Enclosure (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – ST 6706 6307
Also Known as:
Windsbury Hill
Archaeology & History
Winsbury Hill earthworks
Apparently, all traces of the possible prehistoric camp or enclosure that were located by Edward Burrow in the 1920s, seems to have vanished. Very little remained of it even then. Lower down the slopes are a distinct series of ancient lynchets (or cultivation terraces), which may date back to the Iron Age—these are clearly visible on the eastern and western sides. Mr Burrow’s (1924) account of the site was as follows:
“Just south of Stantonbury Camp, near Bath, on the adjoining height known as Winsbury Hill, I have traced the almost obliterated remains of a ditch running round the shoulder of the hill, which I have indicated on my drawing. (above)
“On the south and eastern slopes of this prominent hill there are various terraces and scarps, which would repay further investigation. Possibly Winsbury was fortified as an outlier of the more pronounced Stantonbury Camp, standing directly on the line of the Wansdyke, which runs across the valley towards English Combe.”
References:
Burrow, Edward J., Ancient Earthworks and Camps of Somerset, E.J. burrow: Cheltenham 1924.
Settlement (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – SE 309 336
Archaeology & History
Absolutely nothing is left of the large series of ancient earthworks that were reported to have existed near the very centre of Leeds by Ralph Thoresby, James Wardell and others in the 18th and 19th centuries. Although we do not know with certainty the age and nature of the site, it would seem very likely to have had a prehistoric provenance. However, this wasn’t the opinion of either Thoresby (1715) or Thomas Whitaker (1816). They both thought the remains were of Roman origin – but we must remind ourselves of the inaccuracies made, particularly by Whitaker, when it came to estimating the dates of early monuments (e.g., Whitaker’s assertions of the huge Counter Hill earthworks above Addingham). Sometime later, James Wardell (1853) thought the remains on Quarry Hill were distinctly pre-Roman; though reasoned that the invading force may have used the site at a later date. Wardell wrote:
“Traces of a prior occupation were, until recently, observable on the summit of Quarry-hill, along the western edge of which ran an earthwork of considerable length and magnitude, and of semi-circular form.”
We know little else of the place, sadly, but the shape of the site around the hilltop edges would seem to support the likelihood of an Iron or Bronze Age origin. Further information would, of course, be more helpful…
References:
Thoresby, Ralph, Ducatus Leodiensis, Maurice Atkins: London 1715.
Wardell, James, The Antiquities of the Borough of Leeds, Moxon & Walker: Leeds 1853.
Whitaker, Thomas D., Loidis and Elmete, T. Davison: Leeds 1816.
Although cited in all modern archaeology texts as a series of four henge monuments, a recent article by J. Lewis & D. Mullin (2011) inform us that these “are not henges but belong to a tradition of enclosure that predates them and had a different function.” We’ll have to wait and see what they mean by that! In the meantime, we’ll have a quick scurry through the historical accounts of these four impressive ‘henges’ as Burl, Piggott and the others call ’em.
Surrounded at all angles by numerous barrows and tumuli, these four great henge monuments were shown on the 1887 Ordnance Survey map as a row of ‘Supposed Ring Forts’, when such ideas were in vogue, running in a line roughly SSW-NNE; the third one up having a couple of ponds within it. A brief early account of them was given by Harry Scarth (1859)—who was describing the series of nine round barrows a few hundred yards to the south—who told them to be “circular banks” each 500 feet across. The first more detailed account was in A.H. Allcroft’s (1908) classic text, where he wrote the following:
“…Close to the Castle of Comfort Inn, where the high road to Bristol crosses the line of the old Roman road running north-westward towards Charterhouse, there lies immediately west of the high road a series of four circles…all of one size, all of one plan, and all as mathematically exact as circles could well be when executed in such a soil and on such a scale. Although they have suffered greatly from the mining operations which have scarred all the Mendips, as well as from the plough — one of the four is almost obliterated — they are still quite easy to make out. The diameter of each is some 550 feet within the area, which is surrounded by a broad low vallum, and that again by a correspondingly broad and shallow ditch. The height of the vallum above the ditch, where best observable, is some 5 feet. There are no determinable entrances. The most southerly of the group is about 250 feet away from the second ; the second about 200 feet away from the third; and a line joining the centres of the first and third passes through the centre of the second also, and points 17° east of north. The fourth circle lies 1,200 feet away from the third, not in a right line with the others, but slightly to the west. Between the third and fourth circles passes the Roman road. Within the third circle is an old pond of some size.
