Enclosure (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – TQ 675 811
Archaeology & History
North Ring, Mucking (after Brown, 2001)
This large circular enclosure, measuring about 120 feet across, seemed to be a small settlement with several internal structures (fences, pits, cremations and a sunken-floored structure) that was first excavated in 1978 and described as a Bronze Age enclosure. Akin to a henge monument in some ways, this small settlement site had two entrances: one on the east and the other opposite on its west side. However, the main ‘entrance’ was on the eastern (sunrise) side, where post-holes laid a pathway over the ditch and into the structure itself.
The excavation on the eastern side of site revealed two periods of construction with associated structures, including three circular buildings. Some excavations to the east produced evidence for a range of contemporary activities. The assemblage of Late Bronze Age material included pottery, metalwork, cremation remains, sickle moulds and equipment for salt production. For further info and imagery, see the Link below.
References:
Bond, Dermot, Excavation at the North Ring, Mucking, Essex, East Anglian Archaeology 1988.
Brown, N., “The Late Bronze Age Enclosure at Springfield Lyons in its Landscape Context,” in Essex Archaeology & History, volume 32, 2001.
We’ve known that there was an excessive number of prehistoric archaeological sites in and around the Chelmsford region for quite a long time now, but defining precisely the age and nature of the finds takes some doing! (as you’d expect) It hasn’t helped, of course, with the housing estates and other ecologically destructive building operations in and around the area, screwing up a more accurate and patient assessment of the material there. And this predicament was exemplified with the Springfield Lyons neolithic causewayed enclosure just as much as at the Springfield Cursus and other sites nearby.
Although excavations here found a large, deep ditch with impressive ramparts and entrance, in Oswald, Dyer & Barber’s (2001) survey of these giant monuments, they defined the remains here as “probable,” pending further investigations. But the site was primarily defined by the large deep ditch, broken in several places round its edges with the ’causeways’ built leading onto the site. The enclosure gave good views over the small valley from here and had streams running either side of it.
Adjacent to the site were the remains of a “small circular enclosure with multiple entrances,” saying that excavation here,
“has proved that it is of late Bronze Age date and might be interepreted variously as a defended settlement, or a ritual monument.”
This external small enclosure site was then conjectured, quite spuriously it’s gotta be said, to be a mini-version of the great causewayed enclosure monument, saying:
“Its siting and form both hint that it could have been a conscious imitation of, or re-invention of, the perceived form of the earthworks of the neolithic enclosure.”
I like the idea, it’s gotta be said — but without direct evidence we’ve gotta take this idea with a large pinch of salt!
…to be continued…
References:
Brown, N., ‘The Archaeology of Essex 1500 – 500 BC,’ in Bedwin, O. (ed.), The Archaeology of Essex, ECC: Chelmsford 1996.
Brown, N., “The Late Bronze Age Enclosure at Springfield Lyons in its Landscape Context,” in Essex Archaeology & History, volume 32, 2001.
Oswald, Alastair, Dyer, Caroline & Barber, Martyn, The Creation of Monuments: Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures in the British Isles, EH: Swindon 2001.
Priddy, D., ‘Excavations in Essex, 1987,’ in Essex Archaeology & History, 19, 1988.
Follow the same directions as to find the Lunar Stone, Spotted Stone, etc. Go thru East Morton village up the steep moorland road, east, and where the road levels out there’s a right turn and a trackway on your left which leads onto the moor. Go ½-mile up this track till you hit a moorland ‘footpath’ signpost. Stop here and walk due west (left) for a coupla hundred yards. If the heather’s grown back you aint much chance of finding owt – but if there’s only low growth, amble about zigzagging – and keep your eyes peeled!
