Once visible near the middle of the village, references to this local water supply seem pretty scant. According to Kenneth Cameron (1950) it gained its name from a local man called Robert Holland. This may be the case; but there is a curious entry found in a notice regarding the Land Enclosures of Smalley from November 6, 1784. In it we read that the land here was at that time owned by one Samuel Kerry (well known in the village as he built The Rose and Crown pub in 1768) who was living “upon the Common” and had “part of a croft” here. Therein was mentioned a water source named the ‘Holly Well’ instead of the Holland Well. I can only assume that the two are the same, as the proximity of them are very close indeed. The account told that,
“a disused well in the triangular croft at the back of the sixth milestone in the village marks the site of (Samuel Kerry’s) original home, and he is said to have dug the “Holly Well” close by for brewing purposes, which has long supplied the vicinity with good water.”
The name ‘Holly’ may infer that a holly tree grew by the side of the well, and that the title ‘Holland’ was a corruption later grafted onto the site. Are there any local historians out there who know more…?
References:
Cameron, Kenneth, The Place-Names of Derbyshire – volume 2, Cambridge University Press 1950.
Round Barrow (destroyed): OS Grid Reference — SU 1510 4330
Also Known as:
Durrington 70
Archaeology & History
Cunnington’s sketch of the barrow remains
This was one of four ploughed-out round barrows (or ‘ring ditches’ in modern archaeo-jargon) that once existed immediately southeast of the well-known Woodhenge and was the closest of the four to the monument, being just 60 yards away. It was first noticed as a faint crop mark in an aerial survey photograph taken in 1926 of the fields hereby. When it was investigated at ground level by Mr & Mrs Cunnington in August 1928, “no trace could be detected on the surface” of any extant monument—which they described as ‘Circle IV’ in their superb survey.
The Cunnington’s (1929) account of the excavation they did here was pretty brief, telling:
“The soil was removed and the chalk brushed over that part of the area enclosed within firm lines. Beyond a few shards of pottery in the soil, nothing whatever was found. As the ditch was comparatively shallow and the filling-in was in patches dark in colour, with much ash and some burnt flints in it, a considerable length was dug out, as shown (in the sketch, above). A few fragments of pottery similar to some of that from Woodhenge were found in and below the old turf line.
“The only find of interest was that of a piece of glass slag on the actual bottom of the ditch. It is true it was at the shallowest point, but there was no evidence of disturbance.
“Conclusion — Like those of the other rings (Woodhenge Circles 1, and 3, PB) this ditch may have originally surrounded a Bronze Age burial, placed on the surface and covered with a mound, both of which were destroyed when the ground was levelled.”
References:
Cunnington, M.E., Woodhenge, George Simpson: Devizes 1929.
Royal Commission Historical Monuments, England, Stonehenge and its Environs, Edinburgh University Press 1979.
Wainwright, G.J. & Longworth, Ian, Durrington Walls: Excavations 1966-1968, Society of Antiquaries: London 1971.
Round Barrow (destroyed): OS Grid Reference — SU 1511 4327
Also Known as:
Durrington 69
Archaeology & History
Cunningham’s sketch of Woodhenge-3 barrow
This was one of four ploughed-out round barrows (or ‘ring ditches’ in modern archaeo-jargon) that once existed immediately southeast of the well-known Woodhenge complex, constructed approximately 95 yards away. As with others in this field, the site was first noticed as a faint crop mark in an aerial survey photograph taken in 1926. When it was subsequently investigated at ground-level by Mr & Mrs Cunnington in August 1928, “no trace could be detected on the surface” of the monument in question—which they described as ‘Circle III’ in their superb survey.
Very little was found in the Cunnington’s (1929) excavation, as their following brief account indicates:
“The soil was removed and the surface of the chalk brushed, over the whole of the area enclosed within this ditch.
“Only one small oval-shaped hole was found, near the edge of the ditch at “a” (above), 33in x 22in, and only 5in deep in the chalk; in it were a number of fragments of bones of a small ox and pig, a piece of burnt clay and a flint scraper weathered white.