“With every appearance of being all of one date, and that a venerable one, these circles lack every characteristic of military works. Their peculiar disposition, their painstaking regularity, and their identity of size, all suggest that they must, if really old, be of ritual, and perhaps of astronomical character”
Old drawing of the central hengesHenge 1, recently damaged (courtesy Pete Glastonbury)
Allcroft’s ideas of ritual and astronomy were pretty good for the period, as we take it for granted these days that such events occurred at henges — so the existence of four such sites right next to each other, would have made this one helluva place in neolithic and Bronze Age periods. A few years after Allcroft, the henges were described in Mr Burrow’s (1924) excellent illustrated survey, from which the drawing of the two central henges is taken (the two ‘R’s in the background highlight the line of the Roman road which runs past them). Burrow’s didn’t add much more of any note, simply telling:
“…in the fields north and south, are placed earth-work rings, each about 180 yards in diameter, on a line placed slightly north by east. The most northerly of these rings is almost obliterated, but the three on the west of the road from Chew Stoke to Oakhill are quite clearly defined, as my drawing (above) will show. I have been able to include two of these remarkable rings in my picture, the edge of the bank (which was, when I saw it, fringed with yellow gorse), being about 6 feet above the level of the ditch outside. It is generally supposed that these ringed earthworks were connected with some prehistoric ritual, and Hadrian Allcroft thinks were used for primitive astronomical observations or the construction of a primitive calendar.”
Tratman’s plan of Priddy HengesAnother view of Henge 1 (courtesy Pete Glastonbury)
Many years later when archaeologist K.S. Painter (1964) came to describe these henges, he listed them as “stone circles” (what the hell was he on!?), but this error may derive from the finding of several stones that once existed inside the southernmost Henge 1. These were uncovered following excavation work done here by E.K. Tratman (1967) and his colleagues, who explored and numbered the four henges—running from south to north—as follows:
“Circle 1: This is tolerably complete. A portion of the southwest quadrant has been destroyed by mining and there are three modern gaps in the ring. Mining has involved the ditch on the west and south, and to a small extent on the east. There is an irregular extensive hollow west of the centre and this too is a product of mining and contains a number of large stones so derived. The circle is not quite a true one, being flattened slightly on the west. The circle has a diameter from bank top to bank top of 520ft. The single original entrance is NNE of the centre. Stones 1 and 3-7 were removed by the farmer before excavation, but subsequent ploughing immediately after removal did not reveal any change in soil texture or colour. Stone 8 was placed in its present position quite recently. It is not known where it came from. Other stones have recently been placed on top of the bank east of the entrance by the farmer (1964-5). Stone 2 is in a relatively ancient position.
Circle 2: This is a true circle and its diameter and position of its entrance are similar to Circle 1. It has been considerably disturbed by mining. A group of stones (10-14) and stone 9 represent modern collections from the field. None of them is in its original position. There are two modern gaps in the ring.
Circle 3: This is distinctly flattened on the east and west. The N-S diameter is 520ft and the E-W 490ft from bank top to bank top. The northeast quadrant reported by Allcroft as being levelled is still traceable. The circle has been greatly disturbed by mining… The entrance is SSW of the centre, the opposite pole to circle 1 & 2, and has probably been widened, perhaps by miners. The marsh may be an original feature or the product of mining. The two ponds are certainly modern, and so is a small mound, which is probably spoil from the major pond.
