Chance

Details of Earthwork on Pastscape Pastscape

[ST 7725 6085] Earthwork [GT] A roughly quadrilateral shaped enclosure, with rounded corners, at Hayes Wood, Freshford, was excavated by Stone and Wicks in 1934, four cuttings being made. Only the eastern side, consisting of a ditch (cut out of solid rock) and outside bank remains, but most of the rest of the silted-up ditch can be traced. A simple entrance is on the east side.
The enclosure, possibly a cattle kraal, is dated by the pottery to the Early Iron Age, between the 4th and 1st centuries B.C with an apparent Belgic occupation up to 50.70 A.D., the whole occupation possibly continuous. An isolated R.B. cooking pot of 3rd c. A.D. was also found whilst flint imps. and four sherds of pottery pre-dating the enclosure may be Early Bronze Age or earlier and Neolithic ‘B’ respectively. [See AO/61/234/5]
The east end of this enclosure falls within woodland and survives, but all certain traces of its continuation in the field to the west have been destroyed by ploughing. Surveyed at 1.2500. (3) The western portion of the enclosure is visible as cropmarks on aerial photographs taken June 24th 2003. (4)

Details of site on Pastscape Pastscape

(Area: ST 568583) An IA/RB agricultural settlement of some 15 acres was excavated between 1953-55 by E. Greenfield at Herriotts Bridge. The site, on land sloping from SW to NE, comprised two 10 acre fields which lay between the West Harptree – Bishop Sutton Road and Stratford Lane.
The earliest finds from the site are a number of NE/BA patinated flints. They are not suggestive of settled prehistoric occupation.
The excavation revealed a complex system of drainage ditches whose purpose was both domestic and agricultural. Many post holes were found and although no distinct timber house or hut plan was identified the various post hole groups suggest that there were habitation structures as well as supports for corn drying racks etc. Two enclosures were found in the SW half of the site. A large triangular cattle pen was of the 2nd c. and, to the south, was a 3rd/4th c. pen probably used for sheep.
Access to the site was doubtless from Stratford Lane (R.R. 540) but no path or roadway was found.
The occupation of the site was one of continuous development from its inception in the I.A. third phase until the late 1st/early 2nd c. During the 3rd c. it began to decline. The finds are in Bristol Museum and include:- ......... four inhumation burials. Fragments of Quern stones, pottery, a coin of Claudius II, brooches, a bronze bracelet, a shale bracelet, a spoon, a small pewter bowl and glass beads. (1)
This site is now beneath Chew Valley Lake. (2)
A Roman settlement on the bank of the River Chew during the 1st to early 4th centuries AD. There was considerable occupation, particularly by the river bank, and it was extensively drained by superimposed ditch systems.
No stone buildings occurred but traces of minor timber structures were found over the whole of the area examined. No signs of industrial use of the site were found, except for some domestic lead smelting. The evidence suggests a farming community throughout its occupation, living in difficult conditions. (3)
One flint blade found at Herriots Bridge, possibly Late Upper Palaeolithic. (4-5)

Details of site on Pastscape Pastscape

Poss site of barrow shown on archaelogical map of Englishcombe Manor (NGR correlated from map to ST 712628 ) Hist Landscape Study of Manor of Englishcombe 1983 29 map Avon CC

Details of site on Pastscape Pastscape

[Area centred ST 72456335] High Barrow Hill [NAT] Round Barrow or Barrow Hill, Englishcombe, is 800 yards in circumference with a top 36 yards, east to west, and 28 yards, north to south. It is 100 feet high. It is a barrow, though generally considered natural. ST 7248 6334: Possible round barrow, High Barrow Hill, Bath. Visited by Grinsell in August 1964. 7 paces diameter and 6 inches high. The mound has a hollow in the centre. (5) ST 7248 6334: Highbarrow Hill, formerly known as ‘Bury Hill’, was known as a hundred meeting point by E Strachey. (6-7)

Details of site on Pastscape Pastscape

[ST 57706143 to ST 57906134] A Romano British occupation site was discovered in 1953 at Knowle Hill in excavating for the pipe line from the Chew Valley Reservoir to the Stowey Treatment works. Features revealed comprised shallow depressions, ditches, hearths and occupation levels. The finds included sherds of Roman and earlier pottery and a cremation burial, probably Roman or earlier, at ST 57896135. Occupation continued until the 4th century. (1)
There are no surface features and the farmer has not noticed anything of significance. (2)

The absence in the pipe-trench of thick occupation levels, roof tiling, brick, mortar and lias makes it unlikely that this is a ‘villa’ type of site, unless the building is some distance away. It seems probable that this is an ‘open’ type of site similar to Herriott’s Bridge (ST 55 NE 5); one possible post-hole was seen, and a stake-hole in a hearth, see illustration, and these are the only suggestions of habitations: the hearths alone do not prove habitation.

The indications extend in the trench for 600ft. on almost level ground and there was no evidence for which side of the pipe-line the major part of the settlement lies; there are no surface or air photograph indications. The limited amount of pottery found covers most of the Roman period, and the end of the preceding one. This long, but not intensive, occupation points to a native settlement established in pre-Roman times continuing along similar lines until the 4th century. The aerial photographs of this area were examined as part of the Mendip Hills AONB project of the National Mapping Programme. No evidence for this site was seen on the available aerial photographs.

Details of hillfort on Pastscape Pastscape

(ST 768679) CAMP (NR) Solsbury Hill is a univallate hill fort of I.A. ‘A’ date, scheduled. Excavations in 1955, 1956 and 1958 show that the site was first
occupied by post-hole huts possibly for the I.A. ‘A’ builders of the rampart of the hill fort. This rampart was faced with a dry-stone wall and had no ditch as such. It is not more than three feet high. After the collapse or probable destruction of the rampart occupation was continued c. 150 B.C. by South Western ‘B’ people in stone based huts. The site was completely abandoned before the Roman period c. 100-50 B.C. and the main occupation can be dated as 2nd c. B.C. A number of finds from extensive collecting within the hill fort for many years are in Bath Royal Lit. & Sci. Inst. Museum. (See AO/61/232/7 and AO/61/328/6 for plans of the hill-fort.) (2-5)
The hill-fort consists mainly of a single scarp with vestiges of a bank on the north. On the south there is a section of ditch with a counterscarp bank. The inturned entrance is in the NW. There is evidence of quarrying all around the earthwork and the scarp has been cut into on the west side. Surveyed at 1/2500.
Within the earthwork there is a good example of low Md strip fields with small stones marking the terminal points. (6)
Flint implements were found in the camp in 1866 by J Evans. During the period 1896-1904 surface finds have included leaf shaped fling arrowheads, scrapers, a spindle-whorl, worked bone and horn, and pottery sherds, some decorated, a few pieces of bronze, and numerous iron artifacts, the latter in association with burnt clay, charcoal, & iron dross. In 1902 a shallow cist was found enclosing two skeletons. (ST 768679) Fort (NR). Two inhumations, one fairly complete and contracted and the other only fragmentary, were discovered in 1906 on one of the quarry ledges. Now the property of the National Trust. (9-11)
ST 768680: Solsbury Hill camp, listed under Camps and Settlements. A rapid examination of air photography (16a) shows the hillfort with the Medieval strip fields and the quarrying.

Details of site on Pastscape Pastscape

A barrow to the east of the Stowborough – Foxcote road (the Braysdown Barrow) was opened by Skinner (i) on May 11th 1815. It was some 60ft. long, and had a cruciform cist 8ft. long and 6ft. wide (Skinners illustration is suggestive of a chambered long barrow). Evidence of both cremation and inhumation burials were found, also two flint arrowheads.
Wedlake (b) has located what he believes to be this barrow at ST 70915619, an opinion shared by Grinsell.

