fracture are displaced
relative to each other (faulting), sometimes by a considerable distance.
Around Tintagel the combination of faulting, fracturing, and folding, which was so severe as to turn the rock
sequence upside-down in places, has caused a complex and fascinating geological structure. Because this
structure is so strikingly represented in the surface shape and form of Tintagel Island and its environs, it is the
subject of the majority of the “Description and Reasons for Notification” on the Site of Special Scientific Interest
Citation Sheet. A few of the more significant features are briefly described below.
Some of the faulting has been “low angle” and has stacked successive layers of Delabole Slates and Tintagel
Group rocks above each other out of their normal time sequence. Thus on the island the uppermost rocks are
Delabole Slates which are older than the rocks of the Tintagel Group that lie beneath them, (and which are
clearly visible as black slates both below Iron Gate and on the access path on the headland). Below this layer of
Tintagel Group rocks lie more of the older Delabole Slates as seen in Tintagel Haven.
The Tintagel Group can also be seen as black slates, above Delabole Slates on the cliffs immediately below the
Lower and Upper Castle Wards, but here the group is also visible lower down, out of sequence, as volcanic rocks
at the base of the cliff. It is in this area that the dramatic effect of fissuring and faulting is best demonstrated.
The stability of the west face of the rock mass supporting the Upper and Lower Wards is almost completely
controlled by the orientation of major fractures threatening incipient toppling failures that would carry away
significant parts of the monument; whilst the grassy sloping surface of the cliff top to the south lies on the plane
of a fault sloping steeply to the north, evidencing an obvious past failure by sliding on this fault plane. This is
typical of the way in which the complex and disrupted geology of Tintagel has both brought about its current
form and threatens its future stability.

2013 77
Babtie (in 1996) and subsequently Gifford in 2000-01 undertook comprehensive health and safety risk
assessments arising from the geological conditions. These appear to have originated with regards to the
management considerations appropriate to a private, commercial enterprise and were perhaps less than directly
relevant to English Heritage. It is notable that, with the few exceptions noted below, there appears to have been
little action to manage or reduce the hazards. It would be prudent for EH to have a documented internal process
of review and decision-making on this issue in general. The reviewer was told (July 2013) that in fact injuries to
members of the public are quite low and not serious in nature – which may be taken to suggest that the public
does realistically perceive the site as being hazardous and act with due care and attention. Nonetheless, a
documented review is considered appropriate.
5.7.2. Risk and Remediation
Any appraisal of the threat posed to the public or to the monument by unfavourable geological conditions is
essentially a subjective assessment of largely qualitative field observations. A scale of 0 to 100 has been
adopted, consisting of five elements that characterise the likelihood, severity and consequence of any particular
damaging or threatening event occurring in any area. These elements combine to give the Gifford Risk Index
and their weightings, which are flexible to allow a better representation of the risk elements, are shown in Table
.7.
Table 7 Gifford Risk Index Elements
Gifford Risk Index Element Weighting
Current stability 10
Rate and degree of future loss of stability 20
Physical scale of potential event 10

Risk of injury to public (on likelihood/exposure basis) Min 20/Max 40
Risk of damage to monument (on likelihood/importance basis) Min 20/Max 40
Maximum Total 100
Table 8 Remedial Level Scores for Table 2
Remediation Level Number Likely Remediation Requirement
0 Monitor only, may later indicate need for further action
1 Monitor, with improved signing or barriers
2 Modest rock dentistry/buttressing or light netting/bolting; areas of easy access
3 As 2 with more difficult access or of larger scale including removal of large blocks
4 Major anchoring or retention
The elemental and total scores for all the areas identified in the Babtie Group report, and for the four additional
areas identified in this study, are given in Table 9. Table 9 also gives an assessment of the scale of the likely scope
of remediation measures according to the system defined in Table 3.
The precise remediation method to be used in each area should be the subject of detailed, area-by-area assessment;
updating, extending and revising as necessary, the Babtie stabilisation regime summarised in Table 2009/B of John
Charman’s report (see below). The development of rock dentistry procedures, specifically suited to the particular
conditions in many locations at Tintagel, should be a priority (Policy LD5). This could most effectively be achieved
through the partial or full-time retention of a site-dedicated mason or quarryman.
The numerical data of Table 9 is presented graphically in Figures 84 and 85. Figure 84 shows the areas arranged in
descending order of risk factor and Figure 85 shows the areas of Figure 84 colour coded by risk and remediation
level.
2013 78
Table 9
Current Future Risk to Gifford Risk Rounded

Area Scale Risk to Public Remedial Level
Stability Stability Monument Index Risk Index
1 8 15 5 30 0 58 60 2 or 3
2 2 6 4 10 0 22 20 1
3 10 15 10 20 0 55 60 2 and 3
4 5 10 4 20 5 44 40 2
5a 8 15 8 30 10 71 70 2
5b 4 10 6 15 5 40 40 3
6 2 10 5 10 20 47 50 3
7 8 15 10 20 30 83 80 4*
8 4 8 6 20 0 38 40 1
9 6 10 8 20 5 49 50 2
10
4 6 6 10 5 31 30 0 or 1
general
10 overhangs 8 15 10 30 10 73 70 3*
11 4 4 8 10 0 26 30 0 or 1
12 5 10 5 10 0 30 30 0
13a 5 5 5 30 5 50 50 2
13b 5 5 5 10 15 40 40 2
14
6 10 5 15 5 41 40 1
general
14
10 15 10 30 15 80 80 2 or 3
critical
15 6 15 5 25 0 51 50 1 and 2
16 5 10 4 20 0 39 40 2
17 2 10 4 15 0 31 30 0
18 2 8 4 15 0 29 30 1

2013 79
19 5 10 2 15 0 32 30 1
20 4 10 5 12 0 31 30 1 or 2
21 4 10 5 6 4 29 30 0
22 5 10 5 12 8 40 40 2 or 3
23 5 10 2 15 0 32 30 1 or 2
24 5 10 2 15 0 32 30 1 or 2
25 6 12 6 30 0 54 50 1
* Implies major expenditure. Short term mitigation of lesser extent may be needed
** Interpreted from text of Babtie Group report
Table nn.3 Risk Index Composition and Remediation Level
5.7.3. Principal Observations

There is generally good agreement between the risk factors derived in this study and those stated or implied in the
Babtie Group report. Three main areas warrant further discussion:
Area 7
In Area 7 the most significant risk on the whole site is the threat to the west side of the Upper and Lower Wards.
Further development of the flexural toppling failure on this face would irrevocably destroy a large proportion of this
part of the monument and could render other parts of the Upper and Lower Wards unusable by the public. This
review points to the possibility of stabilising this face by rock anchoring using through-drilling techniques from
readily accessible locations at the east of the Lower and Upper Wards. We would urge their earliest serious
consideration (Policies PHS1.1 and LD1.1). (It is understood that this was not considered in detail, but we
recommend that this review is undertaken and a decision recorded.) It is feasible to install a system to monitor
movement in the two threatened wards, but the utility of this is lessened by the fact that it is a ‘catastrophic failure’
that threatens the site rather than a progressive failure. Preliminary enquiries of specialist installers suggest that a
major through-bolting programme of 30 stressed anchors, which should be sufficient to ensure stability for 70 to 100
years if correctly detailed, should be achievable for around £75,000 – 80,000. Although it would increase the
eventual total cost, this work could be phased to distribute the funding requirement over a longer period.
Area 14
The risks posed in Area 14 seem to us to be less serious than suggested by the Babtie Group report, largely due to
the extensive buffer zone between the face in question and the areas generally accessed by the public. This area has
clearly been successful in arresting a high proportion of earlier falls. It may also be that the particular high-risk
areas referred to in the earlier report have already been remediated.
Area 17
The differences in derived risk factors in Area 17 simply represent a difference in subjective assessment of wall
condition and exposure. The more detailed composition we have employed suggests that the Risk Factor for this
area should be down-rated.
Area 5
The rock faces above the beach and Merlin’s Cave (area 5) are also of some concern. They have a history of failure,
and a repetition could present a serious threat to public health and safety. Throughout the early stages of this project
consideration was given to restricting access to the beach in order to mitigate this threat. An alternative would be
the use of rock-bolts as for Area 7 above. A more detailed feasibility study would be needed. This issue is again a

2013 80
concern because the restoration of the steps to the beach has resulted in a very considerable public presence on the
beach.
5.7.4. Conclusions
Serious consideration should be given to the wider use of rock dentistry techniques. If this could be achieved on a
directly employed labour basis, either full-time or intermittent, then the prioritisation would be locally driven and
the techniques used could be developed to suit the Tintagel environment as closely as possible (Policy LD5). This
low-cost and low-impact but effective technique has not been implemented. Given the access issues, training
supervision, etc. EH has serious reservations about undertaking such work in-house, but the option to undertake the
works with an specialist sub-contractor should be explored and the decision process documented..
The impact of Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16 and 22 on visitor access, visitor safety and convenience is of particular
concern. Coupled with the less than satisfactory condition and alignment of the current steps sloping steeply down
from the Lower Ward despite the addition of another ‘landing stage’, and with the very restricted access steps on the
island side of the bridge, the enjoyment of the Tintagel experience for many visitors must be greatly diminished.
This remains the case, but is perhaps an irresolvable issue. EH may have taken a decision based upon the visual
effects and costs to NOT undertake any major efforts to increase access to the mainland wards and more especially
to the island – but this should be documented.
In addition, other options may need to be pursued in order to widen access to the parts of the site for visitors with
limited mobility (Policies PP5 and ED2.4). This remains the case in 2013.
The reviewer noted that the bench that was beside the track, but placed under a rock-face in 2001, has been removed
– surely a wise action. However, the footpath parallel to the track on the west side of the valley, about 100m north of
the finger-post, passes under a large rock face that, with superficial observation, appears to be unstable and thus
presents a significant hazard to public health and safety. This is an ideal place to implement the rock-dentistry
technique mentioned above. This should be inspected annually by a geotechnical or structural engineer who
provides a report regarding its condition and any work requirements

2013 81
6. Interpretation Plan by Angharad Brading
$Q,QWHUSUHWDWLRQ3ODQLVEHLQJGHYLVHGDVSDUWRIWKH9LVLWRU,PSURYHPHQWV3URJUDPPHIRU7LQWDJHOLQ

2013 82
7. POLICIES
This Conservation Plan Review should itself be reviewed after 5 years in 2019. Set out below is a brief Statement of
Philosophy, followed by Policy Objectives, General Policies (which apply to the site as a whole) and Specific
Policies (which apply to either specific elements or sites within the Guardianship monument or to particular aspects
of the monument, e.g. ecology). These are presented in tabular form.
This plan has outlined past and current understanding of the monuments. In this section of the plan a management
framework is established to promote this understanding for the benefit of visitors alongside the conservation of the
significant elements of the Monument. This approach is in accordance with the English Heritage duties for the care
and the promotion of the site.
7.1. Philosophy
The most basic philosophic tenet of this plan is that the management of the monument should maximise visitor’s
enjoyment, appreciation and understanding, commensurate with the long-term conservation of the most significant
aspects of the monument as defined in previous sections. This fundamental premise still pertains. From this tenet
several consequences flow:
• Visitor understanding of the site depends on presentation facilities and upon a factual knowledge of the site,
which in turn requires further (and possibly ongoing) archaeological investigations
• Visitor appreciation and enjoyment of the monument derives from both the presentation facilities and the
conservation of the wild unspoilt character of the headland and island
• Visitor appreciation, enjoyment and understanding are fundamental to maintaining and increasing visitor
numbers – this applies directly to the monument but clearly would have beneficial consequences for the wider
community of Tintagel
The management of the monument cannot be undertaken in isolation, but rather (in the current jargon) in partnership
with a range of other organisations with interests in Tintagel. The range of organisations and individuals consulted
in the preparation of this plan is the essential first step towards this, but the process initiated here must be continued.
7.2. Policy Objectives

The main policy positions should address the following objectives:
1. Long-term conservation of the most significant aspects of the monument as defined in this plan. Still apposite.
2. Maximise visitor enjoyment and appreciation of the wild, unspoilt ‘Romantic’ landscape of the headland and
island by minimising intrusive and non-beneficial change. Still apposite.
3. Maximise visitor’s understanding of the monument through appropriate preservation, supported by further
primary archaeological and historical investigations, research and publications. Still apposite.
4. Develop an education strategy, in partnership with local organisations and with purpose-designed facilities on
site, to maximise the potential for Tintagel to serve an educational resource for a wide-range of subjects and
topics. Still apposite.
5. Maximise the potential improvements to visitor facilities on-site, limited as they are by site conditions and
context. Progress has been made on this, but as a policy it is still apposite. Working in partnership with the
Tintagel community and North Cornwall District Council will be a key to success.
6. Develop and implement conservation measures, suitable to site-specific situations, to protect rare plant species,
minimise natural hazards to public health and safety (e.g. the rock faces). Still apposite.
7. Promote management subsidiarity (the delegation of decision –making to the lowest practicable level) to
maximise integration with, and support from, the local community. This has been achieved.
8. Provide the factual basis to understanding the site, whilst recognising the importance of accommodating
alternative interpretations and beliefs; Still apposite.

2013 83
9. Maximise the value of existing infrastructure by improving access and facilities to The Haven and the Lower
Ward; Still apposite.
10. Strengthen the custodial role to ensure effective coordination of input from English Heritage professionals,
including marketing, and to ensure local issues, interests and relationships are properly considered within the
context of English Heritage’s duty of Stewardship. This has been achieved.
11. Support cultural tourism in order to strengthen the local economy and provide benefits for all local commercial
interests. Still apposite as an aim.
12. Encourage adaptations or new works that are compatible with the conservation of significance but would
enhance accessibility, presentation, and interpretation (in sum, visitor appreciation). Still apposite.
7.3. General Policies

One of the most basic policies in most conservation and management plans is a ‘do nothing approach’. This is
appropriate for spatially, the majority of the land area of the headland and the island. The policies and actions
presented below are, essentially, exceptions to this rule of ‘do nothing’. Unless a specific site area is mentioned
below, the conservation policy is effectively ‘do nothing’.
The policies have developed out of the preceding sections. Where elements of significance have been identified and
are vulnerable to a threat, policies have been devised to retain or enhance significant elements. Policies are usually
framed as a general strategy, in order that the professional judgement of English Heritage staff is brought to bear to
determine practicability and detailed methodology.
7.3.1. Research and Understanding
It is important that proposals to safeguard the structures and promote the appreciation of the monument are based on
a comprehensive understanding of its constituent parts and historical associations. Existing knowledge has been
collected and synthesised in this Conservation Plan, but gaps in current understanding remain and should be
addressed. In order to inform management and presentation strategies in the future, detailed archaeological and
historical investigations should be undertaken on one or more of the post-Roman sites that were not extensively
disturbed by Radford’s work. Still apposite.
7.3.2. Landscape and Setting
English Heritage will act to preserve the wild and unspoilt character of the place, which gives the place such an
inspirational quality. Where possible, and over time, inappropriate forms of hard landscaping, and inaccurate
reconstructions, will be reduced and removed, the network of paths will be rationalised, and the variation of path
paving-materials will be reduced. Unless otherwise stated, the landscape setting is best managed by ‘doing
nothing’! Still apposite.
The special historic interest of Tintagel may be enhanced through the designation of a Conservation Area to include
the island, valley headland, parish church and village Tintagel was not designated a Conservation Area and changes
in heritage policy in the intervening years makes this a less useful undertaking, and we suggest this can be dropped.
7.3.3. Social Inclusion
English Heritage recognises that Tintagel can be understood and valued in many different ways and will work to
promote the wider cultural significance of the place. Still apposite.
7.3.4. Access: Interpretation, Presentation and Education
English Heritage will continue to sustain a critically reviewed process of information gathering, interpretation and
presentation. Presentation of the site will be through the media of accessible publications; displays and
reconstructions based on accurate, factually based narrative accounts of the history of the place. Still apposite.
English Heritage recognises that Tintagel provides a wide range of educational opportunities. There could be major
benefits in further developing the role of education at Tintagel. English Heritage will consider how best to expand
intellectual and physical access. Significant progress has been made since this was written in 2001, (see above) but
periodic reviews may highlight areas for further improvement..