Circle 4: This is incomplete. It has a diameter of 560ft, which is considerably larger than any of the others. The OS map shows only the eastern semi-circle remaining. However, the bank and in part the ditch can be traced…If the visible and proved end of the ditch on the SSW was intended to be at the edge of the causeway, then the entrance would have been in the same position as that of Circle 3.”
Very recently, a local land-owner quite deliberately bulldozed a large portion of the southern henge in this complex, destroying much of it. This act of criminal vandalism will hopefully not go unpunished and is, at the present time, going through the courts.
…to be continued…
References:
Allcroft, A. Hadrian, Earthwork of England, MacMillan: London 1908.
Burrow, Edward J., Ancient Earthworks and Camps of Somerset, E.J. Burrow: Cheltenham 1924.
Lewis, J. & Mullin, D., “New Excavations at Priddy Circle 1, Mendip Hills, Somerset,” in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Speleological Society, volume 25, 2011.
Painter, K.S., The Severn Basin, Cory, Adams & Mackay: London 1964.
Scarth, Harry M., “Some Account of the Investigation of Barrows on the Line of the Roman Road Between Old Sarum and the Port at the Mouth of the River Axe,” in The Archaeological Journal, volume 16, 1859.
First highlighted on the 1850 Ordnance Survey map of western Addingham in the same year William Howson described it, this large oval embankment sits on the eastern side of Counter Hill, amidst its gigantic earthworks, with attending tumuli, cup-and-rings, buried standing stones and other enclosures, like one huge prehistoric family of ancient sites! The earthworks here are in slightly better condition than the nearby ones at Marchup, as we can still make out the ditch marking the site.
There have been many literary visitors to the Round Dikes and its cluster of sites. One of the early ones was by the renowned historians and antiquarians, Forrest & Grainge (1868) who, in the second part of their ‘rambles’ exploring the prehistoric sites on and around Rombald’s Moor in the 1860s, told us:
“The Camp—known locally as Round Dykes—is of an irregular oval shape, the longest axis measuring over all 300 feet, and the shorter 250 feet. The trench outside the vallum is about 15 feet wide, and 4 or 5 feet in depth. The area is level, showing no indications of buildings or works of any kind. A feeble spring of water rises at one corner. The trench is regular and even, and does not appear to have ever been used as a series of pit dwellings. This work commands a large and splendid view of Wharfedale…”
Although suggested by Thomas Whitaker (1878) in his magnum opus on the history of Craven, to have been constructed by the Romans—who laid a road nearby on top of another earlier trackway—the site is obviously prehistoric. But when the late great Harry Speight (1900) ventured over for a gander at the end of the 1890s, he too thought it might be Roman. Finding the place to be “thickly overgrown with ling,” it was still in very good condition he said, telling “how its outline is almost as perfect as when made seventeen or eighteen centuries ago.” He continued:
“The form bespeaks a rather late date, having the characteristic angles, which makes the ordinary streight-sided rectangle into an octogan, giving it the appearance superficially of a round or oval. Its dimensions are based on the most approved form of castramentation, the length being one-third greater than the breadth, namely sixty yards wide and eighty yards long. A watch-mound has been thrown up within the southwest angle, and the whole camp defended with a double rampart having an intervening ditch. There is an old and excellent spring of water on the east sie of the camp; the site having been well chosen, commanding as it does, a splendid view of the valley and Street as it runs towards Olicana.”