“As there was nothing dateable in the circle it was not thought worth while to excavate more than a short section of the ditch. Pottery comparable with that found at Woodhenge came from the old turf line and from the bottom of the ditch.
“Conclusion — Like those of the other circles (Woodhenge circles 1, 2 and 4, PB) it is probable that this ditch was originally made round a Bronze Age burial that had been placed on the surface, and that it was destroyed together with the covering mound when the ground was levelled.”
References:
Cunnington, M.E., Woodhenge, George Simpson: Devizes 1929.
Royal Commission Historical Monuments, England, Stonehenge and its Environs, Edinburgh University Press 1979.
Wainwright, G.J. & Longworth, Ian, Durrington Walls: Excavations 1966-1968, Society of Antiquaries: London 1971.
Along the A169 road between Sleights and Pickering, some two miles south of Sleights at the highest point on the moors just above the west side of the road, you’ll see a large mound with what looks like a standing stone on top of it. A minor road turns off the A169 at this point, heading southeast, and the large mound is 150 yards from the roadside. You can’t really miss it!
Archaeology & History
Shown on the first OS map of the area in 1853, this conspicuous prehistoric tomb surmounted by a relatively recent boundary stone, sits at the highest point on the moors in these parts. Despite this (as with others on these moors), very little has been written about the place and it has received only minimal attention in archaeology tomes. Even the renowned pen of Frank Elgee (1912; 1930) gave it only passing mention. Perhaps it aint a bad thing to be honest.
Breckon Howe, from the south
As well as being conspicuous, it’s large. Rising some six feet above the natural ground level, it measures 26 yards across its east-west axis, and 29 yards north-south, with a rough circumference of 88 yards. The boundary stone that surmounts its crown sits in a hollow that looks like it was opened up a century or two ago by antiquarians (much like ourselves). But its position of the tomb in the landscape that is most striking. The view from here is considerable, having a clear 360º view for many miles around. Other prehistoric tombs can be seen from here, but more importantly this tomb can be seen on the skyline from many others. This was probably a deliberate feature intended by its builders–and it’s not uncommon, as many of our upland regions are crowned with ancient tombs like Breckon Howe. In all likelihood this would have been the resting place of some important ancestral figure: a tribal elder or a shaman, whose spirit after death could view and travel across the landscape they inhabited in life.
Although the tomb presently sits amidst an endless sea of heather (Calluna vulgaris) typical of moorland across our northern lands, the name of the site ‘breckon’, according to George Young (1817) derives from the dialect word meaning ferns or bracken. This is echoed in Francis Kildale’s (1855) local dialect study and subsequently in Joseph Wright’s (1898) unequalled magnum opus.
Folklore
In the early 19th century, one George Calvert who lived in the area, collected as much folklore as he could, as it was dying off with the coming of the Church. One such piece told that there was once a hob who lived by this old tomb. A hob is generally known as a supernatural creature, but in this area it can also be a medicine man. Some hobs were good, others were malicious. We know not what type of hob lived lived here, but Calvert simply told us there used to be “T’ Hob of Brackken Howe”. Nowt more! It would be good to find the story behind this old character, if it hasn’t been lost entirely…
References:
Elgee, Frank, Early Man in Northeast Yorkshire, Frank Bellows: Gloucester 1930.
Elgee, Frank, The Moorlands of North-Eastern Yorkshire, A. Brown: London 1912.
Kildale, Francis, A Glossary of Yorkshire Words and Phrases Collected in Whitby and the Nieghbourhood, J.R. Smith: London 1855.
Home, Gordon, The Evolution of an English Town, J.M. Dent: London 1905.
Wright, Joseph, English Dialect Dictionary – volume 1, .Henry Frowde: London 1898.
Young, George, A History of Whitby and Streoneshalh Abbey – volume 2, Clarke & Medd: Whitby 1817.
Acknowledgements: A huge thanks to Lindsay Mitchell for getting us up to see this great tomb and its companion.