2013 84
7.3.5. Esoteric Thought
The importance of Tintagel as a place for people interested in esoteric thought is undeniable (comparing, in this
respect, with sites such as Stonehenge; see Sections 2.5.6, 4.2.7); this cannot be ignored, but this importance is
difficult to address. The difficulty is primarily because the interest is ahistorical, and therefore there are few or no
facts to be presented or interpreted. This difficulty of presentation may also be viewed as an opportunity. Arthur is
the most useful link between the tangible and historical Tintagel and the intangible historic Tintagel. English
Heritage will explore ways to encompass both Arthur and other esoteric concepts into the presentation of Tintagel
(see Policy ED2). Still apposite.
7.3.6. Visitor Facilities and Access
English Heritage will maximise the use of the existing visitor facilities at the Stewardship site and will work for
further improvements in coordination with the local authority, village and other local facilities. Still apposite, noting
the improvements on-site.
English Heritage will work to broaden access to the many facets of the monument at Tintagel. Access means both
physical access to as much of the site as feasible, and also intellectual access to the historical and cultural aspects.
Still apposite.
7.3.7. Coastal Erosion
One consequence of the geology that forms the basis for Tintagel’s wild character is a fundamental structural
instability and danger to the visiting publics’ health and safety. Where visitor access is considered to be desirable,
and unstable rock faces create a hazard, the least intrusive means of preventative conservation will be implemented.
Where medium to long-term cliff stability cannot be assured, English Heritage will consider all feasible remedial
actions, including retreat. There is one aspect of geological instability for which no easy conservation work can be
proposed to minimise a threat to the public and the long-term survival of the site itself. This is rock face 7, which
underlies (to the west) the Upper and Lower Wards. This rock face sustains open, vertical faults; it is known to have
been eroding over the last few millennia (the Upper Ward Curtain wall ends abruptly where it has fallen away since
it was used in the medieval period) and is inherently unstable. In the long-term there is a risk of catastrophic failure,
with the consequence loss of both castle wards. This risk is heightened by the likelihood of increased erosion due to
increased storminess arising from global climate change. It is technically feasible to counteract this threat by the use
of rock-bolts (as discussed above Section 5.2.3) but is unknown whether this option is financially viable. Still
apposite, but a clear and documented review (as an internal document) should be undertaken.
The threat of cliff failure here is real, but unquantifiable. Failure could occur through several mechanisms –
principally by a single major failure resulting from a very severe frost after a period of rain, or by a progressive
failure, of the next major joint (identified in Appendix 4 Figure 2009/10). English Heritage will consider the
implications for continued public access.
7.3.8. Ecology
The cliffs and coastal grassland swards at Tintagel contain a number of rare plants species. This is recognised in the
site’s status as a SSSI and candidate SAC. Conservation and management work on site should be undertaken in
such a manner as to minimise disturbance to this aspect of the sites significance. Interpretation and conservation of
the site should also give appropriate emphasis to the sites ‘natural’ heritage. Still apposite, but a clear and
documented review (as an internal document) should be undertaken.
7.3.9. Conservation and Intervention
Tintagel Castle’s visible structures, buried remains and ecology all contribute to telling the story of the site. Yet it is
not desirable for all elements of the site to be preserved –frozen in time - as they exist now. Upon what basis, and
to what extent, can change (the removal, alteration, or replacement) of any extent fabric be considered and justified?
It must be true that certain aspects of the ‘the story’ are less important than others. The key test for any element
must be the weight of its historic and cultural significance – or conversely the extent to which it may detract from or
obscure other elements of greater significance.
This Conservation Plan has considered the relative-importance of particular elements of Tintagel (see Section 4.2).
This consideration is presented in a Tabular format as a Gazetteer in Appendix 1. This highlights thematic issues

2013 85
such as archaeology, architecture, culture, esoteric thought, geology, ecology, education, landscape, museum
collections, and community value.
7.4. Policies and Actions

Specific policies, and actions arising, are presented in Section 7 below under the following themes:
• Archaeological resource Conservation (Arch)
• Public Access, Information and Presentation (PP)
• Landscape Design (LD)
• Public Health and Safety (PHS)
• Site Maintenance and Conservation (CON)
• Education (ED)
• Management and Administration (MA)

2013 86
8. Specific Policies
8.1. Archaeological Resource Conservation (Arch)
The sites and areas reviewed in this Conservation plan were originally taken into Stewardship in order to ensure the
conservation of those important remains to the highest standards – and this remains the raison d’etre for the
Stewardship site today. The conservation of these sites and remains in the future is the highest priority for this Plan.
Conservation is interpreted to mean ensuring physical survival for the benefit of future generations, and also
promoting/increasing intellectual understanding through providing interpretation for present and future generations
to appreciate.
The specific policies are reviewed below, but consideration of the Action arising from the discussion of significance
and the policies above is presented in the following section as an additional tabulated and prioritised Implementation
Plan.
POLICY ARCH 1 The conservation of these important remains is threatened by a variety of factors: coastal and
cliff erosion, visitor erosion, lack of knowledge or even inaccurate knowledge. Mitigating these
threats is the highest priority for this Plan.
Actions – see actions PP2.1, LD1.1, LD2.1 – 2.4
POLICY ARCH 2 The effective conservation of the archaeological and historic remains is dependent upon an
accurate understanding of the remains and their significance. The present knowledge of the
sites A to H and Castle Wards is inadequate to allow effective conservation or presentation.
This is arguably still the case, although this now appears to be more an issue of effective
presentation than of conservation per se.
Action Arch2.1 – English Heritage recognises the value of an integrated data collection system
to inform the preparation of site works and to promote an evolving research agenda. English
Heritage will advance the factual basis of site interpretations and management decisions by
commissioning an updated Research Framework, which will guide any future field
investigations and documentary research. Any intrusive investigative/repair works and works
re access/ visitor facilities will need very early discussion regarding SMC, which will need to
be programmed to allow for the availability of the Inspector of Ancient Monuments.
Action Arch2.2 - English Heritage will consider promoting a detailed study of the post-
medieval and more recent conservation works affecting the castle structures (including inter
alia a programme of mortar analysis) and the post-Roman and medieval buildings in sites A to
H. Sites affected could be 11 (includes 12, 30, 58, 59), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 48 (includes 13,
36, 43, 49, 50, 60, 61, 62) and 51 (includes 37, 52, 53, 54, 63).
Action Arch2.3 - English Heritage will consider a long-term relatively large-scale excavation
of one or more portions of the site that are under imminent threat and have not been previously
investigated. Sites for consideration might include:
• The Upper and Lower Wards – threatened by cliff failure
• Sites D and H – suffering visitor erosion
• The Southern Terrace – not threatened but likely to contain the best-stratified sequences on
the island
Sites affected 11, 23, 42 and 48. In the period since 2001 policy emphasis has shifted and
very good justification will be required to disturb unthreatened deposits and this may not be
considered a financial priority given threats elsewhere.

2013 87
Action Arch2.4 - English Heritage will consider centralising on-site archaeological work with
the appointment of a ‘Term Contractor’ to maintain a coherent archaeological over-sight and
advisory role, and monitoring all conservation works that affect either buried remains or up-
standing structures. Such works should be treated as an opportunity to further understand the
site and new information and consequent implications for future management should be fed
back into the next review of this Plan.
Action Arch2.5 - English Heritage will promote the Royal Cornwall Museum as the
appropriate repository for the artefacts and archives from Tintagel. Finds collections 4, 29, 45,
70 and 73, 86 affected.
The Royal Cornwall Museum has since encountered major storage issues due to lack of space.
Consultation with the Curator is needed to ensure this will be possible. Compounding this issue
is an uncertainty whether the work in the 1990s by Glasgow University was fully reported and
archived.
Action Arch2.6 – English Heritage recognises that a new comprehensive synthesis on Tintagel
would be a very valuable addition to site understanding. This should replace the now out-of-
print book by Prof, C Thomas. See also PP3.2 below. This has since been achieved.
Action Arch2.7 – English Heritage will promote better understanding of the post-medieval
history of the site.
Action Arch 2.8 – English Heritage to consider promoting an international conference or
colloquium to discuss the archiving and history of Tintagel and the need for further
investigation.
8.2. Public Access, Information and Presentation (PP)

Tintagel Castle is an archaeological and ecological site of international significance. As stewards of the monument,
English Heritage have an acknowledged responsibility to seek to maximise access to the monument by the widest
possible public, and provide that visiting public with useful facilities and accurate information concerning the
monument and its special significance. English Heritage will seek to respect and preserve:
• The archaeological and historical significance of the site
• The inspirational and wild character of the place and
• The importance of the site to Cornish history by appropriate site management and conservation polices (see
below)
POLICY PP1 English Heritage will maximise the use of the existing visitor facilities at the site and will seek
further improvements in co-ordination with the Local Authority and other facilities at Tintagel
village. These have been achieved on site and are not to be carried forward into the Action Plan
for 2014-2019.
Action PP1.1 – If additional facilities for visitors and staff are required, these should be
located in existing (or extended) facilities/structures at or near the Stewardship site. English
Heritage will maximise the use of existing facilities and seek to improve visitors experience by
promoting improvements to the visitor toilets (Objective 1 - Submission in hand). Focus on
Visitor Centre (70). Achieved
Action PP1.2 - English Heritage will consider creating a proper office and rest area for staff
(Objective 1 Submission in hand). Focus on Visitor Centre (70). Achieved

2013 88
Action PP1.3 - English Heritage will consider creating an enlarged display area within the
interpretation centre; including artefact displays (included in current Objective 1 proposal).
Focus on Visitor Centre (70). Achieved
POLICY PP2 English Heritage recognises that visitor numbers in the peak summer season are approaching
a sustainable limit (suggested to be approximately 12-14,000 per week). In preference to more
durable (and intrusive) erosion control measures, English Heritage will seek to sustain present
summer season visitor levels as acceptable for conservation, health and safety and concerns
and the visitor experience, but will seek to increase visiting in off-peak periods which does not
pose such a problem with erosion. In the off-peak season, weather erosion may be more
severe, this needs to be monitored, see Policy LD2. Cross-promotion with other tourism
organisations and operators in North Cornwall and the SW Region offers scope for
encouraging more off-peak visitors, allowing total visitor numbers to rise without increasing
peak-season loading. The veracity of this 2001 policy cannot be proven, but the review of
current figures (above) suggests the essence is still probably true. A consideration of the
condition of the foot paths in 2013 (in peak season, and after a prolonged hot-dry period)
against the site photos from the year 2000 does not reveal any consistent patterns of increased
wear or erosion. This may suggest visitors’ pressures are steady or diminishing, and/or that the
underlying turf recovers better than understood in 2000-2001.
Action PP2.1 - English Heritage will continue to promote Tintagel as a visitor destination with
visitor events and increase off-peak season visits in preference to any increases in peak-season.
Stewardship area affected. Significant progress has been made (see above) and periodic
reviews may highlight areas for further work.
Action PP2.2 – English Heritage will consider opportunities for joint working with other
operators, the local authority and relevant tourism organisations to promote Tintagel as an off-
season destination, strengthen community links and develop the wider Tintagel product. This is
being addressed through the Interpretation Plan (see Chapter 6) and English Heritage now
works regularly with other tourism operators and sector organisations.
POLICY PP3 English Heritage will sustain an open and critically reviewed process of interpretation and
presentation to ensure the presentation is relevant and contemporary. English Heritage will
present the site, through high quality accessible publications, displays and reconstructions, in
accordance with a definitive history of the place – following on from above. Presentation
should be linked to an education strategy (ED1 below). EH is commissioning an Interpretation
Plan in parallel to this CMP Review. The new site guide book (EH 2010) is noted and
applauded as an improvement over that version available in 2000. On site presentation has not
however changed since 2001 and there is considerable scope for improvement. This could
include new site information/interpretation panels (the old colour ones still noticeably attract
visitors who read them, but may still drift off not a great deal wiser). More adventurous forms
of interpretation such as reconstructions of one or more of the Dark Age settlement structures
might well prove popular and educational.
Action PP3.1 - EH notes trends towards increased expectations about the quality of facilities
and information provision; increasing interests in art, culture and heritage. English Heritage
will consider the most appropriate interpretative media, to use to provide increased physical
and intellectual access to visitors. Focus on Visitor Centre (Site 70). A site-focussed
Interpretation Plan has been prepared by Angharad Brading in parallel with this Review (see
Chapter 6) but there may remain some scope for improvement of the full range of interpretative
facilities.

2013 89
Action PP3.2 - English Heritage will consider publishing a new, academically reviewed book
informed by recent research and excavation (or a revised edition) to replace the out-of-print
Charles Thomas book (see Arch2.6) Achieved in part with new guidebook.
Action PP3.3 - English Heritage will consider reducing or replacing any (Radford)
reconstructions of structures that have been confirmed as inaccurate by work in Arch2.2. Sites
affected 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 48, 51 and 57. Consideration of removing previous
reconstructions is no longer thought acceptable as it would threaten archaeological remains, but
works to better understand what Radford found and the likely original structures remains a
priority.
Action PP3.4 - Visitor expectations for presentation include a desire for more information on
King Arthur, and the historical context of Arthur (for which Tintagel provides an unrivalled
combination of artefacts, structures and history). Consideration will be given to the
interpretative media for conveying this key aspect of Tintagel to the visiting public. Focus on
Visitor Centre (70). This has been largely achieved see Interpretation Plan in Chapter 6.
Action PP3.5 - English Heritage will consider increasing the use of guided tours as one of the
most effective and popular means of site presentation, and notes this will have implications for
site staffing levels. Stewardship area affected. This was considered and tested, but was
considered to be not cost-effective. However, the EH website might link to registered tour
guides (e.g. Blue Badge Guides) who might offer this independently.
POLICY PP4 One of the significant elements of Tintagel is its ‘wildness’, which must be conserved. This
must be balanced against the needs to present and interpret the site. Increased numbers of
signs would detract from the character of the site. However, updating the existing signs – both
interpretative and safety-oriented – would be beneficial. Additional interpretation panels
beyond the North Curtain wall of the Inner Ward would be visually intrusive and should be
avoided. This remains as true in 2013 as it was in 2001.
Action PP4.1 - English Heritage will consider providing improved interpretation panels
(specifically revised text and graphics), especially in the Lower Ward for disabled visitors from
the church or via the valley footpath, also in the Upper Ward and Inner Ward to replace the
existing panels. This should be done after a better understanding of the site has been developed
out of a thorough review of recent work and GUARD’s work. Sites 11, 48 and 51 affected.
This also affects land not in English Heritage Guardianship (see Arch 2.8). Provision of
disabled access to the Mainland Ward is now recognised as not reasonably achievable,
however improvement to presentation/interpretation for visitors with disabilities at the Visitor
Centre is considered in Chapter 6. This action is therefore in hand.
POLICY PP5 Recognising the importance of the property at Tintagel, and the
opportunity presented by the numbers of visitors, English Heritage will seek to provide the
greatest physical and intellectual access to the site to visitors with limited mobility and other
disabilities that is commensurate with the character of the site and landscape. Barriers to
physical access at Tintagel are inherent in the landscape and it may not be practicable to
overcome them – indeed they form part of the significance of the property. In this case,
effective presentation and interpretation may offer an alternative to direct physical access. The
principle remains true. In retrospect the inherent difficulties are very considerable. In reality
full physical access for all will never be achieved at Tintagel. Meaningful alternative access
should therefore be provided at locations such as the Visitor Centre and on the EH web site. A
new Physical Access Assessment was completed in 2011. Any intrusive investigative/ repair
works and works re access/ visitor facilities will need very early discussion regarding SMC,
which will need to be programmed to allow for Inspector of Ancient Monuments availability

2013 90
An alternative course of action would be to undertake research on what ‘restoration’ work was
done by the Radford of MPW teams on a few selected structures, and then restore one or more
to a more faithful state, and arguably, attempt a ‘reconstruction’ of a Dark Age building on the
site – and even on the foundations of – a Dark Age structure, if this is feasible without
unacceptable impacts upon surviving remains.
Action PP5.1 - English Heritage undertook a new Physical Access Assessment in 2011. After
considering the report, it may be appropriate for an access plan to be prepared, setting out
recommendations and a programme for implementation. The Access Assessment and any
recommendations arising should not be in conflict with the elements of this Plan – e.g. the
established significance of features or general policies for preserving such features.
Action PP5.2 - English Heritage notes changes in visitor’s age profiles towards older and less
mobile visitors who will need greater provisions for physical and/or intellectual access. EH will
consider the potential for creating disabled (limited mobility) access to the Lower Ward, which
could be possible either via the Church and Glebe Cliff (involving discussing with the
National Trust) or by using the higher footpath in the valley (involving upgrading the
footpath). As an alternative, access along the coastal path from the Church could continue to
be improved to the viewing point on National Trust land, where interpretive panels could be
provided. Sites 7 and 48 affected.
Action PP5.3 - English Heritage will consider how best to improve the intellectual
presentation at the Lower Ward should this access (PP5.1) for visitors with limited mobility be
implemented. Site 48 affected. Decision has been made to focus on efforts on the Visitor
Centre (70).
Action PP5.4 - English Heritage will consider how best to provide effective interpretation to
visitors with disabilities, including inter alia:
• Hearing impairments: via written information, induction loops if audio-visual systems are
introduced, text phones (if audio-guides were to be contemplated) etc.
• Visual impairments: via documents in large print, Moon or Braille; use of audiotapes,
assistance with guiding, tactile maps, etc.
Focus on Visitor Centre (70).
POLICY PP6 English Heritage recognises that the slate/cliff quarrying and industrial history of the site is an
important aspect of the monument, but one that has been insufficiently studied, presented, or
protected. This is still true.
Action PP6.1 - English Heritage will consider up-dating the panels on FP7 where the path
turns to rise toward the Bridge, and on the Bridge to the island. Sites FP7 and 71 affected. See
also Action MA2.3. This is still true – see Interpretation Plan in Chapter 6.
POLICY PP7 English Heritage has identified the need for a first-stop interpretation point at the strategic
position of the 18th century Borough Mill buildings (which are significant in their own right)
that offer the first viewpoint of the castle. This is arguably still true.
Action PP7.1 – Consolidation of ruins of the Borough Mill as a part of the story of Tintagel.
This has been considered; see Interpretation Plan in Chapter 6.
Action PP7.2 - English Heritage will consider the utilisation of these ruins as a low-level and
low-key, ‘first stop’ interpretation point by, for example, information panels/directional signs.
Sites 35 and 46 affected. This has been considered; see Interpretation Plan in Chapter 6.