By the time Eric Cowling (1946) came and looked at these earthworks, the opinion had truly swayed to seeing Round Dikes as a prehistoric site and not Roman. Cowling placed it firmly in the Iron Age! His profile of the site told:
“On the Western slope of Counter Hill and with a wide view of Wharfedale to the east is a second enclosure with five sides. Three of these form the three sides of a square and the remaining two bend outwards to enclose a spring on the lower eastern side. This enclosure is one hundred feet across from east to west and in the opposite direction the greatest measurement is seventy-three feet. The ditch is fifteen feet wide and varies in depth from three to five feet and there appears to have been an entrance in the eastern angle. There is an unfinished look about the earthwork; the inner and outer banks vary in height and are not continuous. The position is badly sited for defence, being overlooked from the higher ground to the west. The site would be very suitable for excavation, for it has been untouched by cultivation and is undisturbed.”
E.T. Cowling’s plan
And as far as I’m aware, no such excavation has yet been done here; and as we all know the local archaeologist is pretty poor when it comes doing such things round here, so god only knows when the real explorers and scientists will ever get their teeth into the place! However, the writers and archaeology consultants John and Phillip Dixon told that “a limited survey of parts of Round Dykes defined nine hut circles or parts of circles and possible hearth sites” in the 1980s. And although they ascribe the large earthwork as being Iron Age, the tumulus which sits near the southern edge of the enclosure is ascribed as Bronze Age.
It’s likely that the internal tumulus (a separate profile of it is forthcoming) was of communal and religious importance at Round Dykes. There was probably ritual function here within the enclosure, though only at certain times, when and where the ancestral spirits in the tomb awoke or were required to help the living. The spring of water on the eastern side of the enclosure, above the tumulus, was obviously not just the main drinking supply for the people who stayed here, but would also have had ritual importance (water, forget not, is tantamount to blood in ancestral cosmologies, and not a ‘commodity’ as the half-witted retards in modern culture have profaned it in their shallow beliefs). In the Lands of the Dead, water is vital for gods, spirits and the sustenance of the underworlds. (Eliade 1979) You might not think that; judæochristians might not think that — but the worlds of experience are much wider and deeper than the failing beliefs of atheists and monotheists…
…to be continued…
References:
Bennett, Paul, The Old Stones of Elmet, Capall Bann: Milverton 2001.
Bennett, Paul, The Prehistoric Sites of Counter Hill, Addingham, forthcoming 2013.
Cowling, Eric T., Rombald’s Way, William Walker: Otley 1946.
Forrest, C. & Grainge, William, A Ramble on Rumbald’s Moor, among the Dwellings, Cairns and Circles of the Ancient Britons in the Spring of 1868: Part 2 – Counterhill and Castleberg, W.T. Lamb: Wakefield 1868.
Dixon, John & Phillip, Journeys through Brigantia – volume 1: Walks in Craven, Airedale and Wharfedale, Aussteiger Publications: Barnoldswick 1990.
Eliade, Mircea, A History of Religious Ideas – volume 1, Collins: London 1979.
Howson, William, An Illustrated Guide to the Curiosities of Craven, Whittaker: Settle 1850.
Speight, Harry, Upper Wharfedale, Elliott Stock: London 1900.
Whitaker, Thomas Dunham, The History and Antiquities of the Deanery of Craven in the County of York, (3rd edition) Joseph Dodgson: Leeds 1878.
The low hill called Beadle Hill is located about half a mile north of Swinden Reservoir between Worsthorne and Haggate in the area called Extwistle. It is just a short distance south of Monk Hall and a little east of Monk Hall farm. The earthworks are a long rectangular feature on a low hill (more of a mound really).
The earthworks are more noticeable on the south and west sides but less so at the eastern and northern edges of the mound. They can’t be said to be in any way defensive. The thinking is that this was a Romano-British farmstead or settlement from the late 4th century AD and, not as often thought a Roman camp. The name Beadle is apparently from the Anglo-Saxon/Old English word ‘Beado‘ or ‘Beadlo‘, meaning ‘battle.’ So could the hill be the site of some long forgotten skirmish from the time when the Romans were leaving the north of England? Or could it refer to the legendary ‘Battle of Brunanburh’ which was fought close by in 937 AD? In that battle King Athelstan fought against, and defeated, the Danes and Scots who were moving south from Northumbria.
