On then to Southside Mount, which in its day would have been much more than just a grass covered mound. Its proximity to beacon Hill means that it would have easily been seen from there. It too would also have had a view of the monolith at Rudston and like its neighbour opposite, its view is also obstructed by a copse of trees. To get there we had a short hike of not more than half a kilometre from the road. The mound was easily found with the help of our trusty OS map nestling in the middle of a fledgling potato field. I was glad we found it so easily, we dodged our way through the crops and clambered onto the grass covered dome. Someone had been there before us, doing what I don't know but the grass was all flattened so make your own conclusions.
After the disappointment of Rudston Beacon, Southside Mount is a real joy. Although badly ploughed over the years it is still an instantly recognisable barrow. It would be an ideal place to while away some time on a sunny summers day – there are some great views - however when I visited it, it was grey and raining and the trudge across the field (mind the pea crop!) certainly christened my new pair of baseball boots. Despite being soaked in rain and covered with mud I returned to the car with a broad smile and glad heart. Southside Mount - what a place :-)
Follow the Roman road from the Beacon and you'll be at Southside Mount in a few minutes. A Bridleway leads from the road right to it. When I first saw it I was pleased, as I had heard there was pretty much nothing to see, but there's still a modest hump left. From the barrow a good view would have been had of the Monolith and the Cursus snaking towards it, if it weren't for an annoyingly-placed copse. The rolling view, as from the Beacon, is fantastic, although shotgun fire brought on a sudden case of the paras and me and Yarky beat a hasty retreat to the Monolith.
A round barrow still extant as a substantial earthwork. It was excavated in the later 19th century by Greenwell, who described it as a mound 100 feet in diameter and 9 feet high and "formed entirely of chalk, with the exception of a layer of dark fatty earth which rested on the natural surface" and was 1 to 2.5 feet thick. It was thickest towards the centre, and extended across the whole of the area covered by the mound. It contained much burnt earth and charcoal, as well as numerous animal bones, potsherds and flints. The mound included or covered the remains of at least 23 interments. The only ones beneath the mound were a child and the remains of a young female in a wood-lined hollow in the natural surface roughly 7 feet north-northeast of the centre. Greenwell regarded this as the primary interment. All the other interments were within the mound, and were predominantly crouched or incomplete inhumations of Early Bronze Age date, associated items included whole or fragmentary Beakers and Food Vessels. A group of 5 male inhumations, at least 3 of which were extended, may have been of Anglo-Saxon date although this is incapable of proof. The date of the suggested primary interment and of the barrow's construction is unclear. Beaker and Food Vessel inhumations are clearly secondary, while leaf arrowheads are among the sizeable collection of material recovered from the mound.
As usual Julian seems to have all the info, where he gets it from I don’t know but anyway he says the barrow was originally around 9 feet high and 100 feet across. It was contained within an encircling ditch that has now been filled in, with a further square ditch beyond that.