2013 91
8.3. Landscape Design (LD)
Tintagel Castle is a heritage site of international significance. The setting of the monument is important for the
appreciation of the castle and post-Roman remains, and for their contribution to the coastal landscape of North
Cornwall. There are opportunities to improve visitor’s appreciation of the historic site by altering overtime some
current hard-landscaping features. Therefore, as stewards of the monument, English Heritage will seek methods of
putting in place the physical requirements for visitor access that are most in harmony with the special, inspirational
and wild / unspoilt character of the place. As with all modern codes and standards, the requirements of the Disability
Discrimination Act must be carefully balanced against the conservation objectives.
POLICY LD1 The upper and lower wards of the castle are amongst the most significant elements on the site,
but their survival is threatened by coastal cliff erosion. Where medium to long-term cliff
stability cannot be assured, English Heritage will consider all feasible remedial actions,
including retreat. This is an intractable issue of major importance, and a clearly documented
consideration of possible courses of action is a great importance.
Action LD1.1 - English Heritage will consider a detailed feasibility study of the potential for using rock
anchors to safeguard the upper and lower wards from cliff collapse. See also PHS4. Sites 5,
11, 48 and FP7 affected. It is considered that a process of managed retreat is a more reasonable
approach, even if rock anchoring is technically feasible. However, a documented decision
process would be valuable for future reference.
Action LD1.2 - If it is agreed that it is not feasible to secure long-term survival of the Upper and Lower wards
by means of rock anchoring, English Heritage will consider drawing up a detailed management
plan to guide ‘retreat’. This should include detailed archaeological investigations of internal
structures and detailed investigations of the walls to record the remains prior to loss to coastal
erosion. See above – managed retreat is now considered the more reasonable approach.
POLICY LD2 Many of the archaeological remains at Tintagel, especially on the island plateau, are of
international significance and only shallowly buried. They are thus vulnerable to the effects of
visitor erosion. On the island, visitors follow desire lines north and north-east across the
island producing wide bare paths and trampled viewing areas to the north and north west.
English Heritage will seek to minimise damage to archaeological sites and remains resulting
from public access, by devising conservation works specific to local conditions and using local
materials. Erosion appears to be more closely related to peak-season use than off-season.
More off-peak visitors can be accommodated without negative impact. Whilst this remains true,
2013 observations of path conditions and visitor erosion suggest little overall effects – either
visitor wear has not increased or the underlying turf and geology is more durable.
Localised action is still necessary, for example around the ‘Tunnel’ and on the path to the NW
headland, where new turf and a hard-surface around the fence will be needed. Fine pitched
slate – as in front of the Radford hut – is considered the more practical, durable, and visually
appealing treatment. The second but lower priority would be to replace the paving materials on
the footpath from the chapel on the island downhill to rejoin the path beside the Radford hut.
Again, pitched slate is considered most appropriate.
Natural England should be consulted in advance of any such works.
Most of these achieved.
Action LD2.1 - English Heritage will consider rationalising (over time) the network of paths
on the island, as well as the range of paving design and materials, used on the island. Path
materials – slabs are less obtrusive on the slopes; while gravel is acceptable on the plateau and
is preferred by the Property Manager, the gravel should be replaced over time with local shale
chippings. Some paths on the plateau may be redundant. Path erosion does not appear to have
worsened since 2001 nor are new paths being created by visitor ‘desire lines’ and as a
consequence this Action is now considered un-necessary.

2013 92
Action LD2.2 - English Heritage considers that the trampling and visitor erosion on the island
Plateau should be regularly monitored. English Heritage will consider maintaining current
paths and impacts on the location of known archaeological remains, in order to direct visitor
traffic along such preferred routes (which may need surfacing, but this is preferable to
numerous eroded paths). If paths are to be surfaced over known remains, or where remains
may be present, such works should be archaeologically monitored. This should be done
annually in conjunction with monitoring path usage as an aid to rationalisation. Sites 15 and
39 particularly affected. On-going monitoring is undertaken by the Property Manager and his
team – achieved.
Action LD2.3 - The use of flat-laid Trevillet slate to represent building interiors needs to be
clearly explained on site in the Upper, Lower and Inner Wards. Its appearance is considered to
be too ‘urban’ for this context and consideration will be given to replacing these slates
overtime with shale chippings in a clay matrix (or some similar mixture). If shale/gravel in clay
is used, it will be important to try and harmonise colours with local shales and slates. Flat slates
could be re-laid less regularly to ‘soften’ the visual impact. In the meantime, other alternatives
are to be sought to soften the impact. All such landscaping works should be archaeologically
monitored (see Policy Arch2.4). Site 15, 80, 81, 83 affected. More effective on-site
explanation of the materials is considered a simpler and less intrusive response
Action LD2.4 - Paving/surfacing of interior of chapel with shale chippings (possibly in a clay
matrix? Note comments on colour above) over time. Site 28 affected. Still a useful action,
even if not a high priority, it might be undertaken at any point when other materials for
maintenance on the island need to be acquired.
POLICY LD3 - Visitor access to much of the Stewardship site also requires other elements of ‘hard’
landscaping to conserve the historic fabric and contribute to visitor’s safety. English Heritage
will continue devising conservation works to mitigate the negative effects of visitor traffic
and/or safety concerns that are specific to local conditions and using local materials. This
remains true in principle, but specifics are reviewed below.
Action LD3.1 - English Heritage will standardise the use of wooden fencing as a low cost and
locally widely used material, as and when the opportunity allows. In 2013 it is considered that
phosphor-bronze (as used at the tunnel and at the over-look above the island ward) be used
where fencing is replaced, despite cost, as it is less visually intrusive as recommended in 2001.
Site 15 affected.
Action LD3.2 – English Heritage will consider the re-siting of the admission hut in the gate of
the Lower Ward –placing it outside the ward, adjacent to the rock face on the outside of the
moat. Sites 48 and 77 affected.
Action LD3.3 - English Heritage will implement the proposed new steps to the beach in the
haven (proposed in the Objective 1 submission) using wood at lower end as a sacrificial
element and less visually intrusive than monumental masonry would be. Site 41 affected. This
has been achieved.
Action LD3.4 - Upper Ward Steps -These steps are cut into the natural rock. The railing is
old, rusty and visually quite ugly. Replacement should be made as and when possible.
Elsewhere wooden fencing is advised (LD3.1) and this may be appropriate here. Site 47
affected. In 2013 this is a low priority, as the hand rail has been replaced in the interim.
POLICY LD4 Tintagel possesses an internationally significant collection of structures of post-Roman and
medieval date. These structures were investigated and conserved (to an uncertain extent)
during the 1930s – 1950s. As the authenticity of these restorations is uncertain, the
presentation/interpretation to the public may not be accurate or informative. Therefore, where

2013 93
possible and in the course of time, inaccurate reconstructions of the post-Roman buildings on
the island will be reduced or removed (cf RES2). These restored structures have been
colonised by plant communities that are significant in their own right and these should not be
needlessly disturbed.
Action LD4.1 - English Heritage will continue studies and investigations of Radford’s work,
including intrusive investigations (see Policies Arch2.1 to 2.3), to enable inaccurate
reconstructions to be identified. Sites 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 48 and 51 affected... This is
currently (2013) being addressed under a separate commission to Cornwall Historic
Environment Services by English Heritage.
Action LD4.2 - Until such time as better information is available (see above) English Heritage
will continue the current methods of repairing low turf capped walls on the post-Roman
buildings on the island, which are clearly very effective. Sites 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 56
affected. Still an apposite action, and is now part of on-going site monitoring.
POLICY LD5 One of the significant aspects of Tintagel is its wildness, but this introduces concerns for
balancing public access/safety with conservation of ecological features on the monument.
These come into potential conflict over works to make rock faces safe. Work should be carried
out in ways that does not unnecessarily compromise the value of the crevice and ledge
communities and lower plant dominated rock communities. The principle remains true.
Action LD5.1 - English Heritage will consider the use of rock dentistry techniques on
appropriate rock-faces in place of either netting or cabling, as dentistry is indistinguishable
from natural rock to the casual observer. Sites Rock Faces (RF) numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10oh, 13
to 16, 22 and 23 affected. Natural England should be consulted when rock-dentistry, pathway
works, or works to any of the Dark Age structures are anticipated
Action LD5.2 - English Heritage will continue the use of rock netting as a second-best option
on rock faces where dentistry (which is otherwise to be preferred) would conflict with the
presence of valuable plant communities. Site RF24 affected.
Action LD5.3 - English Heritage notes that, where feasible during rock de-scaling, care is to be
taken to avoid unnecessary disruption to Lanceolate Spleenwort populations. Site RF1-25
affected. See LD5.1 above
Action LD5.4 – If feasible, English Heritage schedule rock-dentistry, netting and/or de-scaling
works in order to avoid disturbing nesting birds during their nesting period (i.e. March to
August, depending upon species present). Site RF1-25 affected. . See LD5.1 above
POLICY LD6 The track from the village suffers considerable erosion (particularly due to weather – water
run-off - but also from vehicular use) and consequently offers visitors an unappealing
approach to the castle. Competition between pedestrians and vehicles for space also detracts
from the visitor experience and creates a health and safety hazard. The provision of a footpath
at the upper end of the track has diminished vehicle-pedestrian competition for the trackway,
and track-erosion seems no worse. Thus, while the principle is valid, the need for additional
actions may be questioned.
Action LD6.1 - English Heritage will promote the Objective 1 Submission in hand for new
track surfacing using slate-coloured granite embedded in tarmac on the steeper part of track,
and an alternative vehicular access at the present ‘pinch point’ near top of track. Sites FP1 and
FP35 affected. This has been largely achieved.
Action LD6.2 – Consider limiting staff car parking. This has been largely achieved.

2013 94
8.4. Public Health and Safety (PHS)
An important aspect of Tintagel is the wild ‘romantic’ character, which depends in part on the many exposed rock
faces and steep coastal slopes. This character is one of the major attractions of the monument. However, these same
features of the site constitute potential hazards to visitors. A detailed health and safety audit was (as of 2001)
planned by EH as a separate commission. Notwithstanding such an audit, English Heritage will undertake all
appropriate actions to safeguard the health and safety of visitors commensurate with the preservation of the heritage
and character of the site.
POLICY PHS1 The sea-cliffs form one of the most prominent visual characteristics of
Tintagel, and their intrinsic significance is recognised in their status as SSSI and inclusion
within the cSAC area. However, these cliffs have been continuously eroding in ‘geologic time’
’in a process that cannot be arrested. This process threatens, in the long-term, the continued
existence of several of the most significant archaeological and historic remains at Tintagel.
The most significant risk on the whole site threatens the west side of the Upper and Lower
Wards, where rock face 7 could fall. Further opening of the fissure on this face would
irrevocably destroy a large proportion of the castle wards, and could render other parts of the
upper and lower wards unusable by the public. The threat to public health and safety is real
but unquantifiable. The threat remains real, and therefore so too does the responsive action.
Any intrusive investigative/ repair works and works regarding access/visitor facilities will need
very early discussion regarding SMC, which will need to be programmed to allow for the
availability of the Inspector of Ancient Monuments. However, such major repairs are no longer
considered viable and a process of managing retreat is considered more appropriate.
Action PHS1.1 - English Heritage will initiate a detailed feasibility study to consider the
financial implications of a programme of works to stabilise this face by rock anchoring, using
through-drilling techniques from readily accessible locations at the east of the Lower and
Upper Wards. If this is not feasible (financially or technically), a management plan to guide
retreat, including archaeological investigations and a timetable for retreat, will be needed. Site
RF7 affected. It is considered that a process of managed retreat is a more reasonable
approach, even if rock anchoring is technically feasible. However, a documented decision
process would be valuable for future reference.
POLICY PHS2 The steps from the Lower Ward add to the site’s character by presenting visitors with a
‘challenge’ due to their steepness. However, visitors’ appreciation might be improved by the
provision of one or more ‘platforms’ or resting places. The hazard remains. However,
improving access down these steps without improving access up onto the island would achieve
little benefit overall, reducing the justification for what might be a complicated and costly
action. A new ‘break’ or ‘stage’ has been inserted, and on balance no further works seem
justified now.
Action PHS2.1 - English Heritage considered a revised design for the steps down from the
Lower Ward and installed a new ‘landing stage’ mid-way, involving negotiation and agreement
with English Nature (now Natural England). The Objective 1 proposal is in the process of
being reviewed. Site 11 and FP6 affected. Partially achieved, and no further action considered
necessary.
POLICY PHS3 Work on making rock faces as safe as possible should be carried out (as long as it does not
jeopardise health and safety) in ways that does not compromise the value of the plant
communities (see SMC2 and 4).
Action PHS3.1 - English Heritage will consider in detail implementing the following courses
of action for each rock-face: These hazards remain, and ergo so to do some of the responsive
actions. This is a specialist area and geotechnical/engineering consultants may be required.
Whether action is undertaken, a decision process should be documented.

2013 95
Regular Monitoring (principally visual): Rock faces: 2, 8, 10g, 11, 12, 14gen, 17, 18, 19, 21,
25.
Rock dentistry/netting – modest scale and easy access, on Rock faces: 4, 5a, 9, 13a, 13b, 15,
16, 20, 23, 24.
Rock dentistry/netting – serious scale and/or difficult access: 1, 3, 5b, 6, 10oh, 14crit, 22.
POLICY PHS4 There are many steep slopes and rock-faces forming the edge to the island plateau. These are
part of the character of the monument, and are no more hazardous than on other coastal or
hill-top sites. They do however present potential hazards to public health and safety. These
hazards remain, and ergo so to do some of the responsive actions, although note is made of the
relative rarity and severity of accidents on the site.
Action PHS4.1 - English Heritage may wish to consider a quinquennial Health and Safety
Audit to review public access to the periphery of the island. A previous Health and Safety Risk
Assessment of 1999 (which considered the whole of the site) is due for review in 2004, but this
could be brought forward. Stewardship area affected. As far as EH are aware no quinquennial
H&S audit has been undertaken. The 1999 risk assessment was not reviewed in 2004 as the
format and EH approaches to risk assessments changed.
Action PHS4.2 - English Heritage will consider the use of signage to inform the public about
Health and Safety in place of fencing in accordance with a Health and Safety Audit (PHS4.1).
This may include better/more emphatic signs at bend in FP7, at top of steps from Lower Ward,
where exiting Inner Ward on FP 10, at the foot of the proposed steps down to beach and
anywhere else that resting places or benches are provided. Sites FP7, FP10 and FP11 affected.
Some discrete signs have been placed and in consideration of relative rarity of incidents EH
may consider that no further action is required.
POLICY PHS5 The placement of a bench below a dangerous rock face along the access track constitutes an
unacceptable threat to public safety. Note this is NOT on EH Stewardship land.
Action PHS5.1 - English Heritage will recommend the removal of the bench under the rock-
overhang by the track as soon as possible. Site FP1 affected. This bench has been removed in
the intervening years. A similar hazard on the parallel footpath is noted below.
8.5. Site Maintenance/Conservation (CON)

The wild ‘romantic’ character of Tintagel is based on rock faces, coastal slopes, and rare plant species, in addition to
the up-standing and buried historical remains and are important factors in its significance and popularity. English
Heritage will seek to establish site maintenance and conservation practices that, insofar as they are compatible with
the conservation of the heritage remains, seek to promote the long-term conservation of the flora, fauna, and
geology.
POLICY CON1 The wild character of Tintagel, and the majority of the archaeological and
historic remains that it contains are probably best treated by ‘doing nothing’ – that is leaving them
alone. However, there is a range of activities that are required in order to ensure a high quality of
visitor experience. English Heritage recognises that these activities may cause harm to the
historic remains and a controlling protocol for necessary works for maintenance and
periodic repair would benefit site managers and other stakeholder organisations
(especially English Nature). This is a straight-forward and basic policy, and now needs only
periodic renewal and amendment in consultation with Natural England. Action CON1.1 – The
procedures for a number of routine maintenance works should be standardised so that formal
liaison is no longer necessary. English Heritage will consider revising and thereafter agreeing
with English Nature (now Natural England) the Draft Site Management Agreement. As part of
this, English Heritage may write and agree with EN protocols for:
• strimming;

2013 96
• path maintenance
• repair of structures whilst avoiding disturbance to significant plant species, providing this
does not conflict with conservation of the historic fabric; and
• implementing rock dentistry, de-scaling, or rock-netting works
Stewardship area affected.
POLICY CON2 Much of the island is covered by thin soil cover and is susceptible to visitor erosion or other disturbance.
Hard landscaping works to combat erosion are discussed above (Policies LD2 and LD3) but a variety of
regenerative works may be undertaken. Regeneration of eroded or disturbed areas of the site,
including paths or the more exposed areas on the island will serve to protect and conserve the
underlying archaeological remains as well as enhance the visitor’s experience. This is a
straight-forward and basic policy, and now needs only periodic renewal and amendment in
consultation with Natural England.
Action CON2.1 - In repairing erosion or re-vegetating archaeological digs, natural
regeneration should be favoured for restoration. The re-colonising vegetation is more diverse
and of greater value on a small scale. In other areas where natural regeneration may prove
difficult, new turf will be needed. All parts of the site may be affected. Considering that
additional erosion does not seem to have occurred (contra 2001 fears) the need for Actions
Con2.1, and 2.2 is no longer clear, and these may be omitted from future actions. On-going site
monitoring will highlight the need for any specific actions in response to specific events.
Action CON2.2 - English Heritage will consider, in consultation with EN, locating a turf
type/source-nursery for use in re-vegetating areas on site. Sites 11, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
affected. No longer necessary – see above.
Action CON2.3 - English Heritage will establish the best place for an on-site store of
materials, and notes the need to discuss this with English Nature. No longer necessary – see
above
POLICY CON3 Past works on site, including among others archaeological investigations but principally path maintenance
and structural restoration, have caused un-intended damage to ecological interests (e.g. spoil tipping
north of the Inner Ward) and also diminish visitor appreciation of Tintagel. This is a straight-
forward and basic policy, and now needs only periodic renewal and amendment in consultation
with Natural England.
Action CON3.1 - English Heritage will consider efforts to replace the weedy vegetation of the
slope north of the Inner Ward with maritime grassland communities if at all possible. Simply
strimming the tall weedy vegetation is the best first step. Detailed consultation and agreement
with EN will be needed. (see above SMC 1 and 2). This is a straight-forward and basic policy,
and now needs only periodic renewal and amendment in consultation with Natural England.
POLICY CON4 The ecological significance of Tintagel is hardly less than its heritage value. Just as there are threats to the
heritage elements, the ecology of Tintagel is also threatened. Invasive, non-natural species will be
removed as/when possible. This is a straight-forward and basic policy, and we expect that this
was achieved, and now needs only periodic renewal and amendment in consultation with
Natural England.
Action CON4.1 - English Heritage notes that the Hottentot Fig Carpobrotus edulis on the
southern cliff of the island above the Footpath no. 8 is a potentially extremely serious problem
and should be eradicated. English Heritage notes the need to identify an alternative means of
stabilising this unstable rock/soil slope, and will consider a detailed feasibility study with EN.
Site NC27 affected.