Archaeology & History
Section of cairn rubble & walling
Although there’s been no written record of the Stanbury Hill remains until very recently, it seems quite probable that Mr Stuart Feather would have come across at least parts of these remains when he uncovered the rock-art in the same vicinity, but he never made public his finds. He was a diligent researcher and finder of cup-and-ring stones, nose to the ground sorta chap, and it would be odd for him to miss the other remains on this hill. For as we now know, there are undeniable evidences of considerable neolithic and/or Bronze Age walling scattered along (mainly) the southern side of Stanbury Hill, running mainly along an east-west axis, but there are also examples of the walling running roughly north-south. In at least one position near the western end of the ridge, halfway down the south-facing slope, is what seems to be the unmistakable trace of an enclosed hearth. At the time of writing a series of archaeological digs are, slowly, being done hereabouts, so it will be good to read their final evaluations.
Very close to some parts of the walling we find the remains of old cairns, and at least one cup-and-ring stone has been carved along the axis of one line of walling (it reminded me very much of the Bronze Age settlement remains found at Snowden Moor, over the northerly horizon, in the Washburn Valley). Several other previously unreported cup-marked stones have also been found here (we’ll highlight them on TNA in the coming weeks).
Upon first impression the remains found upon and around Stanbury Hill seem more related to mortuary practices than what we’d call ‘domestic’ living practices, as the prevelance of carvings and cairns indicates. But we’ve gotta be cautious here, as in many sites the dead were kept with the living; and as we find in many traditional or aboriginal cultures, the land of spirits and that of the living are much more closely allied than in our profane ‘Western’ paradigm.
Dead easy. Take the road up through Grassington village, up Moor Lane, onto the grassy tops towards Yarnbury. As the road levels out, and before you reach the tree-border of Yarnbury house, there’s a field on your left-hand side, opposite the one where the Yarnbury Henge lives. If y’ go in there to check out this walling, shut the effing gate!
Archaeology & History
Section of walling, Yarnbury
It appears that there’s little information on the remains of what seems to be some Iron Age walling a few hundred yards away, northwest of the little Yarnbury ‘henge’ monument. Mikki Potts noticed it first of all, in one of the Northern Antiquarian ambles here t’other day. The walling is quite distinct and typical of finds elsewhere, particularly the excessive Iron Age and Bronze Age walling remains less than a mile west of here, down the slopes near Grasssington. At least two lines of walling are clearly apparent, running roughly northeast-southwest. Another section runs off towards the extant walling back towards the road. But more intriguing (for me anyway!), is what seems to be the remains of an old circle less than 100 yards north, on the other side of the footpath in the same field.
We didn’t spend too much time here and so another visit is obviously needed for further exploratory wanderings, but there appear to be further remains. Although much of the terrain hereabouts is scattered with an excess of medieval archaeological relics — including some disused shafts at the very top of this same field — this section of walling has all the hallmarks of a much earlier period. (sadly, a lot of the early mine-workings up here has destroyed a considerable amount our earlier prehistoric heritage). As one local told us a a coupla weeks back, “There’s loadsa stuff up here which aint in the record books!”
Certainly seems like it!
(In the event that these remains turn out to be of a later period, this profile entry will be removed from TNA.)
From the Askwith Moor dusty parking spot, walk up the road for 160 yards where, on each side of the road, you’ll see a straight line running across the moors. On the left-side (west) walk onto the moor for 50-60 yards along this line, then dead straight west into the heather for another 50-60 yards and look around. It’s hard to see if the heather’s grown.
Archaeology & History
Found by Richard Stroud on July 20, 2004, this single hut circle is in faint evidence. About twenty feet across with a section of the low walling either missing, or more probably buried in the peat. Although no other hut-circles were immediately visible, this was probably because of the excessive heather-growth. I have little doubt that others will be close to this one, as the area is littered with prehistoric sites. The petroglyph catalogued as Askwith Moor 529 is very close to this hut circle.
Taking the A629 road between Shepley and Ingbirchworth, as you hit the staggered crossroads at High Flatts, take the west turn up the slightly sloping straight road of Windmill Lane. Just where the road ‘kinks’ at a small bend, stop and look into the field on your left.