At the south side of Beadle Hill there is an ancient spring, and to the east is Twist Castle—a circular earthwork that could date from the same period as Beadle Hill. Also, there are a number of tumuli and cairns in this area though these are prehistoric in date, probably Neolithic or Bronze-Age. I do not know whether the site has been excavated. If it has, please let us know!
References:
Cockburn, John Henry, The Battle of Brunanburh and its Period, Elucidated by Place-Names, Sir W.C. Leng: Sheffield 1931.
Frost, Roger, A Lancashire Township – The History of Briercliffe-with-Extwistle, Rieve Edge Press: Briercliffe 1982.
From the crossroads at the centre of Meltham, near the church, take the Wessenden Head Road up out of town for about a mile. Keep your eyes peeled to right (north) for the track leading downhill to Oldfield Hall or Farm. As you go down the track you’ll see a small cluster of hawthorns running along a small ridge 100 yards or so ahead, at the end of the field, with some line of embankment. This is on the right of the track and is the Oldfield enclosure!
Archaeology & History
The remains of this large quadrangular settlement were first described as of ‘Roman’ origin in Mr Morehouse’s History of Kirkburton (1861), where he told that,
“In the…township of Meltham are the remains of a Roman encampment, on the moor below West Nab, a short distance to the left of the road which leads thence to the village…forming nearly a square of about four chains. When I visited the place about twenty years since, in company with the owner and other friends, the whole was very distinct and perfect. This piece of ground has since been brought into cultivation, yet the trenches are still visible. This encampment would appear only to have been made to supply some temporary emergency.”
Joseph Hughes old drawing of the ‘Roman’ campWestern embankment & ditch
But Mr Morehouse’s speculation of its Roman origin and function are known to be untrue. The site is in fact of Iron Age origin and was probably in semi-permanent use for long periods between Spring and Autumn. But the ‘Roman’ nature of the site was echoed a few years later, albeit briefly, in Mr Hughes’ History of Meltham (1866), where he told that “querns or hand-mills for grinding corn were found” at the site.
In 1909, the Saddleworth antiquarian Ammon Wrigley excavated the site but found little that could enable a correct dating of the enclosure. It was explored again a few years later by Ian Richmond and then again by J.P. Toomey in the 1960s. Bernard Barnes (1982) summarised their respective findings, telling:
“Rampart of rubble and earth 7 feet wide faced with drystone walling; original height c.10 feet; V-shaped rock-cut ditch, 5½ feet deep and 6 feet wide, and a counterscarp bank similar to inner rampart with drystone revetment surviving to 4 courses. Northeast entrance had double timber gateway. Pre-rampart palisade trench on at least 2 sides of the enclosure with vertical posts 2 feet apart. Finds include 2 stone discs, rough out beehive quern, iron slag and very small fragments of pottery. Site dated to Iron Age.”
Another enclosure of similar period can be found a few hundred yards to the south.
Take the A6034 road between Addingham and Silsden and, at the very top of the hill between the two towns, at Cringles, take the small road of Cringles Lane north towards Draughton. Less than a mile on, veer to left and go along Bank Lane until you reach the track and footpath on your right that takes you to Moorock Hall. On the other side of the Hall, take the track on your left, along the wallside; and where the track turns left again, look into the field on the other side of the wall. You can see some of the ditch and embankment running across the field.
Archaeology & History
Found within the southwestern segment of the gigantic Counter Hill enclosure, near Woofa Bank, Eric Cowling (1946) described “an almost obliterated fortification” which has certainly seen better days — though you can make out the ditched earthwork pretty easily at ground level. When T.D. Whitaker visited this place sometime before 1812, he described it as a camp that “was found to contain numbers of rude (?!?) fireplaces constructed of stone and filled with ashes.” He also thought the enclosure was Roman in nature.