2013 97
Action CON4.2 - English Heritage similarly notes that the Japanese Knotweed Fallopia
japonica by the stream in the valley is invasive and not native, and should be eradicated.
Japanese Knotweed has a low resistance to grazing and is likely to be eradicated if grazing is
restored to the valley, otherwise an herbicide treatment may be appropriate. Consultation with
EN will be appropriate. Site 35 (NC28) affected. The treatment to eradicate the knotweed was
begun and is continuing, and is proving successful – to be continued until the Knotweed has
been eradicated.
POLICY CON5 The tussocky grassland swards of the island (outside the area burned in 1983) and on part of
the mainland supports periodic vole plagues that are likely to be seriously damaging to fragile
and very important archaeological strata. These swards are also ecologically impoverished
with a restricted range of species present. This is largely a result of the cessation of grazing by
sheep during the 20th century.
Action CON5.1 - The NT proposes to restore grazing to Glebe Cliffs. If this is accomplished,
then English Heritage will consider grazing the mainland at Tintagel. English Heritage may
also consider the use of winter grazing on the cliff slopes of the Island with a hardy species of
sheep or goat. This management approach would remove the accumulated thatch of dead grass
and thereby remove the fire risk and reduce the likelihood of vole plagues, as well as
increasing sward diversity.
There is however a myriad of consequences to be considered outside the scope of this plan and
a detailed feasibility study should be considered. Stewardship area affected. It is understood
that grazing by Soay sheep was trialled in January 2011 and is considered to be successful. The
EH Inspector notes the potential for animal disturbance to archaeological remains and this
should be monitored.
POLICY CON6 The recent formal inclusion of the Tintagel-Marsland-Clovelly Coast area on the UK list of Special Areas of
Conservation considerably enhances the ecological significance of the site. In this regard, English
Heritage recognises further information would aid understanding the ecological significance
of the site.
Action CON6.1 - English Heritage will consider cooperating with, and take cognisance of, a
detailed ecological study of the monument, the results of which would be used to refine site
management and to inform visitors. Condition Tables for the NVC Communities present will
form a useful means of monitoring site conditions and conservation works – for which baseline
surveys will be needed. EH will cooperate with EN in such works. Stewardship area affected.
This could be undertaken for EH via a higher education thesis or placement programme.
POLICY CON7 Repairs and maintenance works to the structures should be based on the principles of
minimum necessary intervention, reversibility, and respect for authenticity. These principles
should be balanced against the importance and vulnerability of the structures, and the benefits
of the works to the conservation of the site as a whole.
Action CON7.1 - Continuing quinquennial surveys will guide such work. For future reference,
a commentary on the condition of the fabric in summer 2000 is presented in Appendix 2 to the
2001 Plan. It is recommended that English Heritage establish a format for such surveys to
ensure that particular issues receive consistent attention (e.g. the wall of the Inner Ward that
may be moving, see Appendix 2). Sites 11, 48 and 39 affected.
Action CON 7.2 – Access to Tintagel for maintenance works is difficult. Landward access
across Glebe Cliff is direct but risks damage to vegetation, archaeological remains and historic
hedgerows and walls. Most recently access has been achieved by using a helicopter from the
NT car park on Glebe Cliff – whilst expensive this has avoided any collateral damage and is
now adopted as a preferred method.

2013 98
8.6. Education (ED)
Tintagel Castle attracts large numbers and a wide range of educational groups and other visitors, with a very wide
range of interests. The site thus embodies huge potential for the education of visitors. Education is one aspect of
presentation, and what is often termed ‘intellectual access’ and this is one of English Heritage’s core responsibilities.
English Heritage will continue to seek to maximise realisation of this educational potential. Many policies here
overlap with those for Public Access Information and Presentation (PP).
POLICY ED1 English Heritage considers that an education strategy for Tintagel (which is outside the scope
of this plan) would be a valuable addition to presentation and intellectual access at Tintagel.
This has been achieved.
Action ED1.1 - English Heritage will consider commissioning further analysis of the
‘educational potential’ for Tintagel and using this analysis as the basis for a comprehensive
educational strategy for the site. EH has commissioned research into overseas groups and
have conducted an online survey for UK groups, the results of which are presented above. This
has been achieved.
POLICY ED2 English Heritage will maximise the use of existing visitor facilities at the Guardianship site
with high quality presentation and dedicated education facilities. Good efforts have been
undertaken in this regard, and is considered largely achieved. See all resources on Tintagel
education page:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/tintagel-castle/education/.
In addition the education team are currently developing a brief for new online resources for
overseas groups following the model used at Stonehenge. The education team would also
recommend training of site staff in communication with groups from overseas, following the
training model used at Stonehenge.
Action ED2.1- English Heritage will consider reviewing the extension to the Visitor Centre
(part of the Objective 1 Submission or possible provision elsewhere in the village) with the
inclusion of a space for educational groups and/or a bag-locker room/space. Focus on Visitor
Centre (70). Although previous provision of a bag/lunch locker/store had limited up-take, we
suggest it is useful to recommend locker space (or cage for a school group to keep their packed
lunches, bags etc.) to the current project to upgrade the visitor facilities. Addendum - A
covered space (arbour or verandah) should be considered, perhaps linked to the café or located
near the car-park to provide facilities for school groups to use to eat lunch when the weather in
wet weather.
Action ED2.2- English Heritage will consider devoting more emphasis to co-ordinating
information on history, archaeology, geography and the environment, for use with different
groups on educational projects. Possible longer term changes in school terms are noted, that
may lead to opportunities to attract more educational groups in the off-peak season. Focus on
Visitor Centre (70). A dedicated Tintagel education page has been created.
Action ED2.3 – English Heritage will consider seeking partnership in developing education
facilities and resources, and will promote more reciprocal, interpretative, promotional and
educational links with the Royal Cornwall Museum and other organisations. Sites 4, 25, 45, 70
and 73 affected. A dedicated Tintagel education webpage has been created. This has been
largely achieved. However, we further suggest an extended website like that on Stonehenge
Management for resources for environmental, tourism and financial management students.

2013 99
Action ED2.4 – English Heritage will consider the use of alternative media (e.g. learning
packages on a dedicated web-site or increased content about Tintagel on the English Heritage
website) as a means of extending the educational potential of Tintagel. A dedicated Tintagel
education page has been created. This has been largely achieved.
Action ED2.5 - English Heritage will continue devoting resources to developing additional
teachers’ guides and information. Focus on Visitor Centre (70). Good efforts have been
undertaken in this regard, and this is considered largely achieved. See all resources on Tintagel
education website page.
Action ED2.6 - English Heritage will consider developing other educational-based projects,
for example topical creative workshops focussed on art or maths. This is no longer a priority
within the developing projects/proposals at Tintagel.
Action ED2.7 - English Heritage will consider continuing to develop, in liaison and
consultation with the local educational authority, resources and strategies for other educational
opportunities at Tintagel. Good efforts have been undertaken in this regard, and this is
considered largely achieved. See all resources on Tintagel education page.
8.7. Management/Administration (MA)

Tintagel Castle comprises an unusually wide range of conservation issues. Effective conservation work must be
supported by an effective management structure. Management, in the sense of visitor management, has been a
primary concern of this plan. However, this shades into other issues, especially presentation and marketing, and
these matters are also given consideration.
POLICY MA1 It is important that English Heritage foster and maintain the most effective relationships with
the other interested stakeholder organisations, particularly the Duchy of Cornwall.
Action MA1.1 - English Heritage will progress the writing and formal agreement of the
Memorandum of Understanding with the Duchy of Cornwall. Stewardship area affected. A
Memorandum of Understanding was agreed and signed with the Duchy of Cornwall on
15/06/2011. This has been achieved.
POLICY MA2 The special historic interest of Tintagel could be protected and enhanced through the
designation of a Conservation Area, to include the island, the village, the parish church and
the castle. Conservation Area status, and the preparation of a detailed statement of special
historic interest would provide such a context and offer a means of co-ordinating
improvements through the activities of the various local interests and through more effective
planning controls. Tintagel was not designated a Conservation Area and changes in heritage
policy in the intervening years makes this a less useful undertaking, and we suggest this can be
dropped. English Heritage will investigate means to emphasise the historic links between the
island and the church, and between the castle, the calley, and the village, particularly in
written and interpretation panel form. Neither site interpretation panels nor the new
guidebook emphasise these points. This was not therefore considered a priority.
Action MA2.1 - English Heritage will consider the benefits to be derived from designation as a
Conservation Area. Stewardship area affected. Tintagel was not designated a Conservation
Area and changes in heritage policy in the intervening years makes this a less useful
undertaking, and we suggest this can be dropped.
Action MA2.2 - Cross-promotion of facilities with other organisations offers one means of
emphasising the historic links between the island and the church, and between the castle, the
valley, and the village, possibly via trails and leaflets. All sites (particularly 71) affected. (See
PP2.2.) The Property Manager sits on the Executive Board of CATA (Cornwall Association of
Tourist Attractions) and is also working closely with the Cornwall Language Partnership.

2013 100
Members get discount at The Arthurian Centre, Eden Project, National Maritime Museum and
Wheal Martyn.
Action MA2.3 - English Heritage will consider the benefits to be derived from encouraging the
conservation of the industrial remains at the mouth of the valley. Sites 35 and 41 affected. This
is outside the Scheduled area but Figure A above marks them as within ‘land conveyance
2007’. Refer to Chapter 6 for Interpretation Plan.
POLICY MA3 Further progress towards subsidiarity of management, to ensure local interests are met within
the context of English Heritage’s duty of stewardship
Action MA3.1 - English Heritage will consider the creation of a position of Site Manager with
widened responsibilities and authority. Stewardship area affected. Achieved with the
establishment of the Property Manager role.
Action MA3.2 Community engagement remains an ongoing task – regular and effective community
consultation engagement and understanding the perceptions of local residents, same again for
relations with the local business community. A Community Engagement Strategy may be a
useful tool for EH to develop.
Action MA3.3 – As some confusion persists among those members of outside agencies/organisations consulted,
English Heritage will clarify with outside agencies and organisations who in English Heritage
is responsible for what aspects of site/management. The Property Manager has continued to
develop relationships with the local and Cornish communities and has a good working
relationship with the Parish Council and the local Tourist Information Centre. He is also part of
the committee devising their neighbourhood plan. On a wider level, the Property Manager sits
on the Executive Board of CATA (Cornwall Association of Tourist Attractions) and is also
working closely with the Cornwall Language Partnership.
POLICY MA4 Recommendations for the implementation and use of Plan. This plan was
substantially prepared in 2000.
Action MA4.1 – The statements of cultural significance in this document should be accepted
as one of the bases of future planning and works. This will be achieved when the Conservation
Plan Review is accepted by English Heritage.
Action MA4.2 – The policies recommended and options discussed throughout this document
should be endorsed as a guide to future planning and works. This will be achieved when the
Conservation Plan Review is accepted by English Heritage.
Action MA4.3 – This Conservation Plan will be formally reviewed after five years to bring it
up-to-date and modify it where necessary. Date of suggested review 2005 (revised Action Plan
below to be reviewed in 2019).
Action MA4.4 – Prompt and intelligent maintenance of the whole site, buildings and land,
should be a high priority on site. This is normal conservation practice and needs no separate
action.
Action MA4.5 – The long-term impact of other actions, not considered here, should be
balanced against the nature and significance of elements affected as noted in this plan. This is
normal conservation practice and is an outcome of Conservation Principles; no separate action
required.

2013 101
9. Implementation Plan
The actions arising from the policy section above have been transferred into the table below and re-ordered on the
basis of the urgency and/or importance of achieving that action. A simple hierarchy of 1 = most urgent/significant
to 3=least urgent/significant has been used.
A Revised Action Pan for the period 2014-2019 is presented below this 2001 Implementation Plan. This is
comprised of the actions considered to be urgent and realistic for a 5 year period, from 2014-2019.
Action Statement Urgency Reviewer Comments 2013
English Heritage will advance the factual basis of site Research Framework desirable, but the
interpretations and management decisions by South West Archaeological Research
Arch 2.1 commissioning an updated Research Framework, which will 1 Framework (SWARF) partly obviates the
guide any future field investigations and documentary need. No longer a priority.
research
English Heritage will consider centralising on-site Still useful, although CHES have continued
Arch2.4 archaeological work with the appointment of a ‘Term 1 to virtually fulfil this role.
Contractor’
English Heritage will promote the Royal Cornwall Museum Questions exist regarding past archives.
Arch 2.5 as the appropriate repository for the artefacts and archives 1 RCM’s lack of space to accept future
from Tintagel archives will require consultation.
English Heritage will maximise the use of existing facilities Achieved.

and seek to improve visitors’ experience by promoting
PP1.1 1 Further improvements are being considered.
improvements to the visitor toilets (Objective 1 -
Submission
English Heritage will consider creating a proper office and Achieved.

PP1.2 1
rest area for staff (Objective 1 Submission
English Heritage will consider creating an enlarged display Achieved.

PP1.3 area within the interpretation centre; including artefactual 1
Further improvements are being considered
displays (included in current Objective 1
English Heritage will consider publishing a new book (or a Achieved.

Arch2.6 revised edition) to replace the out-of-print Charles Thomas
1
PP3.2 book with a revised edition up-dated with latest GUARD
results.
English Heritage will consider increasing the use of guided This was considered but was discarded.
PP3.5 tours as one of the most effective and popular means of site 1
presentation
English Heritage will consider undertaking an Access Audit Achieved – H&S assessment was completed
PP5.1 1
alongside the Health and Safety Audit (see PHS4.1). 2011.
English Heritage will consider a detailed feasibility study of A documented consideration would be
the potential for using rock anchors to safeguard the Upper valuable, but this course of action is not
LD1.1 1
and Lower Wards from cliff collapse considered cost effective and instead
‘managed retreat’ is suggested.
English Heritage will consider drawing up a detailed Probably a logical outcome of LD 1.1
LD1.2 1
management plan to guide ‘retreat’
Paving/surfacing of interior of Chapel with shale chippings No longer considered necessary – although
LD2.4 1
overtime an on-site explanation would be of value.

2013 102
English Heritage will implement the proposed new steps to Achieved.
LD3.3 1
the beach in the Haven
English Heritage will consider the use of rock dentistry Not undertaken but still appears a valid and
LD5.1 1
techniques on appropriate rock-faces cost-effective approach.
English Heritage will promote the Objective 1 Submission No longer considered necessary
LD6.1 1
in hand for new track surfacing
English Heritage will initiate a detailed feasibility study to See LD1.1 above - A documented
PHS1.1 consider the financial implications of a programme of works 1 consideration would be valid.
to stabilise rock face 7 by rock anchoring
English Heritage will ensure that there will be an Achieved. Steps were altered by addition of
PHS2.1 1
appropriate design for the steps down from the Lower Ward a landing stage a
English Heritage will consider in detail implementing the

following courses of action for each rock-face:
1
Regular Monitoring Is this being undertaken?
PHS3.1
Rock dentistry/netting – modest scale and easy access 1 Not implemented
Rock dentistry/netting – serious scale and/or difficult access 1 Not implemented
English Heritage may wish to consider a health and safety Achieved. H&S Assessment 2011
PHS4.1 1
audit
English Heritage will recommend the removal of the bench Achieved

PHS5.1 1
under the rock-overhang by the track
English Heritage will consider revising and thereafter Was this done?
CON1.1 agreeing with English Nature the Draft Site Management 1
If so, was it of benefit?
Agreement
English Heritage will consider reviewing the extension to Achieved.

ED2.1 1
the Visitor Centre (part of the Objective 1 Submission)
English Heritage will consider the use of alternative media Achieved.

ED2.4 1
(e.g. learning packages on a dedicated web-site)
English Heritage will progress the writing and formal Achieved.

MA1.1 agreement of the Memorandum of Understanding with the 1
Duchy of Cornwall
English Heritage will consider the change from Head Achieved

MA3.1 1
Custodian to Site Manager
English Heritage will continue working in partnership with Partially achieved but scope for more work
MA3.2 local community groups on a variety of issues of mutual 1 to be done.
concern
Consideration given to preferring maintenance access to Achieved.

CON 7.2 1
Tintagel using helicopters via Glebe Cliff NT car park
English Heritage will consider the potential for creating No longer considered a cost-effective option.
PP5.2 disabled (limited mobility) access to the Lower Ward, which 2
could be possible either via Church and Glebe Cliff
(involving discussing with the National Trust) or by using

2013 103
the higher footpath alongside the track in the valley
(involving upgrading the footpath).
English Heritage will consider how best to improve the No longer considered a cost-effective option,
PP5.3 intellectual presentation at the Lower Ward should this 2 and instead improved facilities and
access for visitors with limited mobility be implemented interpretation focussed on the Visitor Centre
English Heritage will consider promoting a detailed study of This was not undertaken, and now no longer
the post-medieval and more recent conservation works appears to be cost-effective.
Arch 2.2 affecting the castle structures (including inter alia a 2
programme of mortar analysis) and the post-Roman and
medieval buildings in Sites A to H.
English Heritage will consider a long-term relatively large- The academic value from such an excavation
scale excavation of one or more portions of the site that are could be immense, but the need to justify
under imminent threat and have not been previously this and the attendant funding makes this
Arch2.3 2
investigated unlikely. HLF funding for community
projects might mean this is financially
feasible.
English Heritage will consider how best to provide effective Largely achieved via much improved at
PP5.4 interpretation to visitors with disabilities, including hearing 2 Visitor Centre, and further works proposed.
and Visual impairments.
English Heritage will continue efforts to promote visitor Documentation of patterns of visitor
PP2.1 events and increase off-peak season visits. All sites affected 2 numbers in 2012 shows the same low uptake
of off-peak accessibility.
Consideration will be given to the interpretative media for Largely achieved. New guidebook is much
PP3.4 conveying this key aspect of Tintagel (King Arthur) to the 2 better in this regard, as is the AV at the
visiting public visitor centre.
English Heritage will consider up-dating the panels on FP7 Not implemented but see Interpretation Plan
PP6.1 where turns to rise toward the Bridge, and on the Bridge to 2 in Chapter 6
the island
English Heritage will consider the utilisation of these ruins Not implemented but see Interpretation Plan
PP7.2 2
as a low-level and low-key ‘first stop’ interpretation point in Chapter 6
English Heritage will consider rationalising (over time) the Path network largely unchanged, but
network of paths on the island, as well as the range of apparent erosion (excepting near The
paving design and materials, used on the island, gravel Tunnel) seems no worse.
should be replaced over time with local shale chippings
LD2.1 2 Rationalising use of materials and forms of
‘steps’ is still considered a priority,
especially to FP 31, descending from Chapel
on the Island plateau to the northern end of
the Island Ward.
English Heritage considers that the trampling and visitor Achieved by on-going monitoring, but the
LD2.2 erosion on the island plateau should be regularly monitored 2 need/urgency noted in 2001 seems to have
been unnecessary.
English Heritage will standardise the use of wooden fencing This has not been done and ought to be
reviewed. Wooden fencing is cheaper and
less obtrusive close-up, but phosphor bronze
LD3.1 2
railings are considerably less visual from a
distance (se for example the footpath sloping
down from the Island Ward to the Iron Gate)
LD3.2 English Heritage will consider the re-siting of the admission 2 Plans to replace this with a new hut, tucked

2013 104
hut in the gate of the Lower ward under the rock-face at the south end of the
Upper Ward outside the moat is potentially a
significantly better, less visually intrusive
plan.
The railing (from Lower to Upper Ward) should be replaced Achieved, wooden rail in place
LD3.4 2
as and when possible
English Heritage will continue studies of Radford’s work, to This is subject of a commission to run
enable inaccurate reconstructions to be identified and parallel with this Review (Cornwall Historic
LD4.1 2
removed Environment Team commissioned). Draft
report consulted October 2013.
English Heritage will continue the use of rock netting where Achieved.
LD5.2 dentistry would conflict with the presence of valuable plant 2
communities.
English Heritage notes that, where feasible during rock de- On-going good practice by Property
LD5.3 scaling, care is to be taken to avoid unnecessarily affecting 2 Manager
Lanceolate Spleenwort populations
English Heritage will try to schedule rock-dentistry, netting A still necessary consequence as and when
LD5.4 and/or de-scaling works in order to avoid disturbing nesting 2 works undertaken.
birds
English Heritage will consider the use of signage to inform Achieved: Some low signs in place. Low
the public about Health and Safety occurrence of injuries sustained by visiting
PHS4.2 2 public may suggest further efforts not
necessary but EH should still document a
formal review.
English Heritage will consider efforts to replace the weedy Largely achieved
CON3.1 vegetation of the slope north of the Inner Ward with 2
maritime grassland communities if at all possible
Eradication of the Hottentot Fig, consultation and a detailed Not achieved.