Archaeology & History
Deemed by some as a hillfort, and others as settlement remains, what little are left of the remaining earthworks here were first described by local historian Henry Morehouse in 1861. Found about a mile west of Upper Denby, the site was described in the Victoria County History as being “on a commanding though not exactly a defensive situation on the slope of a hill.” This remark coming from the belief (and that’s all it is) that this was an Iron Age castle site. In 1924 James Petch said of it,
“The earthwork seems originally to have been almost square, and two sides and an angle remain. The external ditch is from ten to twelve feet broad in its present state.”
While Faull & Moorhouse (1981) tell of there being “evidence for Neolithic activity” here, modern surveyors reckon it as an old prehistoric settlement — which makes sense; though little of the site remains to be seen today.
References:
Faull, M.L. & Moorhouse, S.A., West Yorkshire: An Archaeological Survey, I, WYMCC: Wakefield 1981.
Morehouse, Henry James, History and Antiquities of the Parish of Kirkburton and the Graveship of Holme, Roebuck: Huddersfield 1861.
Petch, James A., Early Man in the District of Huddersfield, Huddersfield 1924.
Follow the directions for getting to the Haystack Rock, then bear right (west) along the footpath, past the little Three Cups Stone, until the path bends and goes up onto the moor. A hundred yards or so, walk left into the heather (you’re straddling the remains of considerable prehistoric walling and enclosure remains by now) and look around. You’ll find it!
Archaeology & History
I was only about 12-years old when I first saw this and the nearby prehistoric carvings — but when I came to look for any references to it as a boy, there were none I could find at the time. Then, ten years later when John Hedges (1986) brought out his fine work on the cup-and-ring art of Ilkley Moor, its presence was shown in pen-and-ink at last. Found amidst the remains of an extensive settlement or series of walled enclosures, the carving’s name comes from the curious urn-like element that Hedges showed faintly. There is also an additional ring around one of the cups above the ‘urn’.
Excavations that were done on the prehistoric ‘enclosure’ close to this petroglyph in the 1990s, uncovered the remains of a decent amount of ‘grooved ware’ pottery and worked flint (Edwards & Bradley 1999), dated between 2900 and 2600 BC. As such pottery has been found elsewhere in Britain within and/or near earthworks and other prehistoric remains (obviously!), its incidence here isn’t really too much of a surprise. However, Edwards & Bradley (1999) speculate — albeit vaguely — that there may be a link between the cup-and-rings here and the pottery, saying, “if so, the rock carvings (here) might be indicating a place of special significance.”
This may be so: considering the prevalence of rock-art along the geological ridge and its close association with the large number of burial cairns. If it can be ascertained that the charred remains of humans were kept inside the pottery or vases, the relationship between death and the carvings (well established on this part of Ilkley Moor) would be reinforced.
References:
Boughey, Keith & Vickerman, E.A., Prehistoric Rock Art of the West Riding, West Yorkshire Archaeology Service 2003.
Edwards, Gavin & Bradley, Richard, ‘Rock Carvings and Neolithic Artefacts on Ilkley Moor, West Yorkshire,’ in Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland (edited by Cleal, R. & MacSween, A.), Oxbow: Oxford 1999.
Hedges, John, The Carved Rocks on Rombald’s Moor, WYMCC: Wakefield 1986.
Settlements (destroyed): OS Grid Reference – SX 677 653
Archaeology & History
Prior to the submergence of one of the many prehistoric settlements in and around the waters of the Avon Reservoir, excavation work was carried out by Lady Aileen Fox between 1954 and 1956 on behalf of the Ministry of Works. The excavation notes in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society for 1957 told what Lady Fox and her fellow archaeologists found at the site that was due to be submerged:
“The walled enclosure of 2½ acres contained nine huts from 15-20 feet in diameter and three pens built against the outer wall. The huts were roofed in the same way as those as Kestor, having a central post and a ring of six or seven uprights supporting the main rafters. Part of the settlement was incorporated into a medieval farmstead, but the prehistoric occupation proved to be from the local Late Bronze Age.”