Western line of embankment
It’s a large site. Running around the outer edge of the embankment, this enclosure measures roughly 378 yards (345m) in circumference. It has diameters measuring, roughly east-west, 132 yards (121m); and north-south is 95 yards (87m). The ditch that defines the edges of the enclosure averages 6-7 yards across and is give or take a yard deep throughout — but this is not an accurate reflection of the real depth, as centuries of earth have collected and filled the ditch. An excavation is necessary to reveal the true depth of this. There also seems to have been additional features constructed inside the enclosure, but without an excavation we’ll never know what they are. Examples of cup-marked stones can be found nearby.
The Marchup Hill enclosure was described by the early antiquarian James Wardell (1869), who visited this and the other earthworks around Counter Hill. He told that this was,
“of oblong form, but broadest at the west end, and rather larger than the other. When the area of this camp was broken up, there were found some numbers of rude fireplaces constructed of stone and filled with ashes, and also a large perforated bead of jet.”
E.T. Cowling’s plan
Modern opinion places the construction of this enclosure within the Iron Age to Romano-British period, between 1000 BC to 300 AD. E.T. Cowling (1946) thought the Iron Age to be most likely, but it may indeed be earlier. His description of the site was as follows:
“At the foot of the southern slope of Counter Hill and close to the head waters of Marchup Beck is an almost obliterated fortification. These remains are roughly rectangular, but one side is bent to meet the other; the enclosure has rounded corners and has a ditch with the upcast at each side. The inner area is naturally above the level of the surrounding ground. In spite of heavy ploughing, the ditch on the western side still has a span of fifteen feet and a depth of five feet between the tops of the banks. Whitaker states that the camp “was found to contain numbers of rude fireplaces constructed of stone and filled with ashes.” These hearths appear to be the remains of cooking-holes such as are often found on Iron Age sites… Cup and ring markings are close at hand, but no flints have been found or trace of Mid-Bronze Age habitation. The enclosure is badly planned, the upcast on the western side would aid an attack rather than the defence.”
…to be continued…
References:
Cowling, Eric T., Rombald’s Way, William Walker: Otley 1946.
Wardell, James, Historical Notes of Ilkley, Rombald’s Moor, Baildon Common, and other Matters of the British and Roman Periods, Joseph Dodgson: Leeds 1869. (2nd edition 1881).
Whitaker, Thomas Dunham, The History and Antiquities of the Deanery of Craven in the County of York, (3rd edition) Joseph Dodgson: Leeds 1878.
A couple of miles west of the Hutton Moor henge we find the faint remans of another large prehistoric ritual site, soon to fade from existence. Although the local farmer was aware of the existence of this ‘earth circle’ in his fields in the 1940s, the place wasn’t officially catalogued until Prof. J.K. St. Joseph noticed it following an aerial survey of the region in 1951 (from whence the aerial photo comes). Today sadly, much of the site has succumbed to the ravages of excessive agricultural activity and is all but destroyed. Faint traces of it can be seen at ground level when the crops are down, but most of it’s gone. Even when first discovered, the remains were sparse, as the photo (below) shows.
Early aerial photo of Nunwick hengeMr Dymond’s early ground- plan (from YAJ, 1963)
Neolithic in origin, the site was excavated in 1961 by D.P. Dymond who explored a portion of the bank and ditch and stripped a small internal section. His findings showed it to be structurally similar to the other henges in the area and of considerable size. Measuring 690 feet across, the henge spread across two fields and was bisected by a hedge and farm track. When Dymond first explored the henge he reported how the surrounding bank was between 1-3 feet high and had been spread to a width of 120 feet; the ditch was just a couple of feet deep; and the original ‘entrances’ north and south of the ring were still just visible as “slight depressions in the bank.”