CON4.1 2
feasibility study with EN
CON4.2 Eradication of the Japanese Knotweed 2 Partly Achieved – work in-hand.
A detailed feasibility study for the use of winter grazing on Achieved. Grazing re-introduced January
CON5.1 the cliff slopes of the island with a hardy species of sheep or 2 2012 on a trial basis and considered
goat effective.
English Heritage will consider cooperating with, and take This might be advanced by a HE student
CON6.1 2
cognisance of, a detailed ecological study of the monument thesis or a student bursary/placement.
Continuing quinquennial surveys with a formalised format Not achieved. Still a valid and valuable
CON7.1 2
formal process.
English Heritage will consider commissioning further Interpretation Plan Chapter 6

analysis of the ‘educational market’ for Tintagel and using
ED1.1 2
this analysis as the basis for a comprehensive educational
strategy
English Heritage will consider over-time devoting more Partially achieved by new website pages, but
emphasis to co-ordinating information on history / see Interpretation Plan Chapter 6
ED2.2- 2
archaeology / geography / environment for use with learning
groups in educational projects

2013 105
English Heritage will continue devoting resources to Achieved – see new website, but additional
ED2.5 2
developing additional teachers guides and information resources are suggested see below
English Heritage will consider the benefits to be derived Tintagel was not designated a Conservation
from designation as a Conservation Area Area and changes in heritage policy in the
MA2.1 2 intervening years makes this a less useful
undertaking, and we suggest this can be
dropped.
Cross-promotion of facilities with other organisations Close collaboration with Tourist Information
Centre, Cornwall Association of Tourist
MA2.2 2
Attractions and Cornwall Language
Partnership.
English Heritage will encourage the conservation of the Partly achieved, although more could be
MA2.3 industrial remains at the mouth of the Valley 2 done upstream in the valley. See
Interpretation Plan Chapter 6
English Heritage will consider the most appropriate Achieved at Visitor Centre, but additional
PP3.1 interpretative media, to use to provide increased physical 2 actions suggested below
and intellectual access to visitors
English Heritage will consider, overtime, reducing or Parallel assessment by the Cornwall Historic
PP3.3 replacing inaccurate (Radford) reconstructions of structures 3 Environment Services assists with this.
as identified in Arch2.2
English Heritage will consider providing improved See Interpretation Plan Chapter 6
interpretation panels (specifically text and graphics, rather
PP4.1 3
than physical form), especially in Lower Ward for disabled
visitors
The use of flat-laid Trevillet slate to be replaced overtime Not achieved. Rationalising surface
LD2.3 3
with shale chippings treatments is still a valid goal.
Until such time as better information is available (see No action needed: 2001 maintenance
above) English Heritage will continue the current methods methods still current 2013 and subject to on-
LD4.2 3
of repairing low turf capped walls on the post-Roman going monitoring.
buildings on the island
In repairing erosion natural regeneration should be favoured Still a need, especially around the Tunnel.
CON2.1 3
for restoration. New turf will be needed.
English Heritage will consider, overtime and in consultation The need for this reported in 2001 seems to
CON2.2 with EN, locating a turf type/source-nursery for use in re- 3 have been excessive and this is no longer a
vegetating areas on site priority.
English Heritage will consider seeking partnership in New educational study undertaken (see
developing education facilities and materials and will above) and much new information available
ED2.3 promote more reciprocal, interpretative, promotional and 3 on new website. Some additional works
educational links with the Royal Cornwall Museum and suggested below
other organisations
English Heritage will consider developing other New educational study undertaken (see
educational-based projects above) and much new information available
ED2.6 3
on new website. Some additional works
suggested below

2013 106
10. Action Plan for 2014-2019
The following Actions have been agreed by the project team (the external reviewer from Nexus Heritage and the
client team of English Heritage). These Actions as identified below are SMART in that they have been described in
specific terms, a measure of success has been identified, they are achievable and realistic (i.e. within the
responsibility and authority of EH) and have an agreed (target) timetable. Any un-completed actions from 2001
remain as tasks that can and should be done as appropriate but do not figure in this selective and prioritised list.
Action numbers are indicated on the site plan in Figure below
Action Specific Statement Timetable

Number
1 Erosion scars by Tunnel, and NW crag Repaired by

March 2015
2 Interpretation Strategy is urgent By March 2014

Draft in Chapter 6
3 Improved on-site interpretation. March 2016

Improved exhibition/AV experience in the Visitor Centre (same footprint
3a March 2015
as current). New AV will be developed using the film at Housesteads as a
model, making use of aerial filming and CGI reconstructions of buildings
and people who inhabited the site. The film would aim to capture the
public’s imagination and build on the interest in the King Arthur legend.
As a result people would understand where the legend of King Arthur and
the association with Tintagel began, but also understand the real stories of
the people who lived on the island. The film would be supported by small
but very high quality exhibition using artefacts found at Tintagel (from The
Royal Cornwall Museum) with particular emphasis on the trade with the
Mediterranean. Again although a very much smaller space, we would seek
to emulate the quality of the exhibition at Housesteads. We will also
explore the use of the modern kiosk on the island as an additional curatorial
space.
Model: panels would be supported by a 3D model of the site in different

3b
phases of occupation.
Audio: we would provide information via listening posts at key points.
3c
These have less visual impact on the landscape and can convey
information which could be themed. Visitors could select what kind of
information they wished to hear: natural history, myths, legends and
poetry, information for children, the archaeology of the site. This could be
developed creatively and told in the first/third person with effects much as
we would do with traditional audio. It has been agreed that traditional
audio guides would not be appropriate as they would be a potential
distraction on a site with difficult terrain and cliff edges.
Hands-on activities for children: children’s backpacks will be developed
3d
which can be hired or FOC. A range of explorer tools will be developed so
that children can put together their own explorer kit. This approach has

2013 107
been developed successfully by a range of EH properties including
Stonehenge, Witley Court and Wrest Park. Backpacks of this kind are also
offered by the Natural History Museum and explorer kits have been
developed and proven to attract family audiences in many museums and
also as part of the Kenwood House development. Children and adult
families could also be potentially offered costumes at the point of
admission to wear through their visit. This is done very successfully at
Hampton Court where visitors of all ages are offered cloaks to wear for
the duration of their visit
3e Interpretation Panels
There are good interpretive panels currently which use effective
reconstruction drawings to help the visitor understand the site. These
would be improved and re-designed to ensure they were relevant to the
new interpretation scheme.
Improvements and activity that supplement, but sit outside the project
scope but which merit consideration include:
• An enhanced events programme to build on the success of the
current small scale events on site and last year’s popular ‘Fighting
Knights’ event. Making full use of first person live interpretation
from a range of time periods in the history of the site and would
reinforce the key interpretive messages. Most would take place on
the island and upper mainland.
• A volunteer strategy for Tintagel Castle – tasks to include
awareness raising in the village and supporting the living history
• Utilise the beach more e.g. marine conservation projects, water
based activity, events (e.g. use Merlin’s cave for storytelling)
• Introduce night-time events e.g. outdoor theatre, stargazing
4 Reconstructions of Dark Age structures
Reconstructed buildings on the island: as an exercise of experimental
archaeology (analogous to the on-going Neolithic Houses project at Old
Sarum/Stonehenge), we would explore the possibility of reconstructing a
few small buildings on the island. This could focus on a number of periods,
but the early medieval or 'Dark Age' period is particularly attractive: this
would allow us, perhaps using costumed interpreters from time to time, to
discuss controversies about the function of the site at this period, the
manufacture and trade in exotic artefacts (particularly pottery from the
Mediterranean). There would be a strong element of conjecture about this
process, but it would help cement English Heritage's reputation for
innovative and ground-breaking site presentation, and if handled sensitively,
it would potentially assist greatly in explaining the complex relationship
between the archaeologically-verifiable history of the site and the myths of
King Arthur. These would be built in historically appropriate locations,
visible from the mainland to entice passers-by to cross the pay line.
5 Supporting documentation on website, to support environmental tourism and

financial management students in tertiary education (cf Stonehenge)
Web content: this will be improved and developed so that there is more
information about the site available on line and key interpretative themes
will be introduced. The family offer at Tintagel will have a much higher
profile and trails for children of different age groups will be provided which

2013 108
can be downloaded in advance of a visit or sold/FOC on site. This approach
is currently being developed as part of the Swiss Cottage development.
7a Improved Visitor Facilities: Visitor facility improvements (including the By March 2015
external decoration of all buildings and an exemplar signage scheme)
Redesign the Visitor Centre to occupy the ground floor staff and storage
area and to include improved and clear access to ensure all visitors and
passers-by walk through the shop and curatorial area whilst not impeding
the public right of way; and improved flow and queue space to
accommodate 200k+ visitors; and additional retail space (including
merchandise and cupboard storage); and a dedicated membership sales area;
and improved visual appearance (aesthetics) of visitor centre
• Improved catering at Café
• Improved access – at approach, land-rover turning, path by river,
• DDA compliant bridge to café
New and visually pleasant admissions kiosk by Lower Mainland Ward

7b 2015
entrance with electrical power and data cabling for EPOS (and possibly
therefore WIFI for use of cloud-based interpretation, see above)
8 Education facilities, focussing on the visitor centre, including a weather- 2016-17
proof shelter and bag-cage supported by: research into primary school non-
visitors; and research into needs of language schools and the portion of the
market who don’t visit; plus resources for environmental tourism and
financial management courses at tertiary levels
9 Long-term goal to replace cobbled paths with pitched slate 2019
10 Long-term replacement of wooden fencing with phosphor-bronze 2019
11 Community Engagement 2014-2016

• Develop a strategy for regular and effective consultation
• Work with stakeholders with public sector organisations (Cornwall
Council, VisitCornwall, the Duchy of Cornwall, Natural England,
RSPB, Cornwall Wildlife Trust, Cornwall Heritage Trust)
• Involve local people organisations/volunteers in work on site to
develop a sense of local ownership
Consultation with local business/private sector, traders, hoteliers, producers,
etc. in support of sustainable tourism agenda.
13 Undertake a ‘Green Audit’ for Tintagel 2015

2013 109
New fencing when
feasible (10)
Path erosion
scares to be
repaired (1)
Locations for
possible
reconstructions of
Path resurfacing when
Dark Age houses (4)
feasible (9)
Improved interpretation
panels (3e) and audio
points (3c)
Improved exhibition / AV experience in the Visitor

Centre (3a) and 3-D Model (3b) and children’s activities
3d
New visitor kiosk at
Improved visitor centre facilities (7a)
entrance to Mainland
Improved Educational facilities and research (8) Ward (7b)
Figure 20 Site plan of Tintagel Castle showing locations of the Actions in the 2013 Action Plan above.

2013 110
11. Research Agenda
Throughout the process of researching and preparing this Conservation Plan a range of issues have emerged which
cannot be effectively resolved without the acquisition of further information.
These issues are summarised here, listed with the relevant area or site involved and the policies that apply.
Policy/
Issue Suggested Action or Research
Action
Effective conservation of the Arch2.1 Commission an up-dated Research Framework to guide

archaeological remains requires an (academically) future field investigations and research.
accurate understanding of the remains
and their significance. This
understanding is currently lacking, The results should be used to refine presentation of the site –
and GUARD’s recent work has not both content and forms/media to be used.
yet been synthesised and used to
reach a site-wide understanding.
Some selected topics for investigation were suggested in text
sections 2.4.1 to 2.4.7.
Limited understanding of the nature Arch2.3; Such understanding can probably only be acquired by means
of the post-Roman settlement on the LD4.1 of a larger-scale or more tightly focussed academic
island excavations than those undertaken by GU/GUARD. These
should be derived from the Research Framework proposed
above, and focussed on parts of the site where the remains
are under threat and, ideally, parts of the site not previously
affected by Radford’s work.
This programme should be used to guide the removal of
misleading reconstructions originating with Radford’s work
on site.
The structures and strata in the Upper and Lower wards
which are threatened by massive cliff failure may not have
the same archaeological integrity (i.e. intact structures and
strata) as other untouched sites, but they are likely to contain
much valuable information and are threatened. They also
therefore merit further investigation.
The results should be used to refine presentation of the site –

both content and forms/media to be used.
Arch2.6; English Heritage will consider publishing a new

PP3.2 academically-reviewed book (or a revised edition) to replace
the out-of-print Charles Thomas book with a revised edition
up-dated with latest GUARD results

2013 111
Limited understanding of the Arch2.2 A programme of research and investigation of both castle
magnitude of conservation and and the low un-mortared walls to ascertain original form (or
reconstruction works undertaken on form as found by Radford).
the castle structures and the post-
Roman buildings on the island
Improved access to Lower Ward for PP5.1 Feasibility study on Footpaths 4 and 32 to ascertain scope of
visitors with limited mobility works and consequent costs of providing such access
The long-term survival Upper and PHS1.1 A detailed feasibility study to consider the scope of works
Lower Wards are threatened by required and the financing implications of such a
massive cliff failure. The scope and programme of rock-anchoring works.
costs of works that might ensure their
survival are uncertain. The possibility
of cliff failure also creates a A Management Plan should be drawn-up to guide site
significant potential hazard to actions in the case that a managed retreat is the only feasible
visitor’s health and safety. Without a course of action.
full understanding of the various
courses of action, information on
decisions regarding these parts of the
site can be made.
The grassland swards on the island CON5.1 English Heritage should consider a detailed feasibility study
support periodic plagues of voles to consider the benefits to be derived from winter grazing of
within the tussocks, which pose a the mainland and/or island areas, and other alternative
threat to archaeological strata, and are courses of action to protect the under-lying archaeological
ecologically impoverished. One remains and to restore ecological value.
course of action, which would resolve
these two issues, is winter grazing by
sheep or goat, but this has a host of
attendant complications outside the
scope of this plan.