Best reached by going up Shipley Glen, to the Brackenhall Circle enclosure; keep going for a couple of hundred yards and then drop down into the trees, taking the directions directly to the Cloven Hoof Well. Just past the well, a small footpath leads you downhill towards the large stream at the bottom, where there’s a rocky crossing (an old ford). Go over here and, barely 50 yards upstream to your right, a large singular moss-covered boulder is set back, just a few yards above the stream with a small pool in front of it. That’s it!
Archaeology & History
The ‘directions’ to find this might seem a little confusing to locals at first. This is because the whereabouts of the Wood Well is on the eastern boundary edge of Gilstead – which is down at the bottom of Shipley Glen. The steep muddy hill above it is almost always slippy and wet through, so it’s easiest to approach from the Baildon side.
The shallow muddy waters in a hot summer
The site is shown on the 1852 map of the area, but I can find no written material telling of its qualities. If it ever had any medicinal virtues, they have long since been forgotten. Whilst the water here is fresh and drinkable, in times of drought and low rainfall the water subsides and leaves only a muddy pool – just as it was when I last visited, making it quite undrinkable. But to me, the main aspect of this site is its natural spirit, its locale, as it’s surrounded by unerring hues of rich greens, cast out by the landscape of mosses prevalent in a region almost bereft of such voices. If you like y’ wells – check it out!
Along the A169 road that runs may miles from Whitby to Pickering, as you go through the small town of Sleights, the road gets steep for a mile or so, until you reach the moorland tops, where the road runs dead straight. After 1.2 miles (1.93km) along the straight road, a small minor road is to your right. Go along here for literally half-a-mile (0.8km) where you’ll see a small dirt-track on your right, with a locked gate. There’s room to park here. Walk straight onto the moor towards the large rounded mound about 200 yards northeast. That’s it!
Archaeology & History
Highlighted as a blip on the 1853 OS-map (see above) 250 yards south of Flat Howe (1), this is the slightly smaller of the two prehistoric cairns on this flat piece of moorland (which covered in scattered woodland at the time of its construction). It has been severely robbed of stones by some land-owning fuckwits in the 19th century, who saw fit to build a shooting hut into the tomb itself! Knob-heads! As a result, much of the content of the cairn has been severely depleted, with only its western side having any real height to it.
Flat Howe 2 looking south (photo, James Elkington)Flat Howe 2, looking east
Just like Flat Howe 1, it seems that it’s never been excavated, so we can only guess about how old it is; though it is very probably Bronze Age. The cairn is roughly 25 yards across and oval in form, but was probably more circular before those morons built their hunting lodge into it. Its western side stands some 4-5 feet tall, which was probably the uniform height all round it before it was vandalized. A few yards to the south is what may be a cup-marking on one of the flat earthfast rocks, although I’m slightly sceptical of it.
The position of the site in the landscape is a fine one: living on a large flat open expanse of land, which was probably cleared of some trees when it was first built, allowing for a very wide view in all directions, just like its companion 250 yards to the north. Well worth checking out.
Folklore
It’s worth repeating the myth we have of a place on Sleights Moor that I’ve also cited in the Flat Howe 1 site profile. Although we have nothing specific relating to this tomb, an olde creation myth tells us that the local giants, Wade and his wife Bel, left their young son (whose name seems to have been forgotten) somewhere on Sleights Moor (which aint a big place). The story was first written down by George Young (1817) in his magnum opus on Whitby and the tale was subsequently re-told by many others – Mrs Gutch (1901) for one:
“Young Wade, even when an infant, could throw a rock several tons weight to a vast distance; for one day when his mother was milking her cow near Swarthoue, the child, whom she had left on Sleights moor, became impatient for the breast, and seizing a stone of vast size, heaved it across the valley in wrath, and hit his mother with such violence, that though she was not materially hurt, her body made an impression on the stone which remained indelible, till the stone itself was broken up, a few years ago, to mend the highways!”
This rock was Bel’s Rock, whose exact location seems to have been lost.
References:
Elgee, Frank, Early Man in Northeast Yorkshire, Frank Bellows: Gloucester 1930.
