Cist (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – NZ 10 53
Archaeology & History
The location of what was, in all likelihood, a small Bronze Age burial on the edge of old Shotley Bridge (as it was in the mid-19th century) remains a mystery. It’s likely that the position of the site is now beneath someone’s house in the town. Its existence was thankfully recorded in correspondence between a “Mr. John Dixon, of the Engineer’s Office, Consett Ironworks,” and the great John Collingwood Bruce. Dixon’s letter dated October 13, 1856, told:
“I take the liberty of informing you of the discovery of a coffin, of some description or other, in a field near ShotleyBridge. I have visited the place and enclose a sketch² made on the spot as it appeared when I saw it. Some workmen were excavating sand and came upon it about a foot beneath the surface. The only remains that we can ascertain to have been in it, are a few pieces of bone, barely recognizable as such, and now in the hands of Dr.Renton. I have not yet seen them. He tells me that one fragment resembles a portion of a skull, but that they are in such small pieces it is difficult to say what they are. I shall endeavour to get a piece — as, if the surface remains, I apprehend we shall be able to say whether they are human or not. Possibly it may never have been a human coffin —though from the paved bottom and the appearance of great age the stones possess, and also the bearing NW and SE, I am inclined to think it must be one. The dry situation — a sloping hillside — would tend to preserve the remains of bones. I cannot hear of any urns, or the fragments of any, having been found in it. They may, if ever there were any, have been destroyed. The coffin may have been opened before, and rifled — say hundreds of years ago. It seems unaccountably short — as I believe the older ones are generally distinguished by their great size; but it may have been, and probably was, merely a receptacle for burnt remains, either in urns or not. The paving I mentioned had all disappeared when I saw it. As it consisted of small stones, they had doubtfully been carried away. Not being an antiquarian, or skilled in antiquarian lore, I cannot do more than form an idea about it, but shall be glad to hear your opinion at any time you may find it convenient.”
In a second letter, replying to Mr Bruce’s enquiries, Dixon added that a piece of flint had been found amongst the debris which, he thought,
“might possibly turn out to be part of an ancient weapon; and if so, might lead to some solution of the question.”
As Dr. Bruce pointed out: many ancient British graves were not uncommonly as short as three feet. In so called “rude times it would seem that a grave was made much shorter than the body—which was doubled up, and thrust in.” It was his opinion that the grave here was prehistoric. We have to agree with him. But where exactly was this place? Does anyone know…?
References:
- Anon., “Discovery at Shotley Bridge,” in Proceedings Society of Antiquaries Newcastle-upon-Tyne, volume 1, no.22, 1856.
- The sketch seems to have been lost.
© Paul Bennett, The Northern Antiquarian