The barrow is now a low, circular, ditchless mound, not identifiable, in its present form, as a long barrow. There is a quantity of stone littered about the area. Surveyed at 1/2500.

Details of site on Pastscape Pastscape

(ST 68585920). The capstone and two supporting stone of a burial chamber were noted by Skinner, before March 1821, 20 yards from the back gate of Tunley Farm, on the highest point to the east of Tunley Camp, and close to the road to Timsbury (but Priston must be meant). By June the same year the capstone and one of the supporting stones had been broken up for road mending and the surviving stone, which measured 6 ft x 2 ft, had been incorporated into a corner of the farm court wall. “Search and enquiry at the farm were both fruitless” O G S Crawford 1927.

Details of hillfort on Pastscape Pastscape

[ST 684 592] CAMP [G.T.] Tunley Camp – presumably of Iron Age date (2), was probably much larger than shown on the map, most likely following the hedgerow
‘c’ [see 6” sheet ] as far as Priston Colliery with the present Tunley Farm – Priston Colliery road forming its southern boundary.
[Note: both Wedlake and the F.I. (4) stated that there was no trace of the slopes “A” “D”, but this was contrary to the opinion of the S.S. Reviser. (5)]. (2-5) ST 684592 – Iron Age univallate hill-fort of 3 – 15 acres. (6)
This feature appears to be the remains of an Iron Age hill-fort, centred at ST 683591. It has been considerably ploughed down and only its western side, consisting of a scarp up to 4.9m. high, is well defined. The eastern perimeter is less certain, but it is probably indicated by a very slight scarp in the fields to the north and west of Tunley Farm. There is no ground evidence to support the contention that the hill-fort extended a considerable distance further to the east. The slopes shown on the O.S. 6” 1961, are merely scarps associated with modern field boundaries. Published 1:2500 survey revised. (7)

The remains of this hillfort are now so meagre that it is difficult to assess its original form, and the whole area has been ploughed. The north defences have been ploughed flat, although a very slight scarp could be traced running across the middle of the field. On the south and west sides the present hedge sits on a scarp about 2m high and on the west a low wide bank is present immediately west of the hedge.

Details of barrows on Pastscape Pastscape

A chambered tumulus 60 paces in circumference and about 10ft. high made of local stone, situated at the northern extremity of Camerton Parish bordering on Farmborough Down at a place called Wall Mead, was opened by Skinner on January 16th, 1818.
Near the centre was a collapsed cist 3 1/2ft. square, judged to have been nearly 6ft. high, and containing a 7”-long bronze spearhead or dagger, a small unbaked clay vessel (with chevron and dot ornament), a round headed bronze pin, a perforated whetstone, and a cremation. The side walls continued for some
fifteen feet beyond the track of the chamber forming a passage, in which many pottery fragments were found, some apparently lathe-turned of Roman origin.
Outside the cist was a probable secondary inhumation burial. Fragments of baked and unbaked clay – some of the former of Roman appearance and two denarii of Julia Mammaea and Alexander Severus.

The remains of another barrow of similar dimensions situated 10 paces to the east of the first, was reported by Skinner to have been opened and robbed 60 years before, and the interments destroyed.

The barrow excavated by Skinner was re-excavated by Mr. W. J. Wedlake and the Bath and Camerton Arch. Soc. in 1964. The barrow, called Wallmead I, proved to be 67 feet in diameter and to have a revetment wall still standing to a height of up to 2 feet. Wedlake considers that the primary cremation was in a central rock cut pit, and refutes Skinner’s chamber. In all other respects his excavation confirmed Skinner’s results. The finds included many beaker fragments from the original turf line, traces of a primary cremation, bones from a secondary inhumation, five 2nd – 3rd centruy Roman coins, and Roman
pottery. The barrow is now marked by a low unsurveyable mound at ST 6756 5967.

Excavation continued in 1965 and the second barrow mentioned by Skinner, Wallmead II, was located. Although it had previously been levelled it was found to have a revetment wall still standing to a height of 2 feet. at the centre of the barrow was a large burned area surrounded by a stone kerb. Finds included a bronze dagger, a bead, and fragment of an Ogbourne cup very similar to that found by Skinner in Wallmead I(a). There is no surface indication of this barrow, which was at ST 6761 5966. A trial trench dug to the east of Wallmead II disclosed four cremation burials at ST 6763 5966. They were in cists. but had no associated barrow. Three of the burials were accompanied by food vessels and in the fourth the uncremated skull was placed over the ashes.
Iron age occupation is indicated by a single pit, at ST 6758 5971, containing E.I.A and Glastonbury ware. Excavation of this site is due to continue in 1966. (ST 67565966, ST 67625966) Tumuli (NR) (sites of) (NAT).

Details of site on Pastscape

Crickley Hill is a multiperiod site with occupation ranging from the early Neolithic until the fifth century AD. Features include a Neolithic causewayed enclosure, two phases of hillfort occupation, and Iron Age/Roman and sub Roman settlements.
It is a roughly triangular promontory projecting westwards from the Cotswolds edge. Excavations occurred at the site between 1969 and 1993, initially as part of a project focused on hillforts on the Cotswolds edge. The Crickley excavations uncovered evidence for a long sequence of intermittent activity on the hilltop ranging from the earlier Neolithic until the 5th century AD, with some more sporadic use after that date. The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age activity is described in SO 91 NW 43, the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age phases in SO 91 NW 44, and the Roman and Early Medieval occupation in SO 91 NW 45. During the Medieval period the northern slopes of Crickley Hill were used for grazing by Brinkworth parish. A small rectangular stone-walled building situated within the parish boundary may have been used as a shepherd’s hut. Post Medieval features on the hill include 17th century pits for limeburning, and activity which may have destroyed about an acre of the prehistoric settlements. Quarrying also removed substantial areas of the hill. Beginning in the 18th century, it had produced steep cliffs by the early 19th. Although in decline by the 1930s, the quarrying continued until the 1960s. An additional possible medieval or later feature is the long mound regarded by the excavator as being of Neolithic date, but suggested by some to be a pillow mound.

The South West Heritage Trust is a new charity which came into being on 1 November 2014.

The Trust takes over the heritage service responsibilities previously carried out by Somerset County Council (the Archives and Local Studies, Museums and Historic Environment Services) and Devon County Council (comprising the Archives and Local Studies Services).

