Mam Tor – Dark Peak, Derbyshire

Mam Tor, seen from the east.

Plan of Mam Tor

“despite is unusually high position, this fort contains traces of a number of huts, and on investigation these have yielded plentiful pottery, as well as charcoal giving a surprisingly early radio carbon date.

The defense is single dump rampart revetted by a stone wall in front (at least in places), and accompanied by a ditch an probably a counterscarp bank. It follows roughly the form of the hill enclosing 6.4 hectares, and there is an entrance at the north and south; the rampart is slightly in-turned.

The dwellings were of timber, probably round, on levelled platforms terraced into the hillside; the lower, built up half has been eroded away. The pottery is rough and almost all undecorated. Its character is consistent with the two radio carbon dates obtained, which indicate occupation in about the tenth to twelfth centuries BC, corresponding to the Late Bronze Age or even earlier.” D. Coombs, Current Archaeology No 27 (July 1971).

The western entrance to Mam Tor

The west rampart ditch

The Eastern Rampart

References

Excavation at the Hill Fort at Mam Tor, Derbyshire, 1965-69, Derbys. Archaeol. J. 99, 7-51. Coombc, D. G. and Thompson, F. H.

Live Moor – Whorlton – North Yorkshire Moors

“Whorlton, Live Moor, (NZ 496012) A previously unrecorded promontory fort was identified by D. Smith on air photographs and later surveyed by him and G. W. Goodall. A single rampart with external ditch extends across the west-facing spur of Live Moor to enclose an area of approximately 2 acres known as Knolls End. Where best preverved the rampart is 7.5 m wide and 2.3 m high externally and 0.5 m internally, while the ditch is up to 1.5 m wide and 0.6 m deep with a fragmentory counter scarp bank. The work has been mutilated by quarrying and associated trackways, but a gap in the rampart and ditch at NZ 49640126 probably represents an original entrance.” YAJ Vol 51, 1979. P.3.

Sutton Common – Doncaster

Sutton Common is an early Iron Age fort/enclosure site just north of Doncaster, A key feature of this “marsh fort” is that it seems to use the surrounding marsh land as part of its defence – a twist on the more common hill fort. A further point of interest is the two enclosures link with a causeway accross the dividing waterway.

Sutton Common has been excavated from 1997. The work is being carried out by the University of Exeter (Department of Archaeology) and Hull (Wetlands Archaeology and Environments Research Centre). Funded by English Heritage, excavations are due to be completed by 2003. Click here to access the University of Essex website for Sutton Common.

Excavation of this site is still ongoing, so this page is expected to develop in line with the excavation.

Air photos of Sutton Common, in both cases, the smaller enclosure is on the left. Also note the other earthworks shown in the left picture. Pictures from English Heritage.

Informed comment on the lack of finds

“There has been some not inconsiderable debate on the possible use of the Sutton Common enclosure for ritual purpose, the proponents for this identify the lack of artifacts as being significant and the main thrust of their argument can be summed up as follows; From the three excavations carried out at the site by Whiting in 1933-35, Sydes and Parker Pearson in 1987-93 and most recently by Van der Noort in 2002, only the excavations by Sydes and Parker Pearson turned up any metal work. A single Bronze Age palstave axe, section of a bronze age Dirk blade, Part of a bronze cauldron rim (?), a segment (terminal end) of a Roman peninsular brooch, a copper alloy ring of undeterminable date, and an unidentifiable Iron object, which was described in the site report as part of a brooch pin (?). All of these objects were surface finds and therefore uncertified.

In terms of datable artefacts several Iron Age type glass beads were found on the surface within the large enclosure, after stripping and several pieces of extremely friable low/unevenly fired pottery were discovered in trenches D and F. On analysis they were thought to be Late Iron age. Recent excavations at sites such as Pickburn Leys and Sykehouse (where a significant amount of I.A pottery has been recovered) have shown that local Iron Age sites were not aceramic and that the lack of pottery is more likely due to soil conditions and the poor quality of locally manufactured wares. Other than the preserved wood fragments there are no datable finds from stratified levels from either of the three series of excavations. The radio carbon dates on the preserved wood have suggested an Early Iron Age date for the construction and reconstruction of the timber and stone palisade/rampart. The Sutton Common ladder (a notched single stake of wood c 2m in length) does have parallels in the Iron Age and the discovery of a saddle quern on the site might back up the argument of Iron Age use of the site prior to c 200 B.C when they are superseded by the beehive quern.