2013 112
12. Bibliography
Appleton, N, Fox, T, and Tintagel Castle: Survey and Excavation at Inner Ward, the Chapel, Site 4 and the
Waters, A, 1988 Garden, CAU report
Armstrong, W J C, 1935 A Rambler’s Guide to Tintagel and Camelford, 2nd ed, Plymouth
Ashe, G, 1990 King Arthur: the Dream of a Golden Age
Batey, Colleen 2010 Tintagel Castle (guidebook) English Heritage
Batey, C E, Sharpe, A, and ‘Tintagel Castle: archaeological investigation of the steps area 1989 and 1990’
Thorpe, C M, 1993 Cornish Archaeology 32
The Book of the Order of the Fellowship of the Knights of the Round Table of King
Arthur, Kings Arthur’s Hall, Tintagel,
Broadhurst, P, 1992 Tintagel and the Arthurian Mythos (and 3rd ed 1999)
Browse, R G, 1982 ‘Tintagel Castle’ Cornish Archaeology 21
Burrow, I, 1974 ‘Tintagel – some problems’ Scottish Archaeological Forum 5
Campbell, E, 1996 ‘The archaeological evidence for external contacts: imports, trade and economy in
Celtic Britain AD 400-800’ in K R Dark External Contacts and the economy of
late Roman and post-Roman Britain, Woodbridge
Caroe and Partners 1995 Tintagel Condition Survey (unpublished document in English Heritage archive)
Canner, A C, 1982 The Parish of Tintagel. Some Historical Notes
Chandler, J, (ed) 1993 John Leland’s Itinerary. Travels in Tudor England, Stroud
Colvin, H M, The History of the King’s Works 2
Cornwall Tourist Board, Outline Framework for a Tourism Strategy for Cornwall
1999
West Country Tourist Board, Towards 2020 – A Tourism Strategy for the Southwest
1999
Dark, K R, 1985 ‘The Plan and Interpretation of Tintagel’ Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 9
Davison B K, Tintagel Castle Guidebook
Denholm-Young, N, 1947 Richard of Cornwall
Dept for Culture, Media and Tomorrow’s Tourism
Sport (Tourism Division),
1999
Dickinson, L J, 1947 The Story of King Arthur in Cornwall, 11th ed, Tintagel
Dickinson, W H, 1990 King Arthur in Cornwall, London
Doel, F, Doel, G, and Lloyd, Worlds of Arthur: King Arthur in History, Legend and Culture
T, 1998
Duxbury, B, and Williams, King Arthur Country in Cornwall, St Teath
M, 1979
Elliott-Binns, R V, 1955 Medieval Cornwall, London
Fulford, M G, 1989 ‘Byzantium and Britain: a Mediterranean perspective on post-Roman
Mediterranean Imports in Western Britain and Ireland’ Medieval Archaeology 33
Halliday, F E, (ed) 1953 Richard Carew of Anthony: The Survey of Cornwall, London
Harry, R, and Morris, C D, ‘Excavations on the Lower Terrace, Site C, Tintagel Island 1990-1994’
1997 Antiquaries Journal 77
Harry, R, and Morris, C D, Tintagel Castle: Excavations to the south of Site C and follow-up excavation on
(eds) 1999 the Great Ditch area (Site T). Post-excavation and Final Publication Phase 3. A
Project Design, GUARD report no 681/2
Harry, R, and Morris, C D, Tintagel Castle: Assessment of Dr C A Ralegh Radford’s Work. Post-excavation
(eds) 1999 and Final Publication Phase 2: Project Design, GUARD report no 682
Harry, R, and Morris, C D, Excavations on the Middle and Upper Terrace, Site C, Tintagel Island 1990-1998,
1999 GUARD

2013 113
Hartgroves, S, and Walker, ‘Excavations in the Lower Ward, Tintagel Castle 1986’ Cornish Studies 16
R, 1988
Hatcher, J, 1970 Rural Economy and Society in the Duchy of Cornwall 1300-1500, Cambridge
Hunt, R, 1871 Popular Romances of the West of England, 2nd ed
Jenner, H, 1927 ‘Tintagel Castle in History and Romance’ Journal of the Royal Institution of
Cornwall 22
King, J Cathcart, Castellarium Anglicanum
Langdon, A G, 1906 ‘Early Christian Monuments’ in W Page (ed) The Victoria History of the County
of Cornwall 1, London
Maclean, J, 1868-79 Parochial and Family History of the Deanery of Trigg Minor, in the County of
Cornwall, London
Madge, S J, 1945 Records of Tintagel, 5 MS volumes in BL Printed Books Dept
McEvoy, F, 1985 Fieldwork Summary 9/1, CEU
Midgley, M, (ed) 1942, 1945 Ministers’ Accounts of the Earldom of Cornwall 1296-7, Camden 3rd Series vols
66, 68
Morris, J, 1993 The Age of Arthur: a History of the British Isles from 350 to 650
The Churchyard Excavations at Tintagel Parish Church, North Cornwall, Spring
1990. Interim Report, CAU Truro
Morrison, I, 2000SW Marketing Plan 2000/2001(for Tintagel)
Nowakowski, J, and Thomas, Grave News from Tintagel. An illustrated account of Archaeological Excavations
C, 1992 at Tintagel Churchyard, Cornwall, CAU Truro
Olson, L, 1989 Early Monasteries in Cornwall, Woodbridge
O’Mahoney, C, 1988 ‘Medieval Pottery from Tintagel: a summary’ Cornish Studies 16
Padel, O J, 1981 ‘The Cornish Background of the Tristan Stories’ Cambridge Medieval Celtic
Studies 1
Padel, O J, 1988 ‘Tintagel in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries’ Cornish Studies 16
Page, M, 2000 ‘Cornwall, Earl Richard and the Barons’ War’ English Historical Review 115
Pearce, S, 1978 The Kingdom of Dumnonia. Studies in History and Tradition in South-Western
Britain AD 350-1150, Padstow
Ralegh Radford, C A, 1935 ‘Tintagel: the Castle and Celtic Monastery. Interim Report’ Antiquaries Journal
15
Ralegh Radford, C A, 1939 Tintagel Castle, Cornwall, Ministry of Works Guide, 2nd ed
Ralegh Radford, C A, 1942 ‘Tintagel in History and Legend’ Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall 25
Ralegh Radford, C A, 1962 ‘The Celtic Monastery in Britain’ Archaeologia Cambrensis 111
Ralegh Radford, C A, and Arthurian Sites in the West, Exeter
Swanton, M J, 1975
Reynolds, A, 1999a Report on Archaeological Works at Tintagel Castle, CAU
Reynolds, A, 1999b Repairs to Tintagel Castle 1998/9. Archaeological Recording, CAU
Rose, P, 1994 ‘The Medieval Garden at Tintagel Castle’ Cornish Archaeology 33
Rutherford, W, 1987 Celtic Mythology
Seddon, R, 1990 The Mystery of Arthur at Tintagel, London
Sharpe, A, 1990 Coastal Slate Quarries, Tintagel to Trebarwith, CAU Truro
Sharpe, A & Thorpe, C 2013 Tintagel Island, Cornwall Assessment of proposed building works and
reconstructions Cornwall Historic Environment Services Report 2013 R072
Shenton, C, 1999 ‘Royal Interest in Glastonbury and Cadbury: Two Arthurian Itineraries’ English
Historical Review 114
Straker, V, 1989 Tintagel. Preliminary Assessment of Potential for Environmental and Palaeo-
environmental study
Thomas, C, 1959 ‘Imported Pottery in Dark Age Western Britain’ Medieval Archaeology 3

2013 114
Thomas, C, 1982 ‘East and West: Tintagel Mediterranean Imports and the Early Insular Church’ in
S M Pearce (ed) The Early Church in Western Britain and Ireland, BAR British
Series 102, Oxford
Thomas, C, and Fowler, P J, ‘Tintagel: a New Survey of the Island’ Annual Review 1984-5, RCHME, London
1985
Thomas, C, 1986 Tintagel Castle, English Heritage Guide
Thomas, C, 1988a ‘Tintagel Castle’ Antiquity 62
Thomas, C, 1988c ‘The Context of Tintagel. A New Model for the Diffusion of post-Roman
Mediterranean Imports’ Cornish Archaeology 27
Thomas, C, and Thorpe, C, Catalogue of all non-medieval finds from Tintagel, Tintagel Project 2, Institute of
1988 Cornish Studies, Redruth
Thomas, C, 1988 ‘Minor Sites at Tintagel Island’ Cornish Studies 16
Thomas, C, 1988 ‘The 1988 CAU Excavations at Tintagel Island: the discoveries and their
implications’ Cornish Studies 16
Thomas, C, 1988 ‘The Archaeology of Tintagel Parish Churchyard’ Cornish Studies 16
Thomas, C, 1990 ‘Gallici nautae de Galliarum Provinciis. A sixth/seventh century trade with Gaul
reconsidered’ Medieval Archaeology 34
Thomas, C, 1993 Tintagel: Arthur and Archaeology, English Heritage London
Thomas, C, 1994 And Shall These Mute Stones Speak?, Cardiff
Thorn, C and F, (eds) 1979 Domesday Book. Cornwall, Chichester
Thorpe, C M, 1988 ‘Incised Pictorial Slates from Tintagel’ Cornish Studies 16
Thorpe, C, 2004. ‘Extreme Archaeology.’ An excavation at Tintagel, Cornwall - archaeological
finds report, Truro (Historic Environment Service, Cornwall County Council)
Thorpe, C. 2007. The Iron Gate, Tintagel Castle, Cornwall. Fence replacement works -
archaeological watching brief, Truro (Historic Environment Service, Cornwall
County Council)
Thorpe, C. 2008. The Information Hut, Tintagel Castle, paving work - archaeological watching
brief, Truro (Historic Environment Service, Cornwall County Council)
Todd, M, 1987 The South-West to AD 1000, London and New York
Todd Gray, C L, (ed) 1990 Early Stuart Mariners and Shipping. The Maritime Surveys of Devon and
Cornwall 1619-35, Devon and Cornwall Record Society, new series 33
- Victoria County History of Cornwall
Whetter, J, 1998 Cornwall in the Thirteenth Century. A Study in Social and Economic History
Whitaker, M, 1990 The Legends of King Arthur in Art, Cambridge
Wilkinson, J J, 1871 ‘Tintagel Castle’ Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall 3
Williams, D, and Carreras, C, ‘North African Amphorae in Roman Britain: a re-appraisal’ Britannia 26
1995

2013 115
13. Figures

2013 116
2013 117
r**-—1
,'At-: :•.*;•:: i
Lofflfonde^ooi^Lina
£ >^T
(
J Liverpool •aHudfciaFidd v^
•Galway
-•^^'Galwiiy .Dublkl ^
•Dublin ,f\ ' ^ V„. ^ #Sh(ffifl(}
,au-fi<lJ -.
ctirswr \
/ j X Stokt, NoTiinjhJ
Nottif^him-
I Limeni k Noxvkh
J ) ipi-n- 'Leicester
Abcq-nluyth ?
Colli .-"'--.'l
Bedford ,- , ; .
2_, j Swinwi • ;-:t.v.H
—\ CudiCf L Oildim
,- __/ *B»tli F«»*"r -Guddiwd 4C»inbi

_W r-J •,,-;,...1,i,r, •ui":h»»'
Tintagel ^•1 ?su JWaqi
-c3
'lnpoutii
(Portsmouth City Council Map)

~
TihtagA Head
~
(OS Explorer 111 of Bude, Boscastle & Tintagel - Not to Scale)
Figure 1 - Site Location Plan

Figure 2 - Land Ownership & Statutory Areas
~
Scanned by CamScanner
Figure 4 - The Prehistoric Period (Phases 1 and 2)
~
Figure 5 - The Post Roman Period (Phase 3)
~
Figure 6 - The Medieval Period (Phase 5)
~
Figure 7 - Post-Medieval Period (Phase 6)
12 - Upper Ward Curtain Walls 52 - Inner Ward Hall Complex
18-Site A 53 - Inner Ward Service Range
19-Site B 54 - Inner Ward North Curtain Wall
20 - Site E 56 - Garden
22 - Site G 58 - Upper Ward Structure
23 - Site U 59 - Upper Ward Latrine
28 - Chapel 60 - Lower Ward Tower
30 - Structures in Upper Ward 61 - Lower Ward SE Structure
37 - Inner Ward West Chambers 63 - Inner Ward South Curtain Wall
43 - Lower Ward Curtain Walls 75 - Royal Observer Corp.
44- Medieval Cemetery
~
Figure 8 - Ministry of Public Works Period (Phase 7 - Radford Excavations &
Restorations)
12 - Upper Ward Curtain Walls 56 - Garden
18-Site A 58 - Upper Ward Structure
19-Site B 59 - Upper Ward Latrine
20 - Site E 60 - Lower Ward Tower
22 - Site G 61 - Lower Ward SE Structure
23 - Site U 63 - Inner Ward South Curtain Wall
28 - Chapel 75 - Royal Observer Corp.
30 - Structures in Upper Ward 76 - EH Ticket Office
37 - Inner Ward West Chambers 77 - EH Ticket Office
43 - Lower Ward Curtain Walls 78 - EH Works Shed
44- Medieval Cemetery 79-Modern Walls
52 - Inner Ward Hall Complex 80 - Modern Paving / Railing
53 - Inner Ward Service Range 81 - Modern Paving
54 - Inner Ward North Curtain Wall 82 - Modern Bridge
~ 83 - Modern Paving / Railing
Figure 9 - English Heritage & Post Condition Survey Works (Phase 8)

~
Upper Ward
(11)
9 - Great Ditch 50 - Lower Ward - Steps to Wall-Walk

10-Ditch Bank 58 - Upper Ward Structures
11 - Upper Ward (Summary) 59 - Upper Ward - Latrine Block
12 - Upper Ward Curtain Walls 60 - Lower Ward - Tower
13 - Lower Ward Gatehouse 61 - Lower Ward - Structure in SE Corner
14 - Terraces Below Lower Ward 62 - Lower Ward - Buttress
36 - Lower Ward, Entrance Walls & Path
43 - Lower Ward Curtain Wall 77 - EH Ticket Kiosk
47 - Upper Wards - Steps 79 - Lower Ward - Modern Walls
48 - Lower Ward Summary 80 - Upper Ward - Paving & Railings
81 - Lower Ward Paving
~
49 - Lower Ward - Little Ditch
Figure 10 - Upper and Lower Wards (Phases 7 and 8)

~
37 - Inner Ward - West Chambers

51 - Inner Ward - Summary
52 - Inner Ward - Hall Complex
53 - Inner Ward - Service Range
54 - Inner Ward - North Curtain Wall
63 - Inner Ward - South Curtain Wall
83 - Inner Ward - Paving & Railing
Figure 11 - Inner Ward (Phases 7 and 8)

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Figure 12 - Aerial photograph of Tintagel from north-west. Photograph courtesy of NMR

(Photograph Number: NMR 18251/07 SX0589/63)
~
VALLEY
Figure 13
The first glimpse most visitors get of

Tintagel: the Castle Walls on the horizon.
The Borough Mill is beside the finger-post,
and the rock-face on the right of the track
rises dangerously over a bench. Note
erosion and rutting of gravel track.
Figure 13
Figure 14
The ruins of the Borough Mill (Site 46).
Figure 14
Figure 15
Ruins of Borough Mill from across the

stream. Hazardous bench position on
opposite side of main track.
Figure 15
"
VALLEY CONTINUED
~
Figure 16
Interpretation paved on Island end of the

bridge, explaining the Post-Medieval quarry
and mining operations, some of which are
visible in the background to the right (Sites
16).
Figure 16
Figure 17
The east side of the Haven viewed from the Island.

Note the coastal footpath and remains of coastal
cliff slate quarry industry.
Figure 17
Figure 18
Post-Medieval cottages, are a part of the

coastal-cliff quarry industry, now a cafe in
private ownership (Site 69).
Figure 18
~
CHURCH
~
Figure 19
The church (and churchyard) of St

Materiana (Site 33) viewed from across the
valley. Note the curving (Medieval?) field
boundaries (Site 34).
Figure 19
~ Figure 20
The Church of St Materiana viewed from the

north-east.
Figure 20
~
Figure 21
The Church of St Materiana from the north.
"^Twe •*"• " "T ' "V ' " ,—' -'•'•
Figure 21
~
CHURCH CONTINUED
Figure 22
The Church of St Materiana from the south

east.
Figure 22*
Figure 23
The Church of St Materiana from the north.
Figure 23
~
UPPER & LOWER WARDS
"
Figure 24
The Upper Ward (Sites 30, 58 59, to the right)

and Lower Ward (to the left, Sites 36, 43, 48-50).
Note paving in Lower Ward (81) and precipitous
steps down the rock face (steps = footpath 6;
rock face No. 1).
Figure 24
Figure 25
The Upper and Lower Wards, and the actively

eroding rock face 7 with open fissures.
Figure 25
Figure 26
The Upper Ward Curtain Walls (above left) and

Lower Ward Curtain Walls (43) and corner tower
(60) to the right. The Great Ditch is in the centre
(9). Viewed from King Arthur's Castel Hotel
across the valley.
Figure 26
~
UPPER & LOWER WARDS CONTINUED
~
Figure 27
The eastern Curtain Wall of the Lower Ward (43)

and Little Ditch in front (49).
Figure 27
Figure 28
The Upper Ward Curtain Wall (59) truncated at

the left end by the rock-falls of Rock Face 7.
Figure 28
~
Figure 29
\ The Lower Ward entrance walls (36) to the right

leading to the Medieval Gatehouse. Note the
pitched slate paving. The English Heritage
Ticket kiosk is visible on the left side of the path.
4
IH
vcw-'-'"-
~
"i
Figure 29
Figure 30
~
The steps up to the Upper Ward from the Lower

Ward. Note the English Heritage Ticket Kiosk,
pitched slate paving, inappropriate railing to stairs,
and use of bronze fencing around the northern end
of the Upper Ward (to the right).
Figure 30
Figure 31
The north end of rock face 7 with remains of

Upper Ward perched precariously. Note bronze
fence is unobtrusive even at this relatively short
distance.
Figure 31
Figure 32
Remains of Gatehouse and murel building against

South Curtain Wall of Lower Ward. To the right,
steps up to Upper Ward and in the background
Curtain Wall of Upper Ward.
Figure 32
Figure 33
Internal face of Upper Ward Curtain Wall. The

wall fabric below the course indicated may be
Post-Roman in date, whilst that above may be
Medieval. Wall ends abruptly to the right where
the wall and a latrine block have fallen due to a
catastrophic failure to rock face 7.
Figure 33
Figure 34
Lower (to left) and Upper Wards (to right) viewed

from the Inner Ward. Rock face 7 is to the right.
The precipitous steps of Footpath 6 descend rock
slop 1 and 16. Note use of rock-netting.
Figure 34
~
INNER WARD
~
Figure 35
The Inner Ward viewed from the Lower Ward.

The steps of Footpath 8 ascend from the modern
bridge. The invasive Hottentot Figure is located
to the inside of the sharp bend in the footpath.
The rock slope (5) under the south end of the
Inner Ward has collapsed several times since the
Middle Ages - at least 6 metres of the Inner Ward
has been lost. The crenellated Curtain Wall is
mid 19th century in construction.
Figure 35
Figure 36
The interior of the Inner Ward looking north-east.