Elgee, Frank, The Moorlands of North-Eastern Yorkshire, A. Brown: London 1912.
Grinsell, Leslie V., The Ancient Burial Mounds of England, Methuen: London 1936.
Gutch, Mrs, County Folk Lore – volume 2: Examples of Printed Folk-lore Concerning the North Riding of Yorkshire, York and the Ainsty, David Nutt: London 1901.
Jeffrey, P. Shaw, Whitby Lore and Legend, Home: Whitby 1923.
Roberts, Anthony, Sowers of Thunder, Rider: London 1978.
Smith, A.H., The Place-Names of the North Riding of Yorkshire, Cambridge University Press 1928.
Young, George, A History of Whitby and Streoneshalh Abbey – volume 2, Clarke & Medd: Whitby 1817.
Acknowledgements: A huge thanks to Lindsay Mitchell for getting us up to see this great tomb and its companion; and to James Elkington for use of the photograph.
Ladywell Lane is shown on the 1855 OS-map (right).
At present we have no information or images about this site. Be the first person to contribute material by emailing us with info or images to the usual address – megalithix@yandex.com
At present we have no information or images about this site. Be the first person to contribute material by emailing us with info or images to the usual address – megalithix@yandex.com
There’s nowhere to park any vehicles anywhere near this place if you wanna reach this site. And so, from Malham village, take steep eastern road up Malham Rakes (ask a local if needs be) for exaclt half-a-mile (0.81 km) where, at a bittova sharp turn in the road, there’s a footpath on your left. Walk along here for about 350 yards until you hit a straight line of walling on your left. Follow this along, about 30 yards before it turns at a right-angle. On the other side of the wall from here, a barely discernible denuded heap is in the overgrown field. That’s it!
Archaeology & History
To be found above the grand rise of Malham Cove—on its eastern side—the earliest mention I’ve found of this once-large prehistoric burial cairn was in the Cravendale travelogue of William Howson (1850). His description was only a brief one, telling us how,
“The workmen engaged on the fences have lately opened a large barrow, which is known by the local as the Friars’ Heap, near the eastern arm of the Cove, and a quantity of human bones were found.”
In Howson’s opinion he thought “the spot is much more likely to be connected with the marauding Scots than the peaceful monks”; but he was wrong on both counts. When the site was later visited and described by the great northern antiquarian, Harry Speight – aka, Johnnie Gray (1891) – he told us that the place “was much more likely to have been a British or Danish burial mound.”
Originally standing to a height of more than six-feet, the tomb has subsequently been reduced to half that height. The most lengthy descriptions of it were written by the regional antiquarian Arthur Raistrick. In his topographical literary meanderings across the Malham landscape, he gives a fine overview of its features and locale:
“Across the clints the old valley which leads to the edge of the Cove is seen, and looking upstream a grand impression of the Dry Valley, properly called Watlowes, is obtained. Across the foot of the valley a stile crosses rhe wall, and a footpath goes up the hill near to the boundary wall of the Cove; this is Sheriff Hill. At the prominent corner of the wall where the path resumes a level course, it joins the path from Malham Lings called Trougate. Between here and the road there are abundant traces of the Celtic fields, nestling under the small limestone crags that offer shelter from the northeast, evidently as unwelcome a quarter for the wind when these were occupied as today. Where the wall turns at right-angles again towards the Cove, there is a very prominent circular mound nearly a hundred feet in diameter. This is a burial mound of late Iron Age. It was dug into about the year 1845 and in addition to many human bones , fragments of an iron spearhead were found. It is to be regretted that no careful account of this excavation was preserved, as there seems no doubt that this was a multiple burial of some importance. Like other burial mounds in this district, the site was well chosen with a most extensive view which includes many notable hill summits…”
This latter remark could well have come from the pen of the old ley-hunter, Alfred Watkins (1925), who noted time and again how landscape features would seemingly connect one site with another, and another. (the modern idea of leys as ‘energy-lines’ is an American invention and wholly without merit)