The Nunwick henge was classed as a Class II henge (after Atkinson). Five feet smaller than the Thornborough (south) Henge, its entrances are close to north-south. The River Ure is less than half-a-mile from the site and the presence of other streams close by further emphasizes water as a potentially relevant ingredient. This element seems to have had some factor in the structure of the henge as there were many water-worn stones found in the embankment, which probably came from the nearby river. However, like many henges, very few remains were discovered upon excavation here, as Mr Dymond’s (1963) account tells:
“The 1961 Excavation was restricted to a single long section through the northwest side of the circle, to examine the structural details of the bank and ditch, and to confirm the apparent absence of an outer ditch.
“A small area, 22ft square, was stripped inside the ditch to test for pits or postholes, but nothing was found in the sandy silt which covers the gravel deposits. Air-photographs gave no indication of a former presence of standing features within the enclosure.
“The ditch was found to be 45ft wide and 5ft 10in deep, with a wide, shallow profile. Allowing for the destruction by ploughing of the upper edges of the ditch, the orignal dimensions of the ditch were undoubtedly greater. The edges of the ditch were not easy to see in excavation, as the fill was similar to the natural gravel subsoil and some slumping had occurred on the loose gravel faces. The ditch had apparently silted slowly with material washed in from both sides. At an early stage in the silting, when the accumulation was about 1ft, there had been occupation in a limited area, revealed by a circular patch of burnt material, 10ft in diameter, which contained many split pot-boilers reddened by fire.
“Between the ditch and bank there was originally a berm of 30ft. On the surface, this is not visible as the bank shades imperceptibly into the ditch. The bank was originally about 60ft wide, but is now considerably spread on both sides. In the 1961 section the bank survived only 18in high; this was sufficient, however, to show clear traces of tip-lines and the interleaving of loads. The lowest two inches of bank material consist partly of turf… Under the bank, the original turf-line was visible as a purple-black line, 1-3in thick, with traces of a weakly developed iron-pan. In the original composition on the bank there were many water-worn stones (3-9in across), now in the outer spread and in the bottom of the ditch; on the northern side of the circle where the bank is best preserved there are large quantities of these stones on the plough soil. Quarried from the bottom of the ditch, where the aggregate of the gravels was much larger, these stones were probably on the top of the bank.
“Two square were dug outside the bank, on the line of the section to text for an outer ditch. This confirmed the evidence of air-photographs that no such ditch existed. Of the six henges in the Ripon area, Nunwick is therefore the only one without two ditches.
“No dating evidence was found in the 1961 excavation. Three worked flints however, were picked up from the plough soil of the southwestern field near the henge. They consist of two waste flakes and a small flake scraper of opaque brown flint.”
Archaeologists and ley hunters alike have described how the Nunwick Henge aligns with the three prominent Thornborough Henges to the north. Significant…?
References:
Dymond, D.P., “The Henge Monument at Nunwick, near Ripon – 1961 Excavation,” in Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, part 161 (volume 41), 1963.
Wainwright, Geoffrey J., “A Review of Henge Monuments in the Light of Recent Research,” in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, volume 35, 1969.
From the village of Chipping, go along Talbot Street until it meets Green Lane and there, on the left, there runs a country lane roughly northwards. Go along this and after about 1½ mile, watch out for the track of Quiet Lane on your left. Go all the way up this track for nearly 1½ mile, till you reach its end. Diagonally across to your right, note the stile into the field. Go over this and, some 50 yards across the field, look to your south where the field rises to its small peak. This is the site.
Archaeology & History
Fair Oak enclosure
Although little can be seen of this site at ground level, aerial photography in the 1980s identified a large circular earthwork at Fair Oak Farm. The circle has a surrounding ditch and bank enclosing a raised circular mound of approximately 100m in diameter. It is thought that the feature may represent Bronze/Iron Age settlement in the area, and may possibly be a village site. The site requires further survey.
Aerial photography has identified a number of possible settlement sites in the area between Dinkling Green and the River Hodder at Whitewell and in the area around Whitmore below Totridge Fell. The largest being that at Fair Oak.