The crevellated Curtain Wall is authentically
Medieval. Note the use of pitched versus flat-laid
paving to denote exterior and internal spaces
respectively.
Figure 36
Figure 37
Looking north across the service chambers of

the Inner Ward, with West Chambers in the
background. Note the use of paving.
Figure 37
~
INNER WARD CONTINUED
Figure 38
The internal elevation of the North Curtain Wall of

the Inner Ward.
Figure 38
Figure 39
Panorama of Inner Ward. King Arthur's Castle

Hotel is on the headland in the background. Note
variations in paving. The wooden fence to the
right is at the top of rock face 5 (see Figure 33)
above.
Figure 39
Figure 40
The Inner Ward. Note interpretation panel.
Figure 40
~
Figure 41
The external elevation of the North Curtain Wall

of the Inner Ward. MoPW maintenance building
(c. 1930) to the right. Lower and Upper Wards in
background.
Figure 41
~*
Figure 42
The Inner Ward and Rock Slope 5 from the Lower

Ward. Note the use of rock netting.
Figure 42
~ Figure 43
The Inner Ward viewed from the summit of the

Island.
Figure 43
~
Figure 44
The Inner Ward from above, with the valley

and cafe building in the background.
Figure 44
~
Figure 45
The external elevation of the North and East

Curtain Wall of the Inner Ward. The buttressed
wall levelled-up a hollow in the coastal slope, and
probably buries a post-Roman site under >2m of
make-up.
Figure 45
IRON GATE
~
Figure 46
The internal elevation of the Iron Gate Wall

with the Haven beyond.
Figure 46
~
IRON GATE CONTINUED
Figure 47
The internal elevation of the Iron Gate.
Figure 47
~
Figure 48
External elevation of the Iron Gate. Note intrusive

appearance of wooden fence along footpath 9.
Figure 48
~
Figure 49
The Iron Gate (to the right) and the natural

wharf (to the left); the Haven beyond.
Figure 49
~
IRON GATE CONTINUED
Figure 50
The Iron Gate, Wharfage, and Haven.
Figure 50
POST ROMAN SITE (A)
Figure 51
Post-Roman Site A; dry-stone foundation walls as

rebuilt by Radford. The pole frames protect plant
covering from visitors. Looking north-east along
the coastal cliffs.
~ Figure 51
Figure 52
Site A. Note dense, species poor sword in

foreground.
~ Figure 52
POST ROMAN SITE (A) CONTINUED
~
Figure 53
Post-Roman Site A, with prolific plant growth

in the dry-stone walls.
Figure 53
POST ROMAN SITE (B)

~
Figure 54
Post-Roman Site B from above. Visitor erosion

here is at acceptable levels. Note the laid slabs of
path ascending the hill - less obtrusive than the
mixtures of gravel and slate found elsewhere.
° Figure 54
Figure 55
Post-Roman Site B, with rock face 13 behind.
Figure 55
POST ROMAN SITE (B) CONTINUED
Figure 56
Post-Roman Site B.
Figure 56
POST ROMAN SITE (C)
Figure 57
Part of Post-Roman Site C (foreground) with Site

B (to the right) and the Iron Gate Wall. The top of
hazardous rock face 12 rises above the Iron Gate.
~ Figure 57
Figure 58
Footpath 12 with Site C beyond.
Figure 58
~
POST ROMAN SITE (C) CONTINUED
Figure 59
Post-Roman Site C.
Figure 59
POST ROMAN SITE (D)
Figure 60
Post-Roman and Medieval Site D and the

windswept summit plateau of the Island.
Figure 60
Figure 61
Post-Roman and Medieval Site D and the

Island plateau looking north.
Figure 61
~
POST ROMAN SITE (D) CONTINUED
Figure 62
Post-Roman and Medieval Site D; building

with oven in corner.
Figure 62
POST ROMAN SITE (F)

~
Figure 63
Post-Roman Site F.
Figure 63
Figure 64
Post-Roman Site F. Note contrasting path

surfaces - gravel and local slate slabs.
Figure 64
"
POST ROMAN SITE (G)
~
Figure 65
Post-Roman Site G with footpaths 10 and

12-part surfaced with gravel (left and centre)
then surfaced in pitched slate, changing to
natural slate slabs to the right.
Figure 65
~ GARDEN
Figure 66
The Medieval Walled Garden.
Figure 66
SOUTH TERRACE
Figure 67
The earthworks of the un-excavated,

presumptively Post-Roman site on the
Southern Terrace. King Arthur's Cups and
Saucers are under the dot on the skyline.
Figure 67
~
KING ARTHUR'S FOOTPRINT
~ Figure 68
Close-up of King Arthur's 'Footprint'. This may

be c. Pre-Roman site for royal initiation ceremonies.
Figure 68
KING ARTHUR'S CUPS & SAUCERS
Figure 69
The Bronze Age cup-marks called 'King Arthur's

Cups and Saucers' overlooking the north-west end
of the Southern Terrace.
Figure 69
~
TUNNEL OR LARDER
Figure 70
~
'Entrance to the rock-cut feature referred to as a

'Tunnel' or 'Larder' - function unknown. Note
the use of bronze fencing here - not as attractive
at close-range as wooden fencing - but less
obtrusive when viewed from a distance.
Figure 70
~
NORTHERN HEADLAND
Figure 71
The bare-rock headland of the north-western

headland, looking south-east. The rock has been
partly exposed by visitor erosion, but seems to
have reached a stable state.
~
Figure 71
Figure 72
The bare-rock of the north-western headland

looking north. The rock has been partly exposed
by visitor erosion.
Figure 72
~
GENERAL VIEWS
Figure 73
General view of the Inner Ward, and modern bridge

to Island.
~
Figure 73
Figure 74
Lower end of footpath 8 at Island end of the

Bridge. Note use of sprayed concrete to try to
reduce rock-falls, and remains of previous steps.
Figure 74
~
GENERAL VIEWS CONTINUED
~
Figure 75
Footpath 31 - unsurfaced here. Actively being

eroded by visitor pressure.
~ Figure 75
Figure 76
Rock face 5, actively eroding onto the beach of the

Haven. A major rock-fall occurred here in the
early 20th century. Note use of rock-netting below
Inner Ward.
Figure 76
Figure 77
Island Plateau. The Well is in the wooden frame

to the right of the centre, and the stone cairn with
door hides a pump for fire-fighting purposes,
installed after the 1983 fire.
~
Figure 77
Figure 78
Competition between Land Rover and pedestrians

at 'top' (village) end of the main footpath track.
Figure 78
Figure 79
Slab steps and wooden fence / handrail on footpath

8 ascending towards the Inner Ward.
£?•'
Figure 79
~
~
Figure 80
Eroded and collapsed remains of former steps down

to the beach at the Haven. The eroding rock face 5
(see Figure 76 above) lies directly above the lower
course/base of the old steps.
Figure 80
Figure 81
General view of the Island from King Arthur's

Castle Hotel. Merlin's Cave is clearly visible - as
is the wooden fence slanting across the coastal
slope to the Iron Gate beside footpath 9.
~
Figure 81
^
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Figure 82 - Aerial view of Tintagel from the south-west. Photograph courtesy of NMR
(Photograph Number: NMR 18251/08 SX0589/64)
~
12. APPENDIX 1: GAZETTEER OF SITES
Final Report
Page 85 B2735A.R02
Site Ref no 1
Site name Island
Element Arthur's Chair
Description
Natural hollow rock formation on S side of

Island. Shown by 19th-century guides.
Photo used: Arthur's chair'
Phase Source T1/49
SMR Photographic 'Arthur's chair'

References References
Assessment of Significance
Historical As a natural feature this has no Ecological The area of coastal cliffs and slopes
intrinsic historical significance is graded of national significance for
ecology because of the presence of
rare plants.
Architectural Education This feature is judged to be

nationally significant.
Cultural Landscape This feature and the surrounding

coastal landscape is considered to
be of regional significance
Esoteric This feature is explicitly linked to Museum

King Arthur, and because of the
international context of the
Arthurian myth, is considered to
have international significance
Geological This natural feature may be Community

paralleled in many places along
this coastline, and thus is judged to
be of local significance as a
geological feature
PoliCV ^° sPec'f'c policy/action
~
Tintagel Gazetteer
Site Ref no 2
Site name Island
Element Cup-marks
Description
Cup and ring-marks at King Arthur's Chair.

Bronze Age?
Photo used: cup marks
Phase 1? Source S4/33T1/49
SMR 23165.54 Photographic 'cup marks'

Historical These BA cup-marks are known Ecological The area of coastal cliffs and slopes
from other locations in the region is graded of national significance for
and so are judged to be regionally ecology because of the presence of
significant. rare plants.
Architectural Education This feature could be used as an

example in teaching several subjects
and is thus judged to be regionally
significant.
Cultural Landscape
Esoteric This feature is explicitly linked to Museum

King Arthur, and because of the
international context of the
Arthurian myth, is considered to
have international significance
Geological Community
No specific policy/action
Policy
~
Tintagel Gazetteer
Site Ref no 3
Site name Site C
Element SiteC
Description
Group of stone-walled structures on E side

of Island on 3 terraces. Stone drains, inc
Artognou slate. Exc and reconstruction by
Radford 1930s. Reconstruction 1950s. Exc
by GUARD 1990s.
Photo used: SC01
Phase Source D1/12 H2/8.11,18,24 H3/19-24

H4/15,64-8,116-17,121-2,136 H5
SMR 23165.43 Photographic SC01, SC02, SC03, SC04, SC05;
References References G1.20, G3.1.G3.23,
Historical Site C has been extensively Ecological The remains have no intrinsic
excavated by Radford and ecological importance, but do have
Glasgow. Authenticity of visible regionally important plants in the
remains is questionable, limiting vicinity
significance to nationally important.
Architectural The authenticity of the visible Education These remains could be readily used
remains is questionable and for educational purposes for a range
unimpressive, limiting significance of themes, some (eg Artyhur and
to local importance. ecology) are internationally relevant,
therefore educational significance is
~
judged to be international.
Cultural The cultural significance of these Landscape The placing of these remains on
remains is unknown. terraces makes a contribution to the
landscape's character, and are
therefore judged to be nationally
important.
Esoteric Museum The excavated remains, particularly
artefactual with objects from the
Mediterranean, are internationally
significant
Arch2.2, PP3.3, LD4.1,LD4.2,

Policy Con2.2
~
Tintagel Gazetteer
n Site Ref no 4
Site name Artefacts
Element Roman
Description
3rd and 4th century Romano-British pottery

on Island, esp Sites A and C.
n
Photo used:
Phase 2 Source
SMR Photographic
Historical The Roman artefacts are locally Ecological
significant
Architectural Education The artfacts are perhaps locally

significant as an educational
resource
n
Cultural Landscape
Esoteric The artefacts have nil significance Museum The Roman artefacts are nationally
to esoteric thought important as a museum collection
Arch2.5
Policy
n Tintagel Gazetteer
Site Ref no 5
Site name Church and yard
Element Pre-church Enclosures
Description
Ovoid enclosure within the W side of the

present Churchyard and extending to its N,
surrounded by stone and earth bank with N
entrance. Contains cist and mound graves
5th century onwards. Centre of unenclosed
cemetery?
Photo used:
Phase 3 Source N3/2.23-6 T1/105 T2/318 T5/83.89

T6/427
SMR 23106 23041 Photographic G4.14

Historical The church and church-yard have Ecological The ecological importance of these
been investigated sufficiently to remains is unknown
demonstrate that nationally
important remains are present.
Architectural The pre-church enclosures are Education The pre-Church enclosures, visible
architecturally significant at a local to the layman, are regionally
level significant as an educational
resource
Cultural The cultural significance of these Landscape The pre-church enclosures are
remains is unknown. relatively insignificant as a
Landscape element in the North
Cornwall Coastal zone, and are thus
of only local significance
Esoteric The importance of these remains Museum The artefactual material in the
to esoteric thought is unknown enclosures particularly the post-
Roman Mediterranean material, is
likely to be of national imporatnce
Geological Community The community value of the

enclosures is unknown.
Policy
~ Tintagel Gazetteer
n Site Ref no 6
Site name Church and yard
Element Mounds
Description
7 or 8 mounds within enclosure, containing

graves 5th century onwards, with cross-
marked slate slabs. Some are post-
medieval rubbish dumps.
n
Photo used:
Phase Source N3/2-7,9-22 T1/103.105 T2/206.295-

6T6/430
SMR 23046 Photographic
Historical The mounds in the Churchyard, Ecological The ecological importance of these
containing post-Roman burials remains is unknown
contemporary with the post-Roman
occupation of Trintagel, are
nationally important for the
osteological evidence they include.
Architectural These remains have local Education The educational value of the mounds
architectural sugnificance. in the churchyard is lielyto be of
regional significance.
r*\
Cultural The cultural significance of these Landscape The mounds are only locally
remains is unknown. significant as landscape elements.
Esoteric The importance of these remains Museum The artefactual collections form the
to esoteric thought is unknown mounds in the Churchyard,
particularly the post-Roman
Mediterranean material, is an
internationally important resource.
Geological Community The community value of the

churchyard mounds is unknown.
Policy
O Site Ref no 7
Site name Paths
Element Hollow-way
Description
Holloways from Pre-church Enclosure to

site of Lower Ward
n
Photo used:
Phase 3 Source T1/105
SMR Photographic
Historical These hollow-ways, possibly Ecological The ecological importance of these
originating in the post-Roman remains is unknown
period, are judged nationally
significant as few pre-Medieval
tracks survive
Architectural Education The hollow-way from Church to

Castle and linking the two is a
regionally significant educational
resource.
n
Cultural Landscape The hollow-way is locally significant
as a landscape element
Esoteric Museum Any artefactual remains from the

hollow-way are locally significant
PP5.1
Policy
n Site Ref no 8
Site name Valley
Element Buried bldg
Description
At fork of access road, where it divides to

go to Cafe and Haven to E of stream.
Outline visible.
n
Photo used:
Phase 3? Source
SMR Photographic
Historical This possible buried building may Ecological
be post-Roman iun date - if so it
would like all the other partly
disturbed post-Roman sites, be of
national importance.
Architectural These remains have local Education This putative buried building ,
architectural significance. particularly post-Roman artefacts,
would be nationally significant
n
Cultural Landscape The buried building is locally
significant as a landscape element
Esoteric Museum The buried building currently has no

museum/archive value
Policy
n Site Ref no 9
Site name Great Ditch
Element Ditch
Description
Deepened and widened geological fault. S

limit of Phase 3 site. Re-cut 13th century for
Castle defence. Exc by Radford 1938 and
1956.
Photo used: UW03
Phase Source H2/11,13,24-5 R2/7 R4/34T1/25.58

9 T6/429
SMR Photographic GD01.GD02, UW03

Historical The Great Ditch is likely to be Post- Ecological The Ditch contains plants of regional
Roman in origin - it would be one significance
of very few such defensive works
known from this period and closely
associated with all the other Post-
Roman remains - hence nationally
significant
Architectural The Great Ditch is considered Education The Ditch is regionally significant as
regionally significant because of an educational resource, for both
the scarcity of parallels at other history and geology/ecology and
sites landscape
Cultural The Great Ditch is locally significant Landscape The Ditch is regionally significant as
a landscape element
Esoteric The importance of these remains Museum The artefactual collections form the
to esoteric thought is unknown Great Ditch , particularly the post-
Roman Mediterranean material, is an
Geological The Ditch is judged geologically Community

regionally significant, as it exploits
and reveals natural faulting
Policy
Tintagel Gazetteer
SiteRefno 10
Site name Great Ditch
Element Interior bank
Description
2.5m broad. S Curtain Wall of Lower Ward

built on top of it.
Photo used: LW03
Phase Source R2/7 R4/34
SMR Photographic LW03

Historical The interior Bank of the Great Ecological The remains have no intrinsic
Ditch is nationally important for the ecological importance, but do have
same reasons as the Great Ditch - regionally important plants in the
as monumental remains of the vicinity
post-Roman period of the site
Architectural The bank of the ditch is locally Education This feature is locally significant as
significant as an architectural an educational resource
feature
~
Cultural These remains have no cultural Landscape The feature is locally significant as a
significance landscape element
Esoteric Museum The artefactual collections form the

Bank, particularly the post-Roman
Mediterranean material, is an
Policy
~
Site Ref no 11
Site name Upper Ward
Element Summary
Description
Built on terraced surface. Cleared by

Ministry of Works 1930s.
Photo used: UW02
Phase 3? Source M7R5/16R9/9T1/58
SMR 23165.32 Photographic UW02

Historical The Upper Ward of the Castle of Ecological The remains have no intrinsic
Richard of Cornwall are judged to ecological importance, but do have
be nationally significant on historic regionally important plants in the
grounds in recognition of the vicinity
liklihood that Richard's motivation
in building a castle of this type in
this place was a propaganda
exercise seeking sta
Architectural The remains of the castle are, on a Education The Upper ward is internationally
strictly architectural basis, of significant as an educational
regional or perhaps national resource - for archaeology, history,
importance because they are an esoteric thought, legends and myths
attempt to translate an ideal of the
~
past into a structure
Cultural The Upper Ward is considered to Landscape The Upper ward is internationally
be nationally significant for its significant as a landscape element
cultural associations -Earl Richard for both history/archaeology and its
and the legendary King Arthur mythic asscoiations
Esoteric Museum The artefactual collections (and the

fabric) is an internationally significant
resource
Geological Community This feature is of value to the local

community
Arch2.2, Arch2.3, PP3.3, LD4.1,

Policy PHS2, Con2.2, Con7.1
~
Tintagel Gazetteer
SiteRefno 12
Element Curtain walls
Description
Base part of curved SE wall is post-Roman

defence? E and SE curtain walls with
parapet, wall-walk and steps built 13th
century.Part of E wall and W wall built 14th
century? Consolidated 1930s. W wall
recently rebuilt.
Photo used: G2.13
Phase 3? Source R5/5,13,16 R9/5.17-21 T1/62
SMR Photographic UW03, UW05; G1.6, G1.11, G2.13 ,

References References G2.18, G2.22, G3.10, G4.2
Historical The Upper Ward Curtain Walls of Ecological
the Castle of Richard of Cornwall
are judged to be nationally
significant on historic grounds in
recognition of the liklihood that
Richard's motivation in building a
castle of this type in this place was
a propaganda exerci
Architectural The remains of the castle are, on a Education The Curtain Walls are a nationally
strictly architectural basis, of important educational resource,
regional or perhaps national particularly for history and
importance because they are archaeology of both post-Roman and
neither particularly unusual or well- Medieval periods
preserved
Cultural The Curtain Walls are a locally Landscape The Curtain Walls are a nationally
significant cultural resource significant as a landscape element,
for history/archaeology and for their
mythic associations
Esoteric The importance of these remains Museum The Curtain walls have a more
to esoteric thought is unknown limited museum significance - of
regional importance
Arch2.2, Arch2.3, PP3.3, LD4.1,

~
Tintagel Gazetteer
SiteRefno 13
Site name Lower Ward
Element gatehouse
Description
Walls of pre-Castle structure under

Guardroom. Originally had 2-leaved gate
with draw-bar. Chamber over originally
entered from S curtain wall-walk and Upper
Ward. Buttressed 14th century. Paver
1990s.
Photo used: LW08
Phase 3? Source R5/13.15 R8 R9/17 PROE120/1