In its early years the Trust aims to establish itself as an innovative and sustainable independent organisation. It will have greater entrepreneurial and commercial freedom to develop services and partnership opportunities.

swheritage.org.uk/

youtube.com/channel/UCgf0BHf5pD9GulfGjbf_3Zg

Details of lake village on Pastscape

[ST 492 407] Lake Village (site of) (GT) (1) Glastonbury lake village covers an area 400 ft. N S 300 ft. E W, about 1 mile NNW of the town [See AO/LP/64/56] it was excavated by Bulleid and Gray from 1892 – 1908 and was found to have consisted of a timber and brushwood platform resting on peat, surmounted by clay-floored wattle and daub huts, indicated by low mounds. The foundations of at least sixty mostly circular huts of 14’ – 40’ diameter were examined. There was also evidence of rectangular huts, not in situ, believed to be earlier. The perimeter of each of the circular huts was bounded by vertical piles driven into the substructure, and each contained a central clay hearth, often much rebuilt. Stone paths were found connecting various huts whilst the whole village was surrounded by a wooden palisade (from one to four posts deep), and on the east side had a causeway 158’ long, leading to a timber landing stage, with a stone embankment nearby. The finds which were extremely numerous, represented all aspects of village life e.g. weaving, fishing, agriculture, metallurgy, personal adornment etc. An enormous amount of pottery was found, but currency was only represented by two iron currency bars and part of a tin coin of 100 – 75 B.C. A flint industry, probably contemporary was noted. Dug-out boats were found in and near the village, and just outside the palisade a fine bead-rimmed bronze bowl. Two Neolithic polished stone axes were also found, probably brought to the site in the Iron Age. R.B. material consisting of pottery and metal objects found overlying the site. Most of the finds are in Taunton and Glastonbury Museums.
Hawkes dates this village to the South Western Province third B of the Iron Age, and remarks that it has become a nearly complete La Tene III culture. (2-4)
There are many hummocks in the area of the lake village but they cannot be accurately interpreted. The northern edge of the settlement is marked out by stones. (5)

A re-assessment of Glastonbury Lake Village from the existing evidence:
The site was occupied in succession by two distinct groups of people who had different cultural affinities. The first group were woodworkers who built an undefended settlement of small rectangular timber-framed houses on oak piles. They had lathes, wheeled vehicles and ploughs, and to them should be assigned the ‘sceptre’, the Glastonbury bowl, the currency bar, the iron key and the iron plough-share. They probably occupied the site from C150 to 60BC.
The second group probably occupiedd the site after the first village had been abandoned. They destroyed the rectangular houses and instead built round huts on crannogs, surrounding the settlement with a palisade. They had little use for wood, but had much pottery. They used looms, smelted bronze, and worked bone. They did not use wheeled vehicles or ploughs. The site was probably deserted c 50 AD because of a rise in the water level. Contrary to a widely held
belief there was no terminal massacre and no destruction by fire. See Plan (which distinguishes between the two postulated occupations). (6)
ST 493408: Glastonbury Lake Village, scheduled. (7) Logboat from Glastonbury Lake Village. Glastonbury Lake Village – models and source criticisms. (10)
Report on excavations, 1984. (11)

Details of dug-out canoe on Pastscape

(ST 49804173) A dug-out canoe found here in 1892 is in Glastonbury Museum (1) This canoe is in Glastonbury Museum (2) ST 49804173: An oak logboat found in the Summer of 1884, in a ditch a few fields away from Glastonbury Lake Village (ST 44 SE 5), was damaged during ditch cleaning. In 1892 it was extracted and given by Bullied to the Glastonbury Antiquarian Society. Remains are now fragmentary, the sides almost detached and much has been lost since Bulleid photographed the boat in 1894. The boat was undoubtedly associated with the lake dwellings and therefore dates from c100 BC. (3) Photo. (4)

Details of feature on Pastscape

A small circular feature, defined by a single ditch, is visible as a cropmark immediately adjacent to the round barrow Amesbury 49 (Monument Number 942659). It also appears as a very slight mound on aerial photograhs taken in 1943. It is about 6 metres in diameter, and appears to have a central pit. The feature could possibly represent a Bronze Age round barrow as part of the Cursus barrow cemetery (Monument Number 219681). Alternatively, it may represent a more recent feature associated with 20th century agricultural or military activity. The site was listed as Amesbury 114 by the RCHME. The area was surveyed by English Heritage in April 2009 as part of the Stonehenge WHS Landscape Project but no earthworks relating to the monument were recorded.

Details of hengiform enclosure on Pastscape

A possible Neolithic hengiform enclosure was discovered by geophysical survey in the early 1990s, within the eastern half of the Stonehenge Lesser Cursus (Monument Number 219543). It is defined by a single causewayed ditch that forms an egg-shaped enclosure, with the pointed end to the north-east, which measures circa 15m long by 13m wide. The causeways are clearest at the south-western end. Some pits in and around the enclosure may be associated with its use.

Details of cursus on Pastscape

I(SU 10354343 – SU 10724353) Cursus (AT). The “Lesser Cursus”, an oblong enclosure 1350ft long and between 155 and 190ft wide; open at the east end. ? Neolithic. (2) The “Lesser Cursus” lies on arable land, and is exposed to heavy ploughing. A scarp of 0.1 metre remains. Published 1:2500 survey correct. (3)
(SU 10354345 – SU 10734352) The Lesser Cursus is situated along the summit of a flat-topped ridge. It is aligned WSW-ENE and is 400m long and 60m wide, and comprised of a bank with an external ditch. Air photographs show it was visible as an earthwork in 1934 but by 1954 it had been levelled. The absence of the ditch at the eastern end has given rise to the suggestion that the cursus was unfinished. The presence of a bank and ditch crossing the cursus 200m from the western end and the constriction of the north and south side has lead to the interpretation that construction took place in two stages; the first a short cursus extending east as far as the cross bank, the second an unfinished extension continuing to the east, however, the position of the ditch on the west side of the cross bank casts doubt on this. Three areas of the cursus were excavated as part of the Stonehenge Environs Project (W55), two phases of construction were identified and were indistinguishable on the basis of radio-carbon dates obtained. Evidence for Phase I is provided by two short lengths of ditch representing either a marker ditch, or part of a trapezoidal enclosure with a small ditch and interior bank, 200m by 60m.
Phase 2. The enclosure was enlarged removing most of the phase 1 ditches, the position of the internal bank is maintained and enhanced with the exception of the newly enlarged cross ditch, the bank of which is now on the east side. The monument was extended eastwards by parallel ditches with internal banks, the eastern end appears to have been deliberately left open. A ceremonial deposit of antlers was recorded in the southern flanking ditch.
All of the phase 2 ditches except the cross ditch, appear to have been deliberately back-filled almost immediately after the original excavation.
The excavations produced Later Neolithic – Later Bronze Age pottery, animal bone including worked bone, and worked flint. Most of the flint assemblage was recovered from the ploughsoil or from the upper colluvial ditch fills, its composition and spatial distribution shows that a focus of Bronze Age activity was situated immediately beyond the eastern end of the cursus. (5)
The Lesser Cursus is visible as a very slight earthwork, and later as a cropmark, on aerial photographs, and has been mapped by both RCHME’s Salisbury Plain Training Area NMP and EH’s Stonehenge WHS Mapping Project. (8-12)

Details of the barrows on Pastscape

Twitchen Barrows (Tumuli) [O.E.] (1)
Tumulus at ‘A’ approx. 35ft diam. – 5ft 6ins in height.
Tumulus at ‘B’ approx 60ft diam – 5ft 6ins in height. (2)
W barrow sited at SS 80313226, visited by Grinsell 26.10.59. Hole at Centre. “Two stones lying outwards, perhaps from some internal structure” (a). E barrow sited SS 80403226, visited by Grinsell 26.10.59. On heath and mutilated. (3-4)
SS 80323225. A grass covered round barrow 14.0 m in diameter and 1.7 m high. Excavation hollow in centre, but Clarke’s stones not visible in centre or perimeter.SS 80413225. A grass covered round barrow 20.0 m in diameter and up to 1.7 m high. The broad top has been excessively dug into by way of pits and trenches.Both barrows are in reclaimed pasture.OS 1:2500 surveys revised. (5)Scheduled 672 (6)
Twitchen Barrows, a pair of prehistoric round barrows, are centred at SS 80383225, at the east end of the summit of Twitchen Ridge.
The westerly barrow, centred at SS 80323225, consists of a circular mound 11.5m in diameter and 1.4m high. A possible excavation trench, 2.2m wide, 3.4m long and 0.3m deep has been driven into the summit from the south. It has been exploited by an animal scrape. There is no trace of an encircling ditch around the barrow.The easterly barrow, centred at SS 80413225, measures 19.4m north-south by 23.1m west-east and is 1.3m high. It has been extensively robbed, and is bisected by a zig-zagging robbing trench 0.5m deep running roughly west-east. To the north of this the barrow appears largely intact, whilst to the south the surface is uneven and very disturbed.Both barrows are covered in close cropped grass and lie within improved pasture. Loose stone is scattered on the surface and may be associated with modern field clearance. (7)
Both mounds are clearly visible on aerial photographs from the 1940s onwards. On photographs taken on recent aerial reconnaissance flights the damage to the monuments is clear. (8-9)

