jimit

When Hampshire Treasures describe this as “overgrown” they’re not joking! The site of the barrow is easily seen from the road as it is crowned by Yew trees.Closer to, it seems to be surrounded by a very overgrown hedge but after struggling through this it becomes apparent that it is Ivy clad scrub growing on the outside and partly down the very well defined ditches. The barrow itself is the shortest “Long” barrow I’ve seen and has a very dumpy appearance, however its actual outline is difficult to determine as the Yews are falling over, re-layering and/or rotting and there are huge mounds of fresh chalk everywhere caused by active badger setts. The ditches are heavily weed infested and a winter visit left me picking burrs out of my clothes for some time.
What does one do about a site like this? Clear it of the untidy scrub and dead trees and restore it to some of the majesty it had when first constructed or leave it to gently decay and remain the undoubted wild-life sanctuary it surely has become?

Disabled: Parking on small verge just off the road. Walk up-hill on very deeply rutted track (Much used by off-roaders while I was there), locked farm gate, ploughed field, many brambles and much scrub and uneven ground.

A really impressive barrow indeed. While not as long as Knap Barrow next door, it is much higher and quite overwhelms close to. Very well preserved with a remarkably smooth outline like a large whale breaking the surface. Interesting that its orientation is almost at right-angles to its companion. Mostly clear of scrub growth although it is encroaching from the north.
Disabled: As Knap although both would be accessible by a 4x4. Open farm gate.

A unassuming little stone just over a metre high marking the tip of a point where the Wilts boundary takes dog-tooth shaped bite out of Hants. Grim’s Ditch1 mile to the NE points directly to this stone but to the NW seems to want nothing to do with it. Marked with an Ordnance Survey carving and accompanied by a small Victorian concrete boundary (?) post. The stone itself seems to be of the generic “Sarsen” type so was probably moved some distance.

Disabled: Approach by car along a flat, slightly rutted track (care in very wet weather) and park next to stone on grassy triangle without blocking the tracks. Access to Grans Barrow and Knap Barrow is best attempted from here for the more mobile.

This has several similarities to the West Kennet Long Barrow. For a start, a slow climb up the hill with the barrow invisible until the last moment, then its length is comparable, being only a few metres shorter and its orientation as (very!) roughly E/W. No stones unfortunately, only a little Victorian concrete post at the E end. The condition is good with none of the mutilation seen at the WKLB evident. Only one worry is that the track to the S. beloved of off-roaders, is not fenced off and is perilously close. A small amount of scrub clearance at the W end would be an improvement. Wide views to the N and prominent tumuli on the skyline to the S. Grans Barrow is very close by. A fine and well preserved site but very exposed in winter gales as I found out!

Disabled: Longish walk up hill in rutted and grassy track if approaching from the Sarsen stone. Note.. Take the left track of the two going south.

“.......As for this site (PRN 2064), we have recorded it as a folly on the SMR. A primary source is the Country Life article, May 7, 1981. Apparently the chapel was built over the original site of the circle; the circle was first reconstructed in C17. Re-erected in 1981 “as near as possible in its original formation.” There are additional sources within the SMR which you are welcome to consult during opening hours by appointment.”

County Sites and Monuments Record Officer
Central Library, Westgate
Oxford OX1 1DJ
01865 810825

Does this site now class as a modern folly, a very curious C17 re-working of a Neolithic site or a semi-faithful reconstruction of a destroyed monument?

I can only leave it to the Eds to decide whether this should remain on TMA. My own feeling is that it should remain if only to show the curious cheek by jowl jostling of different beliefs.
One wonders whether they would allow a Druid ceremony to be held there...........?