PROE101/461/11 PROWORK14/859
SMR Photographic LW01, LW08, G4.3
Historical The gatehouse of the Lower Ward Ecological
of the Castle of Richard of
Cornwall are judged to be
nationally significant on historic
grounds in recognition of the
this place was a propaganda exe
Architectural The remains of the castle are, on a Education The gatehouse is an internatioonally
strictly architectural basis, of significant educational resource
regional or perhaps national because of the myhtic connections
importance because they are as well as the historical /
neither particularly unusual or well- archaeological remains
preserved
Cultural The gatehouse is considered to Landscape The gatehouse is regionally
have international cultural significant as a landscape element
significance because of its role in
the legends of Arthur and
Tristan/lseult
Esoteric The gatehouse is considered to Museum The Gatehouse is locally significant

have international cultural for its potential museum collections
significance because of its role in
the legends of Arthur and
Tristan/lseult
Geological Community This feature is of value to the local

community
Arch2.2, Arch2.3, PP3.3,

Policy PP4.1,PP5,1, LD1.1, LD3.2, LD4.1,
Con7.1
Tintagel Gazetteer
n SiteRefno 14
Site name Terraces below Lower ward
Element
Description
3 Terraces on NE slope below Lower Ward

above EH shop. Post-Roman occupation
inc oven and hearths exc by CAU 1986
n
Photo used:
Phase 3 Source H9/13-19T1/77-8T6/425
SMR Photographic
Historical The Terraces below the Lower Ecological
Ward are supposed to be post-
Roman iin date, mainland parallels
for sites A-H on the Island; and are
on this basis judged to be
nationally important.
Architectural The terraces (if post-Roman Education The Terraces are a nationally
building sites) are locally significant important educational resource,
because they preserve structural particularly for history and
and artefactual evidence of the archaeology of both post-Roman and
post-Roman period. Medieval periods
n
Cultural Landscape The feature is locally significant as a
landscape element
Esoteric Museum The Terraces below the Lower Ward

potentially contain artefact
collections and structural remains of
international significance
Policy
~ Site Ref no 15
Site name Island
Element Summary
Description
Plateau 60m above sea level; 4.5 ha. A

small field system on W side (post-Roman)
Let for grazing and rabbit warren 13th
century to c1930.
Photo used:
Phase 3? 5 Source C2/22,25,28-9,33,41,43,79,111

H1/191 L2/64.83 M1/202-3,268
SMR 23165 Photographic G1.5, G1.12, G2.1.G2.6, G2.7,
References References G2.8, G2.9, G3.6, G3.22, G3.25,
Historical The island ward of the Castle of Ecological The Island as a whole is
Richard of Cornwall are judged to internationally significant for the
be nationally significant on historic ecology present
grounds in recognition of the
this place was a propaganda
exercise seeking st
Architectural The island as a whole is nationally Education The Island as a whole is

significant for the architectural internationally significant as an
remains present - particulary the educational resource - for geology,
Post-Roman remains ecology, history, architecture,
landscape etc
~
Cultural The Island as a whole is Landscape The Island as a whole is

internationally important for its internationally significant as an
cultural associations - particularly educational resource - for geology,
the mythic links to Arthur ecology, history, architecture,
landscape etc
Esoteric The Island as a whole is Museum The Island as a whole is
internationally significant for the internationally significant for the
many mythic links to Arthur and Museum collections derived from it -
Arthurian esoterica particularly the Post-Roman remains
Geological The Island is regionally significant Community

for the geologic out-croppings
LD2.2, LD2.3, LD3.1

Policy
~
Tintagel Gazetteer
n SiteRefno 16
Site name Iron Gate
Element A-frame sockets
Description
2 deep square hollows cut into natural slate

rock shelf. Base for A-frame unloading jib.
n
Photo used:
Phase 3? 5? Source T1/43
SMR Photographic
Historical These survivng traces of the Ecological The site of the sockets is on a bare
means of importing material from rock slab, but internationally
the Mediterranean during the sub- significant plants are located in the
Roman period are clearly of close vicinity
international significance
Architectural Architecturally, these sockets are Education The A-frame sockets are regionally
of nil significance significant educational resources
n
Cultural Landscape
Esoteric The importance of these remains Museum The A-frame sockets are, at best,
to esoteric thought is unknown (or locally significant museum resources
negligible)
Policy
n SiteRefno 17
Site name Medieval Features
Element Well 2
Description
Well to NE of Garden. Covered with

corbelled roof; rock-cut steps lead to water.
r^
Photo used:
Phase 3? Source R5/25R6/415
SMR Photographic
Historical This well, part of the Post-Roman Ecological These remainsn have no intrinsic
occupation of the site, is of local ecological importance
significance
Architectural As a natural feature this has local Education The well is regionally significant as
architectural significance an educational resource
n Cultural Landscape The feature is locally significant as a

landscape element
Esoteric The importance of these remains Museum This well is regionally significance for
to esoteric thought is negligible its museum collections
Policy
~
Site Ref no 18
Site name Site A
Element Site A
Description
Large group of stone-walled structures in

SE part of Island plateau by Chapel. 4
phases within group. Exc and reconstructed
by Radford 1930s.
Photo used:
Phase 2? 3 Source D1/10 R1/18 R5/28 R6/404.409-

13,417 T1/70T6/427
SMR 23165.41 Photographic SA01, SA02; G1.22, G1.23, G2.2,
References References G3.7, G4.23, G4.24
Historical This site contains structural, Ecological This site contains nationally
artefactual and environmental significant plant species
remains of the sub-Roman period;
this plus the chronological
connection connections to the
period of a King Arthur, makes this
site nationally significant
Architectural The Post-Roman building renmains Education This site is internationally important
are considered to be of limited as an educational resource for
significance architecturally archaeolo9gy, history, trade,
because of the doubts concerning ecology, geology, and landscape
their authenticity after radford's studies
reconstruction work.
Cultural Landscape This site, placed as it was, makes a

positive contribution to the
landscape and is judged to be
nationally significant
Esoteric The importance of these remains Museum The site is internationally significant
to esoteric thought is unknown for the Museum collections derived
from it - particularly the Post-Roman
remains
Arch2.2, PP3.3, LD4.1, LD4.2,

Policy Con2.2
~
Tintagel Gazetteer
~
Site Ref no 19
Site name Site B
Element Site B
Description
Large group of stone-walled structures on E

side of Island on 2 terraces. Roof-beam
sockets in cliff-face. Exc and reconstructed
by Radford 1930s.
Photo used: SB01
Phase 3? Source D1/12 R2/16R5/23 R6/414-15 T1/70

T6/427
SMR 23165.42 Photographic SB01, SB02, SB03, G3.2, G3.3, G4.6

site nationally significant
~
Cultural Landscape This site, placed as it was, makes a

positive contribution to the
Arch2.2, PP3.3, LD4.1, LD4.2,

Policy Con2.2
-
Site Ref no 20
Site name Site E
Element Site E
Description
Group of stone-walled structures adjacent

to Garden. Exc and reconstructed by
Radford.
Photo used: G3.18
Phase 3? Source R5/26R6/414
SMR 23165.45 Photographic G3.18

site internationally significant
~
Cultural The cultural significance of these Landscape This site, placed as it was, makes a
remains is unknown. positive contribution to the
remains
Arch2.2 PP3.3, LD4.1.LD4.2,

Policy Con2.2
Tintagel Gazetteer
Site Ref no 21
Site name Site F
Element Site F
Description

of Island on 2 terraces. Stone drains. Exc
and reconstructed by Radford.
Photo used: SF02
Phase 3? Source D1/12 R1/19 R2/14 R5/22
SMR 23165.46 Photographic SF01, SF02, SF03, SF04, G3.16

Historical This site contains structural, Ecological
artefactual and environmental
~
remains
Arch2.2, PP3.3, LD4.1.LD4.2,

Policy Con2.2
~
Tintagel Gazetteer
Site Ref no 22
Site name Site G
Element SiteG
Description

of Island on 1 terrace. Series of small
rectangular cells. Exc and reconstructed by
Radford 1930s.
Photo used: SG01
Phase 3? Source R5/25
SMR 23165.47 Photographic SG01.SG02

~
remains
Arch2.2, PP3.3, LD4.1, LD4.2,

Policy Con2.2
~
Tintagel Gazetteer
n Site Ref no 23
Site name Site H
Element SiteH
Description

of Island on 1 terrace. Exc by Radford: trial
trenches but no clearance.
r\
Photo used:
Phase 3? Source H5
SMR Photographic
Architectural The Post-Roman building remains Education This site is internationally important
significance architecturally. archaeolo9gy, history, trade,
ecology, geology, and landscape
studies
n
remains
Arch2.2, PP3.3, LD4.1,LD4.2,

Policy Con2.2
~
Site Ref no 24
Site name Burnt Area
!»*?
Element Turf bothies
Description
Exposed by 1983 fire. Revegetated 1985

with WB by CAU. Small square turf-walled
structures. Temporary bivouacs? Stake-
hole clusters. Foundations of many more
structures
Photo used: G3.24
Phase 3'.' Source T1/91-2 T8/8T1/76.78 T6/427
SMR Photographic G3.24

Historical The Turf bothies are internationally Ecological The Turf bothies have little intrinsic
significant for their historical ecological interest - but the turf
asscoiations contains nationally important plants
Architectural The Turf Bothies are locally Education The Turf Bothies constitute an
significant for architecture internationally significant educational
resource.
Cultural The cultural significance of these Landscape The feature is locally significant as a
remains is unknown. landscape element
to esoteric thought is unknown (or for the Museum collections derived
negligible) from it - particularly the Post-Roman
remains
Geological Community This has no intrinsic community

significance
Con5.1
Policy
n Site Ref no 25
Site name Burnt Area
Element Ewk structures
Description
Collapsed turf structures, or medieval pillow-

mounds?
n
Photo used:
Phase 3? Source R5/27 T1/60
SMR Photographic
Architectural The earthwork structures in the Education The earthwork structures constitute
Burnt area have very limited an internationally significant
significance due to poor educational resource.
preservation.
n
Cultural The cultural significance of these Landscape The feature is locally significant as a
remains is unknown. landscape element
remains
Policy
~
Site Ref no 26
Site name Island
Element Arthur's Footprint
Description
Enhanced natural foot-shaped hollow on S

side of Island. Royal inauguration place?
Shown by 19th-century guides.
Photo used: Arthurs footprint'
Phase r> Source 5/14, T1/49.98
SMR Photographic 'Arthur's footprint'

Historical This feature is nationally historical Ecological The site has little intrinsic ecological
significant both for Arthurian interest - buth the turf downslope
coinnections and as a possible and in the 'Burnt Area' contains
example f a Celtic royal nationally important plants
innauguration element
Architectural This natural (?) feature has no Education The Footprint, as a site of Kingship
architectural significance inauguration and with the ecological
attributes, is a regionally significant
educatiinal resource
~
Cultural The cultural significance of these Landscape
remains is unknown.
Esoteric The importance of these remains Museum The Footprint has no associated
to esoteric thought is internationally artefacts but may itself as an artefact
significant be considered locally significant
Policy
~
Tintagel Gazetteer
n Site Ref no 27
Site name Settlement
Element Summary
Description
Consists of Sites A-H, Burnt Area, South

Terrace, Iron Gate, Terraces below Lower
Ward, Buried building by road. Some
excavated and reconstructed by Radford.
Phase of most structures unknown.
n
Photo used:
Phase Source R2/8R5/6T14/18
SMR 23165.2 23165. Photographic

Historical The post-Roman sites in summary Ecological Many of the settlement site remains
must be considered internationally include nationally significant plants.
significant due to their links to King
Arthur as well as their
straightforward
archaeological/historical importance
Architectural The post-Roman sites in summary Education The Settlement remains are an
must be considered internationally internationally important educational
significant due to their links to King resource for history, archaeology,
Arthur as well as their ecology and landscape
archaeological / historical
n importance, but architecturally they
are locally important.
Cultural The post_Roman settlement Landscape This site, placed as it was, makes a
remains taken as a whole are positive contribution to the
internationally significant as a landscape and is judged to be
cultural resource - both for nationally significant
history/archaeology and for mythic
links to Arthur
Esoteric These settlement remains, Museum The post-Roman settlements as a

chronologically contemporary with whole is internationally significant for
an Arthur, are by extension the Museum collections derived from
internationally significant for their it - particularly the Post-Roman
links to esoterica. remains
Arch2.2, PP3.3, LD4.1.LD4.2,

Policy Con2.2
Site Ref no 28
Site name Medieval Features
Element Chapel
Description
Rectangular post-Roman building 13.5m x

5.3m, adapted as a Chapel 11th century.
Stone altar with granite slab. Dedicated to
St Julitta/St Juliane/Sanctum Hulanum.
Chantry chapel in castle 14th century.
Ruined 16th century. Exc by Rev Wilkinson
1855.
Photo used:
Phase Source A2/14-15C2/21.29H1/191 J1/195

L2/64M1/201 R2/9R5/13,27-8
SMR 23165.55 Photographic SA04, SA05
Historical The chapel is pre-Norman in origin Ecological The site has little intrinsic ecological
and is surrounded by sub-Roman interest - buth the turf contains
remains - it must on strictly regionally important plants
archaeological basis be
internationally significant
Architectural The Chapel, as a pre-Norman Education The Chapel and underlying

structure later adapted as a chapel, Settlement remains are an
is a nationally significant internationally important educational
architectural element resource for history, archaeology,
ecology and landscape
~
Cultural The Chapel achieves international Landscape This site, placed as it was, makes a
cultural significance due to it's role positive contribution to the
in the legends of Arthur and landscape and is judged to be
Tristan/lseult nationally significant
Esoteric The Chapel achieves international Museum The chapel is internationally

significance in esoteric thought due significant for the Museum
to it's role in the legends of Arthur collections derived from it -
and Tristan/lseult particularly the Post-Roman and
Medieval remains
Policy
~
Tintagel Gazetteer
D Site Ref no 29
Site name Artefacts
Element Post-Roman
Description
5th and 6th century imported East

Mediterranean pottery: amphorae Bi, Bii,
Biv, Bv, ARSW, PRSW. 5th and 6th century
vessel glass. Found on Island and in
Churchyard.
n
Photo used:
Phase Source
SMR Photographic
Historical The post- (or sub-) Roman Ecological The remains have no intrinsic
artefacts, occurring on this site in ecological importance
greater numbers than any other UK
site, and derived from all over
Europe and the Mediterranaean,
are internationally significant.
Architectural Education The post- (or sub-) Roman artefacts,

are internationally significant as
educational resources for
archaeology and history
n
Cultural The post- (or sub-) Roman Landscape The post- (or sub-) Roman artefacts,
artefacts, are internationally are nationally significant as
significant cultural resources in landscape elements
archaeological / historical terms
and also for their links to myths
and legends
Esoteric The post- (or sub-) Roman Museum The post- (or sub-) Roman artefacts,
artefacts, are internationally are internationally significant as
significant for their links to myths museum resources for archaeology
and legends of Arthur, Tristan, and and history
Arthurian esoterica
Arch2.5
Policy
~ Site Ref no 30
Element Structure in Upper Ward
Description
Irregular chambers with thick eastern walls,

of uncertain date. Reconstructed by
Radford 1930s.
Photo used: UW02
Phase Source R9/9.19-21
SMR Photographic UW02

Historical The Structures in the Upper Ward Ecological The ecological importance of these
if part of the post-Roman remains is unknown
settlement on the Headland, are
internationally significant in
and also for their links to myths
and legends
Architectural The Structures in the Upper Ward Education The structures in the Upper Ward
if part of the post-Roman are nationally significant as an
settlement on the Headland, are educational resource
nationally significant for their
architecture and also in
~
Cultural The Structures in the Upper Ward Landscape The Structures in the Upper Ward
are internationally significant are regionally significant as
cultural resources in archaeological landscape elements
/ historical terms and also for their
links to myths and legends
Esoteric The Structures in the Upper Ward Museum The structures in the Upper Ward
are internationally significant for contain potentially nationally
their links to myths and legends of significant museum resources
Arthur, Tristan, and Arthurian
esoterica
Geological Community The Structures in the Upper Ward

have an unknown community value
Arch2.2, Arch2.3, PP3.3, LD4.1,

~
Tintagel Gazetteer

Tintagel Conservation Management Plan 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tintagel Conservation Management Plan 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TINTAGEL CASTLE

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

Report No: 3163.R02

Report Number 3163.R02

Report Status Rev. 26/09/2013

Prepared by: Gerry Wait Date: 26/09/13

Checked by: Anthony Martin / Gerry Wait Date: 16/10/2013

Approved by: Win Scutt Date: 22/09/14

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

Lancelot is fallen … The ardent helms that shone

Where do the vanes and towers of Camelot

And Guinevere – Call her not back again

Nor pry too deeply, lest you should discover

And all that coloured tale a tapestry

This: That when Rome fell, like a writhen oak

Which was the spirit of Britain – that certain men

And charged into the storm’s black heart, with sword

And made of them a legend, to their chief,

They were so few … We know not in what manner

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

FRANCIS BRETT YOUNG

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

1.1. The Scope of the Plan

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

1.3. Current Ownerships

The ownerships and statutory protections are illustrated on Figure 1.

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

1.5. The Consultation Process

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

Nexus Heritage review conducted by Dr Gerry Wait

The Structure of the Conservation Plan Report

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

2.2. Towards a Sequence of Interpretations

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

Watching brief along the path to the Iron Gate 2006

2.3. The History of the Landscape Setting based on Current Information

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

2.4. Interrogative Themes at Tintagel

2.4.1. The Prehistoric Periods (Phase 1)

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

2.5. Tintagel’s Role in Literature and the Arts

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

2.5.7. Modern Archaeological and Historical Research

2.7. Tourism Issues

2.7.2. The National Trust

2.7.3. North Cornwall Coast Path

2.7.4. King Arthur’s Castle Hotel

2.7.5. King Arthur’s Hall of Chivalry

2.7.6. The Impact of Tourism on the Local Area

2.7.7. Visitor Surveys

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

25 Path from 24 eastwards to Site A (18). Description as above.

28 Path from Garden to Site A – not visible summer 2000

30 Eastern variant parallel with 29. Not very worn in 2000

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan

3.2. Categories of Evidence

3163 Tintagel Castle Nexus Heritage Review of Conservation Management Plan