Details of barrow on Pastscape

(SS 72553769) Tumulus (NR) (1)
“High Bray No 9”, bowl barrow visited by Grinsell in April 1949.Diameter 17 paces, height 1 1/2’. (2)
A bowl barrow up to 18.0 metres across and 0.6 metres high.Published survey 1:2500 revised. (3)
A Bronze Age barrow, as described above, is clearly visible on aerial photographs as a sub-circular earthwork measuring approximately 17.5 metres in diameter. It is part of a group of at least five barrows situated on high ground north of North Twitchen, Brayford (4).

Details of barrows on Pastscape

A: SS 72533760; B: SS 72553757 )C: SS 72583754;D: SS 72743756 ) Tumuli (NR) (1)
A: “High Bray No 10”, bowl barrow seen by Grinsell in April 1949. R Rainbird-Clarke, in 1938, records a ditch with causeway 3 paces wide on E, where traces of outer bank. Diameter 24 paces,height 3’.
B: “High Bray No 11”, bowl barrow seen by Grinsell in April 1949. Diameter 13 paces, height 4’.
C: “High Bray No 12”, bowl barrow seen by Grinsell in April 1949. Diameter 18 paces, height 2’.
D: “High Bray No 13”, bowl barrow seen by Grinsell in April 1949. Diameter 23 paces, height 2 1/2’.(2)
Surrounded by shallow trench 5’ wide lying within the margin of barrow. (Possibly not original (2).) Outer edge marked by circle of stones 67’ in diameter, largest being 36” x 11 ” x 9” high; 12 stones still extant. (3)
“A”. A flat topped bowl barrow, 23.0 metres in diameter and 0.7 metres high with an 0.3 metre deep trench cut into the top of the slopes on the north side (see “D”).
“B” SS 72543756. A bowl barrow up to 16.0 metres across and 1.0 metre high.
“C” SS 72563755. A spread bowl barrow up to 20.0 metres across and with an average height of 0.7 metres.
“D” SS72733755. A mutilated bowl barrow 28.0 metres in diameter and up to 0.7 metres high. An 0.3 metre deep trench has been dug into the top of the slope similar to “A” and SS 73 NW 5,’8’. Were these trenches dug to remove the retaining stones for road mending and hedging? Only a few of the stones noted by authority 3 are visible and these are at trench level. Published survey 1:2500 revised. (4)
Four barrows described above are clearly visible on aerial photographs as earthworks on moorland north of North Twitchen, Brayford. The Devonshire HER has identified a fifth barrow, while aerial survey undertaken in 2008 for Exmoor National Park National Mapping Programme has identified a possible sixth. Possible ditches can be seen on aerial photographs as cropmarks surrounding barrows A and D, but these may be the trenches described above.
NB The Devon HER has numbered the barrows differently. The HER numbers for each barrow are as follows. A; 725, B;724, C;723 and D; 722. (5).

Details of the trackways on Pastscape

The existence of two pre-Roman trackways crossing at No Man’s Chapel (SS 912001) are suggested by existing roads, one from the south towards Cadbury Castle.
(SS 90 NW1), and another passing westward from a ford over the river Exe (SX 930993) named Suthford in Anglo-Saxon charters. An original course of the north to south route, west of the modern road, is suggested by a trackway which passes over a tumulus west of the cross-roads (SS 90 SW7). This track can be seen as a parch-mark in dry weather, from the top of the tumulus, continuing southward to the field edge.

Details of Barrow on Pastscape

(SS 91220015) Tumulus (NR). Barrow No 23 of the Upton Pyne Bronze Age Cemetery lies in a marshy field beside Jackmoor Brook. Diameter 115 feet, height 7 feet. A large bowl barrow 2.8 metres high surveyed at 1:2500. (3)
The barrow lies on a slight rise and is partially disfigured by drainage ditches. It measures 46.0m in diameter and 2.2m high. (4)

Details of Barrows on Pastscape

(’A’ SX 91149929, ‘B’ SX 91209929, ‘C’ SX 91249929) Three Barrows (Tumuli) (NR). (1)

Barrow ‘B’ excavated in 1869 was then 60 ft in diameter and 3ft high. Finds included an Early Bronze Age cremation of a woman or youth with a dagger, pin, necklace and pigmy cup.
Barrow ‘A’ and ‘C’ excavated in September 1879 were then each about 120ft wide north to south and 140ft east to west. A charcoal heap and burnt layer were found in ‘A’, while in ‘C’ a burnt layer was found above a layer of iron pan in the centre. (2-3)
These barrows are under crop but are clearly visible although rather spread. (4)
These barrows have been ploughed down to less than 1ft high. Fox 6-8 respectively. (5)
‘A’ is now 33.0m. in diameter and 0.5m. high.
‘B’ Measures 25.5.m. in diameter and 0.3m. high.
‘C’ is 29.5m. in diameter and 0.5m. high.
Revised at 1:2500 on M.S.D. (6)
SX 91149929;SX 91209930;SX 91249930.Listed as ‘round barrows’. (7)
SX 91149929;SX 91209930;SX 91249929.Listed as ‘class 3 barrows, 0.5-1m high in fair condition’ in Upton Pyne parish. (Nos 6,7,8) (8)
All three barrows are described by the OS Field Reviser as being extensively ploughed down and under cultivation. (9)

Details of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age occupation of site on Pastscape

Neolithic activity at Cadbury was for a long time represented only by casual surface finds, including polished flint and stone axes. During the 1950s, Neolithic pottery was identified among artefacts recovered by Mary Harfield, although the discovery subsequently became somewhat overshadowed by the attention given to the early Medieval sherd also recovered by her. However, Ralegh Radford argued on the basis of these surface finds that there had been ‘substantial occupation’ in the Neolithic, represented by Windmill Hill-type pottery, leaf-shaped arrowheads etc, and speculated on the possibility of a causewayed enclosure having been located on the hill. In her own account of her finds, Harfield referred to the discovery of worked flints in ‘great quantity’, and described two ‘working floors’ on the northward-facing slope of the interior, from which came cores, arrowheads, scrapers, burins, fabricators, saws, knives, plus misc flakes and blades. Her finds were subsequently donated to Taunton Museum. (1-3)
The physical evidence for a Neolithic presence on the hill was uncovered during the 1966-1970 excavations directed by L Alcock. features included a number of pits, distinguished from later features by their red clay fill, in contrast to the darker material conatined in later pits. Artefacts varied in quantity and type from one pit to another. Pit P154, for example, contained sherds from several vessels, 2 flint arrowheads, a quantity of waste flakes, various bones from an ox, an antler fragment, burned hazelnut shells, and part of a human jaw. Pit C187 meanwhile contained part of a human skull only among the red clay fill, while another contained just waste flakes among its fill.
The only other features definitely attributable to the Neolithic were a straight-sided gulley with what appeared to be a right-angled return. Initially thought to be a building, no further continuation of either feature was uncovered. There were no definite signs of an enclosure, although traces of a possible stony bank beneath the pre-rampart soil were noted in one cutting.
As for dating, the antler from Pit P154 produced a C14 determination of 2510+/-120bc, and some of the hazelnut shells from an unknown context produced a determination of 2755+/-115bc, placing this occupation in what Alcock described as ‘a mature phase of the early Neolithic’.
Subsequently, the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age are, acording to interim accounts, rather sparsely represented. Apart from a few diagnostic flint types such as ptd arrowheads, the evidence is limited to a single sherd of Grooved Ware found beside an otherwise undated stake hole, and a miniature EBA flanged axe. (4,5 NB see ST 62 NW 1 for fuller biography of the 1966-70 excavations).

