Manton Down forum 2 room
Image by Chance
Manton Down

manton down longbarrow found!!!!!

close
more_vert
tiompan T
tiompan Jun 27, 2011 12:39:46
Replying to bladup

Someone posted this link , I think it was tjj but can't find the relevant post .http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-302-1/dissemination/pdf/disk8/fwp66/fwp66b.pdf

This points out that Barker is wrong and gives an accurate grid ref for the site of the barrow SU 1513 7140 this spot , now in the middle an arable field , has the barrow marked on all the old OS maps .The above also mentions that the remains of the barrow were taken to a site at SU 1478 7135 marked on earlier maps as a pit or chalk pit ,this looks like the site of the present pics and supports the conclusions of P.J. Fowler and tjj .

B bladup
bladup Jun 27, 2011 13:34:40
Replying to tiompan

tiompan wrote:
Someone posted this link , I think it was tjj but can't find the relevant post .http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-302-1/dissemination/pdf/disk8/fwp66/fwp66b.pdf

This points out that Barker is wrong and gives an accurate grid ref for the site of the barrow SU 1513 7140 this spot , now in the middle an arable field , has the barrow marked on all the old OS maps .The above also mentions that the remains of the barrow were taken to a site at SU 1478 7135 marked on earlier maps as a pit or chalk pit ,this looks like the site of the present pics and supports the conclusions of P.J. Fowler and tjj .

If this is true, it's still good that we know the position of the stones and the site, one day they may all come back together, it's very strange though as some of the stones are upright [without leaning on anything] in the ground , and they look like the old drawing, i didn't have this at the time to take the same angle, it is possible that they tried to put them as they where, as the plan from above matches as well, but old maps pretty much speak for themselves don't they, couldn't open the link above though, but thanks for the help.

B bladup
bladup Jun 27, 2011 13:36:57
Replying to tiompan

tiompan wrote:
Someone posted this link , I think it was tjj but can't find the relevant post .http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-302-1/dissemination/pdf/disk8/fwp66/fwp66b.pdf

This points out that Barker is wrong and gives an accurate grid ref for the site of the barrow SU 1513 7140 this spot , now in the middle an arable field , has the barrow marked on all the old OS maps .The above also mentions that the remains of the barrow were taken to a site at SU 1478 7135 marked on earlier maps as a pit or chalk pit ,this looks like the site of the present pics and supports the conclusions of P.J. Fowler and tjj .

If this is true, it's still good that we know the position of the stones and the site, one day they may all come back together, it's very strange though as some of the stones are upright [without leaning on anything] in the ground , and they look like the old drawing, i didn't have this at the time to take the same angle, it is possible that they tried to put them as they where, as the plan from above matches as well, but old maps pretty much speak for themselves don't they, couldn't open the link above though, but thanks for all the help. The place is still more impressive than my photos show though.