The lack of datable metal stone, bone, glass or any other items from stratified levels on the site is very puzzling especially one views the site as having been occupied either in the Iron age or later. The lack of metal work present in stratified deposits cannot be explained by the activities treasure hunters or other outside infuence, given the overall lack of finds and the large extent of the excavtains to date. The preservation of wood has been generally quite good producing over the years a number of artifacts, such as the wheel (?), the ladder etc, so if the site were inhabited during the Iron Age, why have there not been found pieces of wooden bowls, looms, baskets or found anything in the way of food waste such as seeds, pips, grains or more animal bones (if human skull fragments can survive, why not animal bones, though there were fragments of sheep bone excavated from the ditch of the large enclosure)?

In respect of the projected four poster features in the larger enclosure interpreted as structures, they could possibly be Roman or Romano-British, but this is unlikely for the following reason. A number of sherds of 2nd Century locally produced Roman pottery have been found as surface scatters in the small enclosure, suggesting perhaps a later Iron age habitational use of part of the site, where we can perhaps see native people adopting available Roman goods.

However there is a clear lack of evidence for Romano-British cultural material such as pottery from the large enclosure. If the structures are thought to be Roman, where is the evidence for prolonged or even short term habitation, particularly discarded pottery in the ditches or in post holes or evidence from environmental sampling of food processing or consumption. Square structures are known in Britain before the Roman conquest. There is good evidence from excavations at such sites as Danbury Hill Fort of square structures, which have been interpreted on different sites as granaries, look out or fighting platforms and even as shrines (depending on their situation within or without a site). The idea of the site having been a pagan religious enclosure, which was kept ceremonially clean is not too wild an idea, especially when compared with Stonehenge, which was used successively for thousands of years but has produced very little in the terms of finds. It has long been argued that this site was ritually cleaned which seems a plausible explanation when considering that other henge monuments are rich in cultural material either meaningfully placed or discarded as rubbish.” Peter Robinson, Keeper of Archaeology, Doncaster Museum and Art Gallery. 2002

Other Research

“Carbonised grain is known from four sites in the Trent-Tyne region…. ….The only example west of the wolds is the wheat recovered from a trench through a rampart of one of the enigmatic enclosures on Sutton Common (whiting 1938, Camp B).” Challis and Harding Later Prehistory from the Trent to the Tyne. 1975.

Pickhill, North Yorkshire.

The hill is called Picts Hill. The vilage – Pickhill takes it’s name from this hill. Pickhill is in the Domesday book.

On the 1st edition OS there is a long mound and a short mound marked in the field next door, as well as some “mound foundations” and an earthwork. None of these are easily spotted today.

“A large artificial mound here, apparently raised for defensive purposes, bears the name of Picts’ Hill, and an improbable belief prevails that the Picts defeated the Romans in battle at a spot, not far off, called Roman Castle. This mound is also known as Money Hill, but, though partially cut away for the construction of the railway, the traditionary hidden treasure was not found.”

Bulmer’s History and Directory of North Yorkshire (1890)

“There is a large artificial mound at Pickhill called Pict’s Hill (or Money Hill), which now forms part of the railway embankment. Mr Longstaffe gives the following particulars, for which, he says, he is indebted to his friend M. M. Milburm, Esq., land agent, Thirsk. Mother Shipton is said to have prophesied that Pickhill would never thrive till a certain family became extinct, and Picks or Money Hill was cut open. Some years ago an old man dreamed that there was an archway in the hill, beneath which was a black chest, with three locks, containing the money which gives the name to the mound. Well, the family did become extinct in 1850, and the Leeds and Thirsk railway Company cut the hill open in 1851 – though it naturally formed part of its embankment, and their line passes over it. Still the directors ordered it to be excavated – the old man, the dreamer, was still alive, and pointed out the spot where the archway lay. The hill was cut through in all directions, but nothing was found, save in the foss, where portions of tile and a small brick, both vitrified on one side, and fragments of urns, and a piece of thin iron, like the crest of a helmet, were discovered. The mound was squarish, 113 by 80 feet, and surrounded by a moat.” Wellans History and Topogrphy of York and North Yorkshire. 1859.