Details of the Iron Age hillfort on Pastscape

The Hillfort defence does not consist of four ramparts. Around much of the northern side there is clear evidence of a discontinuous berm which probably represents a fifth rampart. This is not a strategic necessity. The eastern side is the most vulnerable and here only the upper two ramparts survive. Below
these two slight changes of slope could be indicate former ramparts and these may have been deliberately slighted for conversion to strip lynchets which have since been eroded and covered by natural slip. Lynchets occur all round the Hillfort and much of the enclosing wall is built at the foot of a negative lynchet.
The entrance gap on the east side appears to be original (ditches on its S. side are neatly ended) but unfinished since it is so deeply cut that it could not penetrate the inner rampart unless it continued within as a hollow way. It can have had no use in an agricultural context as suggested by St. G. Gray.
Cadbury Castle is a multivallate hillfort of Iron Age date, subsequently refortified and reoccupied in the post-Roman and late Saxon periods. The hill has also yielded evidence, in the form of both surface and excavated finds, of Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age and Roman activity.
The association of the hillfort with the fictitious Camelot of Arthurian legend began, in print at least, with Leland in 1542. The extent to which he was reporting local tradition rather than jumping to conclusions of his own is a matter for debate. Inevitably, the site attracted much antiquarian attention over the ensuing centuries, although the degree to which the Arthurian associations were accepted varied considerably. Camden and Stukely both described the hillfort, for example, but emphasised the predominance of Roman material recovered from the interior.
By the later 19th century, the name ‘Camelot’ was appearing on OS maps alongside the name Cadbury Castle. The earthworks were surveyed by Dymond (3,4) in 1873, while the first recorded excavation occurred “a few years before” 1890. It was undertaken by the Rev JA Bennett, who unfortunately (from an archaeological viewpoint) devoted much of his published report to local legend and tradition, with the results of his digging amounting to little more than a footnote. (5) Bennett’s finds were examined later by Harold St George Gray, who undertook his own small-scale ‘trial excavations’, mainly in and around the SW gateway, in June 1913 (6). The combination of finds from the two excavations effectively established ‘late Celtic’ (ie late Iron Age/early Roman) occupation at Cadbury. In the light of later work at the site, it also appears that Gray uncovered part of the early Medieval refurbishment of the defences, but was unable to recognise it as such at the time. After Gray’s excavations, the haphazard collection of surface finds continued, though with little in the way of recording, until the 1950s. Mary Harfield, a local amateur, collected material from the surface of the interior between 1954 and 1959 in a fairly systematic manner, although more casual collection by others continued. CA Ralegh Radford examined this material and recognised Neolithic and early Medieval artefacts as well as the expected Iron Age and Roman finds. Among the early Medieval artefacts was imported Mediterranean pottery of c5th century AD date, a discovery which once more stimulated interest in the supposed Arthurian connections of Cadbury. New APs of the hillfort interior taken around the same time also showed a considerable density of cropmark features. (7, 8)
The result of these discoveries was a major campaign of investigation under the auspices of the Camelot Research Committee, consisting of geophysical survey and excavation under the directorship of Leslie Alcock. The main excavations took place annually from 1966-1970, with some smaller-scale work linked to the post-excavation programme occurring in 1973. These excavations established a sequence of periodic activity at Cadbury from the early Neolithic onwards, including for the first time the recognition of a major later Bronze Age presence. Other important results included confirmation of occupation of the interior in the 5th/6th centuries AD, and further use of the site in the late Saxon period, tying in with numismatic evidence for a short-lived mint at Cadbury spanning the end of Aethelred II’s reign and the start of Cnut’s (c1010-1020 AD). Subsequent activity was primarily agricultural in nature. To date only the early medieval aspects of the excavations have been fully published, although publication of the prehistoric and Roman evidence is in preparation. Several interim accounts of the work have appeared. (3-15).
Cadbury Castle was surveyed by staff from RCHME Exeter in 1993 at the request of English Heritage and the University of Glasgow, who were preparing the published account of the prehistoric and Roman aspects of the site. The following is abstracted from the detailed archive report, which will also appear in the excavtion report:
Cadbury Castle is located on the NW edge of the dissected limestone hills between Sherborne and Wincanton, at the western limit of the Jurassic rocks which make up much of S and E Somerset. It lies on an outlier of Inferior Oolitic limestone, which caps the more sandy Upper Lias rocks below. A geological fault occurs to the south of the hilltop, which may account for the steep natural scarp in the SW part of the interior, and for the differential vegetation growth on the hillslope.
The hill is sub-rectangular in shape with a domed top and rises steeply to some 150m above OD at its summit. To the N lie the Somerset Levels, Glastonbury Tor and the Mendips; to the W Ilchester and Ham Hill, and to the S and E are the steep escarpments of Pen Hill, Corton Hill and Parrock Hill. The villages of Sutton Montis and South Cadbury lie close to the foot of the hill, to the SE and NW respectively. The adjacent hills to the E and S are marked by numerous strip lynchets, indicating extensive medieval and post medieval cultivation.
The number of ramparts and ditches vary around the defensive circuit. However, there are generally four ramparts and three ditches, although in places terraces occur instead of ditches. The eastern defences have been largely obliterated by medieval or later cultivation, and what now survives are the two uppermost ramparts and intermediate ditch. The northern and western defences, which extend from the north-eastern to the south-western entrances, are between 100m and 120m wide with a height difference of about 40m from the bottom of the outer rampart to the top of the inner rampart. The southern and south-eastern defences, which extend from the south-western to the eastern entrances, are between 85m and 100m wide and rise some 50m from the bottom of the outer rampart to the top of the inner rampart. Cultivation of medieval or post medieval date has in several instances truncated the foot of the outer rampart. Field evidence for the Aethelredan rampart refurbishment may be represented by a break of slope on the outer face of the inner rampart. Also relevant are a number of exposures of walling on the outer face.The composition of the walling and their relative heights suggests that those on the southern rampart are more likely related to the post-Aethelredan work identified by Alcock around the SW entrance, while most of the remainder may be part of the burh wall.
There are three gaps in the defensive circuit – at the south-western and north-eastern corners, and on the eastern side. All three have the appearance of being of considerable antiquity. The south-western has a deep, curving entrance passage, which funnels traffic up through the southern end of the massive western defences. The north-eastern entrance gives access to the hilltop from Castle Farm and South Cadbury, and is deeply-hollowed where it crosses the inner defences. The eastern entrance consists of a passage way, curving slightly at its eastern end, which makes its way up through the defences and ends as a deep hollow below the inner rampart. The entrance is effectively blocked by a steep scarp, which appears to be a later addition. It is uncertain when and why this entrance fell out of favour, although unlike the other entrances it does not now appear to be related to any major settlement.
The defences enclose an area of c7.5ha. The most prominent feature is the natural scarp which occupies the SW part of the interior; it has been heavily quarried. A number of quarry scoops exist in the interior – the use of the hilltop as a source of stone dates back from at least the 16th century. The interior of the hillfort has been cultivated over a long period of time, hence the paucity of existing earthworks other than remains of the 1966-70 excavation trenches. (16)
The NMR record for Cadbury Castle is arranged as follows. This record (ST 62 NW 1) consists of a general overview of the history and interpretation of the site, and includes accounts of OS and RCHME fieldwork at the site. ST 62 NW 28 deals with Mesolithic material from Cadbury; ST 62 NW 29 describes the evidence for Neolithic and Early Bronze Age activity; ST 62 NW 30 contains details of the later Bronze Age and Iron Age activity; ST 62 NW 31 features the evidence for Roman presence on the site; ST 62 NW 32 deals with the 5th/6th century re-occupation; ST 62 NW 33 describes the late Saxon use of Cadbury, as well as subsequent medieval and later use of the site. (17) Scheduled