Since that report, a number of other prehistoric settlement sites have been found on the surrounding moorland heights (as a quick look at the OS-map clearly shows). Obviously a very busy place in ancient days!
References:
Clark, J.G.D. (ed.), “Notes on Excavations in Eire, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales during 1956,” in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, volume 23, 1957.
Get to the famous Dick Hudson’s pub on the south-side of Ilkley Moor and go east for about 700 yards till you get to Weecher reservoir (posh doods go yachting there). From here cross the road and walk on for 150 yards till you reach the stile which takes you onto the moors. Walk! Follow the footpath and you’ll go over another wall before eventually hitting the beautiful fresh waters of Horncliffe Well (this has never dried up – even in the summers of ’76 and ’95). Sit here for a while before heading for the circle which is on the east-side of the moorland fence just a coupla hundred yards up onto the moor (you’ll cross a coupla streams before reaching the site). You’ll know you’re close when, to your left by the fence, you’ll see a boundary stone with the name ‘Thos. Pulleyn’ engraved on it.
Archaeology & History
Early drawing of Horncliffe Circle (Speight 1898)
Horncliffe is a bittova strange site, inasmuch as we don’t honestly know precisely what it is, nor its age. It used to be categorized as a ‘stone circle’, but this was abandoned many moons ago. The inner circle of this ellipse-shaped monument was thought to have perhaps contained a burial, but Victorian excavations here found no such evidence; no burials have ever been found, though fires were evidently burned in the small central ring.
Nowadays I’m of the opinion that this was more for living-in, than any ritual site. It ‘smells’ like that anyway (modern OS-maps now term it as an ‘enclosure’); and this may be borne out by the ancient name of the trackway travelling north from here called ‘Castle Gate’, meaning ‘entrance or path by the fortification.’ Faint ‘cup-markings’ reported by Harry Speight (1898) on the outer edge of the ring are very likely Nature’s handiwork.
Horncliffe is a double-ringed ellipse structure, surrounded on its northern side by a natural embankment of earth. It was first mentioned in J.N.M. Colls’ (1846) survey, but more was said of it by James Wardell in 1869, who told that,
“there is a circle of stones of various sizes, from three-feet to five-feet in height; they are chiefly set upon their edges and are of sandstone grit. This circle is forty-three feet in diameter and within it there is a smaller circle, composed of stones of the same composition…and set in the same manner.”
A few years later, the Yorkshire literary giant Harry Speight (1898) penned his first words about this curious circle, saying:
“The best example of a stone circle in the vicinity of Bingley lies on the moor close to the parish boundary, on land belonging to Mr Fawkes, of Farnley Hall. It is a complete circle, consisting of about twenty stones, placed close together (a very unusual arrangement), from two to four feet high, the circumference being about 35 yards. An excavation was made in the middle of it some years ago, when bits of flint were found, but no trace of burial. It is built on a slight slope of the moor, facing the south, and is now much concealed by heather. It is, doubtless, the oldest known evidence of man’s handiwork remaining in the neighbourhood of Bingley, and there is small doubt that it was originally intended to fence a burial, such “Druids’ Circles” being primarily meant to enclose places of sepulchre in the same way that walled enclosures came to be adopted round our churchyards. A large flat stone on the top side, about three yards distant, is marked with cups and channels, and probably was in the centre of the circle originally.”
When Arthur Raistrick (1929) visited the circle, his measurements differed somewhat from those of Mr Wardell, telling the site to have diameters of 25 feet (east-west) and 32 feet (north-south), with 46 stones in the outer ring and 17 in the inner circle.
This is one of many sites on these moors that I slept at over the years when I was a kid. It used to be a really peaceful spot that was rarely troubled by other visitors (not sure if it’s still the same though).
Folklore
Although we have nothing specific to the circle, around the nearby Horncliffe Well a coupla hundred yards away we had accounts told us by the old warden whose job it was to look after this moorland, that will-o-the-wisps had been seen here. There is a seeming alignment to the equinoxes from here to Reva Hill – though this is more fortuitous than deliberate. A dowsing survey found aquastats in and around the circle, but no plan of these were ever made.