Barrow-like mound surmounted by a yew tree at ST052214. {1}

The mound is circular, although slightly truncated at its N side. E-W diameter is 9m, N-S diameter 7m and c1.25m high. The centre of the mound is about 17m due S of the E wall of the chancel. It is crowned by a massive yew stool with a number of trunks and is clearly very old. {2}

NGR should be ST052213. {3}

Very doubtful. {4}

References:
1 Mention – Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society Aston, M 1976 “Somerset Archaeology 1974-5” vol 120, 71
2 Personal communication – Burrow, I SCPD 07.03.84
3 Detailed records – Ordnance Survey Archaeology Division 1976 ST02SE(M) SCPD
4 Mention – Quinell, NV quoted in Grinsell, LV “Somerset Barrows: revisions 1971-87” Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 131 (1987), 22.

Record created by:
Ian Burrow in March 1984

© Copyright Somerset County Council 2003

The authenticity of the mound as a barrow is in question.
With thanks to the Somerset Museums Service for their help.

Class 1 henge monument of single causeway type consisting of a circular rock-cut ditch with an external rampart of earth and stones, enclosing a flat central area without any form of upright. The causeway is to the N. The ditch varied in width from 12ft to 21ft and 4-9ft deep. The NE and SW segments yielded evidence of Beaker occupation. This was separated from the ditch bottom by a barren yellow clay silt layer. In two places a platform of closely packed stones was interposed between the clay and beaker deposit, which consisted of dirty rubble, charcoal, hearths etc. Finds from this deposit included 4,000 flint flakes and implements, pottery of A-C beaker type (including rusticated ware) representing at least 100+ beakers, a few sherds of Neolithic “B” ware and large quantities of animal bones, mainly domestic. No evidence was found of stone or post holes, walling or any other structural remains. Two hypotheses can be suggested – the monument may be attributed to the grooved ware or “B” beaker group, or the A.C. beaker folk for whom the ditch held no significance. {1}

The beaker burial and occupation deposits had radio-carbon date centring on 1900-1700bc. {6}

The henge is set on a gentle E-facing slope to the W of Long Wood, in improved pasture. Condition is generally good except for three hawthorn trees growing in the ditch. {7}

The majority of the archives and finds were destroyed in the Second World War. {8}

The monument is in a generally satisfactory condition with no evidence of damage by grazing cattle. {9}

References:
1 Excavation report – PUBSS Jones, S.J 1935 “...Excavations at Gorsey Bigbury...” vol. 4(3), 174-8
2 Excavation report – PUBSS Jones, S.J et al 1938 “The Excavation of Gorsey Bigbury” vol. 5(1), 3-56
3 Excavation report – PUBSS ApSimon A.M 1951 “Gorsey Bigbury: The Second Report” vol. 6(2), 186-200
4 Detailed records – Ordnance Survey Archaeology Division 1966 ST45NE15 SCPD
5 Excavation report – PUBSS Tratman, E.K 1966 “Gorsey Bigbury...Third Report” vol. 11, 25-30
6 Description – PUBSS ApSimon A.M 1976 “Gorsey Bigbury...dating...” vol. 14(2), 155-183
7 Personal communication – Burrow, I SCPD (13.09.82)
8 Archive – UBSSM
9 Detailed records – Field Monument Warden’s report (22.4.1998) in HER files

Record created by:
Ian Burrow in September 1982

© Copyright Somerset County Council 2003

(Edited) With thanks to the Somerset Museums Service for their help.

“The stone circle is of comparatively recent construction, but of stones found in the vicinity which correspond in type to a cornerstone underpinning the medieval chapel here. By implication these stones were part of a much older pre-Christian circle which was located where the Chapel now is. As you know it was frequently the habit in medieval time to “claim” a pagan circle for Christianity by including a stone in the foundations for the new christian chapel.“.....“Stones have been re-located here in the last 30 years or so, I believe”

With many thanks to John Weaver, Administrator of the Stonor Estate for these observations.