Details of King Arthur’s Well [ST 62962528] on Pastscape

and

Details of Queen Anne’s Wishing Well [ST 62722532] on Pastscape

Details of Cadbury Castle on Pastscape

[SS 91330526] Cadbury Castle [T.I.] Hill Fort [L.B.] Cadbury Castle is an oval-shaped Iron Age (?Promontory) Fort, 640 x 470ft. The defences comprise an outer rampart with escarpment and an inner scarp and counterscarp to the W. S. & E. Entrances are in the N.E. and S.E. A shaft 58ft. deep was excavated by G. Fursdon and the finds included many pottery fragments, some coarse cinerary urn sherds, part of an iron weapon, bronze pins and rings (one possibly 2nd. C.), bronze armillae with gold ornament, charred human bones and a 17th. C. sword. Tucker (a) suggests that some of the pottery may have come from a tumulus close by which had been used to fill up the shaft. A hoard of nine Antoniniani of Victorinus and Tetricus Senior (A.D. 265-272) was found nearby in the hedge of an ancient road leading to the Camp. The Castle was occupied by Fairfax in 1645. (2-4)
This is a hill-top enclosure of two constructional phases. The small internal bank with an entrance on the E. encloses about two acres and is typical of other earthworks in the locality. The enclosure appears to have been enlarged and fortified by the addition of a strong rampart and ditch, with a counterscarp bank on all but the N. side where the existing bank was utilised and strengthened. There is no longer any trace of the depression containing the shaft.Published survey (1/2,500) revised. Finds in the well were recovered from between 20 and 25 below the modern surface, and so had been deposited when the shaft was partly filled. They were mostly personal ornaments, and, though not closely dateable, indicate the 3rd cent. as the most likely date for the deposit. (6) Native cult-centre: shaft containing personal things customary as votive offerings at shrines. (7)
SS 9134 0525. Scheduling revised. Details as above. The site was probably used during the Saxon and medieval period as a moot or open-air court, responsible for the administration and organisation of the countryside. (10)

Details of ring barrow and a round cairn on Pastscape

(SS 87414147 & SS 87464146) Tumuli (NR). Two barrows, 143 ft. apart from centre to centre. The first is a disc-barrow, a slight mound surrounded by a nearly circular bank 58 ft. in diameter at the crest and 72 ft. at the foot of the bank. Indications of an inner ditch. The second barrow E of the first is a cairn of stones much mutilated. No indication of a ditch. Diameter c. 56 ft.Cutcombe 1; SS 87414147, 24 paces across and 1.5 ft. high, apparently a saucer barrow.
Cutcombe 2; SS 87464146, 17 paces across and 4.5 ft. high. Cairn with modern stone heap, much dug away from west and south-west. (4)
The feature listed by Grinsell as Cutcombe 1 appears to be a saucer barrow. (GPs AO/65/178/1 & 2). The other feature is a disturbed cairn. Published 1.2500 survey revised. (5) SS 87414147. Cutcombe 1. Apparently a saucer-barrow comprising a central mound 32ft. diameter, 1ft. 6ins. high, enclosed by ditch circa 8ft. wide and outer bank circa 12 ft. wide. The ditch is circa 9 ins. deep externally and bank c 9 ins high. Described in error by Authority 2 as a disc barrow. SS 87464146. Cutcombe 2. Cairn surmounted by modern stone heap, listed as Authy 4. Possibly called White Barrow (see also SS 84 SE 2).
Both visited by Grinsell 25th May 1958. Cutcombe 4a. “One or two of Rowbarrows had been examined incompletely” on 2nd November 1807 (6 & 7). (SS 84 SE 8, 9 & 10 are known as ‘Rowbarrows’) A ring barrow and a round cairn situated in a prominent position on a rounded hilltop at 510 metres O.D.; part of the linear Rowbarrow group(see also SS 84 SE 9 and 10). SS 8741 4147. An impressive and well preserved ring-barrow 22.9 metres in overall diameter with a slightly off-centre saucer-shaped mound and a slightly sub-circular enclosing bank. The mound is 12.7 metres in diameter, 0.3 metres high with a shallow depression in its top where a few random largish stones are evident. The back which apparently gently slopes from south to north varies in width from 2.8 metres on the lower side to 5.2 metres on the upper side. Its height is on average 0.6 metres externally and 0.4 metres internally. The ditch noted by an earlier authority is a misinterpretation of the junction of the edge of the mound and the inner scarp of the bank. The barrow is a variation on the south west cairn platform with rim bank. SX 8745 4146. This heavily disturbed cairn, lying 8.0 metres south-east of the barrow, measures from 14.3 metres to 16.0 metres across and has a maximum height of 1.4 metres. It appears to be mostly composed of small stone although a few larger boulders are visible. The south west side has been dug away and no traces of kerbing are evident in the exposed sides. Two small, probably modern, cairns havebeen constructed on its top.
Shallow amorphous quarry pits, presumably a source of barrow material,lie between the mounds. No further information was gained on the name “White Barrow”. It is not noted on the maps of Day and Masters (1782) or Greenwood (1822). Visible on A.P.s (12-13) (14)
A well preserved ring barrow and a round cairn, forming part of the Rowbarrow group, are visible as earthworks on aerial photographs, to the west of Dunkery Beacon, centred on circa SS 87424147 and SS 87464146 resprectively.
The diameter of the ring barrow outer enclosing bank measures approximately 20 metres at the outer edge, the inner mound almost 10 metres in diameter. The cairn lies 28 metres south east of the barrow and is almost 10 metres in diameter.
Numerous small and shallow quarries, which might be the source of the building material for the monuments, are visible between the mounds. (16-19)