References:
Bennett, Paul, The Old Stones of Elmet, Capall Bann: Milverton 2001.
Colls, J.N.M., ‘Letter upon some Early Remains Discovered in Yorkshire,’ in Archaeologia 31, 1846.
Raistrick, Arthur, ‘The Bronze Age in West Yorkshire,’ in YAJ 1929.
Speight, Harry, Chronicles and Stories of Old Bingley, Elliot Stock: London 1898.
From Scotch Corner on the A1, head on the A66 and take the first right up to and straight thru Melsonby village at the crossroads and on for a few more miles till you hit the hamlet of Stanwick-St.-John. You’re now in the middle of the fortifications and earthworks! (check the map, right) Get to the nearby church of St. John’s and you’re on what once could have been a henge.
Archaeology & History
Although the Roman’s came here, the origins of this huge enclosure and settlement — between the hamlets of Eppleby and Stanwick St. John — are at least Iron Age. It’s very probable that this place has been used by people since at least the Bronze Age, if not earlier — but let’s keep to playing safe (for a change) and repeat what the professionals have found! Stanwick was recorded in Domesday as Stenwege and Steinwege, which A.H. Smith (1928) and later etymologists tell us means “stone walls,” which obviously relates “to some ancient rock entrenchments found in the township”, or the Stanwick Fortifications no less!
Sir Mortimer Wheeler’s (1954) account of the history and excavation of these huge ramparts found that it was a centre of some importance to the Brigantians. His view was that it was the rebel stronghold of the Brigantian figure called Venutius, ex-partner of the Queen Cartimandua. Archaeologists who did further work here in the 1980s concluded that it was one of Cartimandua’s “estates” — possibly even the original capital city of Brigantia.
The settlement was enlarged and fortified considerably upon the arrival of the Romans in the first century. Splitting them into three phases, the earliest Phase I area (Iron Age) covered 17-acres; Phase II was extended over 130 acres; and Phase 3 extended the enclosure over another 600 acres. A further extension of earthworks appears to have occurred, but Wheeler believed them to have been constructed at a much later period. To allow for a decent discourse on this huge site and its multiperiod settlement, I’m gonna quote extensively Mr Wheeler’s (1954) text on the site, who headed a team of archaeologists in the summers of 1951 and 1952 and explored various sections of this huge arena.
In the introduction to his work, Mortimer briefly mentioned the finding of some chariot burials found close by, though less certain is the exact spot where these important remains came from. He wrote:
“Of the three accounts, the earliest, dating from shortly after the discovery, states that the objects ‘were deposited together in a pit at a depth of about five feet within the entrenchment at Stanwick. Near by large iron hoops were found.’ Two years later MacLauchlan showed the find-spot on his map…as a little to the northeast of Lower Langdale, well outside the main Stanwick earthworks, and, in spite of variant accounts, his evidence may be regarded as authoritative.”