Folklore
Jessica Lofthouse (1946) told of a number of places close by that were said by local people to be inhabited by faerie folk — Fair Oak itself being no exception. Hinting of earlier heathen gatherings, she wrote:
“As for the farm of Fair Oak, where we take the path to Dinkling Green, nearby was the fairy oak, the scene of so much midsummer revelry.”
In Grassington, go up the main street and keep going uphill, out of town. You’re on Moor Road now and it keeps going northeast for about a mile, where the small copse of trees grows just before Yarnbury House. However, on the other side of the road (right) two field before you reach the house, you’ll notice a slightly raised elevation in the field, close to the wall. A footpath runs right past it, so you shouldn’t have too much trouble finding it!
Archaeology & History
This is a fine, roughly circular neolithic monument, sat not-quite-on-the-heights, but still possessing damn good views all round (except immediately west), begging the question, ‘what on earth are you and why were you built here?’ Answers to which, we don’t really know. But ascertaining its geomantic nature wouldn’t be too difficult for local people who have spent years visiting the site. John Dixon (1990) mentioned how, in the winter months,
“the sun falls behind Pendle (Hill) providing it with a sky-red backdrop. In my own view the site is related to the presence of Pendle…and may have been the major factor in the location of the monument.”
He may be right! It has been suggested by one archaeologist (King et al, 1995) that the site was “most probably a wood henge” with upright rings of wooden posts that were built onto the central platform — but until we get a full dig here, we’re not gonna know.
N-NE section of hengeSW section of the henge
Found close to an extensive amount of other prehistoric remains in the area (dating from the neolithic to Iron Age), this henge monument is notable for its size, as it’s only a little fella! It’s like a mini-version of the Castle Dykes henge near Aysgarth, 14 miles to the north! First mentioned as a ‘disc barrow’ in 1929, J. Barrett (1963) added the Yarnbury Henge to the archaeological registers 32 years later, citing it as a “circular platform 60-63 ft diameter, surrounded by a ditch 20ft wide (crest to crest) and an outer bank.” A couple of years later D.P. Dymond (1965) described the henge in slightly more detail, telling:
“At Yarnbury, just over one mile north-east of Grassington there is an earthwork 116ft in diameter overall, consisting of a ditch with external bank. On surface inspection the earthwork appeared to have the characteristics of a henge monument. An excavation carried out in July 1964 , by an archaeological summer school based on Grantley Hall, proved this thesis. There was no trace of an internal mound and the entrance to the southeast was obviously original. No traces were found of any sort of internal structure, and a square pit in the centre of the circle had been caused by an excavation earlier this century. The ditch was rock-cut and the bank of simple dump construction. No dating evidence was found… With its single entrance the Yarnbury henge falls into Atkinson’s Class 1.”
SW area of the henge
In recent years it seems that some damage has been done by digging into the east and southeastern sections of the henge. Summat we hope doesn’t get any worse. In the field on the other side of the road we found traces of prehistoric enclosure walling (along with a curious, large, almost cursiform shadow, 44 yards across and running 110 yards NE), typical of the extensive settlement remains found less than a mile away at Lea Green and High Close Pasture, Grassington. It’s an impressive area, well worth checking out!
References:
Barrett, J., “Grassington, W.R.,” in Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, part 161, 1963.
Dixon, John & Phillip, Journeys through Brigantia – volume 2: Walks in Ribblesdale, Malhamdale and Central Wharfedale, Aussteiger Publishing: Barnoldswick 1990.
Dymond, D.P., “Grassington, W.R.,” in Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, part 163, 1965.
Harding, A.F., Henge Monuments and Related Sites of Great Britain, BAR 175: Oxford 1987.
Harding, Jan, The Henge Monuments of the British Isles, Tempus: Stroud 2003.
King, Alan, et al, Early Grassington, Yorkshire Archaeological Society 1995.
Wainwright, G.J., “A Review of Henge Monuments in the Light of Recent Research,” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, volume 35, 1969.