A few years after Raistrick gave us his initial description, the cairn was excavated. In his short work on the archaeology of Malham Moor (1961), he wrote:
“A burial mound (that was) three-quarters removed at the time of the enclosures (about 1845) when the mound was dug as a quarry for walling stones. The remaining fragment was trenched right through and was found to be built entirely of stone with a kerb of large flaggy stone laid on the slope at the foot of the mound. Many fragments of decorated pottery were founmd under the turf cover and were associated with what appeared to be discarded gravel from the original quarrying, so may have come from the centre. At the inner edge of the kerb and under a carefully placed cover-stone, a smal oval vessel was got. This is of thick bluey-grey paste, red outside and very flaky so that part of the surface is lost on the two-thirds of the vessel which remains. Prof Stuart Piggott has reported on the pottery. Of this vessel he says — “an oval cup of the so-called ‘Incense Cup’ class: one sherd is of the wall and base of one end, the other a piece spalled off from the inside of the base. I only know of one paralle to this remarkable pot, another oval incense-cup from Far Fields, Lockton, N.R. Yorks, in the York Museum. A very odd little oval ‘cup’ of sandstone from Defford, Bredon, Worcs, in the Hastings Muesum at Worcerster is a stray find and might be of any age, and anyway only provides a vague parallel.”
Another “vessel is represented by sherd of what appears to be a small cinerary urn of collared or overhanging-rim type with the yellow-brown surface characteristic of so many pots of this class. The decoration appears to be in alternating panels of vertical and horizontal lines of uncertain width, the whole forming the so-called ‘hurdle’ pattern. The ornament is made of double lines of twisted cord, one with a right-hand and the other with a left-and twist: such ornament is widely distributed on such vessels…
“A third “vessel is represented by a few sherds with purple-red exterior, decorated with impressed cord, whipped cord and grooving. It is diffcitul to say what sort of pot is represented, but I suspect something within the food vessel class… The whole assemblage could well be contemporary and would fall withini the Middle Bronze Age of conventional nomenclature, somwhat in the middle of the second millenium BC…”
The most striking feature of this site is its position in the landscape, typical of large cairns in the Pennines and much further afield. The view to the south is extensive and would have had some bearing on its construction, as such heights allow for the spirits of the dead to move across the landscape. The huge cliffs of Malham Cove below may also have been an important factor. In the days when this tomb was built, a great waterfall existed at the Cove that has subsequently fallen back to Earth. In many traditional cultures, water is an extremely important element. Its relationship to life is obvious; but also in the Lands of the Dead water feeds the spirit on its journeys. These animistic and geomantic features are essential in looking at the nature of the placement of sites—and this at Sheriff Hill would have been no exception.
Enjoy your sojourns and meditations here…
References:
Gray, Johnnie, Airedale, from Goole to Malham, 1891.
Howson, William, An Illustrated Guide to the Curiosities of Craven, Whittaker: London 1850.
Raistrick, Arthur, Malham and Malham Moor, Dalesman: Clapham 1947.
Raistrick, Arthur & Holmes, Paul F., Archaeology of Malham Moor, Headley Bros: London 1961.
Sacred Well (lost): OS Grid Reference – SP 664 733
Archaeology & History
It’s difficult to know precisely which category this site should come under: sacred well or just a healing well. I’ve opted for ‘sacred’, due to its peculiar and rare properties, i.e., turning things into stone. For a spring to do such a thing would have been seen by our ancestors as it having some sort of magickal or supernatural ability. Sadly however, it seems that all trace of this well has long since gone.
It was described only in passing in Peter Hill’s (2005) folklore survey of Northamptonshire, to which he gave no reference. He told us simply,
“Guilsborough had a petrifyiong spring near the Grange, which was ‘good for several diseases.”
None of the early OS-maps of the area show any such ‘well’ immediately in or around Guilsborough’s Grange and so I surmise (perhaps in error) that one of the two ponds to the south of the Grange is fed by the spring in question. It would be good to know for certain!
References:
Hill, Peter, Folklore of Northamptonshire, Tempus: Stroud 2005.