Kirkhaugh – Cumbria

Barrow (NY 704494) 2 miles NNW of Alston. Finds in Museum of Antiquities, Newcastle.

“This mound is 22ft. in diam. and about 3ft high. It has been built upon a natural knoll which makes the barrow look larger than it is. Excavation showed that the mound has an earthy core with a rubble capping. Decayed traces of an unburnt body were found at the centre and amoung the offerings in the mound near the burial there was a basket-shaped gold ear-ring of a type found with beakers in Britain. Date, c. 2,000 – 1,700 BC.

The Devil’s Arrows – BoroughBridge

Introduction

This Bronze Age site comprises of three large standing stones, it is thought originally there were as many as five stones in this alignment. Being Bronze Age little is known about the origin of the Devil’s Arrows, the name reflecting a more recent myth. The monument is strongly linked with an alignment withseveral others covering a line of over 50 miles and heading north south through North Yorkshire.

The site itself, being just off the A1 has been an important communications route for several thousand years and it is likely that in the Iron age the Brigantes adopted this as a centre for religious or tribal gatherings. It’s importance is further indicated by the creation of the tribal capital of Isurium Brigantium in c. 120AD less than three miles away at Aldborough.

Research so far has been limited to a site visit and scans for document records.

In the Brigantium context it is likely that this site, together with the triple henge alignment and cursus of Thornborough some 8-10 miles to the north of the Arrows formed one of the most significant religious and tribla gathering point in Brigantia.

Location

Grid Ref: SE391665, Latitude: 54.092736, Longitude: -1.402114.

Three naturally shaped stones in an alignment thought to have originally included up to five stones. These are almost in a straight line, pointing north to south. The outer stones are 200 and 370ft away from the central stone.

Access to these is relatively simple, they are just off the side of an elevated section of the A1(M) trunk road at Jct 48 to Boroughbridge.

The stones have heights of 18ft (northern stone), and 22ft. They are of millstone grit which was quarried at Knaresborough, 6.5 miles to the SW. The grooving is the result of weathering.

The Devils Arrows are the centre of the most important alignment of standing stones, henges and other remains in Yorkshire, all running N/S alongside the ancient line of the A1, Stretching from Hutton Moor to Thornborough and beyond. Current estimates indicate they were erected during the Bronze Age c. 2,200 – 1,400 BC.

Views of the northern and central stone

Left, central stone and northern stone, right.

southern-most stone

Other research

The name stems from a legend traced back to 1721, where the Devil was supposed to have thrown the stones, aiming at the next town of Aldborough. He stood on Howe Hill and shouted,

“Borobrigg keep out o’ way,

For Aldborough town

I will ding down!”

But obviously his aim was not that good, and so they landed short of their mark.

At their maximum of 22 feet in height, The Devil’s Arrows are the tallest standing stones in the United Kingdom apart from the Rudston Monolith.

Since Antiquarian William Stukeley’s time it has been believed that the arrows are in a straight line, running North to South. The fact is that they’re visibly not. When they were dragged across from miles of countryside from Knaresborough (seven miles away), the stones where constructed to not be in line, but to be slightly “westward.”

In the 1970’s Paul Devereux wrote in The Ley Hunter’s Companion that “the functions of the monoliths was to act as a multi-directional sighting or reference instrument.” Devereux also quotes G Bernard Wood on “the Devil’s arrows stand in line “with an ancient ford across the River Ure.”

The Devils Arrow alignment. Ref: Lines on the Landscape, Devereux and Pennick

[From Langdale’s Topographical Dictionary of Yorkshire. (1822)]