The Estate re-opens in the Spring so any investigations as to stone type and source must wait till then.

stonor.com/

Curious that this site is not better known as it is at a very public location. Stonor Park is visited by thousands but on the web site no mention is made of this Neolithic(?) monument. The circle is right next door to the Catholic Chapel and does one sense a touch of embarrassment?
I visited this site a huge number of years ago(I used to knock around with one of the younger sons of the family) so the memory is a bit dim but I remember an earthwork and several standing stones. There is a small image available on the Google search but it’s not much help.
I tried trawling through Oxfordshire CC’s Web but couldn’t find much, perhaps someone knows the right site to go to for more information.
Some pics would surely bring this circle back to the prominence it deserves.

As Grrr notes this is all occupied by a very smart stud farm but a footpath skirts the N side and views of the ramparts can be seen from here. Following the side road signposted to the church, much better views can be had of the S side.

Disabled: Parking might be possible at the stud farm (Please ask) and part of the N part is circled by a flat path with wide views to the N. To the S, parking is possible where the road branches to the church (is this area private?) but the road is steep.

What a busy little bit of Hampshire this is! The Counties of Dorset and Wiltshire meet, the Dorset Cursus approaches from the SW,the Ditch(Dyke?) forms the boundary in association with Grim’s Ditch, a Long Barrow, tumuli and enclosures and a finely prominent aggar of the Roman Road.
A short walk SE shows that the earthwork is still very well defined and preserved, on the NE(Hants) side a deep ditch, on the SW(Dorset) side a smallish bank, Which was the defended side? Grim’s Ditch marks the boundary of a vast Bronze Age ranch so it would be nice to know which earthwork came first.

Disabled: Difficult from where I parked in the lay-by on the A354. However, my old map didn’t show the new parking area shown on Streetmap. Where I walked was flat but bumpy.

Couldn’t see this at first as the approach to the top of this bare and almost flat topped ridge hides it from view. Once there however it’s quite rewarding, a sinuous ditch with banks in places, sometimes climbing gently up the hill or following the contours where the ditch becomes a flat path with the natural steepness of the hill on one side and a smaller bank accentuating the drop on the other. From looking at this very short section it’s impossible to say whether it was built to keep raiders out, stock in or a huge statement of property ownership. Was it pallisaded? It seems unlikely as maintenance and patrol of this vast ranch boundary would tax even a modern stock farmer.

(“Soldiers Ring” ESE, marked by a prominent clump of trees, is Roman)

Disabled: Parking available up a cobbled road, right next to a gate. Gentle slope on grazed turf to top from where some of the ditch can be seen. Extensive views.

An Iron Age Fort, roughly oval in plan but associated with several Bronze Age earthworks.

An example of a Bronze Age boundary ditch still marking the border between two counties, Hants and Wilts. More obvious to the SW where Bokerley Dyke and the Grim’s Ditch serve the same purpose. What is more startling about this area is the disparity between the concentration of ancient sites either side of the dividing line. To the W. a huge number of tumuli and earthworks, to the E. none at all! The landscape is of similar form and there is no large physical barrier such as a river to provide a logical boundary. A line drawn between two tribes of dissimilar wealth?

This is but a very short section of the remains of a massive earthwork which encloses much of this part of Hampshire. The County boundary still follows the course of this dyke (although not here) which gives western Hampshire a huge penninsular of land which juts into Wiltshire and Dorset. Part of the W boundary is defined by the Bokerley Dyke and a short stretch by a Roman road. Much of the Dyke consists of twin banks with a ditch between. The area enclosed is about 16 sq.miles in extent and deliniates a large ranch belonging to the Middle/Late Bronze Age.

Pevsner/Lloyd (Hampshire & the Isle of Wight) mention that in the 1960s, an excavation near the N defences found the plan of a circular wooden house 25ft in diameter. Pottery dated it to Iron Age B cultures. The site was occupied in the Mesolithic and Roman periods.

Two large ramparts and outer ditches with a counterscarp on the northern half. The fort covers about 16 acres and is Iron Age in date.