Details of cairn on Pastscape

(SS 87884156) Little Rowbarrow (NR). Tumulus, known as ‘Little Rowbarrows’ probably composed chiefly of stone. It has been dug into considerably in the middle. Diameter about 65ft., ht. 5ft.6in. Cutcombe 4. A cairn with a hollow entre. 23 paces in diameter and 4ft.6in. high. (4)
This is a cairn 15m. high. A large hole has been dug in the centre. See G.Ps AO/65/127/1 and 2 (Stereo pair). Published survey (25”) revised. (5)
SS 87864155. Cutcombe 4. Little Rowbarrow listed as Authy 4. It is named Little Barrow on the Tithe Map of 1840. Cutcombe 4a. “One or two of Rowbarrows had been examined incompletely” on 2 November 1807 (SS 84 SE 8, 9 & 10 are known as ‘Rowbarrows’). (6-8)
SS 8788 4156. Little Rowbarrow; a fairly well defined cairn situated on the top of a rounded hil at 503 metres O.D. Composed of both large and small stones, it measures 19.0 metres in diameter with a maximum height of 1.4 metres; the central depression is 4.8 metres in diameter and about 0.5 metres deep. The heather-covered sides are fairly sharply defined although there is evidence of disturbance (? excavation trench) on the west side, and material from the central depression has been piled around the top edge. A crude (? modern) 1.0 metres high cairn has been constructed on the upper east side.
There are no quarry pits near this cairn as occur with the others of the group (qv SS 84 SE 9 and 10). Visible on A.P.s (c,d). (10-12)
The cairn is as described by authority 8 and lies at SS 87876 41563. It was surveyed using GPS as part of the RCHME East Exmoor project (13).
The well defined Bronze Age cairn known as Little Rowbarrow is clearly visible as an earthwork on aerial photographs to the west of Dunkery Beacon, centred on circa SS 87874156. The mound is roughly oval in shape, measuring 19 metres on the south-west to north-east axis and 17 metres north-west to south-east. An irregularly shaped central depression approximately 6 metres in diameter is visible near the centre of the top of the mound. (11,14)

Details of cairn on Pastscape

(SS 87544153) Great Rowbarrow (NR) The cairn known as ‘Great Rowbarrow’ is situated close to the moorland trackway to Lang Combe Head and on the E. side of it. It is a large cairn, much mutilated by deep hollows and high ridges, especially along the N. half of the mound. The greater part of the cairn has a bank-shaped footing of heaped stones, but there is little sign of thison the south side. The diameter of this rather irregular structure is circa 70ft. and from 6-7ft. high. This is a very disturbed cairn, listed by Grinsell as Cutcombe 3. (See GP AO/65/133/6). (4, 5) SS 87534154. Cutcombe 3. Great Rowbarrow, mutilated cairn including ruins of modern stone-heap now integrated with the original cairn. It is named Great Barrow on the Tithe Map of 1840. Cutcombe 4a. “One or two of Rowbarrows had been examined incompletely” on 2 November 1807 (6, 7) (SS 84 SE 8, 9 & 10 are knownas ‘Rowbarrows’).
SS 8754 4153. Great Rowbarrow, a large heavily mutilated cairn situated on a prominent hilltop at 507 metres O.D. Composed of boulders and stones it measures approximately 22 metres overall with a maximum height of about 1.6 metres. A crude (? modern) cairn, 0.4 metres high and constructed of fairly large stones, has been erected on the top, and two small circular wind shelters occupy parts of the mound. There is no evidence of a kerb and the apparent rim, a 4.0 metres wide band of small stone enclosing part of the mound has almost certainly been caused by random excavation or disturbance. Small shallow and amorphous quarry pits, probably the source of some cairn material, lie to the west and south. Visible on A.P.s (10, 11). (12)
The cairn is as described by authority 7 and lies at SS 87545 41536. It was surveyed using GPS as part of the RCHME East Exmoor project (13).
The heavily mutilated mound known as Great Rowbarrow, probably a cairn of Bronze Age date, can be seen as an earthwork on aerial photographs centred on circa SS 87544153, approximately 1.6 kilometres to the west of Dunkery Beacon. The earthwork measures up to 25 metres in diameter and field investigation reveal it stands up to 1.6 metres high. Numerous small and shallow quarry pits, probably the source of the cairn material, lie to the south and west of the monument. (14, 15)

Details of henge on Pastscape

A sub-circular enclosure is visible as low earthworks and as cropmarks circa 220 metres east-south-east of Herring’s House. Scheduled as a henge, the enclosure measures about 150 metres by 160 metres and comprises a C-shaped ditch with a broad internal bank. Within the circuit of the bank is another ditch. Both ditches and bank featre a 30 metre wide entrance or causeway to the north east. Two sections of a further external bank have also been noted. Within the interior of the enclosure are cropmark traces of a small three-sided enclosure circa 30 metres square, its open side facing the entrance to the henge.

Details of Enclosure on Pastscape

The site of a probable Neolithic causewayed enclosure on Dallington Heath. The cropmarks were interpreted and plotted by RCHME in 1994 as part of the Industry and Enclosure in the Neolithic Project. See the archive report for full details. The site is located 1 km northwest of Kings Heath, and immediately southeast of Dallington Heath, on an area of relatively flat land associated with the Upper Nene basin. The enclosure itself lies between two tributary streams of the River Nene. The enclosure itself is represented by a single circuit of interrupted ditch enclosing an area of circa 280 metres by 200 metres (5 hectares). Within the enclosure are three shorter stretches of curvilinear ditch, again interrupted, which may relate to one or more inner circuits or smaller enclosures. A smaller curvilinear enclosure, 64 metres by 56 metres, is situated close to the centre of the main enclosure. It features a single entrance on the northwest side. It has been interpreted as a possible henge, although its irregular shape may argue against this. Elsewhere, the main causewayed enclosure circuit is cut by a linear ditch, and by a small rectilinear enclosure, though the latter may not be an archaeological feature. Two pit alignments also exist in the vicinity of the enclosure. Archaeological investigation of the causewayed enclosure has been minimal to date. Limited fieldwalking in 1988 recovered some prehistoric flints, while geophysical survey and trial trenching in 1992 confirmed the presence of the enclosure.

Details of henge on Pastscape

King Arthur’s Round Table, a Late Neolithic henge monument surviving as an earthwork; one of three clustered between the Rivers Eamont and Lowther. The name probably derives from the 17th century or earlier due to its circular form and the interest in Arthurian ledgends. The earthworks were surveyed and some geophysical survey undertaken, although the degree of disturbance interior proved to have been to great for the latter to produce useful results. The site comprises a sub-circular bank with internal berm and ditch. The enclosed area is a maximum of 51.2 metres across, the ditch has a maximum width of 16.2 metres, the berm 7 metres, and the bank 13 metres. Within the enclosed area is a low sub-circular platform circa 24 metres across. This has been suggested to be a relatively recent feature – parts of the earthwork were “enhanced” in the late 18th to early 19th century, apparently with a view to using the site as a tea garden – but it does appear in William Stukeley’s unpublished early 18th century sketch of the site. The earthwork has been truncated somewhat by roads on the northern and eastern sides. A single entrance exists on the southern side, but it is clear that a second entrance was formerly situated on the opposite, northern side, and was apparently flanked by two standing stones. Excavations were undertaken in 1937 by R Collingwood and continued in 1939 by G Bersu. Collingwood claimed to have identified a number of structures, represented by postholes and other features recognised at similar sites elsewhere in the country. Bersu was subsequently able to demonstrate that nearly all of these features were not of archaeological significance. The only one which may have been of importance was a “cremation trench” near the centre of the site which, although it contained little, Bersu accepted it may have been a disturbed grave. The two excavations and excavators have been compared by Richard Bradley. The site is now in the care of English Heritage.