Nothing more is said of these finds throughout the book. Instead, Mortimer guides us through their dig, beginning with the structural sequence of the extensive earthworks that constitute Stanwick’s fortifications, from Phase 1 onwards, saying:
Plan showing 3-phase evolution of the Stanwick earthworks from the Iron Age period at the top, to Phase 3 works in the 1st century AD (from Wheeler’s ‘Stanwick Fortifications’, 1954)
“Phase I. The nucleus of the whole system is a fortified enclosure, some 17 acres in extent, situated to the south of Stanwick Church and the Mary Wild beck, on and around a low hill known as ‘The Tofts’… The name ‘Tofts’ is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “Site of a homestead”, or “An eminence, knoll or hillock in a flat region; esp. one suitable for the site of a house.” Appropriately the field is described by the farmer as a ‘dirty’ one; it produces an abundant crop of nettles which have to be cut twice a year and are a common sequel to ancient occupation. The enclosure is, or rather was, roughly triangular on plan, conforming approximately with the mild contours of the hill and to that extent meriting the exaggerated designation of ‘hill-fort.’ On the west its rampart and ditch are excellently preserved in a stretch of plantation known as ‘The Terrace’ or ‘The Duchess’s Walk’, where the single bank of unrevetted earthwork rises some 24ft above the ditch… The southern corner has been almost completely obliterated, but a part of it can be traced faintly in the walled garden southeast of the The Terrace. A stretch of the eastern side still stands up boldly beside the road from Stanwick Church to (the former) Stanwick Hall, but a large part of this side has been demolished for the making of the road, and some dumps of earth immediately east of Church Lodge may be a result of this process. The northern side approached but stopped short of the brook, and is marked by remains of a counterscarp bank… The main rampart was here thrown into the ditch anciently, doubtless when this portion of the work was included in and superseded by the work of Phase II. Near the northwestern corner was a stone-flanked entrance, now partially obscured by the northern end-wall of the Terrace plantation. The rampart was of earth, apparently without stone or timber revetment, the ditch was V-shaped save where, on the northern or lowest side, its completion in depth was stopped by water and the counterscarp bank already referred to was added as compensation.
“Phase II. Subsequently, at a moment which will be defined in the sequel as not later than AD 60, the hill-fort was supplemented by a new enclosure over 130 acres in extent, so designed as to outline the slight ridge north of the brook, to bend inward round the nearer foot of Henah Hill on the east, and farther west to cut off the northern end of the hill-fort, obviously in order to enclose the brook and its margin hereabouts. Southeast of Stanwick Church, the marshy course of the brook for a distance of over 300 yards was regarded as a sufficient obstacle, without rampart and ditch, though whether supplemented by a palisade is not known. As already indicated, that part of the Phase I earthwork which now lay inside the new enclosure was largely obliterated by filling its rampart into its ditch.
The enclosure constituting Phase II had an entrance near its western corner…where 50ft of the ditch, partially rock-cut, were cleared with notable results… There may have been another entrance under the present road-junction immediately east of the Stanwick vicarage, in the middle of the northern side, or less probably, at an existing gap 150 yards further to the southeast. The rampart was of earth, aligned initially at the back on a small marking-out trench and bank; in front it was revetted with a vertical drystone wall. The ditch was cut in the boulder-clay and partially in the underlying limestone…
Phase III. At a date which will be defined as about a dozen years later (c. AD 72), a similar though longer system, enclosing a further 600 acres, was added to Phase II. It impinges almost at a right angle upon, and implies the pre-existence of, Phase II on the east, and terminates upon the ditch of Phase II on the west. An entrance can be seen near the middle of the southern side, and less certainly a gap in Forcett Park may represent a second entrance in the western side. Further stretches of the mary Wild beck were included. The rampart, like that of Site A, incorporated a marking-out trench and bank at the rear, and was fronted with a vertical stone revetment.
Phase IV. To the southern side of Phase III was added at an unknown period an enclosure of some 100 acres, now subdivided by traces of a double earthwork extending southwards from a point east of the southern entrance of Phase III… This double earthwork however, is of an entirely different character from those already considered, and appears indeed to overlap the rampart of Phase III at a point where the latter had already been broken through. It is comparable with some of the double banks which constitute or are incorporated in the Scots Dike at Lower Langdale, farther east; and the Phase IV enclosure is in fact linked with the Scots Dike by a semi-obliterated ditch extending eastwards from its southeastern corner. Phase IV…may, as has been suspected, relate to the Anglo-Saxon period.”
…to be continued…
References:
Smith, A.H., The Place-Names of the North Riding of Yorkshire, Cambridge University Press 1928.
Wheeler, Mortimer, ‘The Stanwick Excavations, 1951,’ in Antiquaries Journal, January 1952.
– The Stanwick Fortifications, North Riding of Yorkshire, OUP & Society of Antiquaries: London 1954.
Links: – Stanwick Iron Age Hillfort – For an extensive overview of the archaeology of this large site, you can do no better than this web-page.