Details of henge on Pastscape

The fragmentary earthwork remains of a possible henge monument, one of three such earthwork enclosures (see also NY 52 NW 2 and 12) clustered in close proximity on the narrow interfluve between the rivers Eamont and Lowther. The earthworks were surveyed by RCHME in 1988. The fragmentary remains comprise a barely discernible scarp on the northern perimeter of the site, and discontinuous traces of a low earthen bank with some stone visible along the southern perimeter. When projected into a full circle, these fragments suggest an enclosure of circa 90 metres in diameter across its banks. The remainder of the site is severely mutilated by buildings, tracks and roads. William Stukeley sketched the site in 1725, depicting it as a roughly circular enclosure circa 90 metres in diameter with, perhaps significantly, a bank with outer ditch. No entrance is apparent, although in 1790, Pennant seems to have recorded one in the north east sector. Some excavation was undertaken in 1939 by G Bersu. No dating evidence was recovered, and one of his three trenches failed to locate the ditch. However, the possibility that it may in fact have located an entrance seems to have been confirmed by geophysical survey in 1988. If so, this entrance is roughly in the position recorded by Pennant. The site is scheduled. Its identification as a henge is unconfirmed, the principal problems being lack of dating evidence from the excavations, and the internal bank. However, its topographical position, and its proximity to two other broadly similar enclosures, suggest that it should be viewed as broadly contemporary, even if it fails to conform to current definitions of henge monuments.

Details of henge on Pastscape

Mayburgh Henge is a Late Neolithic henge monument surviving as an earthwork, one of three in close proximity between the Rivers Eamont and Lowther. The earthworks were surveyed in 1988 and some geophysical survey also undertaken. The earthwork is defined by an almost circular bank which is up to 45 metres wide and 7.3 metres high, surrounding an internal area up to 90 metres in diameter. The bank is made up almost entirely of water-worn stones. Unusually for a site of this type there is no surrounding ditch. A single entrance exists on the eastern side. The interior is level, and a single standing stone is located near the centre. The geophysical survey identified several anomalies in the interior, although interpretation is difficult. A magnetic anomaly at the base of, and concentric to, the inner side of the bank could be a narrow ditch, or a negative lynchet associated with ploughing in the interior. An erratic series of pit-like features could be burials, pits, or former stone settings. One group is clustered to the south east of the standing stone, in an area where Dugdale recorded a stone setting in the later 17th century. In the early 18th century, William Stukeley suggested that there had been two concentric stone circles, but the anomalies do not seem to corroborate this. No excavations are known to have occurred, but Stukeley recorded that a “brass celt” had been found there, while in 1879 part of a stone axe was found near the entrance. As with the other two sites in the group, classification as a henge is not without its difficulties, but at present offers the most plausible interpretation. The function of such large monuments is not fully understood, although it is thought that they played a role in social or ritual activities, perhaps involving trade or astronomical observations. As part of the millennium celebrations in 2000 a large stone monolith was erected nearby. The monument which is now in the care of English Heritage.

Details of site on Pastscape

At least five circles situated to the east of Common Farm and north of Eastrop Farm. Although they are known as ‘circles’ their form varies from circular to sub-circular, with diameters of between 40 metres and 90 metres, to sub-rectangular. All have a flat bottomed ditch with an external bank. Despite limited fieldwork and excavation their date remains uncertain. Although sharing characteristics with henge monuments of Neolithic date, Highworth circles, located almost entirely within the Hundred of Highworth, may be suggested as being of medieval date, possibly constructed for stock management. Scheduled.
Cropmarks etc seen on Allen’s AP’s: 4/178, 4/179, and Highworth mosaic 2032.(1) Earthen enclosures and circles, Highworth type. (numbering derived from authy 2):
a) SU 21309332. No.25. Circular, 240’ diameter, not visible on the ground.
b) SU 21289315. No.26. Circular, 340’ diameter. Double-ditched in places, at several points on the East side there are small cuts in the bank, which are also traceable on the west side. They appear to be too small for original work. It is noticeable that there is a small rise towards the centre.
c) SU 21449315. No.27. Large circular earthwork with flattened sides, ploughed down, but still plainly seen to have a wide spreading bank outside a wide, spreading ditch. Its ‘diameter’ is 317’ E-W.
d) SU 21539306. No.28. A small rectangular earthwork with rounded corners, and with a ditch inside the bank. It measures 212’ from N-S by 165’ from E-W.
Copies of the AP’s from which this information was derived are held by Devizes Museum.
The date and function of these enclosures is unknown.(2)

Details of henges on Pastscape

A group of three late Neolithic/early Bronze Age henge monuments alligned in a row, surviving as earthworks and cropmarks. Further details are contained in the individual henge records (SE 27 NE 31, 32,33). The features have been mapped as part of the Thornborough Henges NMP project. See individual records for details.

Details of cursus on Pastscape

A Neolithic cursus is visible as a cropmark on air photographs. The feature is aligned north-east south-west and is overlain by Thornborough Central henge. The cursus comprises a single ditch which is broken in parts and a rounded end is visible to the south-west. No evidence for a north-eastern terminus is visible on the air photographs. Much of the monument has now been destroyed through sand and gravel extraction.
Excavations took place in the 1940s and 1950s. The cursus underlies the central Thornborough henge circle (SE 27 NE 32), and a stone cist containing a crouched inhumation was found approximately on the centre line of the cursus during quarrying.
Palaeochannels are visible on air photographs as cropmarks in this area and have been mapped as part of the Thornborough AP Mapping project. It is possible that they may obscure other archaeological features.

Details of Long Barrow on Pastscape

TL 057247. A possible long barrow, 100ft long, 60ft wide and 2ft to 3ft high, much ploughed, is now under grass in a recreation ground (1). Listed as a long barrow by Ashbee (2). The recreation ground is an area of apparently natural undulations. At TL 05952472 there is an elevation of the approximate dimensions
noted above, oriented NW to SE and merging with the stream bank at the latter end. No ditch is visible. The classification must remain no more than “possible”. (3) Prior to 1960 the putative long barrow was under cultivation. Around 1960 the site was seeded with grass and designated a recreation ground. The site is difficult to pinpoint but teh recorded location of the mound did coincide with a broad crease across the north edge of the playing field. The mound is not visible of aerial photographs taken in the 1950’s.

Details of site on Pastscape

Fairly well preserved semi-circular earthwork enclosure of possible Neolithic or Iron Age date. The enclosure, surveyed in 1994 by RCHME, comprises a bank and external ditch, with no surviving entrances. It measures roughly 300 metres north-south by 200 metres east-west, and encloses about 5.5 hectares. The western side is formed by a later field boundary, which has truncated the enclosure. The earthworks delimit an area of low-lying ground on the eastern side of the River Lea, which rises from five springs located just inside the northern edge of the enclosure. There have been three separate episodes of excavation at the site. In 1953, small quantities of prehistoric pottery, including four sherds of Grooved Ware, were recovered from the ditch fill. A small hollow outside the ditch was tentatively identified as a Neolithic hut. In 1971, Grooved Ware sherds were found in the lower ditch fill and on the old ground surface under the bank. The ditch also contained Beaker, Peterborough, Iron Age and Romano-British sherds. In 1982, a pit, said to have been sealed beneath the bank, was excavated. It contained the skeleton of a young pig plus late Neolithic flint flakes. The pig produced a very recent radiocarbon date, and may have been associated with a piggery which once existed near the site. Geophysical survey in 1985 produced mostly negative results, although some possible pits were recorded outside the enclosure. The site has generally been regarded as a Neolithic henge-type enclosure, largely on the basis of the 1953 and 1971 excavations, and by analogy with the larger henge enclosures such as Mount Pleasant (Dorset), Marden, Durrington Walls, and Avebury (all Wiltshire). However, the evidence for dating is hardly unequivocal at present. There is considerable evidence for Iron Age activity in the immediate vicinity as well as stray finds of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age date. The earthwork has been scheduled as a Neolithic enclosure by English Heritage.